Skip to main content

View Diary: On Miers (168 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  CAUTION (none)
    A few notes of caution:

       1. Is this a throwaway pick? i.e. Dems fight and then he gives us a wingnut Senator they can't not confirm?  If so, Reid is right to support this.

       2. Is she a trojan horse?  This is a case where I want to look inside her SOUL.  If I knew, once given the freedom of the court, that she would say SCREW YOU to Bush and his base, then its a victory.  Its also possible she would be swayed by Breyer and Ginsburg.  

       3. If we fought it, we could claim she's another Brownie.  Corruption.  Cronyism.  Powerful stuff.

       4. We need to watch our own polls to see if the base is REALLY pissed or if the rightywing media is just PRETENDING to be pissed.

    Bush will be impeached.

    by jgkojak on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 09:42:15 PM PDT

    •  You might very well be correct (none)
      Democrats raise a big stink - Bush will pull her -

      Instead we'll get some Scalia clone

      Proud to be a Bleeding Heart Liberal

      by sara seattle on Mon Oct 03, 2005 at 10:05:20 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  we've got a wingnut (none)
        Reports on Miers donations to Gore forget Gore chair became Republican Texas governor

        John Byrne

        While the conservative Drudge Report and the rest of the mainstream media trumpet revelations that Bush Supreme Court nominee Hariet Miers gave $1,000 to Al Gore's 1988 presidential campaign -- there's something they're not revealing, RAW STORY has found.

        Gore's Texas campaign chair in the 1988 primaries was none other than the now-Republican governor of Texas and Bush ally Rick Perry. Perry's record reveals he is no Al Gore.

        The $1,000 Miers gave -- was for the primary.

        In 2005, Perry signed a bill limiting late term abortions and requiring women under 18 to obtain parental permission for an abortion. He signed the bill in the gymnasium of the evangelical Calvary Christian Academy, which spawned criticism from pro-choice advocates and supporters for the separation of church and state.

        He told the 1992 Republican National Convention: "Folks, I joined the Republican Party because I learned that the Democratic Party could not be trusted to run the state of Texas, much less the United States. That time, I was dead right."

        Perry, a onetime Democrat, became a Republican in 1989.

    •  She's a No 2 (none)
      She's an absolutely hardcore take-no-prisoners, fight-to-the-last-bullet wingnut. She's also a Christian fundie corporate attorney and a goddam Bush crony to boot.
      I'm certain. I can feel it. I can tell just by lookin' at 'er.
      Yeeecchhggghhh....
      •  Roberts too (none)
        You think he's "reasonable"? "Intelligent"? "Handsome"?
        Just you wait.
      •  I've asked this before (none)
        Who do you think Bush would nominate instead of her - that is to say, one who will be acceptable to his party as well as to you?  In other words, what is politically possible given the executive and lesgislative realities?

        Unfortunately your visual scan test will probably not reveal what we would like to know.  As Armando suggests, a high-temperature grilling will hopefully reveal latent wingnuttery.  But unless she's obviously crazed I can't see how it profits the Democrats to kick against the pricks so needlessly.

        "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

        by fishhead on Tue Oct 04, 2005 at 08:44:01 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Grilling (none)
          won't necessarily reveal anything. She can stonewall just like Roberts. She has no "history" other than what we know about her personally:
          She's an "evangelical" Christian
          She's been described by two (at least) sources as one of Bush's "pioneers" (I'm not sure if that's with a capitol P, as in "major contributor to his campaign" - I don't think so -  or a pioneer in the sense of being amongst the RW legal avant-garde that's trying to stack the judiciary w/ hardcore RW-ers)
          She said Bush is the "most brilliant" man she's ever known (?!?)
          She was a corporate attorney-no big deal except when coupled with the above.

          When she gave her press conference yesterday, she was (I think) telegraphing to the HC RW that she's one of them, even if she has no "history".

          I don't know what (the Dems) can "do" about her...
          She seems to have 100% support from the GOP in Congress.
          I'm very worried about her and Roberts: Roberts is the Capitalist and Miers is the Fundie.
          (???)

          •  PS Why (none)
            would Bush nominate a known HCRWer who would cause a huge fight, when he can nominate a supposed "moderate" who will get approved, but who turns out to be a wingnut.
            Nobody can "prove" NOW what she or Roberts will do in the FUTURE one way or the other.
            That's why they were chosen.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site