Monday, October 03, 2005

New Supreme Court Nominee

Bush Taps Harriet Miers for High Court
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for another pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.

Oh good, because if the events of the past six weeks have proven anything, it's that Bush's political cronies are so very able to perform the jobs to which they are assigned.

Miers has no judicial record, which may complicate any Democratic attempts to block her nomination. It is impossible to predict whether Miers and Roberts will shift the court to the right.

Oh sweet Jeebus, it's not impossible. It's expected. Here's what she said:

"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," she said."

Hmm, I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that she's an "originalist," a misleadingly polite name for reactionary fucktard.

"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Mier's judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee.

Are you kidding? Bush probably nicknamed her "Harriet the Spy" or "Miersy," and we're all supposed to find that endearing as hell and just trust that she'll have nothing but the best interests of the general public at heart. Why, her lack of experience is a strength, if anything. It's like how Mike Brown didn't have any experience as the director of emergency operations anywhere, not even as crossing guard or the guy in charge of the fire extinguisher, and it really freed him up as head of FEMA to conceive bold and visionary new plans for dealing with Hurricane Katrina, like "What if we just leave the really poor people behind?" (To be fair, Bush's Pioneers and Rangers managed to load up their SUVs at that point and get out of harm's way with their checkbooks dry and their credit cards intact, so the worst possible outcome didn't come to pass.)

If the Democratic party had a backbone, they'd fight her on the cronyism grounds. She has no record, and the man who nominated her has shown a blatant disregard for the American people in his appointment of unqualified people to positions of great importance. Why should they assume that this case is any different?

No comments: