River's essay reminds me of Usoian attitudes towards the ERA - women's rights? Who cares? We have to keep gays from marrying! Transsexuals from having man-on-turtle sex!
At one point after invasion, River complained that current American programming now occupied the large majority of Iraqi TV now - stuff like the Today Show. It makes me wonder if there isn't something subliminal in Katie Couric or The Price is Right that causes people to just not care about government.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 3, 2005 04:34 AMLooks like there's gonna be a Supreme Court nominee battle.
Bush nominates Harriet Miers, White House council (what a surprise) to replace Justice O'Connor.
Posted by muckcat at October 3, 2005 05:39 AMSo, Mary Meyers is Bush's pick for the court.
Posted by Judith at October 3, 2005 06:09 AMOh, thought it was Mary. Harriett is the pick. You can tell I don't know much about her.
Posted by Judith at October 3, 2005 06:11 AMShe's WH counsel, so she knows what's going on in Plamegate among other scandals/crimes? So if anything goes to the SC, she'll be right there to help out her good buddy Bush. Another good friend from Texas appointed to a high position. Good grief.
Posted by CG at October 3, 2005 06:13 AMMiers 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. She would replace O'Connor, a critical swing vote on the court who helped uphold the right to abortion and affirmative action. Rehnquist, the late chief justice being replaced by Roberts, was a consistent conservative vote. - AP report via Excite.
*Scratches head* I don't get why the same AP article said Harry Reid encouraged this pick.
So do we hang the Brownie shingle on her?
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 3, 2005 06:16 AMShe stole one from Cheney's play book.
Supposedly she was in charge of the vetting process for potential candidates and her own name came out on top.
I hope she told Dick she was stealing his move!
Posted by muckcat at October 3, 2005 06:18 AMCan us unregistered denizens still comment here?
Posted by snark at October 3, 2005 06:19 AMAnswered my own question.
Posted by snark at October 3, 2005 06:20 AMI think Big Media Matt has found the reason Bush picked Miers:
David Frum said, "In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met."
Okay. Just this comment alone should give Democratic Senators pause.
Via TPM
Posted by Mary at October 3, 2005 07:01 AMHardline conservatives are pretty upset by this pick. The talk shows this morning were calling on the GOP to vote her down.
I can't figure out why. I guess because she hasn't been a judge and doesn't have any rulings to see how conservative she is. Maybe it's because Bush supposedly consulted a lot of dems on the pick. I don't know...
Posted by Tex at October 3, 2005 07:19 AMJust for background:
COURT NOMINATIONS AND PRESIDENTIAL CRONYISM Not a good article, but somewhat enlightening.
I'm looking for other links on bad justices, or bad behaviour of the Supreme Court and not having much luck. Too many lawyers want to respect the legal institutions and sweep the embearrassing moments under the rug of history. The most I've found is Abe Fortas's resignation after accepting a cash gift.
Now as much as we hate certain justices and especially hate their behaviour in 2000's election, I wonder if we really have seen bad behaviour on the court when compared to the historical record. And what the clues were beforehand.
It was in choosing a successor to Chief Justice Chase that Grant encountered his greatest difficulty in regard to the Court. Although a wide array of judicial talent was available, Grant waited for six months and then offered the position to a close friend and political ally, Senator Roscoe Conkling of New York. Probably recognizing his own limited qualifications, Conkling declined the honor.
HAH! If you've heard or listened to Sarah Vowell's Assination vacation, Conklin certainly never comes off as a guy who'd turn down a seat on the Court because of 'limited legal experience'. It was more likely because he couldn't graft anything off of it.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 3, 2005 07:19 AMSince Brownie, there's no excuse to give any Bush nominee the benefit of any doubt.
Passit on. That's the meme.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 3, 2005 07:47 AMThe hardline social conservatives have to be very disappointed with Miers. Bush already disappointed the Evangelicals with Roberts, now Bush is doing it again.
Jerry Falwell is not happy about this.
She sounds very eloquent, though. Another slam dunk nominee.
Posted by muckdog at October 3, 2005 08:02 AMHow does that used jock strap taste, Muck?
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 3, 2005 08:35 AMMaybe it's because Bush supposedly consulted a lot of dems on the pick.
The key word in this phrase being "supposedly." From what I heard this morning, he had Ms. Miers call some Dems and ask for some names. That is the extent of the consultation as far as I have heard.
Posted by ann at October 3, 2005 08:50 AMhere's one final thought on the racially hot Bennett comment last week. Bennett is a Right Winger of the first order....but was he espousing abortion?? I thought they were all against Abortion. Or does it just count with white folks?
Posted by T2 at October 3, 2005 08:55 AMT2, Bennett wasn't espousing abortion. He was attempting to use hyperbole to make a point that abortion was abhorrent. His mistake was in saying "you could abort every black baby in this country" rather than simply stating that "you could abort every baby."
Clearly, he's just another racist who doesn't identify himself as a racist, but his words betray him. Like what happened with Barbara Bush. I'm sure she doesn't think she's racist either, but her words belie that notion.
Posted by ann at October 3, 2005 09:03 AM