Just another day in the new lawless America

Bush tells Harriet Miers to ignore Congressional subpoena because of some sort of miasma of executive privilege that engulfs all his closest pets. Some note that this is obstruction, and hence a felony. Oh, if only our governmental system had checks and balances!!

(See some interesting options for a Constitutional show-down here.)

Reid weighs in on Alito

Harry Reid planned to give a speech today expressing concern about the nomination of Alito, particularly the fact that Senators were not consulted but right-wing crazies were, and that there are reasons why the latter are so gleeful (including many positions on which the Supreme Court disagreed with Alito's rulings/interpretations).

Harriet Miers was forced to withdraw by conservative activists who want to change the legal landscape of America. They decided she was inadequately radical or insufficiently aggressive for their purposes, so they gave her the boot.
. . .
Even in the first two weeks of the confirmation process, a picture of Sam Alito is emerging that may explain why the right-wing is popping champagne corks. ...

Perhaps a little too much about the court-diversity angle, for my tastes, but on the whole a pretty strong speech. Some mutterings about the filibuster too. Will be interesting to see how it gets covered in the media (tomorrow?).

Update: quick gloss here catches the high points. I guess that's about all you can expect, with hearings still two months off...

Don't pack up your office yet, Sandra

The right-wingers have hounded Miers out of contention before her hearings even get underway. It's hard to mourn the loss of what appears to have been an extremely unqualified pick, but I doubt that the next nominee will be somebody that the left (or even center) can feel good about.

"President Bush’s complete capitulation to the far-right interest groups is astounding. The ultra-right wing dominance of Republican Party politics is complete, and they have dealt a terrible blow to an already weakened President and his administration," said [People for the American Way President Ralph] Neas.

(quote from this dailyKos response) Especially if Bush decides to stick with women, we're likely to hear quite a bit more about such extremist harpies as Priscilla Owen. yippee.

(hat tip to BF)

Update: August thinks this is a win. I'm not certain I agree with him, but his point about the weakness of the White House and thus the unpalatability of both other cronies (Gonzales was one I was wondering about) and extremists is an interesting one. Only time will tell.

First wheel about to come off?

There are rumors that Miers SC nomination may be about to be pulled. Not that surprising, given the pre-hearing assaults from both sides, her lack of any evidence of intellectual qualification, and the appalling show of cronyism she represents. But still, it appears that this decision is a reflection of the insiders' growing awareness that their imperial wagon isn't riding along a smooth road like it once did . . .

(via Follow Me Here)

Don't let the hair-splitting fool you

Harriet Miers, nominee to the Supreme Court, thinks that abortion should be banned at a federal level. That's not a moderate position -- she could well be open to the specifics of cases that come before her, but her starting stance is way out in right field.

Putting words in her mouth

Armando at dailyKos nails it when he says that Harriet Miers gets misunderstood a lot -- that is, if we are to believe that she didn't tell some judge friends about her views on Roe v. Wade (1) and didn't tell Senator Specter about her support for a right to privacy (2). Of course, she's never given these matters any thought, and she must speak in such generalizations that each listener interpolates what they want to hear. Yep, sure.

Miers through a different lens

While the conservatives mud-wrestle over whether Miers is reactionary enough in her religious and political views to pass muster with The Movement, David Brooks raises a different question: can she express a coherent argument? He gives examples of meandering and vacuous prose, and concludes:

It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.

Not pretty. These Republicans really like to nominate great minds for top positions -- "judges like Clarence Thomas" indeed...

Specter to do his job

That is, to find out everything there is to know about a Supreme Court nominee, even if the apparent source is a religious figure who's hemming and hawing... Well, better late than never.

Croyism meets conspiracy theory

A new take on the Miers (and, really, Roberts) nomination: Bush is stacking the court in anticipation of his own possible impeachment. Heck, if they just shield the dozen of his cronies facing the legal system in the near future, that could be enough.

(via Follow Me Here)

Cronyism: It's not just how it looks

Most people think that cronyism such as the Miers court appointment is bad because (a) it's crass and/or (b) it puts people into positions for which they have no qualifications (e.g., Brown at FEMA). But there are more serious reasons to think that cronyism in this instance is bad, specifically because it interferes with the critical principle of separation of powers. As August puts it (here):

Enter Harriet Miers, the soon-to-be highest-ranking Bush fanboy in the United States of America. Do you really see a Supreme Court Justice Miers ruling to release Bush's sealed records? Or compelling his cronies to testify? Or overturning his executive orders to hide the documents related to his father?

In a similar vein, David Sirota points out that the Founding Fathers explicitly counseled the Senate against approving appointments like this. Not sure they remember that anymore...

(Sirota link via Medley, among others)

Imagine Jon Stewart's voice as you read this

Oh, Digby...
why must you always drain us of all hope?
Sigh.

Miers it is

Congrats to Will Bunch (and Matt Drudge) for making the call -- most lawyers I know hadn't heard of this woman as recently as this past weekend, and yet she's the new Supreme Court nominee as of this morning. Expect a deluge of news and profiles by this afternoon . . . (and/or see the post below for some background on the rationale for the choice)

Update: best quote on this (heh):

This president can be bamboozled by anyone he feels close to. If a person fawns on him enough, is loyal, works 25 hours a day and says you’re the smartest man I ever met, all of a sudden you’re right for the Supreme Court.

(via Atrios)

Update 2: for more serious thoughts about Miers as a judge and as a political outcome, see Steve Clemons' first take.