Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Harriet Miers: More Than Just a Bush Crony?

    Crony is an ugly word, and we abjure it this morning, even though the definition of "cronyism" ("favoritism shown to close friends, esp. in political appointments to office") might conceivably be applicable to the current situation. Nor is it fair to call Ms. Miers a cipher, as the definition, "a person or thing of no importance or value; nonentity," doesn't apply to a highly intelligent and hard-working person who has managed to rise to the highest level of the president's innermost circle of obscure and deeply mysterious loyalists. Indeed we should all give Ms. Miers the full benefit of the doubt, and assume that as Supreme Court justice she will turn out to be Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and Oliver Wendell Holmes rolled into one.

    That said, the confirmation hearings should prove to be fascinating, since the typical custom of examining a nominee's judicial record will not be a viable option. Even looking through the clips, we note that Miers is reticent to the point of shy, virtually unquotable, someone who is comfortable being so low-profile as to be essentially invisible. Apparently she is very detail conscious. We learn this from Legal Times, which recently ran a profile of Miers that was hardly flattering (and borderline mean):

    "She has also earned a reputation as exacting, detail-oriented, and meticulous -- to a fault, her critics say. 'She can't separate the forest from the trees,' says one former White House staffer...

    ..."One former White House official familiar with both the counsel's office and Miers is more blunt. 'She failed in Card's office for two reasons,' the official says. 'First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.'

    [On the Scotusblog this morning, Tom Goldstein offers an interesting analysis of the coming confirmation battle: "The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience. Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won't want to, or won't be able to (because her jobs haven't called on her to study the issues), answer. I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it's simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O'Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006."]

By Joel Achenbach  |  October 3, 2005; 11:25 AM ET
 
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Bush Nominates Totally Random Person for Court
Next: Adventures in Auto Repair

Comments

"Indeed we should all give Ms. Miers the full benefit of the doubt, and assume that as Supreme Court justice she will turn out to be Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and Oliver Wendell Holmes rolled into one." Sarcasm becomes you. OK one of those guys invented the hot dog and the other was an English detective, but what the heck is Brandeis' claim to fame?

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 11:57 AM | Report abuse

So she's being Peter-principled to the Supremes?

Posted by: hominid | October 3, 2005 12:00 PM | Report abuse

Rewrite! REwrite! REWRITE!

Posted by: Loomis | October 3, 2005 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Crony. Who would have thunk it.

Posted by: Dolphin Michael | October 3, 2005 12:07 PM | Report abuse

Please advise cost of transport from Pardubice station to Hotel Zamecek on Friday 7 October, approx 7.00pm. I can telephone on arrival in Pardubice

Also we wish to go to the racecourse on Saturday and Sunday, please advise on prices.

Many Thanks

Posted by: kkk | October 3, 2005 12:12 PM | Report abuse

I think the only nomination Joel would have been pleased with would have been Maureen Dowd.

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 12:14 PM | Report abuse

If you have to ask the cost of transportation from Pardubice station to the Hotel Zamecek, you can't afford it.

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 12:16 PM | Report abuse

Maureen is definitely Supreme in my book.
By the way, it appears the conservatives are not happy today and I would love it if some would actually post comments HERE on this blog.

Posted by: Achenbach | October 3, 2005 12:22 PM | Report abuse

Unfortunately, I expect all the attention to this nomination will be directed to the wrong issues. The biggest problem I see right off the bat - she's not merely a Bush crony - she is, from her bio, a corporate cog, a member of the rich clique that has mostly taken over the country. This bunch has replaced economic fairness with welfare for the wealthy, and environmental and health protections with "anything goes" policies for corporations. One can look for her to support the squashing of individual human and workers' rights in favor of corporate control, pollution, and exploitation.

Posted by: Liberty G | October 3, 2005 12:26 PM | Report abuse

OK NOW I'm gagging, Maureen?? She might do ok backing up Diana Ross, but other than that......

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 12:28 PM | Report abuse

Mr. G.
I think what she is expected to do is interpert the constitution.

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Joel needs spell check on this thing

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 12:32 PM | Report abuse

"...we should all give Ms. Miers the full benefit of the doubt"? Please. Where on earth does it say this, let alone the Constitution. She deserves respect, but she should be outed as who she is, as "Liberty G" mentions above: a tool of the corporation, not relating to the people. I hope dirt is dug up on her so it makes it that much easier to send her packing.

Posted by: CY | October 3, 2005 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Sure its fair to call her a crony. That doesn't mean she is unqualified, just that she is a Bush favorite son (daughter) and that is why she is being nominated. Crony is an ugly word but it reflects on Bush, not Miers.

Its hard to believe the only person good enough for this job just happened to be his personal lawyer, who has no judicial experience? I guess Bush is hoping to bring the Supreme Court up to the functional level of FEMA.

Posted by: Sully | October 3, 2005 12:41 PM | Report abuse

I really don't know a lot about Ms. Miers, but if past experience with Bush's close advisers is any indication, then having another intimate advisor is out of the question. What is wrong with having someone with actual experience in the job at hand? We have enough of Bush's "friends and contributors" in jobs they don't belong!! Just look at what the outright lies of this President have cost us. Too many of our young and bright have died for him. He cannot be trusted with this decision.

Posted by: Paul w. | October 3, 2005 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Many Thanks

I will ring you on arrival at the train station!

steve

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2005 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Terry Gross of NPR's program, "Fresh Air," conducted just this morning a 20-minute interview/segment about the Mier nomination to the Supreme Court with University of Chicago law professor Cass Sunstein. Sunstein's book, "Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts are Wrong for America," came out in August 2005.

I hope NPR will provide a link to this audio interview shortly. Sunstein's main premise is that Mier's experience is as a corporate lawyer and that the Senate Judiciary Committee should grill her extensively on her knowledge of constitutional law, including privacy issues. Sunstein states that Mier's academic/paper trail is exceedingly thin (about as thin as a mashed snake) so it will be hard to learn anything of her through judicial opinions.

Was Bush crazy in making this Mier nomination? Maybe he's been eatin' loco weed in his Wheaties?

Posted by: Linda Loomis | October 3, 2005 12:44 PM | Report abuse

One of the greatest political letters of all time is from George Washington to his nephew Bushrod Washington. Dated 27 July 1789, three months after GW was sworn in as President, the letter is in response to a no longer extant job application. Here is the significant portion of GW's response:

"You cannot doubt my wishes to see you appointed to any office of honor or emolument in the new government, to the duties of which you are competent-- but however deserving you may be of the one you have suggested, your standing at the bar would not justify my nomination of you as attorney to the Federal district Court in preference of some of the oldest, and most esteemed General Court Lawyers in your own State, who are desirous of this appointment. My political conduct in nominations, even if I was uninfluenced by principle, must be exceedingly circumspect and proof against just criticism, for the eyes of Argus are upon me, and no slip will pass unnoticed that can be improved into a supposed partiality for friends or relations."

As a postscript, Bushrod Washington at the age of thirty-six was nominated by John Adams to the Supreme Court in 1798, where he served for thirty years until his death in 1829.

Posted by: Historian | October 3, 2005 12:45 PM | Report abuse

Let's see, so far we have a workaholic, loyalist, obsessed with detail to the point of perfectionism individual, who is single, which in itself suggests a isolation from the 'real' things that make, for most of us, the substance of life. A person supremely detached from mainstream society, just who you want on the Court.

Posted by: rd | October 3, 2005 12:48 PM | Report abuse

rd wrote: "who is single, which in itself suggests a isolation from the 'real' things that make, for most of us, the substance of life."

I note that every account I have seen so far says she "is single." Maybe I'm just a hypertechnical lawyer, but this is not the same as "has never been married." Out of curiosity, is this what they mean?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2005 1:08 PM | Report abuse

While I understand that it is common practice for a president to promote from within, I am of the opinion that this nomination, however worthy, smacks of "nepotism". She is a member of the Bush "family" and "loyal as a dog" to him. How can she uphold the Laws of the Land and Constitution, and be there for the Justice of all Citizens of the USA when she clearly has a priority to aid and protect George W. Bush?

This seat needs to be filled by someone that is not "sleeping" with the current head of power in this country!

Where I able to vote for this seat, she would not get mine.

Sincerely,
DM

Posted by: D. Mitchell | October 3, 2005 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Has anyone considered that this may simply be a sacrificial offering, designed to stir up the opposition, so the the next (real) choice will seem more acceptable?

Posted by: bill z | October 3, 2005 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I was in private practice in Dallas in the 80s and am also a woman law graduate from SMU, about 3-4 years after Ms. Miers. I know of her but don't know her personally at all. First, she was a trail blazer for women attorneys, opening doors for women to the major Dallas firms before it was easy. (Contemporaneously, there was a lawsuit by 4-5 SMU women law grads against several firms that helped this process in the late 70s that helped this, but I don't know if Ms. Miers was one of the plaintiffs).
Second, she earned her way to leadership in the Dallas Bar & State Bar, serving for years in the various committee posts where lawyers earns their stripes. She was never a token.
Third, I don't think she is an idealogue but just a very good corporate attorney, very civil in her discourse, and effective. I have never heard a disparaging remark about her in the Dallas legal community.
Fourth, one of the other WP articles today points out that Ms. Mier donated $1000 to Al Gore's presidential race in 1988. Some background here. At that time one of her firm's clients, Jess Hay (owner of Lomas Financial) was a big Deomocratic party backer of Gore's (sort of the conservative wing), and he held a fundraising dinner for Gore. My firm also represented one of Mr. Hay's companies, so I know that all of us attorneys were strongly encouraged to buy a table or at least several seats at this event. That kind of gentle arm twisting or mutual back scratching has been a tradition in Texas for a long time. (Side note, this $ issue is a little different in form from Mr. Delay's issues because we individual lawyers wrote our own checks to the campaign, reported them for federal campaign purposes, etc., so the Texas statute on corporate donations never came into play . . .)

I'm not a Bush fan, but of all the people on his staff or administration, (or any of the other women judges who have been mentioned), she is by far a stronger & more balanced choice, in my opinion.
And perhaps she has had to be detail oriented an work such long hours because she is surrounded by other members of the staff who have too little regard for details and spend too much time on vacation & campaigning!

