Some Thoughts on the Miers Nomination

[Laelth]

DU currently has several threads running on the Miers nomination. I've read everything I could find this morning, and I've come to some conclusions I'd like to share.

1. She is a career attorney. This can be good (because she has had to learn to adapt her mind to seeing all sides of an issue). On the other hand, she was an attorney for a large Dallas firm for a number of years. Big, prestigious firms tend to represent big, prestigious clients--i.e., big business, and this means she has almost certainly developed a pro-business mindset. She'd have to do that to represent her clients well.

2. She is anti-choice. For many years the American Bar Association remained neutral on the issue of abortion. It was not until 1988 that the ABA came out in favor of choice. Miers led the group that opposed the ABA resolution to support choice.

3. She favors "law and order" over "privacy." As many of you may know, Roe v. Wade was a privacy case. The Constitution never uses the word "privacy," but it's clear to anyone who isn't completely brainwashed that the framers had a person's right to privacy in mind when they adopted the 4th Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In Roe v. Wade the Court reasoned that a woman's reproductive organs are about as private a place as can be imagined. Therefore, the Court concluded, that if the Constitution were going to protect privacy at all, a woman's womb (and what she does with it) must be protected from State power and control. Bush, when he announced Miers' nomination, described her as a law-and-order proponent. In legal circles, this language indicates someone who favors state and police power over individual liberties (freedom of speech, thought, human rights, and privacy).

4. She has been the front-runner all along. When Bush was searching for a VP candidate, Cheney was appointed to head the task force charged with making recommendations. He ended up being the nominee. Similarly, Miers was the leader of the team that was charged with searching for a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. I don't think it's a coincidence that she was nominated. This seems to be standard Repuke strategy for nominees with shady track records. Pick your eventual nominee to head the search team, thereby deflecting inquiry into that person's record. While the press is busy speculating and researching all the hypothetical candidates that you might choose, they'll ignore the one leading the search committee. Then, at as late a date as one can manage, spring the real candidate--the one you planned to nominate all along, and watch the opposition scratch it's head, completely unprepared to even discuss the nominee because they've been busy speculating about other people. That's what I think we're seeing now.

Bottom line: This woman is a Bush loyalist who knows nothing about having a family (i.e. she doesn't even begin to understand the concerns of most Americans because she can't relate to them). She is anti-choice, pro-police power, weak on individual liberties, pro-big-business, and is a stealth candidate with no record to scrutinize.

She is our worst nightmare. She must be filibustered.

Let the Pukes go nuclear in the Senate if they wish. But short of that, we can not allow this person to sit on the Supreme Court.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--clarity.