Monday, October 24, 2005

How Mush-Brained Can Pols and The NYT Be?

An article in the New York Times this morning (“Bush Choice Gets Criticisms Rare for Nominees to Court” by David D. Krikpatrick) shows that dimwitted pols and the NYT are examining the Miers nomination and saying that, for one thing, we the people are to blame for the unprecedented negativity over the Bush Supreme Court choice. Public expectations are higher now, the article says, since the last Supremes were named who had no judicial experience (Powell and Rehnquist). And to bolster its position that the disapproval over Miers is a mystery, the article repeats the NYT misinformation that Sandra Day O’Connor and Harriet Miers have similar resumes. No, they don’t. O’Connor and Miers personal and professional data could not be more unlike. Please see my October 4th post, “Let’s Get Something Straight” that shows just how different the two women are. Dear Political Historians, Senators and New York Times Fatheads: The reason Harriet Miers is being dissed is because she not only is an unqualified choice for a seat on the Supreme Court, she is the worst choice the White House could have come up with had it tried to name a ninny and corporate law hack to the Supreme Court. Which is what they have done. When before this nomination have Senators had to ask a nominee to re-do the written questionnaire because the answers as presented were “incomplete” and “insulting”? When before this nomination has a Supreme Court nominee been touted as being the best choice because she/he worshipped God in the approved church and manner of a born-again Christian? When before this nomination was a nominee lauded as the best choice because he/she was good at “details”—only to have it revealed that said nominee had forgotten to have his/her law license renewed and therefore could not legally practice law until he/she ponied up the renewal fee? When before this nomination was a nominee’s highest and best SCOTUS qualification a stint as head of the lottery commission of the nominator’s home state? When before this nomintion was a nominee acclaimed for having been the top lawyer in a law firm when in fact his/her job had been as a co-office manager? If Harriet Miers is the best nominee for the Supreme Court that the White House could come up with after having searched far and wide for months and months, then the current spate of troubles and scandals besetting the Bush administration has rendered it incapable of doing the nation’s business. Which of course is true. As we look forward to the Fitzgerald indictments and bearing in mind the Bush administration’s track record for choosing the lowest and worst for their appointments, Bush-asskisser, den-mother and born-again proselytizer Karen Hughes could be our next vice president.

No comments: