Replies

But you are going to watch the confirmation hearings and you will get to judge for yourself.

I think the most important thing she has going for her is that she vetted Dubya's nominees. He got to observe her during that vetting procedure, got to listen to her reasoning. He has been listening to her reasoning for years, but this was the first practical application of it as it applied to the courts.

During the discussions on the various nominees, her judicial philosophy would become very clear.

Remember, he chose Cheney because he observed his way of working during the vetting procedure for VP.

But you are going to watch the confirmation hearings and you will get to judge for yourself.

True, but by that time it will be too late. The vast majority of the GOP is going to vote for her no matter what she says - which won't be much.

We are stuck with her unless the democrats don't like her.

I think the most important thing she has going for her is that she vetted Dubya's nominees. He got to observe her during that vetting procedure, got to listen to her reasoning. He has been listening to her reasoning for years, but this was the first practical application of it as it applied to the courts.

I'm not so sure of this. What if she's a suck-up and knows how to play to him? I mean, that for instance is one of the excuses people here have been coming up with for her contributions to the Democratic party --- everyone she worked with was a Democrat, so was everyone she worked for, so she needed to play along for advancement, harmony, etc.

I think the most important thing she has going for her is that she vetted Dubya's nominees. He got to observe her during that vetting procedure, got to listen to her reasoning. He has been listening to her reasoning for years, but this was the first practical application of it as it applied to the courts.

She vetted GWB when he was running for Governor of Texas.

As his personal attorney, Miers conducted a background check on Bush before he ran for Texas governor in 1994 to look for potentially embarrassing information.
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/000989.html
(Contains links to Nov. 2004 Houston Chronicle article)

So I agree. I would say that he trusts her explicity. I am not clear on her role in the nominee screening process, and it is clear that she was not the sole person with input. See, e.g., many Senators who expressed their sense of appropriate criteria for the nominee.

For example, if whe was organizing the vetting, taking the various inputs and facilitating GWB decision making, that would illuminate her work ethic and ability to organize (which is already known) but not necessarily illuminate how she would rule from the bench.

One thing about the Cheney analogy - he recommended himself after reviewing the other VP candidates. Do you think Ms. Miers recommended herself for the nomination?

I think the most important thing she has going for her is that she vetted Dubya's nominees. He got to observe her during that vetting procedure, got to listen to her reasoning. He has been listening to her reasoning for years, but this was the first practical application of it as it applied to the courts.

***************

Although I am waiting for the hearings to form an opinion of Miss Miers, I find the above to be heartening.