Miers Unfairly Maligned

The Toledo [OH] Blade ^ | October 8, 2005 | Kelly, Jack

[AndyJackson]

given the low road they've traveled in the trashing of the nominee

No, they have questioned her credentials for the position and then been trashed by those following the WH talking points. The easy way to fix this is to show that she has the wherewithall to hold the position. Providing this evidence is the one thing that would silence us "skeptics" and the one thing that has not been done.

[flaglady47]

I just posted this recently on another thread, but it appears to be appropriate to this thread as well:

"I assume you also have sympathy for those fair weather and sunshine Rupublicans whose loyalty to the President depends upon what they had for breakfast."

My my, haven't you got it wrong. How about the loyalty that Bush should have shown to his to-this-point-in-time ever-so-loyal Repubican base that has stuck with him through thick and thin, including his spending like a liberal, starting a whole new welfare program with his prescription drugs subsidies for the elderly, his siding w/Teddy Kennedy re Education program, his never vetoing anything ever, even if it needed vetoing, his crummy non-existent immigration policy other than give them all amnesty, shall I go on? But we Pubs stuck w/him based on his choosing good candidates to the Supreme Court when the time came. The time has come. So, Bush shows his loyalty, oh my, doesn't he, not to his conservative and faithful base, but to his CRONY, Harriet Miers, a basic nobody to conservatives who had constructed a list a mile long and deep of good conservative strict constructionist or originalist choices for the bench.

And thus Bush broke his campaign pledge to the base, to appoint judges in the image of Scalia and Thomas. Just like his old man's read my lips, no new taxes, another broken Bush promise. So, don't preach loyalty, buddy, as it is Bush's loyalties that are totally misplaced here, and when it really really counted, Bush let his entire base down in order to reward one of his cronies. Showing loyalty to one over his loyalty to the legions that comprised his base. Some loyalty.

Well, that base is eroding now. It remains to be seen how much, and what lasting effects this may have to Bush and his attempts to get his pet projects through. He will have no support for his immigrant/amnesty program now, none at all. He had very little to start off with, but this will put the kabosh on it bigtime. Social security will go nowhere, permanently lowering taxes will probably fail, the estate tax repeal will take a dive, but boy, by golly gee, we'll have Harriet Miers on the bench. Oh joy, oh joy. Bad move, Bush, a mighty bad move.

[Im4LifeandLiberty]

I have been researching this nomination obsessively since it was announced, and so have heard many of the opinions on this, including that of Ann Coulter. It seems to me she objects to the cronyism of this pick and the fact that Miers has no judicial experience and no track record, as well as the fact that her alma mater was ranked something like #54 among US law schools. The prestige of a school does, unfortunately, factor in to the experience its alumni are able to obtain. I've never heard Coulter or the other supposed "elitists" demand an "Ivy League" nominee. What I have heard are concerns about her resume and comments that Supreme Court appointees generally come from the top of their fields; following from this is that if Bush really wanted to appoint a woman, there were many others with more impressive resumes and degrees from stronger schools. Coulter et al cite Janice Rogers Brown, Edith Jones, and Priscilla Owen, none of whom received Ivy League law degrees. I have heard reference to "the top 5 law schools," one of which (the last I heard) is a state school, the University of Michigan.