IF THE NOMINEE IS HARRIET, YOU MUST NOT VET

NRO: The Corner ^ | October 19, 2005 | Rich Lowry

[Cautor]

Documents released Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal that the Bush administration's vetting of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was controlled by a few insiders, a stark contrast to what Chief Justice John Roberts experienced as a contender for a court seat two months earlier.

On a questionnaire from the committee, Miers — the White House counsel and a longtime friend of President Bush — gave new insight into how she was chosen by Bush after she initially helped lead the search for a successor to Sandra Day O'Connor.

Miers, 60, said that during the two weeks before Bush nominated her Oct. 3, she spoke with her deputy William Kelley, White House chief of staff Andy Card and the president and learned "my name was under consideration." She said she met with Bush four times — on Sept. 21, 28 and 29, and Oct. 2 — to discuss the possibility of her being nominated. Miers said Card arranged a dinner on the night of Oct. 2 for her, the president and first lady Laura Bush.

Miers indicated she was not interviewed by several others who are usually involved in vetting Supreme Court candidates, including officials at the Justice Department, Vice President Cheney and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove...

But the process Miers described contrasts with what Roberts and other high court nominees went through in recent decades. Roberts was interviewed by Rove, Cheney, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, Card and Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis Libby. Roberts also was interviewed by Miers and Kelley.

[Cautor]

Hey, she's a FOB, he knows her heart and mind. That should be good enough for many of her supporters.

[Cautor]

Ping

[You Dirty Rats]

Documents released Tuesday by the Senate Judiciary Committee reveal that the Bush administration's vetting of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was controlled by a few insiders, a stark contrast to what Chief Justice John Roberts experienced as a contender for a court seat two months earlier.

So what?

[MNJohnnie]

You guys just don't get it. Taking over the Hysteric Left Hate Bush talking point does NOT help your case. Character assassinations, guilty by accusation and trial by rumor is the OTHER sides tactics. By adapting these tactics most Conservatives are HIGHLY suspicious of the REAL motivation of NRO and the other Moveon.org "Conservatives".

[A.Hun]

Think she was already vetted for the WHite House counsel position?

A lot of background that had to be done on Roberts undoubtedly had already been done for Miers.

[bray]

Rich Lowry? Can the pig pile get any deeper?? Too bad the Self Appointed Conservative Spokesmen can't just wait for the hearings before the lynching.

Pray for W and Our Victorious Troops

[Stellar Dendrite]

Ping

[Stellar Dendrite]

Following your link over there, I also saw this by Rich Lowry:

HAVEN'T TURNED THE CORNER [Rich Lowry ]
This is from The Note, quoting a GOP Senate aide on Miers:

"I'm not hearing good things about White House efforts to turn the corner. The only argument they seem to be putting forward is 'we don't need an intramural scrimmage right now.' The latest courtesy meetings haven't gone well because she has not been so forthcoming. The questionnaire was subpart at best and late. We'll help with the heavy lifting but you gotta help us out here," our source says to the Administration.

"You mostly will see deadly silence on our side of the aisle and continued aggression by groups. . . It may end up torture by a thousand cuts for all, but she may end up getting through by a slim margin."


Posted at 02:32 PM

[Steve_Stifler]

Roberts had just been appointed to the DC court a couple of years before his nomination to the Supreme Court. His background check and vetting would've been much more thorough and recent than that of Miers' who followed Bush to Washington in 2000.

[trubluolyguy]

Hey, she's a FOB, he knows her heart and mind.

---

Now that we have discussed her qualifications....

[Parmenio]

This comment is not directed at any one party or side in this debate. What I want to know is:

Why has the White House handling of this nomination been so poor and bungling?

[Texas Federalist]

Andy Card appears to be the reason for this screw up.

[trubluolyguy]

Too bad the Self Appointed Conservative Spokesmen can't just wait for the hearings before the lynching.

---

Ah yes the hearings that your side says we must wait for. And when she invokes the Ginsburg rule, you guys and gals will be saying, "Well she can't answer those questions, lets see how she does once she's on the court."

[GarySpFc]

Miers turned down the nomination when they first offered it. Bush then told someone to add her name to the list without her knowledge. Someone else was assigned the vetting process, and it was while that was transpiring she learned she was on the list.

[twigs]

I like Lowry. But I must say, his comments on Miers have not been his finest hours.

[USPatriette]

Yawn.

[trubluolyguy]

Why has the White House handling of this nomination been so poor and bungling?

---

It hasn't. How dare you question anything the WH does. What are you a DU plant?


(sarcasm)

[Rodney King]

The problem is that the vetting was done by her subordinate, which is a terrible position to be in. If he says she is OK, then he maybe gets a promotion. What is he says "not ok" and she finds out? What subordinate would want to be responsible for denying a boss a major promotion?

[elli1]

Miers indicated she was not interviewed by several others who are usually involved in vetting Supreme Court candidates, including officials at the Justice Department, Vice President Cheney and deputy chief of staff Karl Rove...

One would assume that since she's been working at the WH for the last 5 years, that these folks almost certainly knew quite a lot about her. And she had already be 'vetted' for the positions she's held at the WH. And it's entirely possible that all the people mentioned agreed to her selection and declined to 'vet her some more'.