Should Miers Get Credit for Bush's Appellate Nominees?

What now? ^ | 10/09/05 | Roger

[jdhljc169]

Over the course of the past few days, I have read several justifications (by conservatives) for supporting President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, several of which have already been artfully addressed by my good friend Jeremy. One he did not address, and which has really begun to stick in my craw, is the assertion that we should support Harriet Miers because she gave us Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, Bill Pryor, and other stellar appellate court nominees. A little research reveals that this is blatantly false at worst, deceitfully misleading at best.

Harriet Miers has held the position of Counsel to the President since February 3, 2005, when the previous occupant of that office, Alberto Gonzalez, was confirmed by the Senate to be US Attorney General. Since that time, President Bush has made twelve nominations to the US Circuit Courts, all of them on February 14, 2005, eleven days after Ms. Miers became White House Counsel. Eleven of these nominees were originally nominated during Bush's first term but never received a vote in the Senate.

Terrence W. Boyle (Fourth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001 Janice R. Brown (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003 Richard A. Griffin (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 6/26/2002 Thomas B. Griffith (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 5/10/2004 Brett M. Kavanaugh (D.C. Circuit): Originally nominated 7/25/2003 David W. McKeague (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001 William G. Myers (Ninth Circuit): Originally nominated 5/15/2003 Susan B. Neilson (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001 Priscilla R. Owen (Fifth Circuit): Originally nominated 9/4/2001 William H. Pryor (Eleventh Circuit): Originally nominated 4/9/2003 Henry W. Saad (Sixth Circuit): Originally nominated 11/8/2001

Sources: Federal Judicial Vacancy Archives (December 1, 2004 and November 6, 2002)

Should Harriet Miers receive credit for Bush's renomination - on her twelfth day on the job - of a slate of appellate nominees from his first term? Nominees who were originally vetted and nominated while Miers was pushing papers as a staff secretary? The answer is obviously no.

Would those who have used this argument in favor of Ms. Miers' nomination have supported the nomination to the Supreme Court of the man truly responsible for these appellate nominees, Alberto Gonzales? I think not.

[Ol' Sparky]

The real question is, why in the world are the most important nominees like the ones we were getting for the circuit courts? Is this the real Bush, like the one that appointed Alberto Gonzales to the Texas Supreme Court, now that he no longer needs to worry about reelection? Or is he just a wimp, unwilling to take on the RINOs and Democrats>

[thoughtomator]

I think that many of those who support this nomination would also have supported a Gonzales nomination.

[tennmountainman]

There's a lot more nominee's still in limbo.
Who's pushing to get Kavenough through?
Who's pushing to get the others through?