Monday, October 03, 2005

Supreme Cronyism

The president's nomination for the next Supreme Court justice has to be a joke, right? Or pure distraction from all the Bad News over the GOP's corrupt leadership? Maybe a distraction from the 2nd indictment against Rep. Tom DeLay?

Other than being an office-bound ally for first Governor and then President Bush, what knowledge does the nominee have about the Constitution? She's been an attorney, head of the Texas Lottery Corp., and a "pit-bull" in the Bush corner. Yeesh.

What has she done with her career?

"Harriet
Miers also introduced Bush to Alberto Gonzales, who served as Bush's counsel in Austin and later in Washington, before being named U.S. attorney general.

During Bush's first term as governor, Gonzales used information turned up by Miers to persuade a local judge to excuse Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. The incident was not divulged until the waning days of Bush's 2000 campaign for the White House."

Other than the achievement of knowing President Bush, this attorney isn't exactly setting the world on fire.

5 comments:

Juris Monkey said...

Need some liniment for that jerky knee?

Joe Powell said...

Garsh, Juris M. - you are soooooo correct to note that I AM THE PROBLEM, and not the president's record for naming close friends and hangers-on to appointed positions. Go ahead and say the word "liberal", it won't offend me.
After all, it was Democrat Harry Reid who urged the president to nominate Miers. Maybe you need a new phrase for someone who thinks outside the two party system (see Monday's post).

And Miers does have a record which is readable.

Who cares if she hasn't been a judge?
Or shown interest in the Constitution?

The more we eliminate real qualifications from positions in government insures power will be left in fewer and fewer hands.

In the world of American politics, there is a real likelihood that Miers is just a way to give the Senate a chance to vote "no" on a nominee, then the president will get huffy, and he gets more time to promote whoever he is more sincerely interested in placing on the bench. Although the more cronyism
used to fill the Supreme Court will certainly decrease their ability to make decisions based on Constitutional Law -- the ones being dismantled by this administration and overseen for decades by the late Chief Justice Rehnquist - another one who never served as a judge and whose record shows no approval for our Bill of Rights.

Just blame me -- it's the safe way to go.

Julie said...

I won't blame you, I'll agree w/ you. It's a crap nomination. I can't believe he was even serious about it. A supreme court justice w/ no judicial experience? Someone who clearly is an asskisser and has riden up his coat tales for her career? Jeesh, it's so transparent, it reminds me of that old, yet still funny joke about the guy who goes into the psychiatrist office naked except for being covered in saran wrap and the dr says 'I can clearly see you are nuts'.

Juris Monkey said...

Wasn't blamin' you for anything, man, & believe it or not, the "L" word was not what I had in mind.
Your shock & horror just came a bit too quickly & predictably.
I don't see (yet) how you can claim the new nominee's ignorance of or apathy towards the Constitution. I was just cautioning against a rush to judgement (so to speak).

Joe Powell said...

Well, Juris -- reading about her past work history, and her close ties to the president, says volumes. She was also on the committee searching for candidates, and for her to be selected, as many other news organizations pointed out, means a lot of qualified folks were ignored. The info is out there on the Web and is easily accesible. I did some searching about her and found her woefully lacking. Many court watchers, like me, were likewise appalled by the choice

Being the president's attorney and secretary also indicates her real success has been to be a player in the Bush game and little else.

The rush?? Forced to defend the nomination today the president says "She is pleny bright."

Fine. Use her as a light bulb, not an Associate Justice. The president also says he "knows" her and her "character" as a reason to select her. I'm sure she is a wonderful person. If these are the standards the president and the Senate have for someone to be on the court, then pick a name out of the phonebook. I'm sure there are "plenty bright" people of good "character" to find. At least they wouldn't be an employee in the White House.