RateItAll: The Opinion Network

Anyone who thinks George W. Bush is the smartest mammal she has ever met deserves a top rating for chutzpah if nothing else. I think Harriet Miers is even smarter than GWB, and possibly even smarter than some of the things I have scraped off the bottom of my shoes.

Well, color me perplexed!! Harriet Miers took her name out of the fedora (gotta give her an extra "star" for that alone). A fundagelical with good sense.....never thought I'd live to see THAT at the government level! Now it REALLY hits the fan for Curious George; he's forced to scrounge back through a hit list that's short on "hard" and long on "blow". Assuming the ol' tumbleweed still has an eye for the ladies, Clement should be the next obvious choice (Jones and Mike Luttig will cause a meltdown). Here's a left-field blooper: Ted Olson. He might just prove to be the lone Cadillac on the lot, and with all the GOP's congealing shenanigans, I can't see him causing a lot of partisan cackle.

Liberals complaining about this nomination must have trouble accepting success. Conservatives are livid, almost foaming at the mouth, and the liberals complain about nepotism and paper trails. She'll be confirmed and will likely set a record for the most "no" votes in the Senate, from her "own" party. I am unsure how to read her nomination from a political standpoint. Either Bush is so beaten up politically that he just wants someone confirmed without the partisan rancor so characteristic of the previous five republican nominations (stunningly absent for Clinton's nominee Ginsburg, she of the ACLU/true extremist background) or he is so confident in her abilities and views that he knows she will deliberate on the Supreme Court (historically a body that eschews the appearance of partisan bickering in favor of principled stands) the way she has behind closed doors in republican-dominated policy tugs-of-war. I chose to rate her a 2 because "Bad" seemed more appropriate than "Astonishing, " which I could not find. This is how a 2nd term President rewards his base? UPDATE (10/3/05): Mag and I appear to be on the same page here, although the "most unqualified Justice" label will be difficult to wrest from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's resume. Ginsburg's problem is that there IS a paper trail there. VFern, get some smelling salts for Lance. (Sidenote: I really wasn't referring to mag on the papertrail reference, although I notice it looks like it. Besides, mag's not a liberal anyway.) POST SCRIPTUM: I feel badly for this lady, who is obviously a capable lawyer and can point to many accomplishments throughout her career. She withdrew her name today, and the process begins anew. Bush is like a golfer on the first tee, with a large gallery watching as he swings and misses. Now, everyone's attention is piqued. I'm not watching to see if he can hit the ball straight and far, I'm hoping he hits the BALL AT ALL this time.

Oh No. No. No. Maybe if I make some campaign contributions I can become a Supreme Court judge too. For $25,000 extra, you can become a Chief-of-Staff. Does one not realise it is erronous to mention a judge's religious preferences? Applying "conservative" and "liberal" connotations to a judge refer to the extent in which they uphold the original law or set a precedence. Not their damn ideology! Bush, shame on you.

George Bush has been plagued by a hostile and angry 21st Century Democratic Party. They were mad when he defeated Al Gore, they were mad when he issued tax relief, they were mad when he signed the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act, and they were furious when he launched Operation Iraqi Freedom. Every single day conservatives, Republicans and Bush supporters have had to take an obscene amount of crap from the presidents detractors. The attacks have not limited themselves simply to the president though, they have extended to degrade Americans who have chosen to support the president. The insults, the punchlines, the political statements, the soundbites and all the rest have been unending. And yet, Republicans (myself included) have stood by the president admiring him for keeping to his word and no-nonsense attitude. Yet Harriet Miers' nomination has been the greatest slap in the face I've ever experienced. Is this what conservatives have to counter Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer with? Is this the dividend of a fight that has torn the fabric and unity of our country? Is this Ronald Reagan's morning in America? I still stand by President Bush, but at this point, I'd sooner stick with the political hacks in Jersey. At least I know what to expect from them.

As a nominee for the Supreme Court Harriet Miers the former Texas Lottery Commissioner is nothing short of terrible. There are over 1.2 million lawyers in the United States and seemingly the only qualifications that distinguish her from the million or so others is her sex and relationship to the President. This was a complete and utter capitulation by a President who felt too weakened to fulfill his promise to nominate the "best and brightest" our nation had to offer. Is Bush telling me Harriet Miers is more qualified than Michael Luttig? Mike McConnell? Harvey Wilkerson? Edith Jones? Pricilla Owen? Janice Brown? Miguel Estrada? Or even Edith Clement? Bush has failed to deliver the most essential campaign promise he made to those who voted for him: "to nominate justices in mold of Scalia and Thomas". What happened to that? I'll tell you what happened to that. Bush was afraid of the McCains, Snowes, Collinses, and Chafees of the world bailing on him so he bailed on his base. And the most hypocritical aspect to this is the fact that the administration keeps touting her religion as cause to "trust her" after explicitly stating a nominees religion constitutionally can not be considered during the Roberts hearings. I don't want to know someone's religious beliefs, I want to know they will faithfully uphold the constitution of the United States by deciding cases within the parameters of the authority prescribed by Article III. I don't want someone legislating their religious beliefs anymore than I want a secularist fabricating rights to behaviors not protected by the rights therein prescribed by the Original Law. Lastly, this President missed a grand opportunity for this country to have a vivid discussion about the role of the judiciary in our constitutional order. It has for too long been axiomatically accepted that the judiciary is the supreme authority as to what the constitution means. That the judiciary somehow holds a distinct supremecy over the other branches of government. Such is simply not the case. It has been a long time coming for this country to have a discussion on the commerce clause, fundamental rights, settled law, about federalism and the limits to the judiciary. Instead we've got a "stealth" candidate who'll do her damnedest to evade these discussions. This was nothing short of a gutless move by the President. He should have nominated Luttig and fought on the merits of the nomination. Most Americans- over 70%- are uncomfortable with jurists going outside the parameters of the Constitution to rule. This was discussion America should have had. A fight that would have been good for the country. Instead we get the lottery ball pick. An absolute shame. Update: Only liberals are stupid enough to believe a judges job is a matter of philosophy. Only liberals are stupid enough to believe that removing the issue from the public square and codifying a said behavior as "fundamental" within the evolving standards of justice is somehow an extension of judicial authority under Article III. Where does it say that? A judge's athoritiy is to judge not subvert the Original Priciple of the document- that of self government. Slavery, Abortion, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, Gay Marriage are all issues of high moral importance that should be left to "The People" not 9 Platonic Philosopher Kings issuing Fatwas from an Omimpotent Bench. It is precisely because liberals can't win public opinion for their positions in a public forum that the nomination process has become such a circus. It is precisely because liberals need to politicize the judicial branch that it is so essential that originalists be nominated to the bench- so We The People can once again determine our own ends.

