Tuesday, October 11, 2005



I was just listening to some right-wing loons arguing about Harriet Miers on KCRW. One of them was her "beard," a far right Texas state supreme court judge, Nathan Hecht, who has been running around since Bush nominated her, telling everybody that he knows for sure-- so don't worry-- that she's as dependably far right as Scalia and Thomas. I'm so relieved! And I'm sure Harry Reid is too. Fortunately right-wing Republicans know as well as normal patriotic Americans that Bush is an untrustworthy lying sack of shit and not a word that comes out of his mouth can ever be taken at face value. So since we certainly know we can't depend on Harry Reid and his pathetic caucus to save us from The Stealth Church Lady, the best we can hope for is that the right-wingers do.

They have a cool anti-Harriet web site up you might want to check out: http://stopmiersnow.com/

And there's some kind of a petition to help mobilize the extremist loons in the Senate. Michael Graham wrote a piece Saturday called "SOMEBODY (ANYBODY!) SAVE THIS HONORABLE COURT," which is none too complimentary of the Imbecile-in-Chief or his tragic regime.

"And let's start by saving it from George W. Bush," he begins. "That's the reason that we started this webpage." Good beginning. It would almost make you think it was someone who wasn't consumed with greed and selfishness. But then he starts to make it clear he's looking for someone WORSE than Miers, not better!

"We believe that, as conservatives, it's our job to protect the Supreme Court from cronyism and the Constitution from a nominee who needs on-the-job training." OK, that's a reasonable point for the Far Far Right over the plain ole Far Right.

"If you agree, then please join us in this effort to stop the nomination of Harriett Miers, the worst court pick since Portland took Sam Bowie over Charles Barkley, John Stockton AND Michael Jordan in the '84 NBA draft." What's the matter? He couldn't do an analogy using Sammy Sosa?

"What can you do to stop the Church Lady from getting her inexperienced hands on your life, liberty and pursuit of happiness? First, don't call the White House. It won't do any good. A president who never fired Michael Brown, Norm Mineta or George Tenet isn't about to start dumping buddies overboard merely for being incompetent." Does this guy sound like one of us or what?

"No, the people with the ability, duty and political interest to stop Harriet Miers are the 55 Republican members of the US Senate." (Uh oh.) "They swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution, and it never needed more protection than it does now--from a life-time appointment of an unqualified political hack with no experience or tested judicial philosophy." Well, she's definitely an unqualified political hack-- and most polls show between 65 and 75% of Americans agree, regardless of political leaning-- but... are we going to have to depend on an oath by people like Bill Frist, Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn and James Inhofe, all proven congenital liars and crooks. And what happens if Frist gets hauled away to prison for insider trading before the vote?

"We are starting our focus with the 10 Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee (OK, 9 plus Arlen Specter)." That's right-wing humor. He means Specter refuses to come to KKK meetings and won't support bombing women's health clinics. Get it? Aren't they amusing? "If just four of them do the right thing and vote no, their votes plus the five Democratic idiots who thought JOHN ROBERTS was unqualified will keep the committee from reporting her nomination favorably to the US Senate. That should end this nonsense on the spot." I think this loon is more confident in the Democrats than I am. I mean Dianne Feinstein, for one, seems to have made every indication of voting for Miers and Miers is probably right up Kohl's alley. Unfortunately for BushCo (this time) the collection of dependable extremist lunatics the Repugs have packed the committee with-- Hatch, Kyl, Sessions, Cornyn, Brownback and Coburn (the last two vying for title of "most over the top neo-Nazi in public office")-- is likely to work against them, for a change. But the more "moderate" Repug, Lindsey Graham, may support BushCo on this one as a way of voicing solidarity for relatively-moderate-right-wingers-who-live-their-miserable-lives-in-closets.

Graham, the writer, not the closeted senator, ends his piece with a bit of a wimper: "The contact information for the Senate Judiciary Committee is here. Please use it well, and spread the word. Remember: The Constitution you save may be your own." I was hoping for another gratuitous Bush slam. Oh well, the hearings should start soon (or do you think they'll really make her withdraw so she can spend more time in Texas with her... cats?)


At 5:55 AM, Blogger DownWithTyranny said...

A day or 2 ago Maureen Dowd did a good piece on this in the NY TIMES: "I'm Just Wild About Harry."

Conservatives may consider Harriet Miers the last straw.

But what will Harriet Miers consider the last straw with conservatives?

Maybe it will be Bork Borking her.