Posted by: Texas legal observer | October 3, 2005 1:15 PM | Report abuse

Looking at these comments, why would anyone want to be nominated for this position?

I practice law in Dallas. Ms. Miers, although not well known elsewhere, has practiced with great distinction here.

As to whether she'd be a "sacrificial lamb.." why on earth would anyone want to fulfill that role?

Posted by: Paul | October 3, 2005 1:18 PM | Report abuse

"Has anyone considered that this may simply be a sacrificial offering, designed to stir up the opposition, so the the next (real) choice will seem more acceptable"

Yeesh--I like to think even W wouldn't be vile enough serve up an old and trusted crony as fresh meat for the ravenous mob.

Posted by: Lmm825 | October 3, 2005 1:18 PM | Report abuse

The text posted by Historian leads me to believe that, well, to paraphrase Lloyd Bensen, Bush is no George Washington.

Big surprise here!

Anyone still doubt that Bush doesn't care what the common person thinks?

Posted by: RCP | October 3, 2005 1:19 PM | Report abuse

Here are the opening sentences of George Washington's letter to William Paterson, governor of New Jersey, on 20 February 1793, when nominating him to a Supreme Court vacancy:

"The resignation of Mr Johnson, one of the Associate Judges, having occasioned a vacancy on the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, it is incumbent upon me to bring forward a suitable Character to fill that place. In performing this part of my duty, I think it necessary to select a person who is not only professionally qualified to discharge that important trust, but who is known to the public and whose conduct meets their approbation."

To be honest, few nominations by any president in the subsequent two centuries meet that standard. One possible exception would be Warren Harding's nomination of former president Taft as Chief Justice in 1921.

Posted by: Historian | October 3, 2005 1:22 PM | Report abuse

It is surprising how many americans know nothing about the Bush family background. Log on to the following two sites and make a comparison to Prescott Bush, President Bush's grandfather and pres. Bush himself.
1- www.independent-media.tv/item.cfm?media-id=8920&fcategory-disc+The%20Bush%Crime%20Family
2- www.tarpley.net/bush2.htm
Good reading.

Posted by: partisan | October 3, 2005 1:25 PM | Report abuse

I think Bil Z may be on to something.

Posted by: DSM | October 3, 2005 1:27 PM | Report abuse

One of the things that we know about Bush is that he is not someone who considers ideas from a variety of sources or a wide range of perspectives. He surrounds himself with like-minded people, each of whom, at least at the lower levels, are afraid of being the messenger with bad news (according to some reports); those in the higher echelons are neo-cons who have ridden into power on the coat-tails of a popular politician and who can effect their agendas from behind the scenes, as long as they don't provide any difficult choices. This president is an anti-intellectual who has made great political strides bashing the "intellectual elite" of the academies and the courts. It is no wonder that he nominates Roberts, whose paper trail is thin, and then Miers, whose paper trail is non-existent. These are nominations that cut against the intellectual grain, and they are offered as "refreshing alternatives" to the headache of having to actually consider the significance of their past decisions.

Posted by: finley m | October 3, 2005 1:45 PM | Report abuse

...BUSH CANNOT BE TRUSTED PERIOD

Posted by: DOMINGO | October 3, 2005 1:49 PM | Report abuse

Normally any president picks cronies for many jobs, JFK picked his own brother. But when dealing with this criminal neo-fascist, arrogant Bush Administration anyone who has spent time in the White House should be shunned for high office. At least Roberts was in a different administration -- Reagan's. Arguably an environment not above mediocrity but not as bad as Bush's. But then perhaps I am too kind. Meese and Weimberg were scum. Reagan was asleep. Nancy ran his brain.

The only answer is to get rid of Republicans. Period.

Posted by: norman | October 3, 2005 1:49 PM | Report abuse

the talking point for today is: crony, Use this word as often as possible.
Work it into conversations.
Bring up Bush and crony in the same sentence at least 10 times today.Cite examples of cronies.
At the end of the day what do we have?We will finally be called what we truly are:idiots.

Posted by: tom | October 3, 2005 1:54 PM | Report abuse

what do we know about her social life? yes, it's irrelevant. no, it's not.

dish what you can, friends. has she ever worked late nights with George W. Bush, for example? what would be wrong with that?

Posted by: b'dana | October 3, 2005 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Well nice to see that Joel has a following with such a diverse point of view.

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 1:57 PM | Report abuse

Norman,
I am a proud Democrat, hut your suggestion that getting rid of Republicans is the answer is shallow and simplistic (although perhaps you are being facetious).

Bush is a bad president, many of his appointees are ill-suited and/or hubristic, and many Republicans in Congress (Delay) are dirty. But these issues could just as easily surface if we elected an idiot Democrat to the White House. Power can go to the heads of either party. That's why we have checks and balances, only they don't seem to be working as well with a one-party Congress and WH.

Posted by: TA | October 3, 2005 2:00 PM | Report abuse

I can imagine a guy like our President putting the moves on her. Truly, don't you think that this may be the basis for the relationship between the two? Stranger things have happened in Austin or the White House.

Posted by: Phellated | October 3, 2005 2:04 PM | Report abuse

To those of you "inside the beltway"; I get the feeling that, according to you, this President can't do anything correct. From out here in "flyover country", aka-the real world, GET A LIFE!!

Posted by: gf | October 3, 2005 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Dear gf,

You got it! But it's becoming widely believed way outside the Bway.

As a test: what is the leadership trait that you most admire the most about our President with respect to Iraq and hurricane response?

On the truth-o-meter (1=bald liar), how would you rate him?

We look forward to your response.

Posted by: Phellated | October 3, 2005 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Hey Joel---Love your use of "abjure." Who remembers Druscilla, in Fauklkner, riding into battle proclaiming, "I abjure verbena forever..."

Posted by: M .A. | October 3, 2005 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Paula Abjure? No?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2005 2:09 PM | Report abuse

What bothers me most about Miers is her reported inability to "see the forest for the trees" or to make a decision. These are two qualities that are IMPERATIVE for a judge or SC justice. I mean, can you picture her getting ready to vote on a case and abstaining? Or just voting with Scalia because he's conservative? What if it's a monumental question on habeas corpus and she spends her time commenting to the attorney about irrelevant formalities?

I agree with Joel. I bet she won't be confirmed.

Posted by: TA | October 3, 2005 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Bush chooses his personal attorney, but give him the benefit of the doubt ?

Just like with WMD, Fema/Homeland/New Orleans and Brownie, tax cuts and budget deficits, companies without penalties for relocating offshore, the social security revamp, partisan townhall meetings, Valerie Plame, record vacation time, Tom Delay the salt of the earth, Bolton as "diplomat", US involvement in oil for food, his heroic service record, inability to articulate his thoughts, lack of reading interest, and proven track record of all around wise decisions.

Sure ! Clearly he knows what he's doing.

(cough)

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 2:15 PM | Report abuse

gf,

if you can't respond to above question personally, I stand ready to act with your power of attorney.

if you don't respond, gf!

Posted by: Blockhead | October 3, 2005 2:16 PM | Report abuse

I think that the term is bald faced liar. Boy Joel you really bring out the passion in folks with your humorous witty postings.

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 2:17 PM | Report abuse

tom:
The idiots AND the cronies are in the white house. Get it right. If you think Bush has made a smart decision please let me know why? What is her constitutional law background (hint, its zero). What is her judicial background (hint, its zero). What is her experience with actions brought to the supreme court (hint, its zero).

To be qualified you need SOME CREDENTIALS! Her only true credential is that she is a lawyer. Her only other credentials arethat she works for and is a friend of Bush. That makes "crony" a perfectably applicable term. Oh yea, and Bush an idiot in nominating her.

Posted by: Sully | October 3, 2005 2:19 PM | Report abuse

Has it occured to any of you to stop and think about what you are saying? Of course not. Otherwise you would not say such foolish things. Liberals are a bunch of idiots. I dare any of you to actually do some research on the Democrats in congress and see if they are corrupt or not. Just because JFK and Pres. Clinton slept with every skirt that crossed their paths, doesn't mean that everyone else does. Idiots

Posted by: Herb | October 3, 2005 2:20 PM | Report abuse

I originally tried to post this at 12:50, but the connection to typepad tanked (imagine!):

C'mon, where are the 'boodlers saying this is another Rove Triple Lindy?

She's a Stealth Woman With No Past, so the Dems and Conservative 'pubs can't really nail her on anything other than A: She's a Bush Man, and B: She has no experience as a judge.

So if the Dems and Far Right shoot down her nomination for their various reasons, W can nominate whoever he wants next time ("Paging Mr. Gonzales...), and get far less resistance.

Either way W wins, just the way Karl wrote it.

TA, you had me at "hubristic".
I still think you're buying me a drink, but we're going to have to wait a bit...

bc

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 2:20 PM | Report abuse

LB,

if it is bald-faced liar, does that mean faces normally are hairy? women's faces, too? or should we refer to the pate, i.e., the top of the head.

or, should we just forget about this claptrap usage issue and call him the abject honking liar he is. time to take the gloves off. give him a little Cheney tough love or a Karl Rove statistical hug.

Posted by: Blockhead | October 3, 2005 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Hmm. 2:15:13 isn't me.

bc

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 2:22 PM | Report abuse

Herb,

Your smooth logic and facile expression overwhelm.

Stand up and be counted: what leadership trait of GW Bush impresses you the most--be specific, now.

And, if he were the right age, would you want him to marry your daughter, or, in this modern age, would you want to marry him?

Posted by: Breakwind | October 3, 2005 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I saw the bearded lady at the state fair and she could not tell a lie.

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 2:26 PM | Report abuse

finley m

You've posed a very interesting perspective. Mr. Bush's insularity, however, is a source of much of his success as president. Here, he's appointed someone whom he knows and trusts will be like him. Why go through a vicious fight with Congress over a Supremes appointment when you can pick a friend with "no history?" The administration and Republican party are spared a battle while in an already-weakened state. And, GWB gets his Scalia/Thomas protege.

Posted by: CowTown | October 3, 2005 2:27 PM | Report abuse

Of course another Scalia would have been good, but a Bork would have been perfect.
But, she may be instrumental in getting rid of the silliness of the very liberal.
Can you imagine another socialist justice taking sides with the very scary such as Ted and Hillary and the idiot Biden.

Posted by: vinnie gee | October 3, 2005 2:30 PM | Report abuse

vinnie gee,

didn't we last meet in a bathroom on the Senate side of the Capitol?

Posted by: Blockhead | October 3, 2005 2:31 PM | Report abuse

Me an my associates hadda lotta dough in Vegas on Judge Chertoff. Talk about gettin rip off!

Posted by: Tony Parmagiano | October 3, 2005 2:37 PM | Report abuse

yes [sheepishly]

Posted by: vinnie gee | October 3, 2005 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Why are we all assuming that Miers is going to be a "neo-fascist Republican"? Does the name David Souter mean anything? He was appointed by Bush Sr and wound up being a closet Socialist.

Why don't we sit back and watch the hearings to learn about whether she has the credentials (which should be the only judging factor) to be a Supreme Court judge.

Posted by: apg | October 3, 2005 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Does anybody know what is Ms. Miers' Shrubname?

I'm guessing "Miersy Doats".

Posted by: Apikoros | October 3, 2005 2:43 PM | Report abuse

apg,

One man's "closet socialist" is another man's crypto-Communist. Ideology doesn't help here.

If it's just credentials, as you say, she would be about the weakest on the court, save
Thomas.

Posted by: Blockhead | October 3, 2005 2:45 PM | Report abuse

I can't wait for the Enquirer. Who can dish on Miers personal life?

Posted by: gorbydoll | October 3, 2005 2:47 PM | Report abuse

apg
A lot of the people who post here could hardly be labeled pragmatic or objective.

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 2:47 PM | Report abuse

Although Harriet Miers' personal view of abortion are not explicitly known, Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the conservative Federalist Society and considered to be a White House adviser on Supreme Court nominations, today issued a memo highlighting her efforts to overturn a pro-choice resolution adopted by the American Bar Association's House of Delegates in 1992, as part of the reason that "conservatives should be very happy with this selection."

"As a leader of the bar, (then president of the Texas State Bar Association) Harriet Miers was a fearless and very strong proponent of conservative legal views. She led a[n] (unsuccessful) campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions," Leo said in the memo on the Miers nomination.

The ABA's position endorsed the basic outlines of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade ruling that women may choose to have an abortion without state interference prior to the point at which a fetus could live outside the womb, and after that point if the woman's life or health were threatened by the pregnancy.

Other have characterized her arguments as more procedural than fundamental, a distinction that whose unfamiliar with ABA politics might not fully appreciate -- she and others conservative ABA leaders actually specifically objected, some more fundamentally than procedurally, to the ABA's taking a public position on such a controversial issue, which had prompted resignations and threats of resignation from the ABA. Their chosen tactic of opposition was seeking a referendum on the issue by the entire ABA membership. The ABA House of Delegates, its policy-making body, overwhelmingly rejected the Texas lawyers' group's 1993 proposal to put the issue to a referendum by mail of the ABA's then-roster of about 360,000 members.

Leonard Leo, born in 1965, is director of the Lawyers Division and executive vice president of the Federalist Society, and head of Catholic Outreach at the Republican National Committee. He is also a member of the Four Horsemen. He wrote the book, "Presidential Leadership" with James Taranto. Leo is a graduate of Cornell University and Cornell Law School.

Posted by: Neil J. Lehto | October 3, 2005 2:48 PM | Report abuse

What is troubling is that constitutional issues are at the core of appeals to the Supreme Court, matters of law. She is a corporate attorney with no real constitutional track record. I am sure she is good at coporate mergers, aquisitions and other related circumstances. However, the Supreme Court deals with fundamental issues of trade, privacy, police powers, taxes and other topics of constitutional law that shape the course of this nation. She has no experience on the bench on such diverse areas which would prepare her for this role. She was for sure was a trail blazer for women in her time in Texas. However, this does not make her a good choice for the Court. She is not a seasoned or experienced in any area of the law which would truly serve her as a Justice. What is more clear is Bush chose her because of her location to Pennsylvania Avenue, an office in the White House. He also appears to have "nominated himself" via Ms. Miers. Poorly considered, this nomination will fall in upon itself when she comes under the bright lights of the Senate Judiciary Committee. What a waste of everyone's time.

Posted by: DS | October 3, 2005 2:51 PM | Report abuse

bc,
I didn't think that 2:15 post sounded like you.

And I still think I'm going to win our bet, especially if Time gives its "Person of the Year" award posthumously....

...Pope John Paul II.

Posted by: TA | October 3, 2005 2:51 PM | Report abuse

Oh, and bc, is hubristic a word? I might have made it up, but it sounded nice.

Posted by: TA | October 3, 2005 2:53 PM | Report abuse

gf refuses to respond. his assertion is thus deemed null and void.

Posted by: phellated | October 3, 2005 2:55 PM | Report abuse

I have personally seen an attorney apointed as a judge who only tried 3 cases as a lawyer.

Don't get me started on the lawyers I have known.

Most judges I have known are fine upstanding people but,
there are some who make a convicted serial killer look like nice.

After more than 25 years I have seen: a crackhead, drunks, the arrogant, and the asinine,a bully, cronies of powerful politicians and governors elected and appointed.

I am against Ms. Miers.

Posted by: Fifth Amendment | October 3, 2005 2:57 PM | Report abuse


Is there any indication that she has read (or is aware of) the contstitution?

Posted by: pete | October 3, 2005 2:59 PM | Report abuse

You may all be intelligent individuals with viable answers, but would it kill you to use proper grammar?

Posted by: tl | October 3, 2005 3:00 PM | Report abuse

Hubristic is indeed a word, TA. A very good one, too.

Posted by: pj | October 3, 2005 3:02 PM | Report abuse

TA, my Webster's says "hubristic" is indeed a word and that your usage is correct, though I think we owe Tom fan the final word.

It didn't matter to me whether it was or wasn't, ma'am. It had the desired effect either way.

I just have one guy, you have the field, I stand ready to pay up should I be wrong.

bc

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 3:02 PM | Report abuse

No kidding. What was I expecting, objectivity in Washington? You'd think I'd have lived here long enough. :)

Posted by: apg | October 3, 2005 3:03 PM | Report abuse

No need to defer to me on this one; the matter would appear to be resolved. (You know what? I'll be a devil and say it *has* been resolved.)

Ah, 'boodlers reading dictionaries. My work here is done.

Posted by: Tom fan | October 3, 2005 3:06 PM | Report abuse

why defer?

Posted by: Blockhead | October 3, 2005 3:09 PM | Report abuse

Tom fan, I even washed my hands after reading it!

bc

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 3:09 PM | Report abuse

The White House noted some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

So what are all of you bleeding heart liberals whinning about anyway?

Posted by: LB | October 3, 2005 3:12 PM | Report abuse

You mean you actually touched it with your hands? You didn't use tongs or tweezers?!?!?

Would that you had washed your hands *before* reading it, not after (although I'm sure your hands are very clean; I'm just saying . . .)

Posted by: Tom fan | October 3, 2005 3:12 PM | Report abuse

Reid must have fallen out of bed.

His simplistic support is unjustified.

The Dems are about to do their usual--self destruct.

Posted by: Blockhead | October 3, 2005 3:14 PM | Report abuse

Dictionary.com lists "hubristic" as the adjectival form of "hubris", so you're apparently on safe ground there.

Dictionary.com also defines "vacuous" as:

-Devoid of matter; empty.
-Lacking intelligence; stupid.
-Devoid of substance or meaning; inane: a vacuous comment.
-Lacking serious purpose or occupation; idle.

...which would seem to be a verisimilitudinous definition of this group in its knee-jerk Democrat/Liberal mode.

Posted by: Raoul Duke | October 3, 2005 3:16 PM | Report abuse

in other words, Raoul Duke, a real, limp achendanger.

Posted by: Blockhead | October 3, 2005 3:20 PM | Report abuse

Tom fan, I didn't mention where I was reading it...

bc

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 3:21 PM | Report abuse

How kind of Senator Reid to speak well of the benefits of the addition of a practicing attorney to the Supreme Court.

How hypocritical of Senator Reid to not apply that same judgement to the last Supreme Court nominee with recent experience as a practicing attorney (that would be John Roberts, for those of you not paying attention).

Posted by: Raoul Duke | October 3, 2005 3:21 PM | Report abuse

APG - Since when are hearings the only judging factor? If we went on credentials alone, we'd have plenty of qualified people to fill the position - even some actual judges . When choosing a doctor, I'd like to know more than he/she simply graduated from med school and "having the credentials" as you put it - the same goes for a Supreme Court Justice!!

Posted by: tp | October 3, 2005 3:24 PM | Report abuse

You mean that dictionary's been flagged, bc?

[I can't believe I'm still conscious after what you've told me.]

Posted by: Tom fan | October 3, 2005 3:35 PM | Report abuse

Wonkette cites a charming anecdote about Miers from a _Legal Times_ profile*:

- Not even the president can think of much interesting to say about her: In 1996, at an Anti-Defamation League Jurisprudence Award ceremony, Bush introduced Miers as a "pit bull in Size 6 shoes," a tag line that has persisted through the years, in part because colorful anecdotes or descriptions about Miers are notoriously difficult to find.

*It really bugs me that I can't use html here, as I would like to add italics, underlines, and other formatting niceties.

Posted by: Pixel | October 3, 2005 3:36 PM | Report abuse

I find this entire thread sadly lacking in irrelevant digressions. I'm not complaining, exactly, just making note of it.

BTW, I missed both "West Wing" and Desparate Housewives" last night; can somebody give me a 25-words-or-less plot summary?

My Supremem Court choice? Oliver Babish, no question.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | October 3, 2005 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Isn't it a bit unfair to judge someone about whom you know pretty much nothing? It's impossible to classify all liberals or all conservatives because no one fits neatly into the boxes. Underneath the facade you present to the world, you have doubts about your own party--admit it.
lol to LB on the Oliver Wendell Holmes as Sherlock Holmes business--unless of course you're uneducated enough to have actually gotten them confused.

Posted by: EN | October 3, 2005 3:49 PM | Report abuse

I remember reading somewhere that the vast majority of cases the SC hears are actually corporate cases. Interstate trade/Napster/anti-trust types of things that usually aren't "newsworthy." So she actually may be more qualified than people think.

