Let's be fair to Harriet. While she fits the definition of a crony, there's no evidence that she's a crook. I'm unhappy with her selection because she doesn't have a proven track record, not because I think she's a terrible person.
perhaps you're unaware of Miers' firm paying out more than 30M in fraud payouts for representing con artists that bilked investors out of millions.
google the name russell erxleben and brian stearns and texas chicken feed tort and you'll find out more.
perhaps you're unaware of the GTECH Texas Lottery payouts she was involved in.
there's lots of questionable activity there.
I'd settle for Kay Baily Hutchinson at this moment.
Agreed.
"I'm unhappy with her selection because she doesn't have a proven track record, not because I think she's a terrible person."
I think this is the issue that most people have with her nomination.
I don't care if she's white black green or purple, male or female.
What I care about is, what proof do we have in her record, that she is a conservative who will uphold the Constitution.
So far all I can say is None.
There is no proof one way or the other what her legal convictions are and I personally am not willing to wait and see.
Been stung far too many times to continue to do that.
Before or after she's lynched?