Monday, October 3, 2005

Who?

President W-imbecile named White House Counsel Harriet Miers to be associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court today (Monday).

Nice he was able to find someone with great judicial and public service experience.

Although she's a lawyer, she's never been a judge (nor ever sought a judgeship, apparently). She's only held one public office, it would seem, the Dallas City Council, which of couse makes her eminently qualified to sit on the highest court in the nation.

So, who IS Harriet Miers? According to The Washington Post (free registration required),
Miers, who was Bush's personal attorney in Texas, was the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association and was a partner at the Texas law firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp before coming to Washington to work in the Bush administration.
Fair enough. Although I fail to see how that makes her all that qualified.

Is she conservative? Moderate? Fair? Intelligent? Compassionate? Hey, she works for the W-imbecile. The only hint of where she stands on anything is contained in the same Post article:
Miers was active in a 1992 battle in the American Bar Association, arguing vehemently but unsuccessfully against a resolution supportive of abortion rights. News reports at the time did not quote her on the merits of Roe v. Wade , the 1973 decision legalizing abortion, but rather on what she considered the inappropriateness of the ABA taking a position.
So her career highlight so far was LOSING a fight in the ABA over opposition to abortion.

That comforts me immeasurably.

Of all the amazing and troubling of the W-imbecile's recent actions, this is the most amazing and troubling. What, there isn't one conservative judge serving in the US who is acceptable to him (or actually his handlers)?

This should play out in an interesting fashion. How do you confirm someone with no experience and (apparently) few qualifications? (But then, that's the situation the W-imbecile was in a few years ago, wasn't it?)

And so it goes.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

My thoughts exactly. To say this raises eyebrows is to do disservice to the cliche. It makes no sense at all. Surely, there's a judge out there somewhere who would be suited to the supreme court? I mean, this is the highest judgeship in the land and we get Shrub's ex-personal lawyer??

Disgraceful.

Anonymous said...

He values loyalty more than qualifications...It's rediculous.

Ol' Guy said...

It's disgraceful, but on another plane, it sure is fun. The conservative wingnuts across the country are screaming bloody murder betrayal from the highest peaks because the W-imbecile didn't nominate a true rightwing conservative wingnut nutcase. It doesn't look like Miers is that. At the same time, it also doesn't look like she's all that qualified. Unless you mean by qualified in 'a Bush crony.'

You pays your money, you takes yourt chances.