Coppermine wrote:All right Rugby D... would like to start by discussing the Harriet Miers withdrawal?
I'm prepared to intelligently discuss.
This will be one of my last comments until late Sunday since I will be away in Cinci all weekend.
I'll start by saying I have no political affiliation, though I have voted more R than D, but that was more in my 18-21 days. Since then I've mostly been abstaining when I think an empty seat would serve best (which is usually the case) or when a non-wierdo libertarian isn't running.
Anyways.....Miers. Good riddance. I loathed her from start to finish. I'm sure anyone interested in the topic is already knowledgable about it so I won't rehash everything in detaiol, but here's what stood out to me:
1) Horribly unqualified. Zero experience arguing in The Court. Zero experience clerking for The Court. Zero record of constitutional law. Zero record of a hint of consensus from disinterested outside parties that she any sort of Constitutional heft. There is no preordained 'score' on tha bove topics that wold make her legit, but the fact that is zeros across the board is all that matters. She is smart. She may be a very quick Constitutional study. Send her to a district or appeals court. You don't send a kid to the Big Show with training wheels. It turns out bad, exhibit A: Corey Patterson.
2) Near-term effectiveness highly marginalized. She would have to recuse herself from many cases over the next several years given that the DoJ has been and will be catching plenty of heat on Bush policy. 4-4 decisions are uselass and if she doesn't choose to recuse herself, it is a severe conflict of interest that is poison to the principles of the SCOTUS.
3) gotta get on the raod soon so I'll end with a quickie: she is extremely difficult to look at.
Funny how the nomination exit strategy outlined by Krauthammer on 10/21 is exactly what the WH used.