Thursday, October 06, 2005
More On Miers
Let me just start by saying that I think the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is not what everyone seems to think it is. From the media we've been hearing that she's a "blank slate." But I have to wonder, "To whom?" Sure, she may appear to be a blank slate to us, the electorate who knew little, if any, about her prior to Monday, but I can guarantee that she's not a blank slate to the Bush administration. As Bush stated when he officially nominated her, he has known her for over a decade. But more importantly:
Now granted, she's only held the position of White House counsel since February of this year, but it was not her first position in the White House. According to her bio:
So we're supposed to believe that this supposedly brilliant lawyer, this "trailblazer" in Texas law history was on staff at the White House for four years prior to assuming the position of White House counsel, but Bush never consulted her. He never discussed legal matters with her. Her duties were strictly non-legal in nature. Yeah, right.
For the last four-plus years, this woman has been at the administration's disposal. Don't you think she was probably consulted on the administration's policy decisions concerning the treatment of detainees? And what about the Plame affair? Bush's TANG service? Or the release of documents concerning 9/11? Or Bush and Cheney's testimony to the 9/11 commission? Or even possibly the 2000 Florida recount (keep in mind, he's known her for over a decade)?
I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that Harriet Miers has had her hands in in a number of administration decisions. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that she probably knows about a lot of things the general public isn't aware of. Do we really want someone on the Supreme Court that has had a hand in some of the White House's more shady actions? Do we want someone on the Supreme Court that has advised the administration on how to evade legal responsibility?
I know the focus on a SCOTUS nominee tends to gravitate toward the hot-button issues like abortion, but this is a case where I believe that there is much more at stake than just Roe v Wade in this case.
Just my opinion, of course.
- For the past five years, Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government, including one of the most important legal positions in the country, White House Counsel.
Now granted, she's only held the position of White House counsel since February of this year, but it was not her first position in the White House. According to her bio:
- Harriet Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005. She was first appointed to be Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001. In 2003, Ms. Miers was promoted to be Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff.
So we're supposed to believe that this supposedly brilliant lawyer, this "trailblazer" in Texas law history was on staff at the White House for four years prior to assuming the position of White House counsel, but Bush never consulted her. He never discussed legal matters with her. Her duties were strictly non-legal in nature. Yeah, right.
For the last four-plus years, this woman has been at the administration's disposal. Don't you think she was probably consulted on the administration's policy decisions concerning the treatment of detainees? And what about the Plame affair? Bush's TANG service? Or the release of documents concerning 9/11? Or Bush and Cheney's testimony to the 9/11 commission? Or even possibly the 2000 Florida recount (keep in mind, he's known her for over a decade)?
I think it's a pretty safe bet to say that Harriet Miers has had her hands in in a number of administration decisions. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that she probably knows about a lot of things the general public isn't aware of. Do we really want someone on the Supreme Court that has had a hand in some of the White House's more shady actions? Do we want someone on the Supreme Court that has advised the administration on how to evade legal responsibility?
I know the focus on a SCOTUS nominee tends to gravitate toward the hot-button issues like abortion, but this is a case where I believe that there is much more at stake than just Roe v Wade in this case.
Just my opinion, of course.
