More Problems For Miers And The White House
Harriet Miers, the pitbull in size six shoes that the president nominated to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor, seems to have more problems that are being dropped on her. Today, the Wall Street Journal has called for her withdrawal, The New York Sun has reported a senior GOP senator that appealed to the White House directly to withdraw the nomination, and John Fund reveals some interesting details surrounding Miers and the Texas State Lottery. (HT: Captain Ed)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005644.php
http://www.nysun.com/article/21881
The Supreme Court nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers faced new and urgent troubles yesterday, with speculation mounting throughout the day that at least one conservative Republican senator had made an unsuccessful attempt at getting the White House to withdraw Ms. Miers's name altogether. ...
The complaints have become serious enough that at least one conservative senator is said to have asked White House officials yesterday to withdraw the nominee's name because of a growing lack of enthusiasm for Ms. Miers among Republicans in the Senate.
"I don't know exactly what was asked, but displeasure was expressed," a source familiar with the White House strategy on judicial nominees said. "The White House responded that it would do no such thing."
The White House is acting like a spoiled child. This is so liberal-like. They want Miers. They want her so badly and so blindly that they're not paying attention to the people in their own party--both constituents in the states, and those elected officials--and it could prove to be disastrous. Let me make this perfectly, crystal-clear for the White House: If this fight continues it could hurt the party in 2006. We're not backing down. Those opposed to Miers have serious questions regarding her, especially in regard to her judicial philosophy, but now things are starting to pop up that could damage the nominee and her reputation before she even reaches the hearings.
Now, John Fund dug up a specter from the past. Specifically, from the 2004 election. That specter is Ben Barnes. Barnes was the guy who helped CBS peddle the phony story regarding Pres. Bush's TANG service; service that was granted to the president so he could avoid the draft. This urban legend was debunked rather quickly by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs fame, and it forever tarnished Dan Rather's reputation. John Fund did some digging, and found a few nuggets about the Texas State Lottery Commission--a commission that Miers worked on.Barnes was a lobbyist for GTECH, the company that furnishes lottery machines.
When Miers took over she fired Lawrence Littwin, then executive director, who sued for wrongful termination. The lawsuit brought up some interesting tidbits. Namely, Branes' salary of three millions dollars, and his "golden parachute" of 23 million dollars. Littwin contended that Barnes was kept around the Texas Lottery Commission because it was the only way to keep Barnes quiet about Pres. Bush's TANG service.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007431
The Littwin controversy has spawned feverish conspiracy theories, many stemming from a 1997 anonymous note sent to then-U.S. Attorney Dan Mills. The note, excerpts from which were published in the weekly Dallas Observer this week, claimed that "Bashur was sent to talk to Barnes who agreed never to confirm the story" about the Texas Air National Guard and that "the Governor talked to the Chair of the Lottery [Ms. Miers] two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTECH keep the contract without a bid." Mr. Bashur said the note stirred up a lot of controversy back then but was "nonsense" and has never been substantiated. But that note may be making a comeback now that Democrats are exploring Ms. Miers's career before she went to the Bush White House.
Mr. Barnes, however, is urging Democratic senators not to take their questioning there. In 1997, the Providence Journal-Bulletin reported that after the conviction of GTECH national sales director David Smith, "in a sentencing memo that was posted briefly on the Internet, a federal prosecutor accused Smith of engineering kickback schemes in four states, including Texas, where he allegedly received $508,945 in illegal payments from former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes." The prosecutor's office later apologized for making the memo public but never retracted it.
Barnes is urging the Democrats to stay away from this because the information dug up could prove to be very embarrassing for Texas Democrats. Littwin's a nut who claims that the GTECH contract through Barnes was secured to buy Barnes' silence regarding the president's service during Vietnam. Last week, the Houston Chronicle called the White House for a confirmation on what happened with the firing. The White House's reply?
"Harriet Miers has never commented and will not now on what was a personnel matter."
It's not personal. It was business. She was in charge of the Texas Lottery Commission, and Littwin was fired. I fail to see how "personal" the matter would be when you fire it's executive director. Littwin was paid $300,000 by GTECH to end his whining, and he had to sign a confidentiality agreement. The Senate has admitted that they've considered bringing him to Washington, but haven't settled on it yet. If subpoenaed, Littwin would be released from that agreement that he signed.
If Democrats seek to subpoena Mr. Littwin, they will put Republicans in a fix. GOP senators can use their committee majority to block any subpoena but would come under withering fire over accusations they were aiding a coverup of Ms. Miers's days at the Lottery Commission. If Republicans go along with a subpoena, the hearings become a circus.
You mean this isn't enough of a circus already? We still have one ring left to fill. This nomination was a circus from the word go, and whereas I'm reluctant to use this word, nepotism seems to have been the driving force behind her nomination, not her supposed, as-yet-unspoken-of qualifications. As Sabrina pointed out accurately yesterday, the "qualifications" the administration keeps pointing to is great as a resume, but those qualifications make her a good lawyer, not a judge. She also cited the mistake Miers made in her questionnaire regarding the Equal Protection Clause, which doesn't bode well for her knowledge regarding the Constitution.
Despite all of these minefields and doubts about her qualifications, some Washington observers still believe Ms. Miers will be confirmed. "There are only two ways that she loses," says Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard. "One is if some GOP Senators go see Karl Rove, and then President Bush, and say she's just too much weight to carry. The other is if safe Democratic senators embarrass her by asking tough questions that stump her."
Unfortunately, I'm forced to agree. She will likely be confirmed, and Barnes is right. Those are the only two ways she could lose this fight. Thge Democrats are going to need help, though, when it comes nailing her with tough questions. And for those out there supporting her, I don't want to hear calls of dirty pool, or underhanded questioning. If this woman is to sit on the Supreme Court, I want to hear how she'll handle some of the tough questions regarding the Constitution. If she can't grasp the idea, then she doesn't go to the high court.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051021/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_campaign_windfall
Reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission show that two payments of $70,000 were made to Miers' Locke, Purnell, Rain and Harrell firm in Dallas within a month of each other during the 1998 campaign. Another $16,000 in payments were made between March and December 1999.
The 1998 totals dwarfed the $7,000 Bush paid Miers' firm during his first run for governor in 1994, and are extremely large for campaign legal work in Texas, an expert said.
"I'm baffled," said Randall B. Wood, a partner in the Austin firm of Ray, Wood and Bonilla, and former director of Common Cause of Texas. "I've never seen that kind of money spent on a campaign lawyer. It's unprecedented."
I'm pretty baffled myself. I'm baffled on what was running through the president's head when he made this nomination. Further, I'm baffled by the idiots in the administration that didn't look for these potholes prior to signing off on Miers being the right pick. I seriously contend that had he chosen a different nominee, the fight would have been in the Senate; not out here in red-state country. I doubt Brown, Owen, or Luttig had garbage in their closet like Miers does, and White House excuses about what they can and can't release--although they might be correct--isn't going to solve the contention about Miers. And the more that's released, the more this pick looks bad, and the harder it is for the Loyalists to contiue supporting her. The president does, indeed, make his own decisions, and at times he's a stubborn as a mule about them, but each misstep makes her look more and more inappropriate as a choice.
And now, onto the big article. I'm putting up the Wall Street Journal's editorial today on Miers, in it's entirety because it is available on the 'Net through registration only. For those that are registered, the link's below. For those that aren't just go ahead and read on.(All emphasis below is mine.)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007433
Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear--even well before her Senate hearings--that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.
Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation. Instead, he picked a woman who was his personal and White House counsel, and who was unknown to nearly everyone outside the White House and his Texas circle.
After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don't know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution. What we have learned is that the White House has presented her to the country, and thrown her into the buzz saw that is the U.S. Senate, without either proper preparation or vetting. The result has been a political melee that is hurting not just Ms. Miers, who deserves better. It is also damaging the White House and its prospects for a successful second term.
