October 04, 2005
10/4: Harriet, But Why?
24 hours out, Pres. Bush's pick of WH counsel Harriet Miers for SCOTUS is somewhat better received. While the right remains overwhelmingly unhappy, having preferred a Scalia/Thomas-type, she does have a handful of strong defenders and enough conservatives willing to keep an open mind. The left is divided into 2 camps of its own -- those who are taking a wait-and-see approach, and those pointing to various problems with her past, including issues related to her old law firm. While the GOP side is having a rough and tumble fight over the pick, differences between bloggers on the left have yet to be fully addressed. One thing many on the left and right can agree on is that they just don't know enough about her to make a final call. And as much as conservatives dislike her, they don't appear ready to oppose her nod outright. Nor are liberal bloggers pushing the Dems to filibuster her.
Meanwhile, the re-indictment of ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay raises a few eyebrows -- but not many. This a.m. debate in the blogosphere seems almost the opposite of the CJ John Roberts nod. Roberts proved popular (or benign) enough that his confirmation was often overshadowed by the day's latest events. At least for now, Miers is proving controversial enough that other stories aren't breaking through.
In other news: the camp of netroots hero Paul Hackett (D) confirms he will run for OH SEN, and 10 Commandments judge Roy Moore (R) jumps into the AL GOV race. Plus, our latest Blogger Spotlight, with John Cole of Balloon Juice.
MIERS I: Polarizing In The Way That When The Earth's Magnetic Field Reverses, It Could Be Total Chaos Until The Poles Settle Down
>> Hugh Hewitt has emerged as the righty blogger most supportive of Miers. He writes: "James Dobson endorsed Harriet Miers today. Jay Sekulow endorsed Harriet Miers today. Add their endorsements to those of the president, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and numerous other Administration officials. Yes, I wanted Judge [Michael] Luttig or Judge [Michael] McConnell, but the president wanted Miers, and I don't for a minute believe it is because of friendship, but because of W's understanding of the importance of the Court. ... My suspicion is that as Democrats review Miers personal story, and especially her obvious and deep personal faith, that 'the groups' on the left will realize to their horror that, once again, the president has outflanked them. They may try to marshall their forces and launch an assault on Miers. The trouble with some conservatives declaring the end of the world as we know it is that they are effectively taking themselves out of this battle on the first day." 
Not many are willing to go so far as him and predict that she will be a judicial conservative, but some are optimistic, including Lorie Byrd: "I don't think I know enough about her to decide whether the President made a horrible or a brilliant pick. I suspect that the final judgment on it will fall somewhere in between though. I am just surprised that so many are being so quick to declare this pick a disaster when so much about Harriet Miers is still unknown." Sentiments like those of Erick Erickson are far more typical: "Is 'I nominate Harriet Miers' this Bush's 'Read my lips, no new taxes' moment?" In an earlier post, Hewitt gave Bush a B+ for the pick. Prof. Stephen Bainbridge objects: "I'd have to grade that comment somewhere around a D-. Indeed, I'd rank it down there with the late GOP Senator Roman Hruska's infamous defense of Nixon nominee Harold Carswell: 'Even if he is mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they?'" Hubris makes the same point, with a bit more snark.
>> When the so-called Gang of 14 cut their deal in 5/05 and a number of conservative bloggers were unhappy, Decision '08 came up with a sidebar button for fellow conservatives who weren't concerned by the move: "Coalition of the Chillin'" (see 5/26 Blogometer). Now Patrick Ruffini, who was not a part of the coalition back then, resurrects it (calling this new wave the "SCOTUS Division") and creates a new badge for like minded bloggers to use: "[T]he sentiment seems pertinent today, as some well-meaning folks are letting old school credentializing get in the way of confirming a real-world conservative who would move the Court in the right direction." So far, at least, PoliPundit and Blogs for Bush are in. Mark Coffey from Decision '08hasn't made up his mind yet; Strata-Sphere collects some reactions from original coalition members, who are more or less still chillin'.
