Just her lack of judicial experience qualifies Miers for the filibuster.

[ncteechur]

Never mind she is a crony.

Never mind she was a partner of a law firm mired in corruption.

Never mind she thinks * is brilliant.

The woman has never been a judge. Now I know the Constitution says you don't have to be one BUT do we really want a SC justice not to have ever served a day on the bench. I mean there are some on the bench that have very minimal judicial experience but at least they have some. ANd there are some on the bench (Clarence Thomas) who are dumber than a fence post.

The democrats should filibuster this one--plain and simple--I don't care what Harry Reid says about her. He has obviously lost his friggin mind. She is a twit like her brilliant Bush.

I believe the population will back a filibuster on this one. They don't believe a person should be on the SCOTUS unless they have been a judge. Poll after poll indicates this.

Filibuster this loser. Period.

[unblock]

1. i think the lack of a paper trail and the white house refusal to furnish

documents is cause enough for filibuster. they should have done it with roberts, but there will be more support for it this time.

[Charlie Brown]

2. Earl Warren, Byron White, etc.

With so many non-judges in the SC's past, that will be a hard sell.

[politicat]

11. Warren had legislative and executive experience. White had DOJ experience.

So far Hattie's missed both of those.

She has no legislative experience, no executive government experience (White House Counsel is not in the Exec chain of command), no DOJ experience. She's got precious little litigation experience - she hasn't spent much time in a courtroom at all. She's primarily a manager and a fundraiser.

She's as underqualified for the job as a 17 year old with a year flipping burgers is for the CEO of McDonalds.

[onenote]

20. again..explain how either is relevant

They certainly don't disqualify you, but if you think John Mitchell, William French Smith, or Ed Meese were more qualified to be a Supreme Court justice than Vernon Jordan, well....I guess we just have to disagree.

onenote

[politicat]

26. See other post.

We may have to disagree... I think fighting for the heart of the Court and the direction of the next 30 years is worth losing a 6 years of the Senate. It's long-term versus short term. I'm not yet 30 - I can live with an addition 6 years of a crappy senate (assuming we get the House and the Presidency back, and I think we will). I can't live with 30 years of the effing Handmaid's Tale.

[onenote]

36. and if we lose the WH in 2008 -- how many more justices

I'm a lot older than you and if we don't recapture the Senate and the WH in the next couple of years, you'll be living with the Handmaid's Tale for the rest of your life.

onenote

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

44. It's amazing how that fact isn't sinking in.

People are failing to realize the burden of evidence for stopping a nomination on DU is just slightly less than what it is for the rest of the world.

[ncteechur]

3. And another thing.

This is the perhaps the last chance the dems will have to filibuster a SC nominee. I mean if you have it, freakin use it and particularly on this POS. Filibust-HER! She is a CROOK. Bush in a dress. She's got no business being a SC justice.

[serryjw]

7. Lets talk precedent

Has a POTUS lawyer ever been nominated while was the sitting pResident? She knows all his secrets.

[onenote]

10. not that I can recall, but I also don't see why it matters

First -- she's only been WH counsel since February of this year. Before that she was deputy chief of staff and before that she was staff secretary.

Second, if Jimmy Carter or Bill Clinton had named Lloyd Cutler to the SCOTUS when he was WH counsel, no one would've blinked an eye.

onenote

[serryjw]

21. Even USA TODAY doesn't agree with you

quote.......
As a member of Bush's inner circle, Miers was in a position to monitor and influence a host of important decisions as they were being made — from the president's choices for judicial nominations, to the policy for interrogating enemy combatants, to the administration's response to a grand jury investigation of whether top White House officials illegally disclosed the identity of CIA operative Valerie Plame.

end quote,,
Read the entire article,it's worth while
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-04-miers-record_x.htm

[onenote]

22. well USA Today certainly is THE authority on EVERYTHING

And I did read the article and didn't see anything that contradicted what I wrote. They described her role as an advisor to the Pres. They described how she probably will be asked questions about it and how the WH has indicated that they aren't going to be forthcoming with information. Yep. But I didn't see where they said -- or quoted anyone else as saying -- that her role as an advisor to the pres mattered in terms of whether she could/should/would be confirmed.

onenote

[serryjw]

23. Try reading it again!

I gave you the paragraph about an on going investigation.It is plain and simple a conflict of interest.As a sitting Justice she needs to be above partican politics when HER former CLIENT is indicted!