Posted by: jw | October 3, 2005 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, Tom fan, I'll send smelling salts over to try to keep you conscious.

I'm not sure what you mean by flagged (am I missing a Seinfeld reference here?), but I will say that page 633-634 was sacrificed a couple of weeks back due to a paper shortage. I had to pick one, and "Republican Party" was on 634, so...

Thanks, folks, don't forget to tip your waiters and waitresses.

bc

PS. Before any 'pubs get upset, please note my Ted Kennedy joke on an Achenblog earlier today. I'm an Equal Opportunity chucklehead.

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I wonder if Ms. Miers is home right now memorizing the Constitution....

Normally every nominee has some area of the law in which the person is considered to be among the most knowledgable. It doesn't appear Miers can make that claim.

This is frightening to both conservatives and liberals. Would she get up to speed in the court by listening to Roberts or Ginsburg? Kennedy? Thomas?

Miers is to outspoken as Bork was to modest.

It will be hard for any senator to knowingly proclaim she is an ideologue.

Posted by: Steve K | October 3, 2005 3:52 PM | Report abuse

West Wing: Santos is an animal in bed (as evidenced by a hotel bed broken by he and his wife in Cleveland); Josh is apparently inept, thus necessitating the addition of Janeane Garofalo to the campaign team (she wants to fight dirty- no relation to the item on Santos). Alan Alda continues to collect checks for appearing in 15 seconds' worth of each episode.

Posted by: Raoul Duke | October 3, 2005 3:53 PM | Report abuse

OK, we have a president who:

1. Was elected through questionable practices in the state where his brother is governor;

2. Has manipulated reports and ignored facts to initiate a war and occupation on foreign soil;

3. Consistently lies in the face of truth (e.g., his administration saying the insurgency is slowing down when the world can see it is not; "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job"; insisting that Iraq had "weapons of mass destruction" and that it was a breeding ground for terrorists [it is now!], just for a few); seems to think that Saying it Makes it True;

4. Awarded medals to the members of his own adminstration who had blundered the most (instead of firing them, which he should have done);

5. Consistently appoints cronies (there's that word!) to positions they are not qualified for; (and let Dick Cheney choose himself for VP running mate and Harriet Miers choose herself as SC justice nominee);

6. Does not care what people think.

7. He even sends our National Guard troops overseas where they cannot serve as the state militias they were meant to be.

Does this sound like presidential material? I don't want to sound conspiritorial, but it sounds to me like the way a dictatorship operates.

Where is the outrage?

Posted by: TBG | October 3, 2005 3:56 PM | Report abuse

So we are deadlocked. He said/she said.

The hearings will be riveting because of Reid's uncharacteristic upfront compliment. He's usually kicking people in the shins. But the other Dems will now have to compensate for his limpness and give her some close questioning that will expose her lack of substance in the right places, as well as the back alleys of her sordid affair with Michael Jackson.

Posted by: Phellated | October 3, 2005 3:58 PM | Report abuse

I respectfully withdraw the last clause of the last sentence above.

Posted by: Phellated | October 3, 2005 3:59 PM | Report abuse

Isn't she a bit old for Michael Jackson?

Posted by: pj | October 3, 2005 4:02 PM | Report abuse

also, I respectfully change my name to: Bob

Posted by: phellated | October 3, 2005 4:02 PM | Report abuse

It's a secondary preference, pj. something to do with gray haired lawyers from TX.

Posted by: Bob | October 3, 2005 4:03 PM | Report abuse

"Where is the outrage?"

On the road with Cindy Sheehan.

Posted by: Nani | October 3, 2005 4:04 PM | Report abuse

Yes, Nani, but Cindy Sheehan only addresses one issue. What about the total package?

Posted by: TBG | October 3, 2005 4:05 PM | Report abuse

TBG: There is no outrage because the country is getting exactly what it asked for and wanted. GWB didn't take the White House by force, a majority of the poeple WHO VOTED (and yes, the last time it was a majority) voted for him. An we already knew about all the WMD lies at that point. We are getting excatly what we asked for and deserve. (Well some of us didn't ask for it, but as a nation, we did.)

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2005 4:05 PM | Report abuse

We were in the streets of Washington last weekend, TBG. Please join us.

Posted by: Bob | October 3, 2005 4:05 PM | Report abuse

EN: you wrote:
"Isn't it a bit unfair to judge someone about whom you know pretty much nothing?"

Well, I for one think its an outrage that the president would pick someone "about whom you know pretty much nothing". This is the type of government you get when you elect people who do not believe in government.

And as far as Harry Reid's praise? Well, he's the kind of democratic senator you get from a red state.

Posted by: Sully | October 3, 2005 4:06 PM | Report abuse

SCC: if you substitute "toilet paper" for "paper" in my 3:51:34 PM comment, it might read funnier.

Or not.

Bah.

bc

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 4:07 PM | Report abuse

Writer of 4:05:56

Is your underlying rationale so weak that even use of a handle on this blog would have embarassed you? You may be getting what you deserve in a President, but the current majority of citizens want someone new. The midterm elections will be a figurative Waterloo for Republicans.

We need: John McCaine....

Posted by: Bob | October 3, 2005 4:08 PM | Report abuse

Curmudgeon,

Desperate Housewives:

Bree: Asks the mother in law to stop butting in when someone asks how Bree is doing. She doesn't stop, so Bree very politely slaps her in a restaurant. Mother in law gets back at her by telling insurance company that Bree has a boyfriend (the pharmacist stopped by), which could potentially get her in trouble with the law.

Edie is sleeping with Susan's ex-husband. Susan and Mike are "keeping it casual" because she doesn't want his son around her and her daughter. Mike isn't happy with that situation.

Lynette: Her husband wasn't doing any housework or anything, so she'd have to do it after work and she was working overtime. So she let a mouse loose in the house to make him think he wasn't cleaning enough. It worked.

Gabrielle: Got her husband beat up because she talked his cellmate's girlfriend out of taking $7000 from them for a boob job.

And the new mother and son on the street, Betty and Matthew, you learn about her abusive ex-husband and you learn that whoever is being kept in the basement is there because it is "his punishment."

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2005 4:09 PM | Report abuse

Several spots of bad grammar in my previous post, but I don't much care to fix them all. So I'll just SCC the entire entry.

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2005 4:10 PM | Report abuse

McCaine .. err McCain???
He's more radical than Bush, but of course smarter, easily smarter.

Posted by: Sully | October 3, 2005 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Never married? Why?

Posted by: jg | October 3, 2005 4:11 PM | Report abuse

I guess what I'm looking for is that Statesman (or Woman) who comes to the rescue.

The person of power and influence who tells the country to wake up; who points out (like Linda Loomis put so nicely) that it's ridiculous that a huge number of Americans voted against their personal and economic wellbeing just because their candidate claims to share their religious beliefs.

Posted by: TBG | October 3, 2005 4:11 PM | Report abuse

Sara,

Just for fun, how would you work Miers into a character in Desperate Housewives, even though she doesn't engage in normal relations as far as we know, so far?

Posted by: Bob | October 3, 2005 4:12 PM | Report abuse

bc:
It is indeed a Seinfeld reference.

George took a book into the bathroom at Brentano's. The security guard saw him, so he was forced to purchase the (rather expensive) book. He later tried to return the book for a refund, but when the book was scanned, the sales associate said it had been "flagged" as having been in the bathroom, so he wasn't eligible for a refund. He tried to sell the book to Elaine, but Jerry told her it had been flagged, so George was stuck with the book. And he doesn't even read.

This was the same episode in which Jerry saw Uncle Leo shoplifting and pointed it out to the Brentano's security guard. It turned out that Uncle Leo already had a criminal record because he had once committed a "crime of passion."

["Jerry. Hello."]

[Aren't you glad you asked me about "flagged"?]

[Again, I apologize for the frivolity. As I said before, I will be gone for the next week. The Achenblog will be a Tom-fan-free zone.]

Posted by: Tom fan | October 3, 2005 4:14 PM | Report abuse

thank goodness for small favors

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2005 4:15 PM | Report abuse

Well, if Miers doesn't really engage in normal social functions and relations (though I'm sure she does, she's probably just quiet about her private life) she would actually make a good candidate for the new lady on the street that tries to keep all prying eyes and ears away from her house (because she has a prisoner in the basement), so she never lets anyone into her house and she never spends time with anyone but her son.

Not that I'm saying Miers would hold a prisoner in her basement, but for strictly fictional purposes, I'd say a character with some of her characteristics already exists in Desperate Housewives, and that's the new lady--Betty Apple-something.

I just took the "Which Desperate Housewife are you?" quiz. I'm apparently Gabrielle. I don't know if I trust that analysis, but if the quiz says so...

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2005 4:18 PM | Report abuse

Writer of 4:08:39.

Does using a quite possibly false name make your posts anymore authoritative? Since no "handle" I might use would possibley give you any further information as to who I am, or the credibility or wort of my comments, why should it matter?

If you like, you can call me Al.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2005 4:21 PM | Report abuse

Tom fan, you are also Achen fan, right? Who else are you? Are you Dreamer too? (Just so I'll know who all I'm missing next week.)
Sara, I'm making up a list of good old films for your consideration, since you said you wished you were born when films had, you know, real plots and stuff.

Posted by: Nani | October 3, 2005 4:23 PM | Report abuse

Thank you, Nani! That's so nice of you. I do need to buff up my movie diversity, so I'll definitely be using that list.

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2005 4:25 PM | Report abuse

That's right, Nani -- I'm Achenfan, Tom fan, and Dreamer. And I'll miss *you* next week, too -- and all the other 'boodlers as well.

Posted by: Achen- and Tom fan | October 3, 2005 4:25 PM | Report abuse

Tom fan, that "flagged" reference tickled a "Seinfeld" neuron, I just couldn't get to the memory. Thanks for the refresher.

bc

Posted by: bc | October 3, 2005 4:26 PM | Report abuse

Al,

Thanks, I needed that. It's all in good fun.

We're probably a few doors from each other in Gucci Gulf. I "know" you, regardless of what you call yourself, buddy.

All the best,

Posted by: Jim | October 3, 2005 4:26 PM | Report abuse

SCC entry:
That's THIS week, not next week. (I'm heading off tomorrow.)

