Harriet Meiers: Is this the best Dems can hope for?

I'm torn by Harriet Meiers. While she has contributed to Democratic politicians in the past, and has now apparently announced, in the past, she would not join a far right group because they are too political, it is hard for me to be comfortable with her. Her allegiances to Bush, her staunch anti choice position against abortion, her evangelical background and her limited relevant background to perform a Supreme Court Justice's duties far outweigh the positive attributes that would make a Democrat feel comfortable to have her on the Supreme Court.

However, is she the best we can hope for? If she is shot down by Republicans and Democrats alike, what is to come? Who will the next candidate likely be? Republican choices far worse than Harriet Meiers, such as Robert Gonzales or Priscilla Owens? What is a Democrat to do? Believe Harriet Meiers is the least offensive of the bunch, or go against her and hope the next candidate will be better, all while having our fingers crossed behind our backs?

Look at the other candidates...and look at what the right wing considers her "failings"...(She might actually BE moderate!)

Simple....sit back and enjoy watching them eat their own and STAY OUT OF IT.

Let them fight it out and then appoint a far right whacko. I hope that will play out like the Schiavo fiasco for the Repubs. It will show the country who controls these Repub leaders. I think we could then filibuster that one without much backlash.

I think Meiers is horrible on many counts. She may not vote against privacy rights but she will support corporate influence over government and lack of oversight of * admin corruption. She is a horrible choice.

Especially with the filibuster. But, if that fails there is still a silver lining in the cloud, although a scary gamble. I believe if the SCOTUS were to ever overturn Roe v. Wade, the Democrats would be in power for 20 years plus and cause a huge realignment in politics in this country.

after O'Connor's retirement (we're from MO), she swore she'd leave the country if it happened.

Quartet or something touring around the country singing.

she got a whole mess of republicans going after each other. I am enjoying it very much. Unfortunately, there are so many other things going on like Tuck being torn from his hospital bed, the hurricane and earthquake surivors. I wonder what things will be like a year from now.

and not got all bolluxed up trying to figure out the 'what ifs'. She is either qualified or unqualified. She is either acceptable or unacceptable. If she is rejected, then the next nominee should face the same set of tests, and Democrats should vote again on the qualifications of the candidate before them, not on who might follow.

The Opposition Party has to actually stand for something, have some sort of principles, or despite the corruption cronyism and catastrophe that is the hallmark of the Party in Power, we could easily lose the next national elections again.

if Bush nominates a candidate that has Republicans tearing each other's throats out while simultaneously making himself look like an even more incompetent asshole... then yes, Harriet Miers is the best we could hope for. :)

Bear in mind that with the Republicans controlling Washington, we ain't going to be getting a Ruth Bader-Ginsburg coming down the line. So for Bush to create such an enormous shitstorm for Republicans with the Miers nomination is not a bad position to be in, considering the alternatives. Hell, Bush would have probably done himself and the Republican party less political damage if he'd nominated Roy Moore.

That's the political perspective though. As for whether Miers is ideologically-speaking the best Supreme Court Justice we can hope for - considering that Republicans rule the House, Senate, and White House and Bush could have nominated someone like Roy Moore - I don't know. It's possible. I guess we'll have to wait for the confirmation hearings and see what happens.

It may be moot though - I think there's a good chance that the Miers nomination will fail. If that's the case, then I think the best we can hope for is that the subsequent fallout, along with any indictments Fitzgerald may bring, will cause Bush so much political damage that another nomination may prove equally difficult to get through.

We'll see. Meanwhile, I'm going to sit back and enjoy watching the right-wing punching themselves in the face.

I hadn't even thought about the spectre of Roy Moore. Yikes!

nt

But Dem senators should help GOP dissidents vote her down. That result would further weaken Dubya and split the GOP. A Justice Miers has nothing the Dems, nor the American people, should want: (1) it's doubtful that she would vote in any way independently of Dubya; and
(2) even if she supported all of our views, we shouldn't want someone that incompetent as our ally.

All Dems should vote her down and help the Repukes slit each other's throats. Even Machiavelli would do it.

I'll be taking the names of the Dems who vote "yes" on this one, if any.

We aint gonna get anyone better than her in this administration. I can just see her name withdrawn and end up with a Janice Rogers Brown or worse. The Rethugs would overwelmingly vote for HER and the Dems would hold a filibuster and lose that in return with Brown nominated. NO THANKS. If I had a chose to choose between dumb and dumber, I'll choose dumb (Meirers)

The significance of that shouldn't be overlooked. Even if Meiers turns into another Scalia, which I doubt, she's likely to serve "only" 20 years or so. I was certain Bush would nominate another 50ish candidate who would potentially slant the court for 30+ years. If given another chance, he will.

Her law firm's PAC contributed to both Democrats and Republicans. My dad would never individually contribute to some of the Republicans that his firm's PAC gives money to, but he is expected to give to his law firm's PAC because he is a partner.

and to Lloyd Bentsen in 1987. Apparently she was a Democrat until the early 90's, though that probably doesn't mean much in Texas.

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

But you are correct, I was mistaken on that point. Still, a contribution to Lloyd Bensten and Al Gore doesn't make her a Democrat.

We'll have to see what comes out in the hearings.

What I like:

1) She's not a hard-core ideologue as best we know. That's what Republicans are howling about.
2) Republicans hate her. You really don't need to know more than that to give her an open mind in anticipation of her Senate testimony.
3) She has been a Democratic supporter in the past.
4) She has promoted pro-bono work in her law practice and in her personal conversations with others.
5) Republicans hate her. Did I already say that? Well, I like that alot all by itself.


What's not to like:

1) She loves Bush. You've got to wonder.
But that may well be a personality thing. They may just click as people.

2) She seems overly religious. I don't like that because of what it has come to mean politically.
But what if she's a real Christian, not a fake Republican anti-Christian? Uh-oh righies!

3) She's not highly qualified for the position.
But remember, she rose to lead a major law firm in Texas, so she's no incompetent.


All in all, she's far from the worst we can expect from what we know so far. Let's give her a listen. Her views may turn out bad in which case we have to decide what to do. But you know what else? She has some of the attributes of a person who will evolve leftward on the court. You can kind of tell the ones who won't, and from what little we know so far, she isn't one of those never-change-their-mind righties.

And one more thing. When you're progressive emotions are working on their worst-case fears, think about what you'll be feeling if they pull her nomination and put up John Ashcroft or Priscilla Owens, with righies everywhere acting intolerably sanctimonious, triumphant and belligerent about it. What's your blood pressure going to be doing then?

It really doesn't matter if they have stellar judicial credentials or are just another Bush crony like Miers. They will all vote the same way - anti choice and pro-business.

Miers may have been more moderate a gazillion years ago but since then she found Jeezus and got all moist for Dubya. She will vote the same way as Owens or Luttig or Ashcrack.

It doesn't matter if she's brilliant or dumb. In a 5-4 decision all that matters is that vote. Who the hell cares who casts it?

Dems are just delusional if they think she will somehow rediscover her moderate roots. She's too far gone to ever get back.

Mz Pip
:dem:

right now. If she makes it to the SC, I can imagine that she wouldn't feel the least bit beholden to them - and even may be quite resentful - given how viciously they've turned on her.