If true, the news I heard on the radio twenty minutes ago is troubling, indeed. It is reported that President Bush has put ... Harriet Miers ... in charge of choosing the candidate to be nominated in her stead for Justice of the SCOTUS.
Can this be true? Can this man be so completely politically tone deaf? Does he [or, do he and his wife] believe that such an important thing as that is appropriate as some sort of consolation prize for his poor choice in the first place?
I am too outraged to articulate clearly ...
well, look at it this way- if it's miers, it's doing the vetting, at least it's not the the poor deputy counsel who flubbed the vetting of miers herself.
Please see Post No. 3255.
Geez Louise!
What the heck do you think she has been ding for the last three years or so?
This is one of her primary functions at the WH, and she vetted Roberts, and all the other picks for the Appeals Courts!
So she needs to be fired now???
Is that what you are suggesting????
It would be cruel to ask Ms.Miers to find another nominee this time 'round and it is difficult to believe the President is that insensitive. One would also think he could choose from others on the list and it is unnecessary to recruit her assistance for the selection.
I actually assumed she'd stay in that role. I don't have a problem with her choosing a conservative nominee for SCOTUS. She seems to be a loyal employee of the President's, and competent at that task (if in fact she has done it in the past, as has been put forth by those supporting her for SCOTUS).
Now, of course, I DO have a problem buying she'd BE a conservative justice. Lawrence Tribe can pick out conservatives, too, but I'd never want him nominated for the SCOTUS either.
I have no problem with that. One report regarding her approach for past nominations contained the following paragraphs ...
She [Miers] was in charge of the White House selection of a chief justice nominee, vetting candidates' records and often playing the tough questioner."We'd be talking about somebody's background," said Leonard Leo, now on leave as executive vice president of the Federalist Society, the conservative group whose headlined speakers have included Supreme Court justices and Bush administration official.
"There would be a moment of silence when she was clearly thinking about what was being said and then she would challenge it, asking, 'But what specifically in those opinions strongly suggests that this is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint?'" Leo said.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051015/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_what_s_known
If this approach is followed, the nominee will have been vetted to the same degree that supports the excellent Circuit and District Court track record that President Bush has demonstrated so far.
Th pundits and the people will be able to see: what specifically (generalities, like "strict constructionist" with no more, are not specific) in the nominee's opinions (they needn't be judicial, but that's okay - any writing, transcript of speech, etc. will do) strongly suggests (this admits a slight amount, but not much ambiguity) that the nominee is someone who ascribes to judicial restraint.
Looks like it is true and Andy Card too. Both Miers and Card got on the plane and left to spend the weekend with the President. You probably already heard.