Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Widespread Bashing of Miers' Nomination

There has been some brutal commentary on the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court over the past few days, and I've been perusing Slate gleefully to try and get a hold on what people are saying.

Bruce Reed quipped, "Who says George W. Bush can't be a uniter? Shortly after Bush nominated Miers, the left, right, and center joined in marveling at the underwhelming mediocrity of the choice."

Ralph Nader was interviewed on Oct. 4 by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! on the subject of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court.

"You know, Amy, in the Congress, if a staff member of a senator or representative engages in political activity during election time, that person can be prosecuted. So that's why the staff members of Congress people take a leave of absence, they drop their public salary, and they go out and push for the re-election of their senator or representative. But unfortunately, a number of years ago the Democrats and the Republicans got together in the Congress and said, ‘We’re going to make an exception from that law for the executive branch, for cabinet officials and for top White House officials.’ But that exemption required that accounting be established, clearly delineating the time, for example, Karl Rove spent in the White House making calls to re-elect Bush or spending materials and resources to re-elect Bush and the time he spent on government business as special assistant to the President. He didn't do that. And so, Harriet Miers is, in effect, by not answering those letters, is covering up for Karl Rove."

And then Ralph zings Democrats: "And if the Democrats don't raise that issue in the confirmation hearings, they will continue their record, as a whole, with some luminous exceptions, as a whole, of being a party that is spineless, gutless, hapless, clueless and now leaderless."

Ronald Cass (Co-Chair of the Committee for Justice, former Dean of Boston University Law School) defended Miers' lack of experience: "The emphasis on judicial experience seems to me very misplaced. We've had quite a few judges in the history of the Supreme Court who had no judicial experience previously. You mentioned William Rehnquist. The list also includes Earl Warren, Felix Frankfurter, Louis Brandeis, Harlan Fiske Stone, John Marshall, and a number of the greats of the Court. So I think he has made a choice of somebody he knows and trusts and values who by all accounts should be a very sound and solid Justice."


Blogger job opportunitya said...

Enchanting blog. Your site was off the chain and I
will return! I peep the web for blogs just like this
I can't explain, but you need to check my alternative consolidate loan student blog!

5:50 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home