>> So far, Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas says he doesn't see anything in her record that warrants a filibuster, which actually might be detrimental to Dem issues. He compares the pick to then-Pres. Clinton's consultation of Sen. Orin Hatch (R-UT) on his SCOTUS picks: "Breyer was confirmed 87-9. Ginsburg 96-3. At the time, Republicans were a minority in the Senate, a situation not unlike today. I must admit a bit of nervousness at those who want to FILIBUSTER MIERS NOW! without regard to the political situation. Fact is, we need a new Supreme Court justice, and Bush, as president gets to nominate. The Senate, run by Republicans, gets to confirm. That's a perk of winning elections, and one that I hope Democrats get in just a few short cycles. We could filibuster, but really, it was in Bush's interest, just like Clinton's, to find a safe candidate. [Senate Min. Leader Harry] Reid offered up Miers, Bush agreed." The commenters below are much more divided, but only 1 of the 200 posts we searched explicitly called for a filibuster. But The Left Coaster's Steve Soto does: "Oppose her. Force the GOP members of the Gang of 14 to invoke the nuclear option to put this unqualified candidate on the court by a simple majority. Given the opposition from the base, I am willing to bet that they won't blow up the filibuster for a pick like Miers. Hell, at this point, it isn't even certain that Miers would pass with the full support of the GOP Senate caucus."
>> Liberal Nathan Newman: "One of Miers only qualifications for her nomination is that she was the head of a major corporate law firm, Locke, Liddle & Sappe. Where under her leadership, the firm had to pay a $22 million settlement for aiding a client in defrauding investors." Noting that the Bankrupt.com article about it states "Harriet Miers ... said the firm denies liability in connection with its representation of Erxleben," Newman compares her to ex-Enron CEO Ken Lay. At Huffington Post, lefty David Sirota piles on: "True, she could claim she had no idea this was going on. But that would be as laughable/pathetic/transparent as the Enron executives who made the same ones after they ripped off investors." Noting also that Miers was the "front person to squelch the AWOL allegations" during WH'00, TalkLeft's Last Night in Little Rock [Update: Not Jeralyn Merritt, as we had it earlier.] recommends: "Miers falls into the black hole of controversial nominees that "Advise and Consent" should reject. The 1st person to raise the issue that we can tell, actually, was conservative Bainbridge. Liberal Confined Space is concerned that her firm displayed a pattern of "union avoidance."
>> Miers is drawing comparisons both favorable and unfavorable: Right-leaning UCLA law prof Eugene Volokh writes that Miers' nod, while different from recent picks, does fit a "historically well established" mold: "I was struck by how her career path ... fits more the paths of Justices White (especially) and Powell than of some more recent Justices. ... White and Powell, like Miers, came to the bench from lawyering, not from judging or the academy. Powell, like Miers, made his reputation chiefly in private practice, some amount of public service, and bar association leadership. White, like Miers, served in Washington following a substantial career in private practice." Crooked Timber's left-leaning Kieran Healy: "[T]he fact that she's a woman leads me to think that, unlike the likes of [ex-FEMA dir./FEMA adviser] Michael Brown, she's also competent and probably a pretty tough person. It's hard to get to this point in U.S. politics without having those qualities if you're a woman. ... I'd be surprised if her confirmation hearings showed her to be clueless or a pushover." Header at Obsidian Wings: "At Least She's More Qualified Than Michael Brown..."
MIERS II: Harriet, But Why?
Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum, on why Miers: "[I]f he had picked a highly qualified moderate with a long paper trail, it would have been way too obvious that he really was backing down from a fight. Conversely, by nominating Miers, he's got everyone convinced that he's just picking a friend. Sure, the base is temporarily pissed that he's let them down, but before long they'll convince themselves that (a) it's just cronyism and (b) she's probably pretty conservative after all"
At The Corner, Jonah Goldberg notes that on FNC last p.m. Dobson defended Miers "on the grounds she's an evangelical Christian." He writes: "As of right now, the Court is brimming with Catholics, isn't it? That Dobson takes this view suggests to me that we may have been a bit blindsided yesterday and in fact Bush is playing a bit of identity-politics on the sly."
At liberal The Next Hurrah, DHinMI offers one reason why: "[O]minously for Bush, and for the country, he may be afraid of what's coming down the pike in the Fitzgerald investigation of the Valerie Plame outing, and is more concerned with having a justice who will protect his sorry ass than one who will protect the constitution and be a good justice."
NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "I'm underwhelmed by the nomination, but it might be worth pointing out that the common perception that Bush promised a "strict constructionist" like Scalia and Thomas is an exaggeration. ... Bush made a point of saying that he admired Scalia and Thomas, but didn't pledge to nominate clones of them."
Liberal Yale prof Jack Balkin: "Although we don't know much about Miers, it's likely that, like John Roberts, she was picked with a view toward protecting executive power."
MIERS III: Relax, We've Got Reax
At Confirm Them, Andrew Hyman calls for "hearings pronto." Liberal Ezra Klein writes, in the Miers nod, "all manner of conservatives got shafted. From the theocrats to the libertarians to, eventually, the neocons, the only group who found Bush a reliable genie were the plutocrats, and they're more self-interested Rockefeller types than ideologues. ... In politics, if you're not driven by ideology, you're driven by drive." Conservative Patrick Frey from Patterico's Pontifications: "To the 'trust Bush' crowd: Bush signed an unconstitutional campaign finance reform law. Bush instructed Ted Olson to support affirmative action in an argument to the Supreme Court. Et cetera. ... Even if Miers would vote the 'right' way, I just don't have enough confidence in her candlepower, because I haven't been given any reason to have confidence." Center-right Univ. Madison-WI law prof Ann Althouse, on the question mark surrounding Miers' abortion stance: "I wish we could be clearer in distinguishing abortion and abortion rights. It is possible to support abortion rights and still be opposed to abortion (in the sense of finding it morally wrong). And it is possible not to have a moral objection to abortion but nevertheless think that the Court went wrong when if found abortion rights in the Constitution." On the left, there is plenty of intrigue about whether the GOP will oppose her outright: AMERICAblog posts a strongly-worded e-mail from conservative activist Richard Viguerie to his e-mail list indicating his "dismay" over the nomination. Daily Kos posts, in JPG format, Miers' answers to a 1989 HRC questionnaire on gay rights during her time on the Dallas city council, wherein she states gays should have the same "civil rights" as non-gays. On her '88 donations to then-Sen. Al Gore's WH'88 campaign, Marvin Olasky reports on a conversation with former Miers colleague Rob Mowrey, who said: "Our firm had long done legal work for a large mortgage banking company, Lomas & Nettleton." Olasky explains, "Lomas was a big account," and they were expected to contribute. Politics1's left-leaning Ron Gunzberger: "I'm concerned by conservative Martin Olasky's reporting on Meirs having been active in her fundamentalist church, noting her "views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians ... you can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church." As for Meirs' resume, it seems okay -- even pretty good in and of itself -- but it appears to be far less than we should expect for a US Supreme Court nominee." Protein Wisdom is worried that she may support the ICC; when she was in the ABA, a cmte panel she headed made the recommendation to support one. Frequent Bush critic Andrew Sullivan: "I'm not sure yet whether she'd make a decent Justice. But, boy, does this pick remind us of who GWB is: about as arrogant a person as anyone who has ever held his office. Now the base knows how the rest of us have felt for close to five years. He had one accountability moment. He doesn't expect another." Conservative Andy McCarthy, at Bench Memos: "A large part of the skepticism and disappointment over the President's choice is that we don't really know what Harriet Miers thinks and whether she has a developed judicial philosophy. Nor will we know. Indeed, it's entirely possible that SHE doesn't know." Steve Clemons: "While this nomination is a lot like Roberts in that there is little in the way of 'judgments' and legal actions to easily document the nominee's views, it is clear that Bush is avoiding people who are clearly and unequivocally ideologically right-wing." Atrios notices an MSNBC photo showing Miers briefing Bush is from 8/6/01. He wonders if the paper in Bush's lap is the infamous "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In U.S." -- which was dated 8/6/01.
DELAY: Not Gone, But Forgotten?
As the AP reports, at the behest of Travis Co. DA Ronnie Earle, a TX grand jury "re-indicted" ex-House Maj. Leader/Rep. Tom DeLay on 10/3, this time on 2 counts essentially identical to the ones before. Right-leaning Balloon Juice: "Weird. Apparently, Ronnie Earle figured out the original indictment against DeLay was one that wouldn't hold water, in that he was indicted for something that isn't a crime, and went before a Grand Jury today and got a separate indictment for money laundering." Talking Points Memo notes that the Austin American-Statesman reports that this is the case, although the Houston Chronicle quotes UT-Austin law prof George Dix arguing the original indictment should have been fine. GOPbloggers finds it curious that "a grand jury empaneled for six months concluded that there was no money laundering, yet, a new grand jury finds on day one what the other couldn't...?" Center-left Stygius quotes DeLay
from this weekend: "I had nothing to do with the day-to-day operation. It was my idea to form this group. I helped to organize it. I have other things to do. I stepped away and moved on." Stygius comments: "So, all the histrionics about "frivolity" aside, DeLay is acknowledging that TRMPAC was most likely breaking the law." More from PunditGuy, Junk Yard Blog and Begging to Differ.