Posted by: Achen- and Tom fan | October 3, 2005 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Achen- and Tom fan.

Without betraying your secret identity and destination, reveal something about your trip that will make us envious.....please.

Posted by: Jim | October 3, 2005 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I know I'm about a hundred posts behind, but:

"...who is single, which in itself suggests a isolation from the 'real' things that make, for most of us, the substance of life."

I'm single, so I guess I should go kill myself now.

Or maybe it's possible to be a reasonably well-functioning, well-adjusted (dare I say actually happy?) adult who is also not married.

Marital status is not relevant. Not everyone gets hitched. And some of the happiest people I know met their spouses late in life. Here endeth the lesson.

Posted by: huh? | October 3, 2005 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I don't know that I would call McCain radical; I actually like the guy and think he has done a good job for our country. But what do I know?

Al,
Adding your handle to the kaboodle just lets us get to know who you are if you comment frequently. I think it helps police the blog in a positive way because you're more likely to be civil in your comments if required to name yourself (even though we know none of your specifics).

Tom fan,
I hope you will be back in time for Porching Hour next week!

Posted by: TA | October 3, 2005 4:29 PM | Report abuse

What is porching hour?

Posted by: Jim | October 3, 2005 4:31 PM | Report abuse

I'll definitely be back in time for the Porching Hour, TA. Wouldn't miss it for the world.

Posted by: Tom fan | October 3, 2005 4:31 PM | Report abuse

did you say you were going alone?

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2005 4:34 PM | Report abuse

huh?,

I agree wholeheartedly; singleness should not be an issue, and it's insulting that it is. It all goes back to the old-fashioned view that women are born to get married, and are not complete unless they do.

I am still single at 31, but being somewhat conformist, I don't plan to be for the rest of my life. I don't think there's anything wrong with making the decision not to marry or have children, but these are both learning experiences that would add depth to decisions a justice might make that affect our nation. For that reason, perhaps that is why people are making it an issue.

Posted by: TA | October 3, 2005 4:37 PM | Report abuse

well functioning and well adjusted...does that also mean no kids out of the wedlock? humans like animals are here to reproduce - those who don't missed their purpose in life

Posted by: jg | October 3, 2005 4:37 PM | Report abuse

TA, Doesn't your "policing" assume that your handle stays te same each post. If one had no proclivity to use a handle in the first place, why assume they would use one with any consistency?

Posted by: La | October 3, 2005 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Thanks for the update, Sara. Sorry to be obtuse, folks, but I was out sick the day you covered the abbreviation SCC. What's it mean? (Rookie boodlers gotta learn these things somehow.)

Posted by: Curmudgeon | October 3, 2005 4:41 PM | Report abuse

This is silly. If she's single, there's a reason. None of your beeswax. If she were transgender or gay, again, none of your beeswax. Hermaphraditic--you guessed it, none of your beeswax. Getting it on w GW Bush--ok, you got me, it is your business.

Once and for all: fuggeddaboutit

Posted by: Bellapudend | October 3, 2005 4:41 PM | Report abuse

La,

That's for sure. To have fun, use as many as you can.

Posted by: Anonymous | October 3, 2005 4:43 PM | Report abuse

"well functioning and well adjusted...does that also mean no kids out of the wedlock? humans like animals are here to reproduce - those who don't missed their purpose in life"

Well, someone's off of GLAAD's Christmas card list this year...

Posted by: apg | October 3, 2005 4:44 PM | Report abuse

To Huh?

I also agree that being single shouldn't be held against Harriet Miers. However, something I heard on NPR this AM hints as to the Why of it: (and I paraphrase...) She is known to rise at 4:30 AM and work until 10:00 at night.

I'm sorry, I can't think of anything at all I would want to do for that many hours straight; work, play, or otherwise!

Posted by: Pixel | October 3, 2005 4:45 PM | Report abuse

Pixel,

This must mean that she has time to fit a secret fantasy life in that looonnng workday. The White House has many nooks and crannies.

Posted by: Jim | October 3, 2005 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Curmudgeon,

SCC stands for the Self Castigation Club. We don't like to correct the grammar of fellow boodlers, so we correct our own. It started out with several of us correcting in different ways. I would always call myself scum when I made a mistake. Others would describe the grammatical cleansing ritual they were about to engage in. So the SCC was born so that there could be a self-correcting grammar standard for all boodlers.

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2005 4:52 PM | Report abuse

Feel free to join the SCC. Everyone is welcome.

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2005 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Re: "Isn't she a bit old for Michael Jackson?"

Isn't she also a bit FEMALE for Michael Jackson?

Or maybe...hmmmm...who WAS the mother of his last child, anyways?

Posted by: RAB | October 3, 2005 4:53 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps this is a victory for the moderates? Hey, anything that pisses of the ultra-conservatives and had-line leftists is fine by me.

Posted by: Chris | October 3, 2005 4:54 PM | Report abuse

With regard to that Seinfeld episode, George tries to donate the book to something like the Salvation Army; only the person behind the counter recognizes that the book has been flagged (she used to work at Brentano's) and won't take it. As a bonus, her name was Rebecca DeMornay.

Posted by: Raoul Duke | October 3, 2005 4:54 PM | Report abuse

Is Sara underlined the same person as Sara not underlined?

Posted by: Jim | October 3, 2005 4:56 PM | Report abuse

Sara underlined and Sara not underlined are the same person. I just sometimes remember to link myself and sometimes not. Sorry for any confusion.

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2005 4:57 PM | Report abuse


Someone explain this to me:


Brown Recluse Spiders
Shop on eBay and Save! Discount Brown Recluse Spiders
www.eBay.com

Who, in their right mind, would buy or sell brown recluse spiders on ebay? I did a search because I was curious as to whether anyone would really sell those, but all I found were brown recluse traps.

Posted by: Sara | October 3, 2005 5:01 PM | Report abuse

Jim, I dunno... I've spent the month of Sept. putting in some very long days because of the hurricanes and the only fantasy I have is the one of my upcoming 3-week vacation. All work and no play makes Pixel very growly, and not in a come-hither sort of way.

Posted by: Pixel | October 3, 2005 5:05 PM | Report abuse

Interesting comment by Bob Kaiser, resident wise man, today in his online chat, per the Bush vow to appoint justices similar to Thomas and Scalia: "There is no evidence I know of that would suggest that either Roberts or Miers is in any meaningful way like Thomas and Scalia."

Cheney, on Limbaugh's radio show, said, "She won't legislate from the federal bench, and the president has great confidence in her judicial philosophy." But you might well ask if a person can have a judicial philosophy having never been a judge. It's like me assuring people that they should have confidence in my astronaut philosophy.

Posted by: Achenbach | October 3, 2005 5:06 PM | Report abuse

National Review not happy:
"Being a Bush loyalist and friend is not a qualification for the Supreme Court. She may have been the best pick from within Bush's inner circle. It seems impossible to maintain that she was the best pick from any larger field."
http://www.nationalreview.com/editorial/editors200510031341.asp

Posted by: Achenbach | October 3, 2005 5:13 PM | Report abuse

Uh-oh. I killed the boodle again. I'm a serial boodle killer. SORRY.

Posted by: Achenbach | October 3, 2005 5:23 PM | Report abuse

Thanks again, Sara, re SCC.

And ditto way above re LOL on Oliver Wendell Holmes.

The brown recluse spiders things is some sort of semi-automatic eBay gizmo that unthinkingly plugs in some piece of data it has snooped on your screen. I once "Googled" the name of a friend of mine (let's say John Doe) and there was the *&^%$# eBay thing offering discount John Does and books by John Doe (and I couldn't resist following the link, on the chance my friend had written a book, etc., and was ticked off to discover the trap).

I dunno about this Miers spinsterhood thing some of you are complaining about. I've been married several decades and have multiple offspring, but there have been plenty of times when the thought of lifelong singletudiness has sounded pretty good. I think it's probably a pretty good idea that people who set policy (i.e. the pope), and clergymen who counsel people (i.e. priests) would greatly benefit by having some real world experience in matters they otherwise know nothing about, but I'm less sure that Supremes need to have changed diapers, cut the grass, argued unsuccessfuly with a spouse, eaten macaroni and cheese directly from a pan over the sink because the S/O's out of town and you do it because it feels so good to be an outlaw, slept in the wet spot, been through the Mars/Venus thing (or Mars/Mars thing, or Venus/Venus thing, not that there's anything wrong with that, pace Seinfeld), etc., etc.

Hey, there's the ol' whistle.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | October 3, 2005 5:24 PM | Report abuse

Interesting that you can both give it life and kill it....perhaps a meditation on the meaning of boodles is in order here.

Meanwhile, I think time served as a judge is not required in order to have a judicial philosophy. I, for instance, have a finely-honed theory on the utility of the sacrafice bunt, though I've never managed a professional (or amateur) baseball team...

Posted by: Raoul Duke | October 3, 2005 5:26 PM | Report abuse

But, Joel, I think any experienced lawyer could imagine what their approach would be if they became a judge. I don't think her lack of experience on the bench necessarily disqualifies her from SCOTUS, but there could be a lack of depth in constitutional issues. Thus, she could end up following other justices in areas where she has no expertise.

Posted by: CowTown | October 3, 2005 5:26 PM | Report abuse

I think CowTown's essentially correct. Heck, I'm not even a lawyer but I've taken Constitutional Law classes and I can formulate something of a judicial philosophy.

And thanks, Curmudgeon, for the lovely mental image of SC justices "sleeping in the wet spot."

Posted by: Raoul Duke | October 3, 2005 5:32 PM | Report abuse

Harriet Miers WILL, vote to overturn Roe V Wade. I don't want to sound like George Tenet when he stated that Iraq's possession of WMD was a "slam dunk" but I think the right-wingers can be assured that one of Miers' first rulings, along with that of John Roberts, will be to criminalize abortion with the very narrow exception wording to protect the life of the mother. That should be understood from the get-go. She fought hard to reverse an abortion-rights stand taken by the American Bar Association. That should be enough to get the blessings of the solid majority of evangelicals who claim their "moral values" support put Bush back in the White House for another four years.

