The Miers Blunder

Wall Street Journal ^ | October 21, 2005 | Editorial

[Graybeard58]

Log on to the opinionjournal by clicking my screen name and using my log in info.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Oh darn. What does the rest of it say?

[Piranha]

Very well-conceived and well-written piece. It expresses the problem very clearly, although I think it puts too much of the blame on President Bush and not enough on his counsel, whose job was to protect him from debacles like this one. Of course, that counsel was Harriet Miers. I fail to understand how someone whose job was to protect the President can allow herself to become the lightning rod for this kind of attack against him by his own base.

[gpapa]

you have mail

[vbmoneyspender]

Thanks for that -- much appreciated.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Blunder supremo! Just when you thought it couldn't get crazier...

[SteveH]

So the inference is that Miers is a political "fixer," like Clark Clifford?

[SteveH]

So the inference is that Miers is a political "fixer," like Clark Clifford?

Woops, that post was intended for the John Fund WSJ article "Lotto Trouble," about Barnes, Littwin and Miers' role in the Texas Lottery...

[phelanw]

In answer to one question on the Senate questionnaire, she referred to the proportional representation requirement of the equal protection clause. I'll have to learn about that one, which I haven't heard about in 14 years of teaching con law.:)

It's gotten so bad that her supporters here have to wonder how long the farce can continue, or how many more lumps they can take.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[phelanw]

I'm sorry, I didn't mean that as a direct answer to your question. The info I cited came from an article in the wash compost.

[Map Kernow]

Yet it now seems clear--even well before her Senate hearings--that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.

I'll let others get in before the predictable Miers maniac posts: "elitist," "WSJ's only upset Bush didn't nominate it to SCOTUS"...the usual Bush brain poop.

What is really significant about this editorial is the steady erosion of any support for the nomination in the conservative opinion-maker community. As much as Bush and his flunkies would like to pretend it doesn't make any difference, it's sinking this nomination. And the sooner, the better.

[no dems]

If she she and/or The Prez withdraws her nomination; who might his next choice be?

[Plutarch]

Harriet: The WSJ coming out against me, is that bad?

Andrew Card: Uh, well....yes....

[flashbunny]

"Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation. But so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things happen when a President decides that "diversity," personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years."

Yep.

And we see what happens when people place their loyalties in people instead of principles.

[Toidylop]

"Bad things happen when a President decides that "diversity," personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years...

that sums it up. SIGH!!!

[tomahawk]

A major blunder by a major blunderer.

[tomahawk]

She's an intellectual lightweight.

What a farce.

[Ramius]

Why do you think she's stupid?