Confirm Them on Meirs

by Chris Bowers, Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 07:12:37 AM EDT

From the very first thread:singaporesling
Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:21 am

And this is definitely cronyism.....I mean, what are Miers credentials per se?

His personal lawyer?

You know what this means...this means that Bush only cares about executive priv. types of cases.

SpectatorGirl
Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:22 am. About 'Miers'.

A betrayal. Kossacks will sneer at his pathetic cronyism and they will be right.

Elizabetty Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:24 am. About 'Miers'.

Looks like BUSH was the ULTIMATE Stealth Candidate.

Beancounter
Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:25 am. About 'Miers'.

This is a crony pick-like Gonzales and Mike Brown, and the Joint Chiefs' niece.

B Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:27 am. About 'Miers'.

WHY a crony pick at a time like this??!!

Section9
Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:27 am. About 'Miers'.

As I said on RedState, the worst kind of squalid cronyism. Abe Fortas in a dress.

Chas Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:29 am. About 'Miers'.

This really is cronyism of the worst kind.

Ironman Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:39 am. About 'Miers'

this job gets filled as if it is a second tier cabinet post

Court Watcher
Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:39 am. About 'Miers'.

singaporesling:
Hey, don't take it out on my proud state of Texas. Remember, Luttig is from there also. Even the best of places can produce a wimpy cronymaster every once in a while.

marc
Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:41 am. About 'Miers'.

this is a disgrace. Imagine what would we would be saying had Kerry won and he nominated his PERSONAL lawyer??? we would go nuts. We must oppose.

Seth
Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:42 am. About 'Miers'.

I agree with BeanCounter (#31). Let's press Frist and other Republican senators to filibuster Harriet Miers. No cronies on the Supreme Court!

BoBo
Posted on October 3rd, 2005 at 7:43 am. About 'Miers'.

This is disgusting. To choose someone with absolutely no credentials at all is just moronic. I can't stand this. What a total waste! CRONYISM! CRONYISM! CRONYISM! CRONYISM! CRONYISM!

I am going to keep compiling these.

Tags: Republicans (all tags)

Comments

20 Comments

Sort by

permalink

K..A..B..U..K..I

Freepers get "Talking Points"...

I seem to remember the Redstaters getting their panties in a twist about Roberts not living up to the conservative ideology...until that is Roberts ...was selected to be Chief Justice and suddenly he was conservative enough.

Frankly, since we have unofficially become a one party nation... Redstate's Kabuki dance is just performed to help the Democratic leadership get the Democratic base on board for another eventual capitulation...

The GOP has mastered the art of reverse psychology on Democrats...

by Parker 2005-10-03 07:21AM | 0 recs

permalink

Not from ConfirmThem but. . .

my personal favorite thus far is from the Corner. Where Ramesh wrote:

"It's an inspiring testament to the diversity of the president's cronies. Wearing heels is not an impediment to being a presidential crony in this administration! I can only assume that the president felt that his support was slipping in this important bloc, and he had to do something to shore it up."

by comotion 2005-10-03 07:35AM | 0 recs

permalink

Not good news

http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018816.html

« Harriet Miers -- pro, part 3 | Main | Harriet Miers -- pro, part 1 »
October 03, 2005
Harriet Miers -- pro, part 2
Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years, where Hecht has been an elder. He calls it a "conservative evangelical church... in the vernacular, fundamentalist, but the media have used that word to tar us." He says she was on the missions committee for ten years, taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her." On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."

Posted by Olasky at October 3, 2005 08:23 AM

by aiko 2005-10-03 07:56AM | 0 recs

permalink

from prolife blog

October 03, 2005
Miers Views on Abortion are 'Consistent with that of Evangelical Christians'
World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky interviewed Nathan Hecht, the Texas Supreme Court justice who is a pro-life hero for strongly supporting parental notification. Hecht is a friend of Supreme Court justice nominee Harriet Miers and served as an elder in her church.

Related to her stand on abortion, here is what Hecht said:

On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."

http://www.prolifeblogs.com/articles/

by aiko 2005-10-03 07:57AM | 0 recs

permalink

what good

what good will it do?

more than half of the "dems" voted FOR Roberts. This is the DLC thumbing their noses at America.

F it. There is no reason to support any Dems.

Time for a new party. Gary was right.

by goplies 2005-10-03 08:11AM | 0 recs

permalink

Abortion is the FOOTBALL

I have said for years that I don't think any republican President would dare let Roe be overturned. I believe that for many reasons I will not go into here.

That being said, I have always said that abortion is the FOOTBALL, Republicans Presidents' are LUCY, and rightwing voters are CHARLIE BROWN.

When are they going to wake up and realize that it ain't ever gonna happen?

by dpANDREWS 2005-10-03 09:45AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Abortion is the FOOTBALL

Do be such a "PURIST" Ideology has nothing to do with the netroots ...so says Simon.

by Parker 2005-10-03 09:58AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Abortion is the FOOTBALL

I've been saying this for years.

However, the fact that the Republican Party doesn't actually do anything about abortion doesn't really matter to many of them.

While there are exceptions, in general, the political side of the anti-abortion movement is not really pro-life, and quite frankly, doesn't care about "saving babies".

What many of them DO care about is having their moral values written in the legal code of the United States. This is why many of them also care passionately about many issues that most people consider pointless, like "under God" in the pledge or whether or not the Ten Commandments can remain in a courtroom. If changing the law is not immediately possible, then their goal is to elect as many leaders who publicly share their values as possible.

What this means is that as long as Republicans TALK pro-life while Democrats remain pro-choice, these people will vote Republican. Action is less important than words. Republicans reaffirm their values, while Democrats contradict them. The actions of the two parties are mostly irrelevant.