Now, the fact that she is 60-years-old, single, never been married or had any kids may present problems for the likes of James Dobson of Focus on the Family but at this point, I doubt that Bush gives a crap anymore about pandering to the mostly religious extremist elements of the Republican Party -- people like Pat Robertson and Jerry Fallwell. He's throwing them a bone with Harriet Miers and he's satisfying the thinly-veiled affirmative action requirements by picking a woman to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's slot on the Supreme Court.

And to top it all off, Democrat Senator Harry Reid, who said that he "likes" Harriet Miers, is also anti-choice and pro-life, and his position will help take the heat off of Bush for choosing a political White House insider. If anything, the nuclear option once proposed by Bill Frist, should be off the table.

All the Democrats can do at this point is to scratch their heads and try and figure out what questions they can ask her during the Senate confirmation hearings. With no paper trail or past judicial rulings, Democrats will simply have to accept the wisdom prclaimed by Forest Gump who said "Life is like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

Posted by: Richard | October 3, 2005 5:38 PM | Report abuse

Joel, I don't think you killed the boodle - this time. It slows down as the East Coasters go home. I love this:
It's like me assuring people that they should have confidence in my astronaut philosophy.

I suppose Miers has thought about a judicial philosophy, being that she's a lawyer in high places. I certainly have none, unless being for the underdog is one. I'm afraid she will lean more toward the side of corporations and fat cats - but we won't know for awhile. I'm wondering if she will pipe up and ask questions if she makes it to the bench (Thomas never does; wonder if Roberts will pepper the lawyers with well-worded riddles). At least Roberts took the stripes off his robes - shows some sense.

Isn't Souter single? Not that there's anything wrong with that...

Can anyone tell me why Miers is spelled that way? Looks like someone was passing for Dutch (not that there's anything wrong with that!).

Posted by: Caged Rabbit | October 3, 2005 6:03 PM | Report abuse

There was a request earlier for Porching Hour details and I would supply them if I remembered them, but since I'm out of town all I noted was the date, Oct.11. bc, jw, mo, somebody mention the location and time again so you won't seem like the elitist snobs some suspect you to be...but rather the magnanimous and friendly folks that you obviously are.

Posted by: Out of Towner | October 3, 2005 6:17 PM | Report abuse

Whew, I thought for a moment there that this was going to be a totally serious boodle. Thankffully Tom Fan posted her vacation info. I was not sure that the boodle could handle a totally serious boodling.

Tom Fan et al, enjoy your time away.

Posted by: dr | October 3, 2005 6:45 PM | Report abuse

Posted on the "Lost in Translation" Kit:

Oct 11, 5:00 PM. McCormack & Schmick's on K st. I'm in.
Don't mind if I get a little head start on you folks...
bc

Posted by: bc | Sep 27, 2005 2:57:37 PM

Posted by: TBG | October 3, 2005 6:54 PM | Report abuse

Oops... I mean posted on the "Lost in Translation" Kaboodle. Although Joel is free to mention it in the next Kit if he wants to.

Posted by: TBG | October 3, 2005 6:54 PM | Report abuse

It's always amusing to read the whiny, tired old Fox News Network bromides that spew forth from the likes of Herb who refers to liberals as "idiots." In the meantime, people like Tom DeLay epitomize the entire of corruption problems in the Bush administration which the Republican Party has elevated to paragons of virtue.

Today, we learned of yet more charges against the caustic, criminal-minded Tom DeLay and money laundering.

"A Texas grand jury indicted Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering today, less than a week after another grand jury leveled a conspiracy charge that forced DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader."

Oh, those "idiot" Democrats again! But what do grand juries know anyway? Now, if the Bush mob can just stonewall all these criminal, moral and ethical lapses long enough until Bush's Star Chamber appointeees are firmly installed on the Supreme Court, their troubles will all melt away. And the Emperor will once again be viewed wearing his golden robes.

Posted by: Richard | October 3, 2005 6:56 PM | Report abuse

For some reason, I've been thinking about Jimmy Carter all day long. He really was a great President. Even with the gas "shortage" and the hostages.

Posted by: off topic | October 3, 2005 7:06 PM | Report abuse

Good questions to ponder:
What policies did Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers advocate for on the Dallas City Council?

What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission?

What cases did Miers take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for?

What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the "commerce clause" or equal protection

As White House councel Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening America's stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role?

Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush?

Achenbach, on the evening news, I heard Cheney's remark from the Rush Limbaugh radio program, "She won't legislate from the federal bench, and the president has great confidence in her judicial philosophy." Joel, like you, I had the very same reaction: "But you might well ask if a person can have a judicial philosophy having never been a judge."
I, for one, am eager to learn what Mier's "judicial philosophy" is.

So, after the first day in the public spotlight, it looks like it's a question of, "Harriet Whhoooooooooo?"

(And Robert Kaiser IS the Wise Man, isn't he ;-))

Posted by: Linda Loomis | October 3, 2005 7:27 PM | Report abuse

A few random thoughts after reading over this thread.

When liberals screech about how out of touch Bush is with the middle class, do they assume that THEY are in touch with the middle class?

The academic elitists aren't very bright. They don't even understand how they got that label. When the party representing your philosophy loses again and again and again, you have to think about changing. Instead, you simply proclaim that the masses are just ignorant. If the people were only as bright as we are....

Liberals will believe anything, and the media is happy to feed them manure. Take the "quotes" in this thread attributed to some unnamed person "close to the administration." That's only credible if you really want it to be. Recently I read an LA times news piece, not an editorial, that actually used George Soros as a source. No problem there, but he was described simply as a financier. This is a fanatacil idealogue tied to myriad anti-Bush campaigns, and that's not relevant when he's being quoted in an article about Bush?

And finally, the name calling. I hope it makes you feel better. I just hope you don't think it's helping you. Every assinine Bush bash, every mindless knee-jerk opposition to anything Bush does, drives the democratic party further into irrelevance. We're laughing at you. I know you think 06 is a lock, but I bet you thought that in 04 too. I know you did. The democrats were optimistic and the press was predicting that Republicans would gain 2 seats in the senate in the best case scenario. You might want to keep that in mind.

Posted by: mike | October 3, 2005 8:43 PM | Report abuse

The material below is from the blog of the American Constitution Society. The ACS blog also has links to the Volokh Conspiracy blog, which is posting a great deal of material about Miers. Eugene Volokh is a law professor at UCLA and an acquaintance of one of my acquaintances.

http://www.acsblog.org/

Balkinization has Jack Balkin's consideration of the motives behind going with a "stealth" candidate:

Presidents will turn to such candidates when they have to please many different constituencies in their party and when they face the prospect of a significant confirmation fight if they choose an ideological stalwart.

President Bush is often said to avoid the sorts of decisions his father made, but in this respect George Bush is taking a page from his father's playbook. Hoping to avoid the confirmation battle over Robert Bork, President George H.W. Bush chose David Souter, about whom little was known when he was first nominated.

Choosing a stealth candidate is a sign that the President wants to avoid a fight, either because he is in a relatively weak political position, because he fears that his supporters disagree among themselves, or because he would rather expend his energies and influence elsewhere. All three of these seem to be the case right now.

Posted by: Linda Loomis | October 3, 2005 9:15 PM | Report abuse

I'm rollin' in my grave: BEYOTCH!

Posted by: Oliver Wendell Jones | October 3, 2005 9:20 PM | Report abuse

News to all you left-wingers: Elections have consequenses. Mainstream America (majority of voters) want to have conservative president, conservative house, conservative senate and conservative supreme court. Extremists like Ted Kennedy will never be elected to national office (thank god).

Drink up your latte and get a life.

Posted by: peter | October 3, 2005 9:22 PM | Report abuse

"Mainstream America (majority of voters) want to have conservative president, conservative house, conservative senate and conservative supreme court." So when Bush won the election into office he had the majority vote? Now thats fuzzy math!

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 10:18 PM | Report abuse

mike:

You're laughing at the democrats who are going irrelevant because they bash Bush? Wait until a vote to outlaw abortion comes before the SC. Then wait and see how many Americans agree with the evangelicals.

You think liberals will believe anything!?! Let's see what the republicans believed from this administration:
-Tenet to Bush: "Its a slam dunk!"
-Bush: "Those WMD will turn up."
-Bush: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
Bush: "Our intelligence sources tell us that he [Saddam] has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production."
-Rove: "I had nothing to do with outing Plame."
-Libby: "I had nothing to do with outing Plame."
-Cheney: "We know Saddam has WMD and we know where they are."
-Rice: "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
-Bush: "You're doing a heck of a job Brownie."
-Delay: "I'm innnocent!"
-Wolfowitz: "Shinseki [saying] that several hundred thousand troops would be needed in postwar Iraq is wildly off the mark."
-Wolfowitz on the cost of the Iraq war: "If we costed each and every one [senario], the costs would range from $10 billion to $100 billion."
-Bush, on why he invaded Iraq: "Saddam should have let in the inspectors."
-Bush: "By the year 2042, the entire [social security] system would be exhausted and bankrupt."
-Rice before the 9/11 commission: "I believe the title was, 'Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States.'"

I could go on...
Now lets see what the republicans do believe that is actually the truth:
-Robert Novak reports: "Republican insiders in Washington fear that Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA) is in serious danger of losing his seat next year to his Democratic challenger, Pennsylvania State Treasurer Bob Casey, because of a poorly planned and ill-conceived campaign,".
-Joe Scarborough has told Republican friends mulling congressional bids to be wary: "2006 is probably going to be a lot like 1986, when there was a Democratic tide."
-From last week's Post: "Former representative Vin Weber (R-Minn.) said yesterday that he thinks DeLay and Frist are victims of "bum raps," but he nonetheless said that Republicans should be worried by the prospect that the issue of corruption will become a central theme in the upcoming campaigns.

Sure the democrats need to get it together but the Bush administration and the Congressional republican "leadership" have left the door wide open. Its up to them to cut through the expected republican web of lies and tell America how they can do better. I believe they will win because most people agree its hard to do worse. I for one remember a day when we were not at war, when we did not invade countries based on innuendo, when we had a budget SURPLUS, when we adjusted the budget to pay for emergencies and, by God, we even sent men to the moon. But those days were when the democrats were running things. Under republicans we have an enormous deficit and are indebted to China and Japan, the world including our allies hate us, N. Korea now has nuclear weapons, FEMA is worthless, our intelligence agencies are under a cloud of doubt, our National Guard and military is stretched thin, the republicans are making more pork than democrats ever did, and we can't get a shuttle off the ground leaving Russia as the only country able to reach the space station. Is it just me or should we as a country feel embarassed by this republican "leadership"?

