home

Miers' Nomination Theories

By Jeralyn, Section Harriet Miers
Posted on Sun Oct 16, 2005 at 09:57:48 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Here are two theories about Bush's judicial nomination plans I'm told were floating around at high levels in Washington legal circles just before her nomination, both of which proved to be incorrect:

  • Bush intended to put Alberto Gonzales on the Supreme Court instead of Roberts, and to appoint Harriet Miers Attorney General. The radical right's opposition to Gonzales' felled that plan.
  • When Roberts was nominated for the Supreme Court, creating a vacancy on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals, it was Bush's intention to nominate Harriet to fill that seat.

In other words, either way, Bush had planned to elevate Harriet Miers. A question: Did Bush get erroneous advice that the right would be pleased with Miers due to her evangelical beliefs while the left would regard her as a consensus nominee? Which advisor would have told him that? Has Rove lost his touch or was he out of the loop until the decision was made?

In either event, I still say Harriet Miers will be confirmed and I think she will be good on many criminal justice issues.

< Miller's Lawyer Turns on Libby | Time: Rove, Libby Will Resign if Indicted >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Miers' Nomination Theories | 9 comments (9 topical)
    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#1)
    by Linkmeister on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    But what about executive privilege cases and the commerce clause? I know that's not your field, but have you got a feeling for her views there?

    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#2)
    by theologicus on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    she will be good on many criminal justice issues It won't matter much if she let's them get away with torture and allows them to undermine the constitution with unchecked executive authority.

    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#3)
    by Andreas on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    She is deliberately working for one of the most vicious war criminals after Adolph Hitler. That should be enough reason not to support her. One of the main "criminal justice issues" now is to indict him.

    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#4)
    by Dadler on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Again, this a wildly unqualified person for the court. A minor league intellect, a religous extremist who thinks sodomy laws are fair. I trust you much, J, but I just can't get your support here, other than "Well, it's better than what we'd get." I agree with that to a certain degree, but I also realize it's a defeatist attitude. And the kind that usually leads to unintended consequences. Harriet Miers WILL NOT upohold reproductive rights. Take that to the bank.

    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#5)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    The selections Bush has made for the courts are all about corporate and executive power. I think the social issues continue to serve as a distraction to prevent discussion of the alarming shift in power to the corporate and executive.

    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#6)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    deleted - please read the comments rule.

    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#8)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Miers is at least complicit in covering up the Rove-Libby treason. She has been in the Oval Office while these events have unfolded. Attorney-client privelege may protect her from testifying, but it doesn't protect her from the crime of concealing an act of treason. "I think she will be good on many criminal justice issues." She would be, if you say so, except for the fact that she is currently involved in a scandal that may engulf the ENTIRE administration. Since she may actually be a co-conspirator, she's not fit until this matter is resolved. (for the record, I have no idea why my previous comment was deleted. I did reread the policy, for good measure. I'll try to tone down.)

    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#9)
    by Talkleft Visitor on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    Thanks, Paul, toning down would be appreciated.

    Re: Miers' Nomination Theories (none / 0) (#10)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 17, 2005 at 01:05:04 PM EST
    i do hope you haven't placed significant funds wagering on this confirmation, at least not the rent money. so far, i've not seen anything that significantly distinguishes her intellectually from a thousand other lawyers out there. her fawning over bush notwithstanding, she appears to have accomplished the seemingly impossible: both the left and right don't seem to care much for her. interestingly, the only group that apparently does like her, according to an op/ed in todays wp, are the nation's ceo's. they see her, based on her business litigation history, as a champion of commercial interests. the thought process goes that, while not able to secure writs of certiori for important cases (to the commercial sector) on her own, she could prove critical in getting the other justices to see the need in hearing these cases. a rule of thumb for any arena of human endeavor: always follow the money.

    Miers' Nomination Theories | 9 comments (9 topical)