Yesterday on the way to and from the dentist I had the luxury of listening to NPR in the car and learned a bit about Bush's latest nomination for the supreme court vacancy, Harriet Miers. Everyone interviewed on the left was practically giggling like a kid who got away with something naughty and the politicians on the right were fuming. It seems that Ms. Miers is not very conservative. That's all fine with me and I am not complaining. But the question remains--what is this all about? He could have nominated anyone and he chose someone who seems to be moderate and well respected, though not much seems to be known about her. NPR interviewed the Dallas newspaper reporter who covered her city council work and even he didn't have much of anything to say about her other than that she is smart, doesn't talk unless she has something to say, and doesn't align herself on issues by party line. I have a feeling the confirmation hearings are going to be really dry. Her previous work is protected under confidentiality and she doesn't seem to have any dirt. By the way, I am very confused by the fact that one can be a supreme court judge without having ever been a judge. This is a new one to me. I think I will throw my name in the hat next time around. By the way, the report from the dentist was great and I received the usual praise for daily flossing. I got bonus points for being the guinea pig and trying the new chocolate-flavored polish. It tasted like a milk shake. Yum.
Posts
1 comment:
yeah, you're nerdy & toothy like that.
i was startled about the not-a-judge thing, until someone told me that rehnquist wasn't a judge, first, either and everyone has forgotten about that. i think the giggling has to do with the fact that she has no voting record and no published opinions, and there's thus no way to protest her appointment - the "evil unknown" argument will make the dems look petty. so all we know is that she works for bush (not a good sign) and she's a strict constructionist. i'm nervous.
Post a Comment