Take your chances

With so many incredible legal minds in the country, the best we could do is the former head of the Texas Lottery Commission?

The Times’ most fascinating fact:

Ms. Miers is a regular guest at Camp David and is often the only woman who accompanies Mr. Bush and male staff members in long brush-cutting and cedar-clearing sessions at the president’s ranch.

Which may or may not be related to Wonkette’s take:

We’re not even that excited about her being gay.

Prof. Glenn Reynolds is underwhelmed.

Althouse: “So the conservatives are unhappy. Will this make the Democrats back off? Or will this encourage them to take the opportunity to win one?” That would be a most intriguing cynical strategy: Could she be a sacrificial lamb: Go lose one for the Gipper? Naw, that’d be too clever by half.

Or maybe not. Tom Goldstein at Scotusblog says:

But within the conservative wing of the Republican party, there is thus far (very early in the process) only great disappointment, not enthusiasm. They would prefer Miers to be rejected in the hope – misguided, I think – that the President would then nominate, for example, Janice Rogers Brown. Moderate Republicans have no substantial incentive to support Miers, and the President seems to have somewhat less capital to invest here. On the Democratic side, there will be inevitable – perhaps knee-jerk – opposition. Nor does Miers have a built in “fan base” of people in Washington, in contrast to the people (Democratic and Republican) who knew and respected John Roberts. Even if Democrats aren’t truly gravely concerned, they will see this as an opportunity to damage the President. The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience.

I joked before that the next nominee would be recruited from grade school so there would be no embarrasing paper trail. They seem to have found another trojan justice.

: Tom Goldstein at Scotusblog says she could lose:

: LATER: Now I see that Wonkette isn’t excited about the possibility of her being gay. I could swear I just cut-and-paste that line. What are we seeing, my senility or her editing?

  • Angelos

    I thought this part of Wonkette’s post was funnier:
    She’s nit-picky micromanager who failed upwards at the White House: “She failed in Card’s office for two reasons,” the [former White House] 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.”

    Yet another sign of the incompetence running rampant in this administration.

    Political hacks for Supreme Court! What could go wrong?!

  • Angelos

    More good stuff…

    I would think that if they were trying a fakeout nomination, they would bring up a REALLY scray religious wingnut. That would appease the Robertsons and Dobsons of the world. When the nomination gets blocked, Bush shrugs and nominates a regular-strength winger.

    But this woman? She’s a joke.

  • Duneview

    The right is dissappointed; the left is perplexed.

    I learned long ago not to blithely wager against W – “misunderestimate” and all that.

    But if you’re looking for a little action, I’d look into the Under/Over pool – I’m heavy on the Over for use of the words “crony” and “inexperienced” by the MSM during the next few days.

  • jeff m

    She is the throwaway nomination.
    Bush knows the next one will be rejected no matter what.

  • http://pillageidiot.blogspot.com Attila (Pillage Idiot)

    From a man who campaigned on appointing justices like Scalia and Thomas, this no-paper-trail garbage makes him look like he’s embarrassed by his own position. I suspect the trouble he had with the Bolton nomination has made him a little gunshy.

  • http://marycalvo marym

    Who knew Bush was looking for his own Janet Reno? Perfect.

  • EverKarl

    Looks like Harry Reid and even Chuck Schumer are happy, so I wouldn’t be predicting she gets rejected. The GOP taking a bath in ’06 would be a safer bet (though I wouldn’t predict that more than a year out, either).

  • Angelos


    She’s blogging already!

  • http://www.tonypierce.com/blog/bloggy.htm tony

    i’d hit it

  • Mike Donovan

    I voted for Bush SOLELY because of his campaign statements that his “models” for a Supreme Court justice were Scalia and Thomas. There are plenty of people with track records of fighting back the judicial activism in the courts – he picks two with ZERO experience on the front lines. The reason? GWB does not WANT to change the direction of the court. On too many issues GWB has proven he is simply not an activist conservative, but a squishy establishment Republican just like his father. Immigration comes to mind. The deficit. However, I really thought his campaign promise with SCOTUS would be kept. He has chosen two people with no track record that shows a constructionist view ala Scalia and Thomas. Bottom line: I FEEL TRICKED.

  • Angelos

    Ah Mike D, you’ve been tricked for 5 years now.

    He also said he didn’t think our military should be used for nation-building. He’s said hundreds of things, while doing the complete opposite.

    GWB is the creation of corporate lobbyists. He is no more a conservative than I am a unicorn.

    Money and power for his buddies and sycophants. That is the Bush presidency.

    And it always kills me when wingers decry “activist judges,” when that’s exactly what they want, but just “activisting” in their general direction.

  • Angelos

    “Harriet could have become a conservative in Washington, but unless she did, she doesn’t have any particular judicial philosophy… I never heard her take a position on anything… We’ll have another Sandra Day O’Connor… Harriet worships the president and has called him the smartest man she’s known. She’s a pretty good lawyer…. This president can be bamboozled by anyone he feels close to. If a person fawns on him enough, is loyal, works 25 hours a day and says you’re the smartest man I ever met, all of a sudden you’re right for the Supreme Court.”

    This is from a Christian/Conservative web site that doesn’t think she is Christian/Conservative enough.

    Powerline isn’t too pleased either.

    Scary how unabashedly psychotic conservative commentators are, when government officials aren’t as wingnutty as them.

  • http://overtaken.blogmosis.com Matt

    Okay, that’s just stupid. How about if we take the lamest job you ever had and introduce you as that. I know it would be a killer for me.

    Former convenience store emloyee
    Former bartender
    Former bar owner
    Former tree trimmer

    You see, you can make anyone look like a dumbass if you try hard enough. It’s also very classy that you cited the ever-reputable Wonkette for the gay-baiting comment. Of course, being a member of the NY elite, I’m sure you never stooped to those lows to pay for school.

    None of you know the first thing about this woman, not her beliefs, not her philosophy, not her moral positions. Is this the sum of citizen journalism? If it is, it doesn’t sound much different than the crap that the AP makes up.

  • http://ruthcalvo Ruth

    It seems the religious conservatives are at least as put off about the general good reception this appointment is getting as by the lack of credentials Ms. Miers has for membership in their camp. Let’s see now, did a big puncture just call off the coming storm? Maybe it’s a big loss in fundraising opportunities, to cite the administrations most recent line.

  • Angelos

    The bible-thumpers wanted to, and felt they had earned the right to, appoint a fellow thumper. They don’t want anyone that would seem to be anywhere near the middle. “Rule the nation as God intended” and all that.

    The really scary part of this nomination, however, is the true intent, and it ties into what I said above – she would be nothing more than a tool, a bought jurist, to advance Republican agendas.

    They plan on dirty dealing in elections from years to come, on gutting environmental and social legislation, on destroying public schools, etc. They can’t have any pesky judges who are actually familiar with constitutional law interfering with their plans. They’re putting in their rubber stamp.

    More here and here and some interesting history here.

  • Angelos

    Jeff, that gay crack is still up there…

  • clevelander

    i’m picturing “The 60 Year Old Virgins” or: “When Harriet met Souter.”