Harriet Who? [Updated]

It’s not that Harriet Miers has never served as a judge. Dozens of U.S. Supreme Court Justices, some of them quite distinguished, were also recruited from somewhere other than the bench. Seems like a good idea to me to have a few civilians up there.

Problem is, Harriet Miers is a nobody. Just a loyal toady and handservant to the President who appointed her. Can this even pass the giggle test?

Let’s have a little contest. Read the partial editorial below and guess who wrote it:

"President Bush struck a blow for diversity on the Supreme Court by picking White House Counsel Harriet Miers as his latest nominee. Bush thus made a strong statement that the Court has room for highly distinguished justices and not-so-distinguished justices, for nominees who have made their reputations in the wider legal world and for nominees people have hardly heard of, for world-class lawyers and for lawyers he happens to know and like.

After the nomination of John Roberts, Bush boosters hailed the president for bucking the political imperative of selecting a woman or a minority and for instead caring above all about high qualifications. They now have to take all that back. We don’t know much yet about Harriet Miers, except that she is the anti-Roberts, a nominee whose credentials are less than sterling and whose qualifications for the Court are less than obvious.

It might turn out that she is an outstanding justice. But there is no way for anyone besides President Bush’s immediate circle to know it. Of course, other Supreme Court justices have come without experience on the bench. Chief Justice Earl Warren was governor of California. Harriet Miers was “an elected member of the Dallas City Council,” as Bush put it in his announcement of her nomination.

Watching Bush strain to pump up her accomplishments was cringe-making. He said she has tried cases “before state and federal courts”! She has “argued appeals that covered a broad range of matters”! She was head of the Texas Lottery Commission and “insisted on a system that was fair and honest”! She was a leader with Child Care Dallas, Meals on Wheels, and other charitable groups! She has a law degree! From Southern Methodist University! …

…Democrats have an interesting choice. They can accept Miers on the theory that as an unknown quantity she is the best they can hope for from Bush, given that his short list included well-established, intellectually hefty conservatives. Or they can try to deal Bush a blow by attacking her as a crony. If they choose the first course and Miers votes as a down-the-line conservative on the Court, Bush’s pick will, over time, be seen as politically canny. Now it looks like the latest act of an overly insular, increasingly off-key White House.

So wrote that? Frank Rich? Paul Krugman? Bob Herbert? Um… guess again.

UPDATE:  Kevin Drum posts a nifty compendium of conservative disillusionment with GW Bush. It's worth taking a look.

Comments

[marky48]

Yeah, I know.

[reg]

"Bush thus made a strong statement that the Court has room for highly distinguished justices and not-so-distinguished justices"

Thought his dad had already done that when he nominated Clarence Thomas.

[rosedog]

This from Joel Achenbach in yesterday's online WaPo...

*****************************************************

The president carefully and deliberately selected as his nominee for the vacant Supreme Court position the first person he ran into in the hallway this morning. He has been up front about this technique all along, what he called "the dartboard approach." It could have been anyone -- an usher, a steward, a dog-walker, the guy carrying the nuclear codes. Liberals will rejoice that it wasn't Rove. It turned out to be his former staff secretary, Harriet Miers, currently the White House Counsel. Her qualifications for the position are as follows:

1. She's a lawyer.

2. She's tight with Dubya.

3. She works just a few feet from Bush and thus saved him from the hassle of a protracted search.

4. She has never been a judge and thus has no record that might generate problems in a confirmation hearing.

Presidents run into trouble when they start nominating for the Supreme Court someone who already has a professional record as a judge. The rule in Washington is: Anything you say can and will be used against you. The way to assure that your nominee will be confirmed is to make sure the nominee has no known beliefs, opinions, thoughts, notions, or anything else that might be criticized by Ted Kennedy and his Lefty hand-wringing friends.

To judge from initial reports, Miers is 60, single, no kids, no known friends, no hobbies, no favorite color. There are parking meters in Washington that have a higher public profile than Ms. Miers. Had she not appeared on television today, many people would argue that she doesn't actually exist....

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/10/bush_nominates_.html

[cenizo in Austin]

We dodged a bullet. Bush could have nominated a real ideologue. Prediction: in time, she will surprise everyone, including Bush.

[richard lo cicero]

Well he didn't nominate a horse judge. Look what do you want from a crony administration? I really don't know what Dems should do. She is obviously unqualified but so was Thomas and there was no doubt about his wingnuttery. Maybe she's better. Who knows? If we reject her do we get Janice Rogers Brown? At least we can enjoy the spectacle of the extreme right going apeshit. They've been had again. One thing I saw today. That Law firm she headed had to pay investors over $22 million for their part in helping a client defraud them. So I think I know one thing - I'll bet business will love her! Lets hope we get an interesting hearing!

Off topic: Paul Hackett will run for the Senate in Ohio! Six other Gulf/Iraq war vets are running as Dems. If you saw Rahm Emmanuel on MEET THE PRESS this week you will have noticed that the head of the DCCC didn't even mention the war as an issue for Dems next year. He may just be in for a surprise. The war, cronyism and corruption will be THE issues next year. Too bad the Great and the Good don't get it!