Instead of a fight over judicial philosophy, we're having a fight over one woman's credentials and background. Instead of debating the Kelo decision's evisceration of private property rights, we are destined to learn everything we never wanted to know about the Texas Lottery Commission.
Instead of dividing Red State Democrats from Senate liberals, the nomination is dividing Republicans. Pat Robertson is threatening retribution not against moderate Democrats but against GOP conservatives who dare to oppose Ms. Miers. Chuck Schumer couldn't have written a better script.
Regarding Ms. Miers's qualifications, we aren't among those who think an Ivy League pedigree or judgeship is a prerequisite for a Supreme Court seat. But the process of getting to know Ms. Miers has been the opposite of reassuring. Her courtesy calls on Senators have gone so poorly that the White House may stop them altogether.
And on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee took the extraordinary step of asking her for what amounts to "do-over" on a standard questionnaire about her judicial philosophy. The impression has been created, fairly or not, that Ms. Miers is simply not able to discuss the Constitutional controversies that have animated American political debate for two generations.
We sympathize with Ms. Miers, who is an accomplished woman with many admirable qualities. The questionnaire fiasco is as much the fault of the White House, which is supposed to have several lawyers review these things. And more than one of our own lawyer friends have told us that even they would have a difficult time cramming for Senate hearings in four short weeks.
But this is another way of saying that the mistake here was that of the President and his advisers, who badly misjudged the political environment into which they have thrown their nominee. In earlier and less polarized times, someone without broad Constitutional experience might have avoided this trouble. But after decades of Republican anger over judicial activism, and 20 years of disappointing GOP Court selections, a nominee who was a blank slate was bound to get pounded. Mr. Bush has set her up to be hit by a withering political crossfire.
Senate Republicans now find themselves caught between their loyalty to the President and their entirely legitimate concerns about Ms. Miers's philosophy and qualifications. For their part, Democrats have so far largely been content to watch their opposition squirm and shout. But they will certainly play the opportunists, jumping on any opening on ethics or ideology to defeat her and embarrass the President. (I'd like to add here that the president, should he be embarrassed by the Miers fiasco he has no one to blame but himself. He chose her.)
The liberal base may even demand it, given that one of the White House's private selling points to religious conservatives has been that she is both an evangelical and is personally opposed to abortion rights. (Hint: She'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.) These assurances, if that's what they were, may turn out to have been doubly counterproductive, given that they also undercut Republican claims to believe in process- rather than results-oriented jurisprudence.
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.
This is an absolutely brilliant piece by the Journal editors. They hit every nail on the head in the arguments for and against Miers. But what they brought up was sound, reasoned logic against her, and pointed out that this nomination could very well blow up in the president's face. She's already stirred up the conservative base to the point where we're just about ready to draw the battle lines, and re-fight the Civil War; brother against brother, friend against friend. We never wanted this in the Miers nomination. We have sat and waited for three weeks for something from the White House that just knocks our socks off. Now, some people have been swayed to the Loyalist side. Some have been swayed to the Rebel Alliance. Others, like us, the Trench Dwelling Dogfaces, are still sitting here...waiting and watching.
The president does have, under the Constitution, the power to appoint people to federal positions. Among those officers are judges to the federal bench. We have argued that is his prerogative on numerous occasions. We have argued that his nominees deserve fair hearings, and their appropriate up-or-down vote. We, at the Asylum, still believe in this. But the president also has the duty to appoint people who at least meet the qualifications of the post they're nominated to. It is obvious now, more than ever, that Miers doesn't meet those. In addition to the news today that is posted above, this shows that there are skeletons in her closet that may be brought up in the hearings; those skeletons could prove to be most embarrassing for the White House and for Miers.
The PR guys in the White House already told the president the nomination wasn't flying too well, and they immediately moved to reinvent her. When this happens, you know there are problems then, and there will be future ones on the horizon. Time is running out for the White House to try a third reinvention of this nominee. I'm left scratching my head as to how much longer will the White House hold out hope she'll win us over in her hearings. I'll give her her fair hearing, but I'm not expecting much to come out of it.