It seems odd to nominate someone to the Supreme Court who has never been a judge. Her foremost qualification seems to be loyalty to the President. Maybe she will surprise us, or possibly she will be such a nonentity she will do no damage. UPDATE: Even the conservatives are revolting against this nomination. Very amusing.

Hey bushies, the only way you can get an anti-choice, bible-thumping zealot is to find an underqualified lackey like Miers with no discernable paper trail or relevant experience. . .since judges should be centrist because of the importance of the position, this is the only way Dubs can attempt to throw a fastball by the American people. Even Dubs knows that a conservative judge would be an unpopular choice- the only way he can get this done is through a typical backdoor-Texas deal like this. She's getting the job because she is Bush's lapdog, period. . .and she's also getting the job because like the president, decisions are based on cronyism, popularity, and a isolationist and uneducated sense of theology. A closet win for conservatives- too bad your philosophy can only be sent to the court through the backdoor. . .

By no measure is Harriet Miers a homerun nomination like succeeding Chief Justice John Roberts. It will be hard for her to dodge criticism from both sides. If she is approved, it wont be due to enthusiasm over her qualifications. One could say a bar is being lowered, since her resume lacks the prestige of a top law school or judicial apprenticeship. Such would be fine, if we had evidence that she could be one of the most brilliant constitutional scholars in her field. There is little to suggest that. She has achieved in corporate law and as a political advisor, but surely a candidate should arrive with high profile endorsements outside of a presidents inner circle. Add everything up, and there is reason to be concerned that she has no prior experience serving in the role of judge. Though much was hidden about John Roberts, I felt there was more than enough proof of his high qualifications to support him. Even more seems to hidden with Harriet Miers, but more importantly, there is much less proof that she is offering our top court one of the sharpest potential judicial minds they can possibly get. Perhaps she will prove me wrong and be a revelation when she speaks at length in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I will try to put aside my concerns and listen to her with an open mind like I did for Roberts.

I'm not ready to make a judgment of Miers, for neither I nor the rest of the country knows much about her broad legal philosophy. My initial impression is that Bush could have made a better selection, as she doesn't even have much in the way of scholarly works or legal opinions; thus its kind of tough for us to make an informed decision about her abilities. That said, for all we know, she could be a great jurist. However there are some indications that she could be a mediocrity. Leaving aside nascent Democratic charges of cronyism, according to various news sources, some former officials who used to work for Miers at the White House Chief of Staff's office, claim that she has been transferred around various departments at the White House due to her "inability to make decisions and an inability to delegate authority to subordinates." Both of these managerial qualities indicate someone who is very keen on little details, but cannot see the big picture when called upon to deliver the solution to a problem. A good justice understands the broad framework which a case rests upon. Good opinions are managed and written by justices who understand doctrine and theory well. They have to be able to separate the forest from the trees. Miers, a former trial lawyer, is well established in her field, but I'm not too sure whether those skill sets which served her well as a trial lawyer will do as an associate justice of the Supreme Court. It seems like a mighty big jump for someone who doesn't have a strong public record; this only fuels the charge that the Miers pick was simply political. A good justice isn't a "pit-bull" as Bush claimed about her personal skills, but is a bit more thoughtful and scholarly. We will see whether or not she has a grasp of legal doctrine in the confirmation hearings--that judgment can't be made yet. I'll write a more extensive opinion after I see the hearings....

Almost no paper trail to speak of. Miers primary qualification for SCOTUS would appear to be her loyalty and service to GWB as his personal lawyer. Said National Review columnist John Podhoretz (before her nomination) "... nobody on earth aside from Bush would actually consider Gonzales or Miers a suitable Supreme Court nominee..." No lessons learned from "Brownie?" ** Interesting comment from EO, referencing "trouble accepting success." How is the nomination of perhaps the most unqualified Justice in the history of the court a success for anyone? Only a partisan warrior could see success on these terms. Not trying to grandstand here, but I'd rather see someone who is qualified for the position nominated than someone who mirrors my personal political beliefs (see my comments on John Roberts). How about you EO?

I've got to confess to being more than a little bemused by this nomination.