And I get all the usual "news alert" emails, including the links to petitions in which we're asked to plead with the Senate Judiciary Committee to thoroughly grill her on questions of Constitutional law, her coziness with the Bush administration, occasions in which recusal would be her only legitimate option, conflicts of interest and the like. Partisanship aside, I don't think Specter is evil incarnate and as much as I'm able to trust any politician, I have reason to believe he'll at least ask the right questions (whether or not the committee will settle for her answers is another story).
I also would have expected Miers to comply with requests for information and elaboration to the best of her ability -- after all, she's trying to get the gig, right?
However, if she thinks this is an appropriate response, she's either a complete twit that doesn't understand the gravity of this process, or she's battling Bush for the "Most Arrogant Schmuck on the Planet" award.
The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."
...Some of the new questions may be politically challenging for Ms. Miers and the White House. One inquiry in the original questionnaire pointedly asked her about reports that in conference calls with conservative supporters the administration and its allies had offered private assurances about her views on abortion and other matters.The first part of the question asked if she had made any statement to anyone about how she might rule from the bench, and a second part requested information about "all communications by the Bush administration or individuals acting on behalf of the administration to any individuals or interest groups with respect to how you would rule."
Ms. Miers's one-word answer to both was "No."
"No"?!? That's her answer?!? Unbelievable. I'll bet you a dollar that she later explains this away with some half-assed claim that she just "missed" part B of the question. "Oops! My bad". If she does, that'll pretty much be the last nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned. If her attention span can't handle the complexity of a Senate questionnaire, how, precisely, does she expect to keep up with the complexity and nuances of SCOTUS cases? Or is she expecting Cliffs Notes from Roberts? Translations by Scalia? After-school tutoring from Thomas?
Good god, woman. Pull your head out of your ass, will you please???
Harriet Miers SCOTUS Supreme Court nominee
3 comments:
Well, except for Condi...
Your thoughts on the unfettered speculation that if Cheney gets busted, Bush'll send her up to the VP spot? Just THINK of all the new shoes she'll be able to buy!
Well, it isn't actually *my* scenario, but at a glance, it looks like the Constitution says that a nominee requires only confirmation. Bush clearly doesn't find qualification to be that high a priority, so he could pretty much pick anyone.
He pretty much picks anyone anyway. Qualifications, experience, minimum credentials, etc. appear to have very little to do with anything...After all, why is it important to be a judge or have a judicial track record before plopping one's ass on the highest courts in our country? Why would we want actual supervisory experience for people heading hugely bureaucratic government agencies? Hey, if you can answer a phone, you can oversee thousands of people effectively right?
Oh, thats right. Millions are spent and nobody really cares if government actually runs effectively. After all, it seems to increasingly exist for its own sake.
Post a Comment