Harriet Miers

[queerbychoice]

The article "Key to Choice: Presidential Power: Bush's Real Mission for Harriet Miers" is the first I've seen that manages to make some really convincing sense out of Bush's decision to nominate Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme Court. Not that I'm at all confident she'll support abortion rights either (I'm more inclined to believe she'll oppose them), but if banning abortion were his top priority, I do think he could have found someone who could be relied upon with more absolute certainty to ban it. So the question became: If banning abortion wasn't Bush's top priority in choosing who to nominate, what was his top priority? This article argues that his top priority, and the reason he felt Harriet Miers was the best person to nominate, was his desire to expand presidential powers, uphold PATRIOT Act police-state laws, and promote further raping of children by the U.S. military in prisons like Abu Ghraib.

I still don't know that it's possible to get Bush to nominate anyone else who wouldn't be every bit as bad. But I don't think we should be blind to Harriet Miers' faults just because the creepy right-wingers don't like her either.

Comments

[saltbox.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking it's more likely business interests. I can't believe where I read the article, but it goes into her history of representing corporate defendants and how likely it is that she'll vote against punitive damages, consumer protection, etc. And it seemed pretty persuasive to me, especially given how loyal Bush has been to his (financial) supporters.

[pure-agnostic.livejournal.com]

I think the Miers nomination is similar to the Michael Brown nomination. Both Brown and Miers are friends of Bush, and both are incompetent for the offices to which they were nominated.

She is just another Brownie.

[mariness.livejournal.com]

Well, a number of the creepy right-wingers have a point here. Not to say that I was thrilled with their counter suggestions, but they are right to note that Harriet Miers does not have the resume expected of a Supreme Court nominee -- leaving aside the questions of abortion and gay rights and other issues. Being the president's lawyer is not enough. Call me naive and idealistic, but I'd prefer a Supreme Court nominee that doesn't need to spend the next few weekends frantically boning up on constitutional law. And, frankly, as a woman I'm a bit offended by the president's implication that Miers is the best qualified woman out there. Other women are sitting on the federal court of appeals (a traditional and understandable route to the Supreme Court); are constitutional scholars at top law schools (admittedly a kinda elitist method of choosing a Supreme Court Justice); have successfully managed in Cabinet positions (although since the only woman I'd like to see less on the Supreme Court is Gail Norton, I suppose that's not really a pathway I'd like Dubya to follow, although of course calling her "successful" is a painful, painful, thought); served as Representatives or Senators; or regularly argued cases in front of the Supreme Court. It's not as if Dubya was in Reagan's position, facing a genuine shortage of potential nominees back in the early 80s -- and Reagan still managed to come up with the qualified O'Connor.

I had heard the Inquirer's suggestion before, and it makes sense, but it still doesn't take away my belief that Miers is underqualified -- regardless of her political beliefs.