I have been looking to start a political blog and just needed the right time, actually the motivation to do so. The Harriet Miers withdrawl from the Supreme Court nominaton process was the right event.
As Miers slinks away from what would have proven to be a fight neither she nor the Bush administration wanted to tackle, and very likely would have lost, one must ask the question: why was she nominated in the first place?
No one is arguing that Miers did not have some of the qualities needed. She appears to have been a tireless worker, dedicated to law, working in both private and public offices. She rose to prominence by leading a Dallas law firm and as counsel to the President. However she had never been a judge, never argued infront of the Supreme Court, actually never really done work with the constitution. No one really knew her stance on issues such as Roe v Wade, Affirmative Action, Emminenet Domain, etc. All we had were "questionnaires" filled out years ago and the word from Bush to "trust him." (Just like we trusted him that Iraq had WMD)
Did the Bush administration believe that it could "sneak" Miers into the land's highest court? After giving us what appears to be the "ideal" candidate, in Judge Roberts, did the Bush administration get too cocky?
What this appears to be is the ultimate slap in the face of our intelligence and the most unfathomable attempt at cronyism. It was bad enough to put the Director of the Arabian Horse club to run FEMA, an organization that would actually have to make life and death decisions but to place someone on the highest court that is a close buddy to Bush is absurd. While I am sure Miers is a good person and a capable lawyer, there is not justification of having her sit on the supreme court just because Bush wants us to trust him. This administration needs to have its feet held to the fire with regards to its blatant cronyism.
I will be interested to see who Bush now turns to.
No comments:
Post a Comment