MIDTERMS '02: With "The Hammer" Fading, Could Hackett Become "The Hatchet"?
Ex-OH 02 candidate Paul Hackett (D) spokesperson David Woodruff told the AP on 10/3: "Paul Hackett is running for U.S. Senate. ... He is planning to announce his decision officially on Oct. 24." According to Zogby, Hackett already leads Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH). Liberal Daffodil Lane notes that Hackett will be just 1 of 6 Dem Iraq war vets so far running in '06: "This is a great story about how soldiers seeing and experiencing Republican mismanagement first hand, have been forced to do their duty to their country on an even higher level and stand against the tyranny that is the Republican party on their return home to the states." Dem-leaning OurSenate: "Indications are Hackett stands an excellent chance at knocking off DeWine. The DSCC is behind him, as is the blogosphere; a rare alliance of Washington insiders and activists." Meanwhile, Hotline reported on 10/3 that Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who previously had taken his name out of the running, is considering a run anyway. Daily Kos: "[W]ith all apologies to Brown, who is one of the greats in the House, but this isn't cool. He bows out, waits for Hackett to gear up, and then floats a trial balloon about getting back in? Brown must've known about Hackett's decision to run, hence this trial balloon is sabotage."
IN THE STATES: The Moore Things Change
AL-based conservative Dr. Steven Taylor, on the just-announced AL GOV candidate/ex-Judge Roy Moore (R-AL): "I am not surprised, but I sure was hoping that he wasn't going to run. Even the chance that he could become governor gives me the hives. His platform? Best I can tell, this is pretty much it: 'I will defend the right of every citizen of this state -- including judges, coaches, teachers, city, county and state officials -- to acknowledge God as the sovereign source of law, liberty and government.' All well and good -- but that isn't the job of the Governor. In case Mr. Moore hasn't noticed: there are a lot of churches in Alabama. I am certain that our religious liberties, and our rights to acknowledge God as we see fit, are wholly protected." Outside The Beltway's Dr. James Joyner is a bit more forgiving: "The man is a West Point graduate and a very bright and capable man, belying the rube image most non-Alabamians likely have of him. While I disagree with Moore on religious grounds and was rooting for his impeachment for flouting the rule of law as a judge, I nonetheless believe his stance principled rather than mere pandering to a very Evangelical electorate in the Heart of Dixie." Social conservative K.J. Lopez: "Sigh." Liberal Running Scared compares Moore to Katrina: "God's wrath knows no end for this hard hit southern state ... Just one thing -- you vote for it, you're on your own. Or we send FEMA." Moore already has a campaign website up, which includes a page calling itself a blog. Instead, it looks more like a heavily moderated discussion board, albeit organized in newest-item-first chronological order.
Earlier this year, pub owner-turned-Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper (D) enjoyed 92% approval ratings. Those numbers have fallen back to earth, and despite promises he wouldn't run for CO GOV, Colorado Pols wonders if he might anyway: "Hickenlooper may take a lesson from Baltimore Mayor Martin O'Malley, who once enjoyed unprecedented popularity -- he may have even been more popular than Hickenlooper -- but may have waited too long to make a move upward. ... Will Hickenlooper get out [while] the gettin's good and run for governor after all? We don't think so, but now that the honeymoon is coming to an abrupt end, maybe he'll start looking for a new bride."
ROVE-PLAME-MILLER-LIBBY: Middle Age Fanclub
Ragged Thots, on why New York Times' Judy Miller became such a "central figure" in the case: "[B]ecause she MADE herself a central figure and, arguably, BECAUSE she didn't" write about it. The key 2 weeks in 7/03 when any illegal activity may have taken place coincided with the UK controversy over the BBC's "sexed up" WMD reports. During this time, Miller "wrote words of encouragement to British scientist David Kelly: 'David, I heard from another member of your fan club that things went well for you today. Hope it's true, J.' These don't seem like the words of a disinterested journalist. These are the words of someone who has some sort of interest in how a witness performs in a parliamentary hearing. How is it that ... not one media organization has deemed it important to wonder: Who is the other 'member of [Kelly's] fan club'? Is it Scooter Libby? Is it John Bolton? ... Judith Miller is the missing link between two different investigations. She's not a mere reporter. How do we know? Because, she has 'reported' none of this."
