Harriet Miers.

[ysobelle]

Am I the only one who thinks us poor Liberals are being manipulated? That should she get the position, she'll turn out to be as hugely conservative as our worst fears, and the grumbling from the Right will turn out to be a smokescreen?

Shudder.

Comments

[hughcasey.livejournal.com]

There is an old saying,

"Never attribute to evil that which can be explained by incompetence."

No, I don't think that it's a smoke screen. The extreme christian right is upset because they WANTED a fight, and they won't get it. They don't want another O'Connor... they want someone who will vote their way all the time. And they want that person to be confirmed or rejected in an open forum, so that they can either win big and say "We were right all along", or lose and say "See, we're still being persecuted!"

I think Bush thought that they'd be mollified by his nomination of an Evangelical Christian. Wrong. They want a passionate idealogue. And this is just the tip of the iceberg as far as their dissatisfaction.

Bush has spent 5 years trying to please everyone. This is what he gets.

[raven-albion.livejournal.com]

I haven't done my homework on Harriet yet, so I don't have much to say about her qualifications. (I understand that anyone else who wants to know more about her qualifications might have a difficult time also, since she's never been a judge and most of her potentially relevant work is locked up in the White House). I find it absolutely hysterical, however, that what I've heard from the right-wing shriekers in the last week is a lot of what we were hearing from the left-wing shriekers on the Roberts nomination. You know, the parts where libs wanted to review documents, ask questions about stands on specific issues, etc.

I particularly enjoyed Ann Coulter's comments about how Miers wasn't qualified to play a justice on the West Wing, let alone in real life.

[well-artesia.livejournal.com]

I've seen nothing that would make the Liberals comfortable... and I'm unclear on what is concerning the Conservatives.

There's nothing in her responses to the questionnaire from '89 to the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas (http://www.time.com/time/daily/docs/miersquest.pdf) that a saavy political lawyer extremely opposed to gays and lesbians *wouldn't* say. She sidestepped every direct question that would pin her down, as any good lawyer would do.

Seems to me that Bush has chosen someone who has worked closely with him for over a decade. He trusts her and her devotion to him; I think he's picked her to vote as he would - he probably chose her because he couldn't nominate himself. ;)

The real victory here is this, IMO:
About two-thirds said gender made no difference in their support, while only 29 percent said it made them more likely to support her. Miers had more support among women; roughly 37 percent said gender played a role in their support versus 19 percent of male respondents.

And 82 percent of all respondents said they would not have been bothered if Bush had picked a man to replace O'Connor, the first woman to serve on the high court.

Feminists everywhere should be jumping up and down for joy! 2/3rds said gender didn't matter one way or another! That's AMAZING to me.

[darthvenereal.livejournal.com]

don't you worry, her people are on the phone reassuring conservatives everywhere that she will not become a liberal or even *gasp* a moderate if she's confirmed!!!!

since when did moderate become a dirty word? what is this world coming to?

[darthvenereal.livejournal.com]

and is it just me or does she not look like death herself? i can never understand women or minority conservatives. when did the conservatives ever advance the causes of women and/or any minority group?