The more I learn, the less I want to know.
After reading the following email from
MoveOn.org, I'm mystified by Bush's appointment of Miers to the Supreme Court. I get the impression that, while in office, Bush hasn't learned
anything about making controversial decisions that lower his approval rating. Why do you think that is? Because he believes that great men don't
learn, they
teach?
But, then again, this post by
Hugo Zoom is even scarier than the email below.
Golly. Witches' hats, white sheets and life-size chessmen.
Hey kid, want some candy?
Dear MoveOn member,
Two days ago, President Bush nominated his personal lawyer and long-time friend Harriet Miers to Sandra Day O'Connor's crucial swing seat on the Supreme Court. With no judicial experience and an extremely thin public record, even leading right-wing pundits are calling her "transparently a crony"
1 with "non-existent"
2 qualifications.
President Bush has refused to release any documents from Miers' time in the White House,
3 and claimed he could not "recall" any conversations with Miers about abortion over 10 years of friendship and legal service.
4 The people deserve the facts.
Next week our senators will be home on recess, and will be looking closely at the local press for their constituents' reactions. This is a perfect time to write a letter-to-the-editor urging the Senate to demand real answers about Harriet Miers' views.
You can write and submit your letter online, and it only takes a few minutes. Please write one today:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=952&id=6085-6402300-ilfhfcOHtRaDqWSlWvMAkQ&t=2Immediately after Miers' nomination, MoveOn members stepped up to try to fill the information void. In the last 48 hours we've collected nearly 5,000 facts about Harriet Miers' record, and we're working to get this information into the hands of the media and our partner organizations. But it's remarkable how, even after collecting nearly everything that's publicly available, Miers' position on major constitutional questions and her qualifications to be a judge are still almost completely unknown.
What is clear is the deep personal and professional connection shared by Harriet Miers and George W. Bush. Here's what some members have uncovered about their long relationship:
From David of Howell, MI:
When Miers was Bush's appointee to head the Texas State Lottery Commission, the lottery was accused by a former director of awarding multi-million dollar no-bid contracts to a technology firm represented by former Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes. Barnes has since said he helped Bush escape active duty in Vietnam, and the lottery director alleged that Barnes demanded (and under Miers received) the lucrative public contracts to keep quiet about Bush's military service.6
From Paula of San Mateo, CA:
As Governor, Bush signed a law blocking Texas consumers from collecting a $6 billion dollar judgment against car dealers for predatory lending and keeping secret kickbacks. The law firm Miers headed represented the auto dealers.7
From Nancy of Austin, TX:
Miers was hired as legal counsel on both Bush's gubanatorial campaigns. Among other things, her research was used to persuade a local judge to excuse then Governor Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. He was then able to keep his arrest secret until late in the 2000 presidential campaign.8
From Stephen of Birmingham, AL:
Miers's personal friendship and allegiance to Bush has been cited for years in connection with her promotions, including to her highest post of White House Counsel.9
Cronyism on the Supreme Court is a serious threat to our democracy. In fact Alexander Hamilton specifically argued that the Senate should be empowered to confirm or reject judicial nominees in part to prevent the President from using the Court to reward friends and political allies.
10The call to reject cronyism and secrecy is bipartisan. As conservative columnist George F. Will put it today, "The president's "argument" for [Miers] amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons."
11 We may have different reasons not to take Bush at his word, but we can all agree on the need for more information.
It's now up to us to make sure our senators demand that information and refuse to offer a lifetime appointment to a swing seat on the Supreme Court as an act of faith. If you write a letter-to-the-editor today, you can help make sure the media, your community and the Senate hear this message loud and clear.
Please write one today:
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=952&id=6085-6402300-ilfhfcOHtRaDqWSlWvMAkQ&t=3Thanks for all that you do,
Ben, Jennifer, Eli, Adam and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Wednesday, October 5th, 2005
Sources:
1 Statement by Michelle Malkin, October 3rd, 2005
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003660.htm2 Statement by Patrick Buchanan, October 3rd, 2005
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/3 "Bush Seeks to Quell Criticism of Court Nominee from the Right," New York Times, 10/4/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=9534 "Bush base rattled by court pick" Atlanta Journal Constitution, 10/05/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=9545 "Conservatives are wary over President's selection", The New York Times, 10/04/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=9556 Texas Speaker Reportedly Helped Bush Get Into Guard" The Washington Post, 9/21/99
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=9567 "What's the deal with Harriet Miers?" The Village Voice, 10/03/05
http://villagevoice.com/news/0540,webmondo3,68426,2.html8 "Miers ties to Bush include personal lawyer" Associated Press, 10/03/05
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9577329/9 "Bush promotes Miers from staff to Counsel" The Washington Post 11/18/04
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=95710 Federalist Papers #76 by Alexander Hamilton
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=95811 
"Can this nomination be justified?" George F. Will column in the Washington Post, 10/05/05
http://www.moveon.org/r?r=959
House ethics committee "Republicans and Democrats have agreed not to investigate each other." Is this true? If it is, it more or less negates the need for an ethics committee.