[Rich]

Exactly, Marc--"Harriet who?" were the first words mumbled out of my mouth as I woke up to the radio news this morning. But one other curious detail has been lingering in my mind all day today: Senate minority leader Harry Reid is supporting this choice. I've scoured a number of web sites to see if I could find his reasoning (I know, I know--I shouldn't expect 'reasoning' here), and just found "she's really nice" soundbites. I know he's pro-life(-ish) and all, but presumably he rejected Roberts for what at least others assumed were pro-choice(-ish) motivations:

"Reid said much the same about the narrowness of the decision in remarks that nonetheless pleased women's groups and civil rights organizations that had feared he would support Roberts."

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/20/roberts.democrats.ap/

If I were inhumanly optimistic, I would presume that Reid has been playing this whole thing strategically--i.e., supporting Miers because she is a bizarre and "harmless" nominee, harmless in that either A) if she's rejected it will come at the behest of mutinous Repubs; or B) if she were nominated she'd cause nowhere near as much harm as would, say, a Janice Rogers Brown.

Anyone got a clue to Reid's motivations here?

[too many steves]

Hmmm.... Harry Reid, Arlen Spector, and John Cornyn like her - I think I smell a backroom deal.

It occurred to me last night that maybe Laura Bush is actually the president now.

[Freddy the Pig]

Bush promised to unite Washington and heal the partisan divide, and I think he's found the one thing that Reps and Dems can both agree on: a mediocre hack as long as she's of the right gender. An asskisser with a vagina, that's what it's come down to.

[Andrew Gumbel]

Over and above Kevin Drum's round-up, check out George Will in today's Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954_pf.html

Will accuses Bush of dabbling in identity politics (the words "absurdity", "nonsense" etc flow like his pen much like human waste flows from a latrine) and accuses the president of abdicating any right to proclaim himself a custodian of the Constitution (for somewhat eccentric reasons -- read it and you'll see).

The kicker:

For this we need a CONSERVATIVE president?

Try as I might to conjure up an image of the Oval Office in my mind, all I see is a soggy piece of toast. Breakfast, anyone?

[reg]

"It occurred to me last night that maybe Laura Bush is actually the president now."

I have a funny feeling that Laura's hand is in this as well. She's made it clear she wanted a woman, she's not a flaming right-winger so some geek like Rogers-Brown wouldn't appeal to her and she's one of a handful of people who know Miers up close and personal. This could be a "Lysistrata" appointment...

[Marc Davidson]

Apparently James Dobson has some information about Harriet that he's not at liberty to talk about. I guess this is meant to be comforting to his followers or alarming to the rest of us.
My suggestion is that Monty Hall handle filling the next Supreme Court vacancy.

[Tom Grey - Liberty Dad]

Harriet Who? Why, just go to her site (Ad) and find out.
http://justicemiers.com/index.shtml

She's a former pro-choice, devout Christian, never married (prolly not still a virgin, does it matter?), career woman. Sometimes in the top 50, top 100 women in the country.

Common sense and goodness, not a pointy head.

See Beldar for his smackdown on Lib-Rep Prof. Barnett.
http://www.beldar.org/beldarblog/2005/10/a_rebuttal_to_p.html

I don't like the cronyism, but it's a real question of competence. She's a top competent woman. Perhaps a Dem-feminist's nightmare? (Reid can't easy vote no.)

Marvin Olasky likes her church work.

I'm 90% sure she'll vote to overturn Roe (only 80% sure with Roberts) -- but there's no paper trail for Dems to claim "outside the mainstream."

Looks like Bush will "win another close one". And isn't that what the politics game is all about ... winning ... it's the ONLY thing.

(yechh). But if Harriet (w/o Ozzie) isn't brilliant enough, would Dems who oppose her really support Brown???

The intellectual Reps will bitch & moan & support the Rep Prez (like Dems supported Dem Clinton on NAFTA). Hey, I wanted a rerun of the Bork battle, too -- this time with Reps winning. But I can't be sure that's best for policy.

[Abbas-Ali Abadani]

Speaking of James Dobson's "I know something you guys don't" endorsement of Miers, John Dickerson's piece in Slate is an illuminating read.

http://slate.msn.com/id/2127364/

[reg]

Check out Molly Ivins...she knows this lady. At sfgate.com - today's op-eds.

[Harriet's Best Friend]

You don't think she's a good choice, lefties? So what? Try winning the election next time, and the spoils will be yours.

[Kevin]

On The Daily Show last night, Jon Stewart revealed where Dobson's secret info came from:

http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_daily_show/videos/headlines/index.jhtml

(look at 'Dis-Appointment')

[marky48]

We'll do that election thing, but we'll be stuck with these wingers forever. Long live Justice Souter!

[Molly Plotkin]

You're all mising the point about
Miers. First of all, she's loyal to
Bush. Second of all and third of all, she's loyal to Bush. That's why he nominated her and that's why he wants he on the Supreme Court.

What if the House of Representatives tries
to impeach him? It's already been reported that at the meeting where Rove, Scooter et al. discussed what to do about Joe Wilson/Valerie Palme that Bush & Cheney were there & took part in the discussions. What if
the House tried to impeach them?
Bush wants a loyal person on the
Supreme Court to be there for him.
Ms. Miers is very loyal. So there you have it.

[Abbas-Ali Abadani]

Molly,

Any relation to Mark?

http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=165