Hmmm. Seems that while Supreme Court nominee Harriet Meiers was managing partner at the Texas law firm of Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, they got hit with $30 million in fines for vouching for the reputations of some Ponzi scheme crooks, which vouching induced some fools to soonly part with their money. (Click on the title of this post to view the complete article).
For my part, that's a nail in the coffin. There are very few people from whom I demand the highest character - but I think it's fair that in a country of nearly 400 million, I can demand that nine of those people be, essentially, without flaw.
Is that asking too much?
Monday, October 10, 2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Good to see you're back on the posting wagon Martin. I assune you have been busy minstering to people about the flying Spaghetti monster.
I like that George Will piece, as much as I hate that arrogant toupee wearing bastard. Part of me thinks, though, that this whole alleged conservative backlash against Meirs is a ruse. The idea is that by rallying against her you create the impression with liberals that somehow she is on our side - she's not. I kind of have to agree with the rudepundit that Bush wouldn't nominate her if he didn't know things that we do not. Believe it or not, though, I think it very likely that he knows both Roberts and Meirs are unlikely to take an aggressive stance against Roe v. Wade. The abortion issue (in spite of what the media suggests) is actually a fringe issue that most people don't give a shit about one way or the other - I know I don't. Though pro-life members of the Republican party are the most vocal, there is still a huge portion of the Republican party that is pro-choice, this probably includes Bush. Though it makes political sense for Bush to support the pro-life movement in very general and non-specific terms, it would not make sense for him to look like a zealot on the issue. On this particular issue Bush has always done a good job of appealing to the right without scaring the left. I think his nominees reflect that policy. What he cares about is money and business. I think he would have picked his nominees on moral considerations only if it made political sense for him, which it doesn't,
I think you both nailed it -- Martin is right that the Miers nomination is done for (we are, after all, talking about the full force of the right wing smear machine, aren't we?) and Danimal is right that Bush really doesn't give a sh!t about the radical religious right. I mean, he'll send them coded messages and stuff, but that's about it. You guys could both be wrong, of course, but I don't think so.
Interestingly, yesterday on "This Week" with George Stepho, either George Will or the lefty chick (whose name I can't recall now) suggested that this was Bush giving the finger to the far-right for their criticism of him after the Robert's nomination.
On the other hand, there's a good article at Slate (I think) where they note an insane Texas Supreme Court justice is calling up like-minded nutjobs and assuring them that Meiers is also a religious loon. Notably, it may have been Alberto Gonzales' scathing criticism of this guy regarding parental notification (while serving as a Texas S.Ct. judge) that cost him his nomination.
Post a Comment