WHITE HOUSE '08: McCain Is Like The Mario Character In "Super Mario 2" -- Consistent All-Around, But Not Especially Impressive In Any One Category
Last p.m. Patrick Ruffini surveyed the results from his most recent WH'08 GOP straw poll (see 9/29 Blogometer). A few highlights:
- Ex-NYC Mayor Rudy Giuliani, the consistent winner in his polls, "seems to have received a 'Katrina bounce' of about 5 points."
- "A priori disparagement of Giuliani's support among social conservatives is rife in comment sections, even as America's Mayor continues to win at the digital ballot box. Hard numbers would not seem to support their view."
- "The question then becomes if Rudy can survive a late-primary two man race, losing the pro-lifers 60-40 but winning everyone else 80-20.:" The poll shows "it would be close."
- "Among conservatives (4,806 tags), Giuliani leads by 3.9%. Among pro-lifers, it's [VA Sen. George] Allen by 4%. Concern about illegal immigration seems to cross cut all segments of the party."
- "Arguably [John] McCain the most consistent support base of all of them." Although he wins no single state outright, "There's a reason his PAC web site says 'America's Senator' -- Arizona is his 27th best state."
KE'04 aide Ari Melber is optimistic about possible changes to the Dem WH'08 primary calendar, currently under discussion. He writes at Huffington Post, IA and NH "have held onto their positions because of their well-deserved reputation for providing accessible, "retail" opportunities for citizens to vet candidates. Their small scale and experienced electorates typically prioritize ability and leadership over fundraising and hype. ... The commission's new proposal addresses that issue by preserving" IA and NH's "early status -- while adding other states to the mix. The new states can hold one primary per day, instead of sharing their primary dates with several states (as in the front-loaded process). Such early, stand-alone contests could be as influential" as IA and NH and "give voters more time to tune in and evaluate the candidates."
BLOGGER SPOTLIGHT: The Red State Balloon
Today the Blogometer talks to conservative John Cole, who blogs primarily at Balloon Juice.
What is your full name?
John Cole
What is your age?
35
Where did you grow up?
Bethany, WV
Where do you live now?
Morgantown, WV
What is your occupation? Have you ever worked on a political campaign or for the mainstream media?
Lecturer and Departmental Director for Online Course, Department of Communication Studies, West Virginia University. I worked with John Raese's [R-WV] 1984 Senate campaign.
When did you start blogging and why?
I started in January 2002, in large part because I was inspired to start blogging after reading people like Instapundit, Ken Layne, Matt Welch, and Andrew Sullivan. I enjoyed the participation and the conversation.
What has been your favorite post, or favorite story to write about, in that time?
I am particularly proud of my stance on the Terri Schiavo incident (here is a sample, but I wrote dozens of posts). One of my favorite issues to write about, overall, is Intelligent Design/Creationism.
Describe your typical blogging schedule. And what is your average output?
I usually have a few posts up during the morning, one or two at lunch, and some in the evening. It varies.
Who is your favorite political blogger? Favorite non-political blogger?
My favorite blogger political or non-political, is Jeff Goldstein. A lot of people don't his idiosyncrasies, but I think his is an example of the BEST the blogosphere has to offer.
Another guy I really enjoy reading is Matthew Stinson, who runs a smaller website. He was one of my early favorites, but then took a while off to pursue other interests and to work overseas. He recently started up again, and doesn't get NEARLY the amount of traffic he deserves. I also really enjoy Crooks and Liars, run by a fellow named John Amato. He runs a videoblog, in that the majority of his posts are clips from the MSM (The Political Teen does something similar). Even though John comes at things from a different perspective than I do, his site is great for referring people to see things they may have otherwise missed.
I really like all three of these guys, and I feel unfair having to single people out because there are so many good blogs out there, but those are my favorites. I also write for and read Red State and enjoy the commentary there.
Who is your favorite mainstream media columnist?