[ObaMania]

4. But, but, but..

.. how about Rehnquist and White? They never served on the bench either and they are arguably the best the supreme court ever had. :sarcasm:

[ncteechur]

5. Well they should have been filibustered also.

Filibust-HER!

[ObaMania]

6. True.

[onenote]

8. wrong on so many levels

First, the fact that there have been loads of justices who weren't judges suggests that your expectation that the public would be supportive of a filibuster against Miers isn't something I'd bet on.

Second: Griswold v. Connecticut. The case where the Supreme Court recognized a constitutional right of privacy that paved the way for Roe v. Wade.
Five of the seven justices in the majority on that case: never were judges: Warren, Douglas, Clark, Goldberg, and White.

Third: So let's imagine the Dems filibuster Miers. Then what. Chimpy comes back with the second coming of Robert Bork: solitor general, professor, acting attorney general, federal court judge. A resume you can't believe. Now the Dems have to switch grounds and say its not about the resume and qualfications, its about judicial philsophy. Meanwhile, we move into 2006 having re-energized a demoralized GOP by giving them the battle cry of "up or down vote" to run with.

So explain to me again why judicial experience should be a prerequisite.

onenote

[politicat]

13. Experience of any sort would be useful here.

As far as the public record shows, she hasn't done anything in 28 years. No legislative experience, no executive governmental experience, no judicial experience, not much litigation experience. She's managed people and companies, messed around with a lottery, and played NBA All Stars on the Playstation with *.

Give me something more. That's a resume I might accept for a counsel for my company. Maybe. But not likely. That's my issue with her. Why should we pay a SCOTUS Justice $194K a year for life when there's no reason to show that she's worth that? She's frankly unqualified, too close to this admin to be objective, has massive conflicts of interest that would inhibit her ability to perform the duties of the job, and her resume sucks.

[onenote]

18. on what do you base your description -- and what's tne end game?

THe descriptions I've seen of Miers indicate that she was a very experienced, highly regarded corporate litigator. The National Journal -- which is a reputable rag -- named her as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country. I suspect that anyone with her resume would have no trouble getting a job as counsel at your company.

And exactly what relevance does having executive governmental experience (whatever that includes) have to being a SCOTUS justice? Arthur Goldberg was counsel to the AFL-CIO and then Secy' of Labor. Douglas was SEC chairman and an -- uh oh -- expert in corporate litigation. Lewis Powell: Richmond School Board and ABA president. Abe Fortas -- LBJ's lawyer and private practice.

Finally -- I'm still looking for someone to explain (realistically) what the end game of knocking out Miers would be if the basis of the resistance is her "qualifications/experience". We can only beat her with a filibuster. So then what -- chimpy names an experienced wingnut -- a mini Robert Bork if you will -- and the Dems filibuster again. By now were heading into the 2006 elections and we've managed to take a GOP base that is pretty demoralized right now and given them a cause to get energized about -- elect more repugs to the Senate.

onenote

[politicat]

25. Listening to the lawyers who work with my company...

A successful, highly regarded corporate litigator becomes that way by keeping clients out of court. Settlements, negotiations, etc. A judge and/or jury are unpredictable; it's better for the lawyers to work things out in camera, so to speak, than to risk a trial. Thus, by definition practically, if one is a good, highly regarded corporate litigator, one has spent very little time in a court room and a lot of time in a back room. Our in-house legal staff does not like dealing with corporate litigators; they don't know how the system works and out staff complain that the corp types don't understand what a courtroom is like. (I'm medical; our group does a lot of pro-bono work, so we end up in court more often than not because the client comes to us after an arrest or after the situation has escalated.) So the lack of procedure, the lack of even the basics - the fact is the woman has probably not been in front of a jury in years - puts her out of practice.

As far as executive governmental experience goes, having it (in absence of other governmental or legislative experience) means that one understands how government works - even just down to little things like understanding the limits of the spheres.

The Senate is 6 years. A Bushbot Supreme Court could last as long as 30 years. I'll be ready to retire when the majority finally shifts again. (Thank dog Scalia is an old fart.) We can fix the Senate within a decade, even if the GOP is demoralized and comes out swinging. There's no way to fix the Supreme Court once it's broken. Considering I wouldn't trust a Bushbot court not to re-instate Dred Scott, I'm not worrying much about the Senate.