Publius II
Harriet Miers, the pitbull in size six shoes that the president nominated to succeed Sandra Day O’Connor, seems to have more problems that are being dropped on her. Today, the Wall Street Journal has called for her withdrawal, The New York Sun has reported a senior GOP senator that appealed to the White House directly to withdraw the nomination, and John Fund reveals some interesting details surrounding Miers and the Texas State Lottery. (HT: Captain Ed)
http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005644.php
http://www.nysun.com/article/21881
The Supreme Court nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers faced new and urgent troubles yesterday, with speculation mounting throughout the day that at least one conservative Republican senator had made an unsuccessful attempt at getting the White House to withdraw Ms. Miers's name altogether. ...
The complaints have become serious enough that at least one conservative senator is said to have asked White House officials yesterday to withdraw the nominee's name because of a growing lack of enthusiasm for Ms. Miers among Republicans in the Senate.
"I don't know exactly what was asked, but displeasure was expressed," a source familiar with the White House strategy on judicial nominees said. "The White House responded that it would do no such thing."
The White House is acting like a spoiled child. This is so liberal-like. They want Miers. They want her so badly and so blindly that they're not paying attention to the people in their own party--both constituents in the states, and those elected officials--and it could prove to be disastrous. Let me make this perfectly, crystal-clear for the White House: If this fight continues it could hurt the party in 2006. We're not backing down. Those opposed to Miers have serious questions regarding her, especially in regard to her judicial philosophy, but now things are starting to pop up that could damage the nominee and her reputation before she even reaches the hearings.
Now, John Fund dug up a specter from the past. Specifically, from the 2004 election. That specter is Ben Barnes. Barnes was the guy who helped CBS peddle the phony story regarding Pres. Bush's TANG service; service that was granted to the president so he could avoid the draft. This urban legend was debunked rather quickly by Charles Johnson of Little Green Footballs fame, and it forever tarnished Dan Rather's reputation. John Fund did some digging, and found a few nuggets about the Texas State Lottery Commission--a commission that Miers worked on.Barnes was a lobbyist for GTECH, the company that furnishes lottery machines.
When Miers took over she fired Lawrence Littwin, then executive director, who sued for wrongful termination. The lawsuit brought up some interesting tidbits. Namely, Branes' salary of three millions dollars, and his "golden parachute" of 23 million dollars. Littwin contended that Barnes was kept around the Texas Lottery Commission because it was the only way to keep Barnes quiet about Pres. Bush's TANG service.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007431
The Littwin controversy has spawned feverish conspiracy theories, many stemming from a 1997 anonymous note sent to then-U.S. Attorney Dan Mills. The note, excerpts from which were published in the weekly Dallas Observer this week, claimed that "Bashur was sent to talk to Barnes who agreed never to confirm the story" about the Texas Air National Guard and that "the Governor talked to the Chair of the Lottery [Ms. Miers] two days later and she then agreed to support letting GTECH keep the contract without a bid." Mr. Bashur said the note stirred up a lot of controversy back then but was "nonsense" and has never been substantiated. But that note may be making a comeback now that Democrats are exploring Ms. Miers's career before she went to the Bush White House.
Mr. Barnes, however, is urging Democratic senators not to take their questioning there. In 1997, the Providence Journal-Bulletin reported that after the conviction of GTECH national sales director David Smith, "in a sentencing memo that was posted briefly on the Internet, a federal prosecutor accused Smith of engineering kickback schemes in four states, including Texas, where he allegedly received $508,945 in illegal payments from former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes." The prosecutor's office later apologized for making the memo public but never retracted it.
Barnes is urging the Democrats to stay away from this because the information dug up could prove to be very embarrassing for Texas Democrats. Littwin's a nut who claims that the GTECH contract through Barnes was secured to buy Barnes' silence regarding the president's service during Vietnam. Last week, the Houston Chronicle called the White House for a confirmation on what happened with the firing. The White House's reply?
"Harriet Miers has never commented and will not now on what was a personnel matter."