The old Supreme Court nominee reject rejected the new Supreme Court
nominee, calling her "a disaster on every level" and "a slap in the
face" to conservatives. Robert Bork complained to Tucker Carlson on
MSNBC last night that Ms. Miers had "no experience with constitutional
law whatever," that it was wrong for W. to choose a justice simply to
have a woman's perspective and that conservative reaction veered
between "disapproval and outrage."


Way to crack the gal right across the kisser, when she's already on the
ropes from so much conservative wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Senator Sam Brownback suggested it would be futile for the "very decent
lady," as he dismissively called her, to compete with John Roberts's
masterly performance because that would be like "following Elvis."

Pat Buchanan told Keith Olbermann that conservatives were "agonized,"
"depressed," and "virtually heartbroken," and Charles Krauthammer
wrote: "If Harriet Miers were not a crony of the president of the
United States, her nomination to the Supreme Court would be a joke, as
it would have occurred to no one else to nominate her." Ouch.

Conservatives are shocked to discover that President Bush has been
stuffing his administration with cronies and mediocrities in important
places? If Ms. Miers were a sworn foe of Roe v. Wade and an ardent
advocate of originalism in constitutional jurisprudence, would the same
conservatives be so sick about her qualifications? Clarence Thomas,
after all, was anything but a leading light of American jurisprudence.

The New Republic this week chooses the biggest 15 hacks in the Bush
administration, noting that "no administration has etched the
principles of hackocracy into its governing philosophy as deeply as
this one." Ms. Miers wins at No. 1.

W.'s case for her elevation is their closeness, because she is, as
Alexander Hamilton put it, one of the "obsequious instruments of his

But there is some sign, at least, that there are limits to cronyism,
even for the Bush administration. The president had nominated Timothy
Flanigan to be deputy attorney general, a job in which he would oversee
all U.S. attorneys, the criminal division of Justice and the F.B.I. His
qualification for this was a stint as Alberto Gonzales's deputy White
House counsel, a job where he helped write the torture memos. In
Congressional testimony at one point, he said that waterboarding was a
good thing, because it doesn't leave visible or permanent marks. After
his White House stint, Mr. Flanigan was a senior executive at Tyco
International, where his main contribution was hiring Jack Abramoff,
the Republican influence peddler, to protect Tyco's offshore tax
shelters. Yesterday, Mr. Flanigan withdrew amid growing questions.

The right is right about Ms. Miers's insufficiency to join the
Brethren, even if the right is cynical. Actually, there's a lot of
cynicism in the Miers affair. Those on the left are perfectly happy to
look away from mediocrity because it is the lesser of two evils,
because they were spared the nightmare of a reactionary maniac.

W. is so loath to leave his little bubble - where caretakers tell him
how brilliant and bold he is - that he keeps selecting the people in
charge of the selection committees. It's just so much easier to choose
a sycophant who's already in the room than to create one from scratch.

He used to disdain pointy-headed liberals from Yale, but now he's angry
at pointy-headed conservatives demanding some sort of genius for the
Supreme Court, rather than a den mother who did all of W.'s legal wet
work and who prefers John Grisham to Leo Strauss.

While the Bushies have been trying to reassure the right that W. knows
Harry's heart, that she's a good Christian church lady who will vote in
a way that will please them, Harry is probably working herself up to a
good grudge against all those meanies who are savaging her as a
lightweight apple polisher. Imagine! After she rechristened herself
midlife as born again and Republican for them.

Even if she was going to be a loyal conservative jurist before, why
should she be now, after all the loathsome things they've said?

The old maxim goes that a neoconservative is a liberal who got mugged
by reality. But if you're a conservative mugged by conservatives, neo
and paleo, it may have the opposite effect and turn you into ... David

At 8:19 AM, Blogger Timcanhear said...

Beware friends, of this Harriet Meirs! The righties have a problem with her for the same reason the left does. She's unqualified to sit on the high court.
But beware that when bush say's TRUST ME, what he's saying is "TRUST ME, SHE'LL VOTE TO OVERTURN ROE V. WADE."
As his PERSONAL attorney and friend for YEARS, how is it possible that he would not know how she would vote on the court over the issue?
The upcoming hearing are CRUCIAL and already I'm hearing some from the left, ie, Juan Williams from NPR, say that she WILL be confirmed. How can anyone claim that a person who seems unqualified for the highest court will be confirmed even before the hearings?
Don't trust bush and don't trust the pundits. Watch and listen to the hearings and decide for yourself how she would vote. Then, call your senators!


Post a Comment

<< Home