No tears from me, as I agree with George Will, Pat Buchanan, and Ann Coulter that Miers is not qualified to sit on the SCOTUS. Not content to just point out that she has NO trial experience as a lawyer or a judge and that she lacks the academic and scholastic rigor that most appellate judges and SCOTUS justices are known for (except for Clarence Thomas), there are a barrage of stories being reported on Miers that will give Republicans cover to break from Bush.
I've put on my waders and gone through the right wing publications and websites so ya'll don't have to. :)
First up, World Net Daily's headline
Miers firm forced to pay $30 Million to victims in a Ponzi sheme:
While Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers presided over a major Texas law firm, it was forced to pay more than $30 million to settle claims it vouched for the reputation of two clients who cheated investors out of millions in an elaborate Ponzi scheme.
While there is no evidence Miers knew about the actions of partners who represented the clients until investors began filing lawsuits against Locke Liddell & Sapp LLC, she publicly defended the firm's actions saying it never should have been named as a co-defendant in the case.
The law firm represented some of the state's biggest corporations and most famous residents, including George W. Bush before and after he was elected governor in 1994.
Also on World Net Daily, a story that will bring joy to the hearts of many here, by conservative Joseph Farrah, Miers in Middle of Bush National Guard Scandal:
...Corsi, who also played a pivotal role in the 2004 campaign with his book, "Unfit for Command," wonders out loud whether Barnes may have been telling the truth about his involvement in securing Bush a spot in the National Guard.
"The Barnes melodrama got drowned out by the forged document saga, but to this day, nobody has disproved Barnes played the role he said he did," writes Corsi.
He adds: "CBS missed the boat. Dan Rather should never have forged documents. Instead, '60 Minutes' should have focused on GTECH, Ben Barnes and Harriet Miers."
It was Bush who appointed Miers to head the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995. And it was Bush who brought her to Washington to serve as White House counsel. Again, it was Bush who made her his surprise choice for a Supreme Court appointment, despite the fact that she had never served as a judge.
"President Bush says he nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court in large part because she is a close and trusted associate," writes Corsi. "The question is how close and how trusted?"...
..."In the period of 1995-1997, the George Bush controversy over the National Guard had not yet surfaced to be vetted. Was there a cover-up going on? That's a reasonable question given what we've uncovered so far."
He adds: "Who was at the center of what may be a massive cover-up? Attorney Harriet Miers - President Bush's new, surprise Supreme Court nominee - that's who."
Another find, a poll with some interesting options:
Will Harriet Miers be confirmed?
Yes, she has strong bipartisan support
Yes, too many Republicans would have to defect for her not to win confirmation
Yes, the anger from conservatives will blow over in a few weeks
Yes, she'll get more votes than John Roberts
Yes
It's too early to tell
No, when Democrats realize her role in Bush's National Guard scandal, they'll rally to oppose her
No, Miers doesn't have the experience to withstand the scrutiny and grilling she'll receive - she'll ask the president to withdraw her name
No, Bush wants to avoid controversy - when the opposition heats up, he'll find reasons to withdraw the nomination
Even the press prince of darkness (Novack) has ugly things to say about her in his column today:
Two questions were asked in conservative circles Monday when it was learned President Bush had nominated his lawyer, Harriet Miers, for the Supreme Court. Question No. 1: "Is this what we fought for?" Question No. 2: "What was he thinking?"
The conservative Republican base had tolerated George W. Bush's leftward lunges on education spending and prescription drug subsidies to re-elect him so that he could fill the Supreme Court with conservatives and send it rightward. But the White House counsel hardly looked like what they had expected...
...Miers's qualifications for the high court are still questioned. Members of Congress describe Miers as a nice person but hardly a constitutional scholar. Indeed, she might trip over questions that Roberts handled so deftly. People who have tried to engage her in serious conversation find her politely dull.
In singing Miers's praises, Bush agents contend her every thought is of the president's best interests, not her own. That may be a desirable profile for a White House counsel, but it hardly commends a Supreme Court justice who will be around long after George W. Bush is gone. By naming his longtime attorney, Bush risks the charge of cronyism. After the Michael Brown fiasco at FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency), Harriet Miers might seem the last person he would name to the Supreme Court...
...The question recurs: "What was he thinking?" Bushologists figure the president was irked by repetitive demands that he satisfy the base with his Supreme Court appointments. He also was irked by the conservative veto of his Texas friend and Miers's predecessor at the White House, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. So, Bush showed the critics by naming another close aide lacking Gonzales's track record to draw the ire of the party's right wing.
Immensely enjoying himself was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who let it be known to colleagues that he recommended Miers to the president. With Miers at his side, Reid praised her a little for contributing to Al Gore and a lot for being a "trial lawyer" -- no encomium in the GOP. With friends like Reid, Harriet Miers hardly needs enemies.