This also means that Democratic initiatives, such as the 95/10 plan, that will, ACTUALLY REDUCE ABORTION, are downplayed by many of these people. The 95/10 plan would reduce abortion primarily by increasing access to birth control and helping the women who do become pregnant take care of their babies. Since this would reduce the consequences of what they consider to be illicit sex, the response is only lukewarm.

Conversely, this is how Sen Jim DeMint (R-SC) can talk about how unwed pregnant public school teachers should be fired without a word from the pro-life movement. Either they don't realize that this policy will lead to more abortion (legal or otherwise) or they don't care.

I once reminded a pro-lifer that eight Republicans (and one pro-life Democrat) wouldn't overturn Roe in 1992 in a lawsuit against the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania. The response was that the Democrats would have been worse because their party platform is pro-choice and the Republicans' is pro-life. I mentioned that since Roe v. Wade, 4 out of 6 Republican appointed justices have supported Roe.* He went back to the platforms. I tried to convince the man that he had been suckered by the GOP and he went right back to the party platforms...

...four legs good, two legs bad.

*Note: This was before Roberts or Meirs was picked - not that we know either of their positions on the issue.

by wayward 2005-10-03 03:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Keep compiling!

So funny that NOW cronyism is a bad thing. This gives me hope for breking that 38% approval barrier.

by Village Jenius 2005-10-03 10:26AM | 0 recs

permalink

miers has more support w/ the right than we think

yea, i already posted this on dkos, but it's freakin me out.

i came across this on another blog and checked it myself ... does this prove Miers is a stealth candidate??

go to http://www.whois.net and do a "whois" search for the owner of http://www.justicemiers.com. looks like the rightwing group Progress for America already bought that domain FOUR DAYS AGO. conservatives may be more on board with this choice than we think... and notice how there's no justicegonzalez.com purchased yet??

by jessev 2005-10-03 10:59AM | 0 recs

permalink

PfA,

like Miers, has close ties to the Reep establishment. I have no doubt in my mind that they got a discreet heads-up as to what to prepare for.

by catastrophile 2005-10-03 11:09AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: PfA,

but in not registering other web sites and preparing for other potential judges, it shows that pfa/establishment has total faith in her ability to get thru the nomination (i.e. reid's support), and to do their bidding once on the supreme court.

it also makes the right wing bloggers' howling about how she's not conservative enough ring a little false...

btw this is a good read: http://www.worldmagblog.com/blog/archives/018816.html

by jessev 2005-10-03 11:15AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: PfA, ... and others

These groups and the guys that lead them have no choice but to back Bush. They have invested millions in him, and expect millions more to flow back to them as a result.

Just look at Pat Robertson as a great example. He gets his charity listed on FEMA's site, right below the Red Cross. A good chunk of that charities money flows right into his broadcasting operations. Do you think Pat is going to let one Supreme Court Candidate get between him and some cash?

Look at it another way, if the Supreme Court was solidly stocked with anti-abortion conservatives how with these guys hustle unsuspecting righwing voters for cash?

by dpANDREWS 2005-10-03 11:41AM | 0 recs

permalink

Considering that Reid

basically voiced his support for her within an hour of the announcement, I get the distinct feeling that the administration took the Gang of 14's "advice" to heart and actually consulted with Dems before announcing the decision. She'll slide right through is my best guess.

As I argue here, the selection of Myers is consistent with the administration's practice of appointing partisan operatives, rather than conservative ideologues. It's part of their campaign to leverage their short-term dominance into a long-term Reep advantage, like everything else they've done since occupying the White House.

by catastrophile 2005-10-03 12:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

Alternate theory

I suspect they didn't register justicegonzalez.com because his name is spelled Gonzales.

Progress for America registered justicegonzales.com on June 20.

by Crazy Vaclav 2005-10-03 12:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Alternate theory

haha got so worked up about on this "confirm them on meirs" thread, i didn't check spelling ;-)

by jessev 2005-10-03 01:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

This is why we must win

We brought up the word 'cronyism' and now the righties are using it. The thing that worries me is Miers is said to have described Bush as 'the most brilliant man' she has ever met. That statement should disqualify her!

by Marie Smith 2005-10-03 12:31PM | 0 recs

permalink

More - from Powerline

From Powerline Blog:
http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011861.php

Title: A Disappointment
"Bush chose a nominee who makes little sense on either substantive or political grounds: a second or third tier candidate whose choice will be, I think, slight political minus for the President because of her perceived lack of qualifications. I really don't get it.

PAUL concurs: This nominee is a two-fer -- she would not have been selected but for her gender, and she would not have been selected but for her status as a Bush crony. So instead of a 50-year old conservative experienced jurist we get a 60-year old with no judicial experience who may or may not be conservative.

I was hoping that, because this is Bush's second term, he would thumb his nose at the diversity-mongers and appoint the best candidate. He thumbed his nose all right, but at conservatives.

by fladem 2005-10-03 01:00PM | 0 recs

permalink

She gave $1000 to Al Gore???

http://redstate.org/story/2005/10/3/82655/5147

Increadible.

The right is going to have a fit.

by fladem 2005-10-03 01:02PM | 0 recs

permalink

Did I read that...

They want the GOP to filibuster the candidate? Even though NO ONE should filibuster a court candidate according to the GOP. My god, I swear, they either get the rich or the stupid (usually a bit of both) and try to make sense. What fucks with me more is that many people listen.

by yitbos96bb 2005-10-03 02:33PM | 0 recs