10-03-2005, 11:57 AM
|
#1380
|
|
Southern charmer
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: At the Great Altar of Passive Entertainment
Posts: 7,033
|
My Theory
Quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Could it be that having a Bush loyalist with a voice on the court is more important at this juncture than the agenda? Of course, this doesn't address the issue of when she will be needed to recuse herself.
|
Well, he may have one. From noted Bush critic David Frum:
- I believe I was the first to float the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news. I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?
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. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.
__________________
I'm done with nonsense here. --- H. Chinaski
|
|
|