Paper trail doesn't explain it. They had paper on O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. It proved nothing.
Her current position doesn't explain it. As the man says in the article: Offer any lawyer in America the job of Counsel to the President of the USA, and they will consider it a wonderful opportunity and an important position.
Her resume doesn't explain it. There aren't many who've headed a huge law firm, who have made law review, who've been named to the top 100 lawyers, who've been named to the top 50 female lawyers, who've been head of the state bar of one of our largest states, and who've been special counsel to the President of the USA.
A mathematician could tell me the probability that any lawyer (or anyone) could achieve such a resume. (We'd multiply each of the items, wouldn't we? How many lawyers are there in America? How many law firms over 400 lawyers are there in America? How many managing partners do they have per decade? What ratio of lawyers achieve that level...1/10,000 or 1/100,000 or what?) Bottom line: I'm betting that's a one in a million resume.
So, what other reason explains the objection of the conservative glitterati to Ms Miers?
Religion, Race, Sex, Social Status, hair color, height, age, country club....what????
I'll probably never know.
BY IN LARGE (shouted that to cover the shallow minded Bush haters on this board who will take the following as applying to all those who disapprove of this nomination)
the people criticizing this nomination are who I would call the "whole loafers". Those are the people for whom compromise is a four letter word. They see compromise as weakness, forgetting is was their hero Ronald Reagan who said something to the effect that it was better to get some or most of what you wanted than none at all.
Many of these critics see Harriet Miers as a major player in the political new tone. I think some even see her as having blocked access to President Bush.
I am not against a reasoned debate on this nominee. Despite what the "whole loafers" say there is a record on Ms Miers which can be discussed. The problem is with the "whole loafers" they can't get past their anger and desire to get even with Bush and Miers. Either that or they are too lazy to do the work required to take a look at her record.
"Paper trail doesn't explain it. They had paper on O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter. It proved nothing."
THANK YOU!! Why did it take so long for someone to say that. No matter who (or is it "whom"?) is nominated, we will never know how they will rule until they are on the bench. My gut is to go with the Prez on this one.