Besides, what about Dems and indies getting reinvigorated by watching our Senators actually stand up for us? They took a polling bump when Pelosi et al got on *'s back about FEMA - the fact is the people like it when the Dems act like they have spines. And the sound bite is perfect for us " This president keeps sending us people who would subvert everything the people of the US and our armed forces and our Constitution Stands for. Putting this candidate in would harm America for decades to come." We blame the President for giving us crappy candidates. Because he does. Every frickin' time.

[Savannah Progressive]

32. So it's better to roll over, lose civil liberties, and go along

I am glad I have that clear now, I mean, without that I don't think I could have truly understood what is at stake.

So we confirm an unqualified cronie, who is instrumental in overturning Roe V. Wade. SO the Bushies re-establish Segregation, Separate but Equal was really just, and solved so many problems right? The only thing that matters while this is going on, and Corporations are given protection from any kind of Justice by acts of congress, is we pick up a few seats by fooling the people into thinking we are Republicans too.

Do you really think the American People want these kinds of far right wing extremists on the courts? Do you really think they want their Property Rights to disappear via more decisions like Kelo?

Is your strategy for the war of ideals, for our nation, for the people, a give strict loyalty to the king, and pray for some crumbs in return? If that had been our plan all along, Segregation would still be the law in many many states.

That is a defeatist attitude, and one which you win nothing, and lose everything. It hasn't worked yet, and never will. We must stand and demand, stand and fight. We can't expect the people to fight for us if we won't fight for anything. The people are waiting for our leaders to stand and say this is wrong and why. They are waiting for our leaders to represent our party, instead of the Republicans. As long as we are Republican lite, the people will support the Republicans, why go for the cheap copy when for the same price you can get the original? When our leaders lie about what they believe, the people see it, and see the individual as a liar. They are smart enough to see through the BS and with the net now, it's easy to check up on a voting record.

[onenote]

39. my strategy is fight smart in the short term to win for the long term

A short term victory over Miers almost certainly has two results: instead of a 60 year old stealth candidate who probably, but not certainly, will be aligned with the right wing of the court, we'll get a new nominee who is a 50 year old candidate who either clearly, or by stealth, will be aligned with the right wing of the court. We can filibuster that one if you'd like, and the one after and the one after. Of course by then, we'll be in the middle of the 2006 elections and the repugs will be campaigning on the old "up or down vote" mantra, which may be stupid, but polling clearly shows is resonates with the public.

Do I think the American people want these kind of right wing extremists? No. Does the public pay enough attention to know how bad these nominees are? No. Take a look at the polling data on Roberts.

The war, the handling of Katrina, the DeLay indictments -- things are going our way and we finally have an issue we can run on -- the corruption and incompetence of this administration. I don't see evidence that Miers is "incompetent" -- frankly, she seems to have been quite successful at everything she's done from Law School until now. QUite the contrast to Mike Brown, who failed at every job he ever held. I think trying to tar every appointee with the 'incompetent' or 'crony' label just dilutes our message.

We should not hand the repugs an issue that allows them to go back on the offensive with the "up or down" vote issue -- which plays well with the public as a "fairness" point and requires us to play defense. We are finally in a position to put them on the defensive and we should stick to it. That's not defeatism, that's a strategy for winnning back enough control to shift the momentum. If we can recapture the House or Senate in 2006, its going to be much more difficult for chimpy to get another Roberts clone through in the final years of a lame duck presidency. If he gains strength in the off-year elections, there will be no stopping them. Remember, the two appointments he's had so far really don't shift the court that much (even if Miers would vote to overturn Roe, there are still five votes for keeping it in place). We need to be in a position of strength when and if chimpy gets to replace a Dem on the court.

onenote

[Savannah Progressive]

45. Would you do me a favor?

When 2006 comes and goes, and the Rove Spin Machine makes us all out as fools with no public support, remember you wanted to fight smart. When the Repub money machine coupled with the Limbaugh brainwashing picks up seats after whatever October Surprise pops up, remember that you think Katrina, DeLay, and the War in Iraq is the answer.