Posted by: Sully | October 3, 2005 10:32 PM | Report abuse

thank god democrats are like Sully. It will be a long time until democrats rule again.

Maybe their foreign policy experts (Whoopi and Ben) have retired by then and national security advisor Sandy Berger is not stealing classified documents anymore.

Please continue:)

Posted by: peter | October 3, 2005 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Yes better, he did in 04. Clinton was the first democrat in the white house since carter in the 70's, and Republicans have made steady gains in both the house and senate for more than a decade. That's not fuzzy math.

The fact is, liberals can no longer run on a liberal platform. That's why there's so much Bush-bashing. Demonization and the race card is all liberals have anymore. Fool the blacks, howl about Bush, and hope the people don't notice what we really stand for. That's the left these days.

Democrats will still muster close to half the vote, but they won't do it by being democrats. If you don't believe me, just look at 04. Democrats offered up a fruitcake anti-military leftist and ran him as a war hero.

Posted by: mike | October 3, 2005 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Yawn....What, were saying something? I don't speak Bullshit.

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:00 PM | Report abuse

Most of your points fall away like the lefts rapidly melting ice caps for one simple reason... The clinton administration and many foreign intelligence agencies were saying the exact same things. But if you just keep screaming BUSH LIED....

I couldn't care less about what pundits or obscure congressmen are saying about the 06 elections. Like I said, they had a lot to say in 04 as well, and they were way off.

Spare me the katrina references. We both know that state and local officials were beyond incompetent and created a giant mess. I live in Tampa. Trust me, the federal government is not responsible for our disaster planning. It's not responsible for disaster planning in any city. The race baiting and politicization of a natural disaster was one of the most disgusting, pathetic, and desperate moves I've ever witnessed. Keep holding onto that as your big ace in the hole.

Posted by: mike | October 3, 2005 11:00 PM | Report abuse

My real concern the direction of the country is that greed is a christian value. And that starting wars in foreign countries is christian and patriotic.

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:05 PM | Report abuse

LOL... Typical liberal. You suggested Bush didn't win a majority. You're wrong. And you can't answer my claim that liberals can't win if they run as liberals. Yawn indeed. At least you realize that you're incapable of supporting your position with facts. Just keep screaming Bush lied, close your eyes really tight, click your ruby red slippers together three times, and wait for the wizard to grant you a brain.

Posted by: mike | October 3, 2005 11:10 PM | Report abuse

As far as Katrina goes. It was a disaster. I live in the Midwest and we are afflicted by tornadoes that are random and very distructive.
We knew that the hurricane was a powerful force to be reconed with days in advance and we should have some means to evacuate people before the storm.

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:12 PM | Report abuse

Ouch...so mean. At the first sign of any duress, you attack. How republican...

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:14 PM | Report abuse

Ouch...so mean. At the first sign of any duress, you attack. How republican...

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:14 PM | Report abuse

mike et. al.

Kerry IS a war hero.
Bush played in the NG stateside, most of the time, we think.

The Democrat's platform is a platform that believes the government should provide programs to meet the very basic necessities. Many of those have stood the test of time. What are Republican's for that has stood the test of time?

What do Republicans stand for today? Smaller government? A balanced budget? A stronger military? Getting rid of Medicare/Medicaid? Getting rid of Social Security? No. They stand for evangelical christian ideals. At some point the republicans will not be able to maintain their minority base by making the independent voters happy. Who is happy today? Oh yea, the very rich ... another small minority.

Face it, the times they are a changin'. No one believes or trusts the Bush administration anymore. I can't wait to hear next year how republicans say democrats are "tax and spend liberals". Oh yea, they've built a heap of credibility over the past five years.

Its the democrats to loose in 2006.

Posted by: Sully | October 3, 2005 11:15 PM | Report abuse

Gaaaaawwwddd.... Greed is a christian value? Explain that gem of wisdom. Keep in mind that in the real world Bush has expanded spending on everything from education to drug benefits to teaching africans to wear a frigging rubber. In the real world every American who pays taxes got a tax cut under Bush. In the real world poor people don't pay taxes in this country. So really, tell me about greed without the worn out tax cuts for the rich mantra. I'd love to hear it.

Posted by: mike | October 3, 2005 11:16 PM | Report abuse

I'm sorry I didn't mean "attack" I mean't liberate.

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:16 PM | Report abuse

Christians, conservatives, and the like. They're all afraid of change.
They're afraid that little Jimmy might be gay; or that they might have to live next to....blacks or minorites (oh no!)

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:21 PM | Report abuse

All thats "expanded" is Halliburton's offshore accounts.

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:25 PM | Report abuse

mike said: "In the real world poor people don't pay taxes in this country."

And now either do the real world very wealthy!

Now our real world debt can be used by China to influence American policy. I worry about that a lot.

So while I agree democrats need to loose the "liberal" ideals (they mostly have compared to the 60s), the republicans need to loose their evangelical/tax-cut ideals and get back to managing the American economy with the democrats. As Russia proved you cannot be a superpower with a strong military alone. China has learned that and is taking our money as we happily shop Walmart with our tax cuts. India has learned it as they happily provide outsourcing of everything from call centers to computer programming. As long as this administration follows the evangelical minority, who helped elect him, we're heading to the poor house.

Posted by: Sully | October 3, 2005 11:31 PM | Report abuse

Sorry sully, I haven't been to church in years, I make about 50k a year, I don't hate gays, don't have cars in my yard on blocks...

If you really believe what you're writing, the democrats are doomed.

Here's the problem with your theory... Normal Americans don't think parental notification is extreme. Normal Americans think lawsuits aimed at removing the ten commandments are absurd. Normal Americans don't think black poverty is caused by racism. Normal Americans are frustrated with Iraq, but don't think Bush lied and went to Iraq for oil.

Normal Americans have common sense. The special interests and fanatics who are defining the left these days do not. Go on believing the myths if you like, but there are millions of middle class normal people in America who see the democrats for what they are.

Posted by: mike | October 3, 2005 11:32 PM | Report abuse

Obviously no one has anything else poinent to say; besides I have things to see and people to do. Besides, talking to people with such a myopic view of the world is not my cup of tea. Hopefully one day you'll have a real paradigm shift in your thinking.

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Why are you such a douche Mike?

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:38 PM | Report abuse

Average American's "think" rascism has nothing to do with poverty. It doesn't mean it's not true.

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:39 PM | Report abuse

...And just an aside. How many gay friends do you have Mike?

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:40 PM | Report abuse

So who are these "normal americans" because i'd sure like to meet them.

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:42 PM | Report abuse

Hmmm. "Mainstream America" wants conservatives in everything?

Support for conservative office-holders is wide, I'll admit, but thin. To be "mainstream", I should think that a movement should hold a perceptible majority. Yet, running the most god-awfully boring candidates that I think one could find, guys who made Mike Dukakis look charismatic and eloquent, the Democrats managed in the last two elections to get barely short of 50% of the vote. It's a plain fact that "liberals" are not out of touch with mainstream America, at least, no more so than "conservatives." Winning half the country, almost, is hardly extremist or outlandish. Redistribute that half just a little differently, and the Electoral College would have given us a Democrat President. Hardly a mandate, but the point is that Republicans shouldn't fool themselves that their present thin majority is the inexorable working of God's hand in favor of the righteous. Be careful with the kleptocracy, boys; eventually the cops will be back on the beat. Losing the last two elections didn't make Democrats emigrate to other countries, we're still here.

mike says that "Democrats will still muster close to half the vote, but they won't do it by being democrats." On the contrary, I think the biggest failure of the last two elections for the Democrats was a failure to forthrightly stand up for what you really believe in. John Edwards should have been a joke of a candidate because of his inexperience, but he went a long way because he was unabashed in standing up for a decidedly liberal agenda. The Democrats ran candidates of substantial accomplishment in the past two elections, but with no faith in the American people, and got defeated for it -- but only just barely. If sorry candidates like Al Gore and John Kerry can do that well, it shouldn't take all that great a candidate to win the election.

Posted by: Tim | October 3, 2005 11:43 PM | Report abuse

Is a normal American Ping Wu, or Juan Santiego, or Darnell Jefferson, or Chris Robertson?

Posted by: BetterthanEwe | October 3, 2005 11:45 PM | Report abuse

mike:
I guess we will just have to disagree. If normal Americans cared less about gays the republicans would not have touted the gay-marriage issue in '04. I believe normal Americans do care what religion their teachers would espouse in the classroom (unless of course it is their own). And though no one likes a tax increase, all China has to do is sell a few hundred billion of US Treasury securities to send our economy into chaos, or threaten to do so to influence our actions.

I realy don't understand what you fear from the democrats. Was the 40 years before Bush really that bad?

Posted by: Sully | October 3, 2005 11:46 PM | Report abuse

LOL... NOW you're worried about china influencing American policy? Did you have the same concern when clinton was collecting illegal contributions from China?

Back to the evangelical nonsense AGAIN. Get real. That's your false superiority talking. Anyone who supports Bush must be a dumbass religious fanatic.... Look where that smugness has taken the democratic party.

Finally, you SAY that you need to move away from 60's liberalism, but democrats are doing just the opposite. Democrats are pining for the 60's and vietnam. Howard Dean is running the DNC for gods sake! We'll have to agree to disagree since I'm going to bed. For now, HAHA you're losing! If you manage some democratic wave in 06, that's great for you. But right now you're just continuing a decade old wave of losses. I think that says it all.

Posted by: mike | October 3, 2005 11:48 PM | Report abuse

mike:
Watch the polls and see who is loosing (and heading for jail). I'm eager to see what Rove comes up with in '06 to discredit the democrats. The guy is very clever.

We could also talk about the donations made by China to the republicans.

I'm not making up the evangelical influence in the republican party. Its overtly stated by evangelical groups and Bush and others cater to it as we saw in the terrible republican meddling in the Schiavo family's tragedy.

I'm heading to bed too. See ya at the voting booth next year.