It's not personal. It was business. She was in charge of the Texas Lottery Commission, and Littwin was fired. I fail to see how "personal" the matter would be when you fire it's executive director. Littwin was paid $300,000 by GTECH to end his whining, and he had to sign a confidentiality agreement. The Senate has admitted that they've considered bringing him to Washington, but haven't settled on it yet. If subpoenaed, Littwin would be released from that agreement that he signed.
If Democrats seek to subpoena Mr. Littwin, they will put Republicans in a fix. GOP senators can use their committee majority to block any subpoena but would come under withering fire over accusations they were aiding a coverup of Ms. Miers's days at the Lottery Commission. If Republicans go along with a subpoena, the hearings become a circus.
You mean this isn't enough of a circus already? We still have one ring left to fill. This nomination was a circus from the word go, and whereas I'm reluctant to use this word, nepotism seems to have been the driving force behind her nomination, not her supposed, as-yet-unspoken-of qualifications. As Sabrina pointed out accurately yesterday, the "qualifications" the administration keeps pointing to is great as a resume, but those qualifications make her a good lawyer, not a judge. She also cited the mistake Miers made in her questionnaire regarding the Equal Protection Clause, which doesn't bode well for her knowledge regarding the Constitution.
Despite all of these minefields and doubts about her qualifications, some Washington observers still believe Ms. Miers will be confirmed. "There are only two ways that she loses," says Fred Barnes of The Weekly Standard. "One is if some GOP Senators go see Karl Rove, and then President Bush, and say she's just too much weight to carry. The other is if safe Democratic senators embarrass her by asking tough questions that stump her."
Unfortunately, I'm forced to agree. She will likely be confirmed, and Barnes is right. Those are the only two ways she could lose this fight. Thge Democrats are going to need help, though, when it comes nailing her with tough questions. And for those out there supporting her, I don't want to hear calls of dirty pool, or underhanded questioning. If this woman is to sit on the Supreme Court, I want to hear how she'll handle some of the tough questions regarding the Constitution. If she can't grasp the idea, then she doesn't go to the high court.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051021/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_campaign_windfall
Reports filed with the Texas Ethics Commission show that two payments of $70,000 were made to Miers' Locke, Purnell, Rain and Harrell firm in Dallas within a month of each other during the 1998 campaign. Another $16,000 in payments were made between March and December 1999.
The 1998 totals dwarfed the $7,000 Bush paid Miers' firm during his first run for governor in 1994, and are extremely large for campaign legal work in Texas, an expert said.
"I'm baffled," said Randall B. Wood, a partner in the Austin firm of Ray, Wood and Bonilla, and former director of Common Cause of Texas. "I've never seen that kind of money spent on a campaign lawyer. It's unprecedented."
I'm pretty baffled myself. I'm baffled on what was running through the president's head when he made this nomination. Further, I'm baffled by the idiots in the administration that didn't look for these potholes prior to signing off on Miers being the right pick. I seriously contend that had he chosen a different nominee, the fight would have been in the Senate; not out here in red-state country. I doubt Brown, Owen, or Luttig had garbage in their closet like Miers does, and White House excuses about what they can and can't release--although they might be correct--isn't going to solve the contention about Miers. And the more that's released, the more this pick looks bad, and the harder it is for the Loyalists to contiue supporting her. The president does, indeed, make his own decisions, and at times he's a stubborn as a mule about them, but each misstep makes her look more and more inappropriate as a choice.
And now, onto the big article. I'm putting up the Wall Street Journal's editorial today on Miers, in it's entirety because it is available on the 'Net through registration only. For those that are registered, the link's below. For those that aren't just go ahead and read on.(All emphasis below is mine.)
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007433
Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear--even well before her Senate hearings--that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.
Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation. Instead, he picked a woman who was his personal and White House counsel, and who was unknown to nearly everyone outside the White House and his Texas circle.
After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don't know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution. What we have learned is that the White House has presented her to the country, and thrown her into the buzz saw that is the U.S. Senate, without either proper preparation or vetting. The result has been a political melee that is hurting not just Ms. Miers, who deserves better. It is also damaging the White House and its prospects for a successful second term.
