Mexico Medical Student |

I have been refraining from posting anything political because there was already a lot of posts lately, particularly w/Katrina, Rita, FEMA, etc. However, there’s only so much self-restraint I can maintain, and I’m afraid I’ve reached my limit.

The indictment of Delay last week was utter joy to watch unfold. Seeing his smug ass with his “videotaped” response, I could only think that as he would say things like “partisan bullying” or “political vendetta” with respect to Delay being victimized (I almost choke when I type it), that if I were in the room, I’d move away from him as far as possible so as not to get hit with any lightning when it came down. That hypocritical thug single-handedly redistricted gerrymandered Texas by who-knows-what kind of Sopranos-horse-in-bed tactics. The fact that he had to step down (a rule the puppetmastered ethics committee agreed to dissolve, just for Delay, until they were pressured to retain it) isn’t even a huge blow, because Hastert has no problem having Delay call shots from his “real” office away from the leadership office. I can’t wait for “The Hammer” to appreciate other, not-so-subtle nuances to his nickname when he’s in prison… When the second indictment was announced yesterday, I think I had to smoke a cigarette after I heard it.

My father is an attorney. When all of Cronygate (my term) was happening right after Katrina (Brown most notably, but also Chertoff to a degree and a few other federal appointments that came to light as a result of insider buddy-buddy politics), I had started a post called “I nominate my father to replace Mike Brown.” After all, Brown’s most qualifying line-item on his resume (that was true, anyway) is that he is an attorney. Unfortunately, Dad knows nothing about horses, so my draft just fizzled at that point…

I was bracing for whom Bush was going to nominate this week. My worst fears would be realized in a judge that would make Scalia look like a socialist. The candidate, Hariet Miers, Bush’s personal attorney in the White House seemed an afterthought, a “Beats me what to do for dinner…you want to just order pizza?” kind-of lazy, sure-thing choice. This administration has always valued loyalty above all else. Well, I’ll restate Chuck Schumer’s words: “It could have been a lot worse.”

Law.com in an article from almost a year ago says she’s meticulous to a fault and basically got her job because she failed at other levels of Bush’s support staff:

“There’s a stalemate there,” says one person familiar with the chief of staff’s office. “The process can’t move forward because you have to get every conceivable piece of background before you can move onto the next level. People are talking about a focus on process that is so intense it gets in the way of substance.”

“She failed in Card’s office for two reasons,” the official says. “First, because she can’t make a decision, and second, because she can’t delegate, she can’t let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.”

I don’t know, call me a fuddy-duddy, but with absolutely ZERO judicial experience–not even at a county level–it just goes against everything I’d think would be valuable to have in a near permanent position for the highest court in the land. Hell, near as I can tell, she hasn’t even argued a case before the Supreme Court, unlike Roberts who was 1) scarily brilliant, 2) had a somewhat short (for a chief justice) but distinguished judicial CV which shed much light before hearings began, and 3) clearly put himself on the line and said he was NOT an idealogue, that he would be his own justice. I can think of nothing more predictable than Ms. Miers being Mr. Bush’s justice, in spite of the constitutional gap between branches. Don’t think for one solitary second that Bush doesn’t know exactly how she’d vote on important issues. When Bush gave his press conference today, he said he never asked her about views on abortion. If Bush is telling the truth (not a good assumption), it’s because there was no need–her stance on key issues is already a known quantity from a longstanding relationship. And if the CIA leak scandal continues to develop as it has been, that relationship is convenient, given the attorney-client privilege, now on top of executive privilege.

I strongly am in favor of a woman’s right to choose. I glad that Bush nominated a woman to fill a woman’s seat (nominating O’Connor being one of the few great things Reagan did). I think the court could stand to have two more, but I wouldn’t select solely based on that. Unless Miers paints a detailed self-portrait during the confirmation hearings–regardless of where she stands on what issue–I can’t possibly see EITHER party confirming this nomination. In fact the most vocal criticism has come from the right wingers. It should be interesting!