Mark Steyn or Christopher Hitchens. Even if I disagree with them, they are fun to read.
What is your favorite television news program, either network or cable?
"Hardball"
What MSM-produced websites (i.e. newspapers, magazines) do you visit on a daily basis?
NY Times, WaPo, WSJ (and Opinion Journal), Wired, ESPN, Slate, Salon, TNR.
What non-MSM websites (i.e. blogs) do you visit on a daily basis?
Tons. Instapundit, Daily Kos, Red State, Protein Wisdom, Matt Stinson, Memeorandum, Hugh Hewitt, Michelle Malkin, Volokh Conspiracy, Donklephant, Michael Demmons, Andrew Sullivan, Crooks and Liars, Crooked Timber... Really, there are just too many to list.
How often, or do you ever, read a newspaper in its dead-tree (i.e. print) form?
When I get a copy of USA Today at a hotel, when I am at a restaurant and there is one lying around, and I read the University paper in dead tree version. Sometimes on Sunday I will get a NY Times and read it. Basically, though -- never.
How do you see the new media and old media affecting and influencing each other in the next five years?
I see more of the media criticism, fact-checking, and analysis that has made up the early years of the blogosphere, but as more specialty blogs pop up, I see more personal blogs becoming original sources. I also think that you are going to see a rise in individuals doing their own reporting, as multimedia becomes easier and more prevalent, and anyone can carry a digital camera/recorder to an event and report what they have seen. We are already seeing a lot of this.
I think once the MSM stops feeling threatened, we are going to see a more symbiotic relationship. I have joined Pajamas Media, and I think groups like this as well as what papers like the Washington Post are already doing with their Technorati links to blogs commenting on specific stories, as well as the way sites like your Blogometer and Gabe Rivera's Memeorandum are going to bridge the gaps between the two forms of media.
THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Let's Talk About Sex
Liberal Echidne of the Snakes considers why women, already uncommon in elite legal circles, are rarer still on the SCOTUS: "One type of study gives research subjects imaginary resumes of job applicants and asks the subjects to rank them in terms of competence. Some resumes are randomly assigned male names and some female names, and this is done so that on average the applicants of either sex have equally good resumes. What these studies show is interesting: When the proportion of women in the applicant pool is large enough (say, thirty percent), the sex of the applicant has no effect on the ranking, but when women are a small percentage of the total the research subjects appear to focus on their gender and this has a negative effect on the ratings the women receive. Remember that there is no actual difference between the imaginary male and female applicants in these studies. Thus the effect is solely one based on one sex being 'unusual' ... Much has changed since the early years of the second wave of feminism, and in many areas women are now common enough to be seen as individuals. But this is not true of the top posts in the society, such as the seats in the Supreme Court."
LEST WE FORGET: Naming Right
- Volokh Conspiracy's Orrin Kerr points out that RedState-affil. jud. group blog Confirm Them -- which started in early '05 to support Bush's jud. nominees and break the Dem filibuster but now is deeply unhappy with the Miers nod -- is no longer properly described by its name. He suggests a few other domain names, which are still available if they want:
- www.weusedtosayconfirmthembutnowwearejustconfused.com
- www.isthisreallyhappeningtome.com
- www.thisisntwhatiwasexpectingwhenijoinedthiswebsite.com
- www.nowforsomethingcompletelydifferent.org
- In one widely-read post, Republican Senate collects and posts pictures of Bush's ideal SCOTUS lineup.
- Somebody has already set up a fake Miers blog -- and even a fake Michael Luttig blog for it to interact with. In a post at the latter blog, a dispirited "Luttig" muses: "The only possible distinction that Hairy-Ette might hold is she's the first Supreme Court nominee whose eyeliner is thicker than her curriculum vitae." In a post titled "MEMO TO J. MICHAEL LUTTIG: STFU," "Miers" responds: "I'm sorry, but this is seriously not okay. Mike, if you want to snipe at me, fine. But you're not Supreme Court material, you never have been, and you never will be. And if you think you're smarter than the President of the United States, well that just shows why you're a divorce court judge (or whatever you are) and he's in the White House."
Posted by at October 4, 2005 12:40 PM
The Watergate · 600 New Hampshire Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20037
202-739-8400 · fax 202-833-8069
NationalJournal.com is an Atlantic Media publication.
