SHE WAS RIGHT During the month of October in the year of 2005 a feminine star loomed large on our political skies. On the 27th day of the month she was
eclipsed. Then, and not until then, it was seen that she had been wise enough to use good judgment in withdrawing from nomination to become a member of our Supreme Court.
In so doing, Harriet Miers demonstrated her ability to make judgements aside from personal or polical party feelings The oppositon to Harriet Miers came, not from Democrats but from objections by “far right”conservative Republicans - sometimes called “the religious right”.
Democats were standing by, I would say. They played it cool
awaiting this special oppuninity which allowed them to malign any Bush nominee. Other than one or two stalwarts among automatic critics voiced their very general opinons.
When Bush first mentioned the name Harriet Miers just weeks ago I think the average one of us welcomed the annoucment. We were pleased that he had chose a woman since he was replacing one on the existing court. Most peopleI talked with seemed also to be pleased with the idea that George Bush had avoided simply dipping into the well of lawyers from which so many politicians think justices must come, that he had look elsewhere to make a choice. Most seemed to be content with the idea that he had chosen a non-lawyer type. Such a choice
choice was was not all that unnatural, however, because many of our justices of the past have come from other than lawyer backgrounds – notably our past Chief Justice -and it seemed to make good sense to choose some one from other than lawyer sources. Some were bothered a bit by the fact that she was a White House
council. It proved to be a stumblin bloc because someone wanted to see official papers concering her advice and treatment of WhiteHouse problems – papers which the President felt could not be made available. This, to many critics suggested ”cronyism” - a favorite hurdle which is difficult to eliminate.
A.L.M. Oct. 27, 2005 [c356wds]