The American Public didn't buy that we supported the troops, but not the war in 2004, even though it's accurate. A few thousand voters decided the election, and we fought that as stupidly as we are proposing to fight this one.

Do you really think that DeLay will be found guilty on all counts? How much money do the Republicans have to get a DeLay Dream Team to paint the Prosecution as Politically Motivated? Can't you see the Greta special on Faux News yet? How about the mirrored show on CNN?

What will public opinion of that be once Greta and the Faux News/CNN Talking Points echo get going? By the time Rove and the media

How long has Limbaugh the Drug fiend avoided prosecution in Florida? Has it been two years yet? His Lawyers are winning the Public Opinion battle, and he remains on the air spreading lies and marching orders to his mindless followers. I have admitted to myself, and perhaps you should as well, his money got him out of trouble and his lawyers will defeat justice by twisting the law, perverting a case history here, out spending the prosecution $10 to $1.

[onenote]

46. and so your plan is what?

Give up? Don't contest the election? Block Miers and end up with a filibuster proof majority for chimpy in 2006 so we can't stop a thing?

We have a shot at making chimpy a true lame duck. But we have to keep the message focused and not allow the repugs to put us on the defensive where the "benefit" of our actions is pretty non-existant (stop Miers, get someone just as bad).

onenote

[gumby]

9. Whatever happens with Harriet,

the Supreme Court has been CORRUPT since the year 2000. W is only making it worse.

EVERYTHING in this country will get worse while Bush calls the plays.

[Rowdyboy]

12. She is a terrible nominee for many reasons, but lack of judicial

experience is not one of them. Some of the greatest justices in American history have never been judges. There are MANY ways to attack Ms Miers without setting a different and special qualification just for her.

[onenote]

19. thank you

[Rowdyboy]

24. My college constitutional law professor explained it to me in terms even

a dumb ass junior could understand. I was literally stunned when he explained that it wasn't even necessary to be a lawyer to be a supreme court justice.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

42. Constitutionally, that's correct...

As there is also nothing in the constitution that prevents a convicted pedophile from serving in the Senate. Doesn't mean it's a good idea.

The common sense test is simply this: The Supreme Court is the highest legal authority in the county, and those who serve on it should be able to lay claim to being the brightest and best legal minds in the country (note that this does not necessarily require one to be a judge).

So the question is simply this: Is Harriet Miers among the top ten legal experts in the country? If you answered in the affirmative, then you have a future in the Republican Party.

[onenote]

43. is there some sort of test for determining that?

Conservatives think Scalia and Bork are among the top ten legal experts in the country. I think they are in the bottom two. Its entirely subjective. Who decides? We made an issue, properly, in 2004 out of the Supreme Court. Hard to turn around now and say, well, it doesn't matter who is president, Supreme Court justices should be selected based on some sort of late career LSAT exam.

onenote

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

47. The President decides, with the advice and consent of the Senate

From Webster: Cronyism -- the appointment of political hangers-on to office without regard to their qualifications.

The President decides, but since this President has proven himself, time and again, to be wholly incapable of making a sound decision based on the facts and evidence at hand, I think it would behoove him make a SCOTUS selection based on a talent pool that includes individuals who have at least some judicial experience. Or at least something on the resume that would incidate an ability to be a good Justice.

John Roberts, for example, has handed down 49 rulings as a federal judge and has argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. While that's still a slim resume compared to others (particularly for a Chief Justice), one can hardly argue that he's not qualified. Harriet Miers, on the other hard, is hardly more qualified than nearly any one of the other nearly one million lawyers who are currently practicing in the United States. The simple fact is one could go to the Yellow Pages in any large city and find a least a half dozen individuals (liberal or conservative) who have experience at least equal to hers.

So what put her at the head of the line? What singled her out from others who are clearly more qualified and more deserving for the honor of serving on the Supreme Court? It's her close personal relationship with the President.

I refer to Webster on that one.

[onenote]

48. your talent pool would've eliminated some of the best justices we've had

Such as William O Douglas. In fact it would eliminate five of the seven justices that first recognized, in Griswold v. CT, that there is a constitutional right of privacy (Douglas, Warren, White, Goldberg, and Clark.

