October 27, 2005
Harriet, we hardly knew ye
Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination for the Supreme Court.
In her letter dated today, Miers said she was concerned that the confirmation process "would create a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country."
She noted that members of the Senate had indicated their intention to seek documents about her service in the White House in order to judge whether to support her nomination to the Supreme Court. "I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy," she wrote.
"While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue."
All I want to know is, will the Senate be as adamant about asking the next nominee questions as they were Miers? Because if they aren't, this whole thing was a complete waste of time.
Posted by Charles Kuffner on October 27, 2005 to National news
If White House confidentiality is the key, then Alberto won't be getting the nod, either.
What I'd like to know is what sort of right-wing zealot is going to take Miers' place as the nominee? I had concerns about her qualifications, but my big concern now is that Bush is going to go back to what he knows best--kowtowing to the far right. I suspect he may nominate some kind of ideologue with impeccable credentials, and any Republican will be hard pressed to vote against such a person. Say what you will about Miers, she spent most of her time as a lawyer in the private sector, which is a poor place to become a hardline anything. There are probably more ideologues on the bench than any place else.
I guess this is for the best: Miers was embarassingly unqualified, and her hero-worship of Shrub was, to be blunt, scary.
But it's clear that the wingnuts won't be satisfied with anyone who doesn't give them (private) assurances that (s)he's not adamantly anti-choice on abortion. With Shrub's approval numbers in the toilet, he's almost certain to nominate a wingnut next, in order to appease his base.
That means either a Democratic filibuster and another showdown over the "nuclear option," or another Democratic cave-in. Either way, a Supreme Court with only Justice Kennedy standing between the U.S. and Wingnutopia is a distinct possibility.
I stand by the assertion that any true Democrat would rather have a conservative well qualified justice over a wild-card unqualified one like Miers.
As much as I fear who Bush might choose next, I'm decidedly glad Miers removed herself/got yanked...
Chuck, I'm giving you a scoop. (And remember, I clued you into O'Connor stepping down 4 days prior to the event.) Okay, they have been no prosmises made but I have been contacted about my openess/availability to fill the the vacancy on SCOTUS.
There have been questions raised about my qualifications since I have never been a judge and am not a lawyer, but the thought is that my well received work as an NCAA volleyball line judge and the fact that I have seen every episode of Paper Chase will be enough to satisfy the Senate which will be too focused on the holiday shopping, the DeLay trial and the coming American Idol season to give a damn.
Wish me luck!
Patrick, I will go on the record now as wholeheartedly supporting your nomination and swift confirmation to the bench. It's about time that a nobody like me had a crony in a high place.
And to everyone else - yes, he really did send me an email about O'Connor four days before she stepped down. Like the yutz that I am, I didn't think much about it at the time. Now I know better.
Edith Jones or Priscilla Owen, and nuclear war.