Posted by: Sully | October 4, 2005 12:01 AM | Report abuse

Linda Loomis:

Those were good questions back at 7:27.22 (10/3)to ask new supreme nominee, plus references in later post. Thanks.

Sara:

Funny post about the brown recluse spiders. Do you suppose they shop on ebay?
Maybe looking for the web.

Re: MLB - which Sox will win? Out here near Cowtown Chicago (for its cows in the street some years ago) the White Sox fans are hoping to break "their" curse. Cub fans are looking on with envy but cheering that playoffs have come to the middle middlewest.

Life goes on in the Boondocks. Pumpkin festivals are in.

bdl

Posted by: boondocklurker | October 4, 2005 3:28 AM | Report abuse

"Anyway, [O'Connor] is one tough, fair-minded woman. Why on earth she's a Republican, I don't know." --mostlylurking

Old post, but made me laugh!

I wonder what mike would think of that? I can just imagine fire coming out of his fingertips! His head turning red, then purple, then EXPLODING in a thunderous flash of flames and little sparkles...

btw, is Pat Robertson a "normal American"?

Posted by: off topic | October 4, 2005 5:09 AM | Report abuse

Linda Loomis: "An acquaintance of an acquaintance?" Somehow, coming from you, I have to think that includes just about "everybody on Earth"...

Achenbach: Congratulations, Achenblog has just about officially gone to a 24/7 active presence on the internet. [Take that, Gene W!] Granted, the midnight masses were mostly ranting lunatics, LOL, but it's still fun to see 'round the clock kaboodling going on.

Posted by: Abnormal American | October 4, 2005 6:13 AM | Report abuse

It is so cool to read this carping as if it would make a difference to ANYONE.
Get a life, go to Church.

Posted by: tm | October 4, 2005 7:00 AM | Report abuse

Hey churchperson, it's Tuesday!

(and if it doesn't make a difference - then stop posting! get out of here!)

I'm so bad...

ot

Posted by: off topic | October 4, 2005 7:21 AM | Report abuse

Linda: I thought maybe you'd be interested in this. Transcripts from TX lottery meetings. You can find Miers in 1999 until March 14, 2000.

http://www.lottery.state.tx.us/info/meetings.cfm

Posted by: on topic | October 4, 2005 8:19 AM | Report abuse

Off topic: Yes it's Tuesday, but it's also Rosh Hashanah and the first day of Ramadan. I was at the Methodist church last night studying the Old Testament and I'm invited to break fast at the Islamic Center tonight at 7:30--see, if you go to church, sometimes "Tuesday" is special too!

I couldn't jump into the discussion last night because I had no side because I'm a born-again Christian who supports gay marriage & abortion rights and opposes the war in Iraq. I believe in Israel's right to exist and also that Palestinians should have the same rights as Israeli citizens. Everywhere I go, I find people who are appalled at my opinions.

Achenblog is like home to me. Thanks, Joel.

Posted by: Abnormal American | October 4, 2005 8:43 AM | Report abuse

I'm not sure a 24-hour boodle is a good thing. I always wonder if this thing should close down at 6 EDT sharp, maybe. Have some STRUCTURE. The political spat last night was fine, though there have been times when the Night Riders come in and make ugly comments. I am not a very diligent policeman of the boodle sometimes. Like I just now glanced at it. I think I may write a new kit, though that would require that I think of something to say, which is always the most onerous part of running a blog (I was going to say "having" a blog, but I don't really have this one, I just sort of herd it along...)
[Good name for a group blog: Herd On the Street]

Posted by: Achenbach | October 4, 2005 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Hey Abnormal,

I believe that you are a member of the majority on all counts (surveyed individually). What would make you unusual is that these majority opinions all reside in you.

Congrats!!!!

BTW, I agree with you and feel that, most lkely, those positions are very Christian ones to hold. How we rule our state and the rights of citizens of the earth may, at times, be in conflict with they ways we may choose to live our own personal lives.

Posted by: Dolphin Michael | October 4, 2005 9:11 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Achenbach,

Are you going brick and mortar on us?

If you wish to close up shop at 6, then I suppose you will be on my doorstep at 5:30 with the latest Kit.

You may just become the Internet's first Santa Claus, making all of our wishes come true.

Posted by: Dolphin Michael | October 4, 2005 9:13 AM | Report abuse

Ha! Herd on the Street. That's a great name for a group blog.

And boondocklurker, when do you sleep? (I was up at that hour, too, but it was only 2:28 where I am. It seems to me that 2 a.m. doesn't sound late, but 3 a.m. just sounds crazy. What a difference an hour can make in my mind.)

Posted by: Sara | October 4, 2005 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Joel,

A having a blog is like having a one-year old. You have the beginnings of conversation, but you can't seem to see the light at the end of the tunnel on the potty training thing.

Your only good sleep is when you find a way to convince your wife that you HAVE to take a business trip out of town.

AND, when they start crawling into bed with you at 2 am, you know it is time to seek professional help.

Posted by: Dolphin Michael | October 4, 2005 9:21 AM | Report abuse

Abby American, you are welcome here.

As far as people being appalled at your opinions everywhere you go, you might consider going different places. Someplace where differing opinions aren't necessarily appalling...

bc

Posted by: bc | October 4, 2005 9:22 AM | Report abuse

PS, "Herd on the Street" gets a thumbs up here.

Would that make the "Herd"'s comments "The Pasture"? Or "The Abattoir"?

bc

Posted by: bc | October 4, 2005 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Thanks, bc--it's why I hang out here.

Here's a John Prine quote for you:

"You know, I could have me a million more friends
And all I'd have to lose is my point of view..."

Dolphin Michael: Good analogy!

Posted by: Abby | October 4, 2005 9:47 AM | Report abuse

Hey! Joel! Make the kit about Tom Delay today. I mean, there's just so much good bloggin fodder there - his overblown ego and sense of self-worth, or his lack of morality and/or sense of irony. C'mon, it'll be like the good old days and Karl Rove....

Posted by: LP | October 4, 2005 9:48 AM | Report abuse

Harriet Miers: A Pure Cutthroat Partisan?

Alright, HOTS-shots (HOTS=herd on the street, or is that heard on the street?)

After thinking about Miers overnight, it appears that she transitioned to Washington, D.C., about the year 2000, when Bush took office. It would seem that most of the examination of Miers' record should look at her Texas years.

The following comes from our local paper this morning, from an article written by Austin correspondent Peggy Fikac:

Others, including the staunchly Democratic lawyer who represented one of two lottery directors fired during Miers' tenure on the Texas Lottery Commission, have a different view [than the sunny opinions of Miers given by some].

"I've been amused when I've heard the statement she was brought in to clean up the Texas Lottery. It was clear she was brought in to clean up any Democrats that were left over. Make no mistake. That was her mission," said attorney Charles Soechting, now head of the Texas Democratic Pary, who represented fired lottery director Nora Linares.

Soechting called Miers--appointed by Bush to head the lottery commission in 1995--"a pure cutthroat partisan."

(Opposing viewpoint) Current commission Chairman C. Tom Clowe Jr. of Waco, however, said he believed MIers disregarded party politics to try and get the facts of the case.
***
I remain confused because I read in the Washington Post that Miers "cleaned up" the Texas Lottery Commission. I read in other places that Miers mismanaged it. Now which is it? The Texas Lottery Commission is hardly free from scandal--even recently.

Posted by: Linda Loomis | October 4, 2005 9:51 AM | Report abuse

Good morning, bloggers! This thread now nears its 22nd hour. West Coasties are still asleep, I assume.

Regarding the Miers appointment that started this all:

Memo to Limbaugh, Kristol, Hindraker, Frum, Hannity, Coulter, et al., all of whom are "deeply disappointed," "depressed," etc., in Our Beloved President's pick for Supreme:

We told you your guy was an idiot and a hack all along, didn't we? And it became clear several years ago he was no "true" conservative (conservatives don't run up hugh deficits, attempt "social engineering," especially of intractable foreign countries, and make massive increases in the size of federal govt.). In short, "Neo-Cons" aren't cons. NOW do you believe us?

Favorite word of the day: schadenfreude. Let's all say it together. Schadenfreude.

Posted by: Curmudgeon | October 4, 2005 9:55 AM | Report abuse

I came up with a bunch of better picks. Check them out: http://livebythefoma.blogspot.com/2005/10/supreme-court-options.html

Posted by: yellojkt | October 4, 2005 9:58 AM | Report abuse

For all the scandal associated with the Texas Lottery Commission, the following blog by Sarah--not OUR Sara--is an interesting read. Since hubby had to work into the wee hours last night, I had time to do some searching on the Internet.

This blog stood out because the story truly loops around Reagan Greer. My husband's boss thought we should work with Reagan as a real estate agent when we were considering the move to Texas back in '94. We met Reagan, shook hands, and exchanged pleasantries for about five minutes, before Greer passed us over to a fenale agent from his office. It was she who showed us houses in San Antonio for two days. Reagan Greer no longer heads the Texas Lottery Commission, deposed earlier this year.

http://www.chompy.net/blogs/sarah/archives/003052.html

Blogger Sarah calls the scandals the fascinating GOP hall of shame.

Posted by: Linda Loomis | October 4, 2005 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Joel Achenbach,

herdonthestreet.com is, no surprise, already in use as a Wall Street research site. Google lists many other proper-name uses of the same handle term.

so, it's clever but not original.

Posted by: melvin/a | October 4, 2005 10:16 AM | Report abuse

oh please let it be the pasture. We could do way more with 'out to pasture' and 'in the upper paddocks' and stuff like that..

Posted by: dr | October 4, 2005 10:17 AM | Report abuse

testing testing

Posted by: Anonymous | October 4, 2005 11:35 AM | Report abuse

It is more likely that Ms Meir will not be another Frankfurter but simply an over cooked hamburger.

Posted by: artg | October 4, 2005 8:12 PM | Report abuse

What a choice of parties! Vote for the party of airheaded flacks, or the party of airheaded flakes. Jeeeeeeeeeeze. C

Posted by: curmudgeon | October 5, 2005 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Hey everybody, George F. Will wrote a column today that actually makes sense:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100400954.html

Posted by: omnigood | October 5, 2005 1:20 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company