I don't think Miers is the "most" qualified or even close. But then again, if she had served 30 years on the bench and had the views I suspect she has, I wouldn't want her on the court. Robert Bork was one of the most qualified nominees by your standard.

Miers is not a superstar constitutional scholar. But she's not exactly just like a "million other lawyers." National Journal singled her out as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the country. Personally, I don't like a standard that would keep someone like Vernon Jordan off the court just because he never wrote a judicial opinion. Neither had Warren, or Fortas, or a host of others.

Presidents get to pick. If the Senate doesn't like it, they should vote her down. Politically, however, unless some repugs jump ship allowing the Dems to join in an actually voting her down, I don't see any way to stop this other through a filibuster that will simply lead to an equally bad nomination, only the next one will meet your "qualifications" standard.

onenote

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

50. Oh dear...

Every heard the phrase post hoc, ergo propter hoc? It's the logical fallacy that posits the occurence of a prior event caused the occurence of a latter event. Had the five justices in question never been appointed to the court, it simply does not follow that Griswold v. CT would have been decided differently.

And since we seem to have a reading comprehension issue here, please note that I have said (more than once and in many threads) that it's the lack of judicial experience AND the lack of anything else substantive on Miers' resume that disqualifies her from serving on the Supreme Court. Any of the Justices that you name could have reasonably been appointed to the court.

So the right-wing National Journal (and for more on NJ's rightward tilt, I would refer you to David Brock's "Media Matters" website) describes Miers as one of the 100 most "influential" lawyers in the country. What exactly does that mean? Considering that she has the ear and the trust of the POTUS, that certainly means that she wields influence in Washington. She's a world class political schmoozer and a loyal friend, but neither of these qualities qualify her to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.

Once again, I have said in multiple threads that a) filibustering her nomination would be a bad tactic and b) it's not extremely likely that we can prevent her from being approved. But we can -- and should -- use this opportunity to make it clear to the American people that the Bush Administration is engaged in the worst sort of cronyism.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

38. Some of those non-lawyers were also brilliant

and accopmlished in other ways. If she brought a Major League resume to the job, then I'd shrug and say, "What the hell." But the fact that she has no criminal law experience and has never so much as argued a case before the Supreme Court, combined with the fact that she has only limited trial experience at all -- she's spent the last decade as an administrative flunkee -- would suggest that her previous professional experience does not even remotely make up for her lack of a judicial background.

If this woman were not a friend of George W. Bush, can you imagine for one moment that she would even be considered for a seat on the Supreme Court? Would any other President, Republican or Democrat, give her a moment's consideration? Bush's standing up to say that she's the best-qualified person in America to fill the seat is a slap in the face of the judicial system. She's a crony. She's nothing but a crony.

[VPStoltz]

14. Her "in bed" association with * makes her ripe for questions the likes no

nominee has been hit with before. I would hammer the bitch until she started crying.

[Tinksrival]

Did ya notice the wink, wink, nudge, nudge today

I did and it's creepy me out. What this administration is saying to their hard core righties is "sssshhhhhh!!! Don't worry, we got it covered!" From Bush's born again lingo "I know what's in her heart." to Cheney's little heart to heart with Limpballs. And then there is Dobson with this "I know a secret and it's all good" crap.


Shit people........I got a bad feeling after today.

[ochazuke]

17. Right. She's probably WORSE than Owens or Brown

Think "Nazi Church Lady" and you've got the picture.

STEALTH Nazi Church Lady

[onenote]

41. don't think that's possible

As bad? Maybe. Worse? Maybe I've missed the finer points of Owens and Brown.

onenote

[Tinksrival]

15. Dupe

It posted twice.

[ochazuke]

16. The only thing to commend her...

...is Bush's recommendation!

Sorry, but that doesn't past Constitutional muster.

Besides, the more confidence Bush has in her, the worse she must be. Look at everyone else in his administration!!

[ellisonz]

27. I'm for it.

I hope the Dem Senators are saving up their voices for a record setting filibuster of this mediocre nominee. I think Dick Durbin would love the job :kick:

[nadinbrzezinski]

28. hate to break it to you but not raelly

she is not the first to be nomiated to the USSC with no experience, does the name Earl Warren ring a bell? So the lack of experience is not the reason that she should be filliustered...


That said I agree, for the other reason you mentioned, she is a crony.