Instead of a fight over judicial philosophy, we're having a fight over one woman's credentials and background. Instead of debating the Kelo decision's evisceration of private property rights, we are destined to learn everything we never wanted to know about the Texas Lottery Commission.
Instead of dividing Red State Democrats from Senate liberals, the nomination is dividing Republicans. Pat Robertson is threatening retribution not against moderate Democrats but against GOP conservatives who dare to oppose Ms. Miers. Chuck Schumer couldn't have written a better script.
Regarding Ms. Miers's qualifications, we aren't among those who think an Ivy League pedigree or judgeship is a prerequisite for a Supreme Court seat. But the process of getting to know Ms. Miers has been the opposite of reassuring. Her courtesy calls on Senators have gone so poorly that the White House may stop them altogether.
And on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee took the extraordinary step of asking her for what amounts to "do-over" on a standard questionnaire about her judicial philosophy. The impression has been created, fairly or not, that Ms. Miers is simply not able to discuss the Constitutional controversies that have animated American political debate for two generations.
We sympathize with Ms. Miers, who is an accomplished woman with many admirable qualities. The questionnaire fiasco is as much the fault of the White House, which is supposed to have several lawyers review these things. And more than one of our own lawyer friends have told us that even they would have a difficult time cramming for Senate hearings in four short weeks.
But this is another way of saying that the mistake here was that of the President and his advisers, who badly misjudged the political environment into which they have thrown their nominee. In earlier and less polarized times, someone without broad Constitutional experience might have avoided this trouble. But after decades of Republican anger over judicial activism, and 20 years of disappointing GOP Court selections, a nominee who was a blank slate was bound to get pounded. Mr. Bush has set her up to be hit by a withering political crossfire.
Senate Republicans now find themselves caught between their loyalty to the President and their entirely legitimate concerns about Ms. Miers's philosophy and qualifications. For their part, Democrats have so far largely been content to watch their opposition squirm and shout. But they will certainly play the opportunists, jumping on any opening on ethics or ideology to defeat her and embarrass the President. (I'd like to add here that the president, should he be embarrassed by the Miers fiasco he has no one to blame but himself. He chose her.)
The liberal base may even demand it, given that one of the White House's private selling points to religious conservatives has been that she is both an evangelical and is personally opposed to abortion rights. (Hint: She'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.) These assurances, if that's what they were, may turn out to have been doubly counterproductive, given that they also undercut Republican claims to believe in process- rather than results-oriented jurisprudence.
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.
This is an absolutely brilliant piece by the Journal editors. They hit every nail on the head in the arguments for and against Miers. But what they brought up was sound, reasoned logic against her, and pointed out that this nomination could very well blow up in the president's face. She's already stirred up the conservative base to the point where we're just about ready to draw the battle lines, and re-fight the Civil War; brother against brother, friend against friend. We never wanted this in the Miers nomination. We have sat and waited for three weeks for something from the White House that just knocks our socks off. Now, some people have been swayed to the Loyalist side. Some have been swayed to the Rebel Alliance. Others, like us, the Trench Dwelling Dogfaces, are still sitting here...waiting and watching.
The president does have, under the Constitution, the power to appoint people to federal positions. Among those officers are judges to the federal bench. We have argued that is his prerogative on numerous occasions. We have argued that his nominees deserve fair hearings, and their appropriate up-or-down vote. We, at the Asylum, still believe in this. But the president also has the duty to appoint people who at least meet the qualifications of the post they're nominated to. It is obvious now, more than ever, that Miers doesn't meet those. In addition to the news today that is posted above, this shows that there are skeletons in her closet that may be brought up in the hearings; those skeletons could prove to be most embarrassing for the White House and for Miers.
The PR guys in the White House already told the president the nomination wasn't flying too well, and they immediately moved to reinvent her. When this happens, you know there are problems then, and there will be future ones on the horizon. Time is running out for the White House to try a third reinvention of this nominee. I'm left scratching my head as to how much longer will the White House hold out hope she'll win us over in her hearings. I'll give her her fair hearing, but I'm not expecting much to come out of it.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 10:31 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home