[bowens43]

29. How many filibusters do you think the republicans will allow?

How many will the American public allow before public opinion shifts to supporting the administration in this?

[Savannah Progressive]

33. Why do we think the Public is so dumb?

We know they saw through the Republican shut down of Government, but now we are afraid to say anything out of a terror that the Rupert Murdoch Press will turn against us. When did we have our collective spines removed and replaced with tubes of jelly? Do we really think the path to success on election day is not opposing radicals on the court?

[bowens43]

34. Well, they elected bush twice.......

The ppublic will not support multiple filibusters and certainly, the Republican controlled congress won't stand for it. My fear here is that if she is filibustered , the next candidate will be much worse and we will not have the option to filibuster.

This is a lose-lose situation for us.

[Savannah Progressive]

49. Bush was Selected in 2000 not Elected

The Public didn't elect Bush in 2000, they elected Gore, but it was stolen by the Supreme Court and handed to Bush. The majority of voters picked Gore.

In 2004, it was the Rove Spin Machine coupled with the lying Swift Boat Vets, and Kerry's unwillingness to call a liar a liar.

IN 2002, 2004, and now we are about to do so again in 2006, we ran as Repugnik Lite, and lost. We learned nothing from the campaign of Paul Hackett, who was the first Dem in nearly 20 years to close within single digit percentages of the Repugnik in that area.

We celebrate those that are either unopposed, or shoe in's, and learn nothing from them. Senator Byrd's recently announced opponent dropped out even more recently. His message hasn't changed, the people haven't changed, he is safe. Only those who run to the right get voted out, and I would offer the lesson of Senator Daschell. Sure, he was the target of huge amounts of Repugnik money, but he tried to get along and go along and be Repugnik lite for too long, and he lost.

The only ones who are winning are the ones who stand up and say "I believe in this" and don't kow-tow to the Repugniks. Yet we learn nothing, and huddle in small groups trying not to offend the mighty Repugniks out of fear of being labeled mean.

[ladylibertee]

30. Prediction:

She will be confirmed and Roe will NOT be overturned.

[tritsofme]

31. Would you approve of minority Republicans filibustering judicial nominees

of any consequence the next time one of our guys is in office?

Some people here call for a filibuster on any nominee that is put forward.

If we did this we would be in for a rude awakening the next time we think we are in control of the federal government.

I would personally favor a formal rules change (very different from the nuclear option) that ensures each executive nominee recieves a fair and timely committee hearing, none of that BS the majority GOP did during the Clinton years, and that if the nominee is approved by committee an up or down vote will be given in the full Senate. The filibuster denies the Senate its constitutional duty to give advice and consent by not allowing a vote on the nominee.

Thankfully Miers will not be filibustered as many here advise, because our leaders are smarter than that, and the simple fact that she is likely to garner more support than Roberts did.

Also roughly a quarter of SCOTUS justices have not been judges, so this argument doesn't hold much water.

[onenote]

40. if we use the fiilbuster unwisely there won't be minority republicans

If sustainable evidence can be found that suggests ethical/corruption issues for Miers...we should go for it. It falls into our message. But otherwise, if we filibuster her for her "qualifications" the next move would be for chimpy to nominate a "qualified" Roberts clone -- a mini-Robert Bork. Then what. We filibuster again? Then instead of a demoralized GOP on the defensive because of the war, Katrina, gas prices, corruption, we have an energized GOP taking the message of "fairness" and "up or down vote". Suddenly, our message is drowned out and we're playing defense. Like it or not, polling shows that the public is swayed by the 'up or down' vote rhetoric. The reason the repugs screwed up when the forced the government shut down is that they were viewed as obstructionist. Well, if we start filibustering every chimpy nominee, the same is going to happen to us. The public sees Roberts sail through. How the heck are they going to appreciate a filibuster of another version of him?

End result.. instead of going into the 2006 elections with momentum, we are on the defense at risk of the repugs getting a filibuster proof Senate, which means you better pray for the health of every Dem on the Supreme Court.

onenote

[Vinca]

35. No judicial experience is the least of her problems.

Does anyone remember the "unknown comic" who used to wear a bag on his head? This woman is the "unknown nominee." I suspect she's right of right and if senators like Leahy decide to vote for her because she's "nice," I'll be extremely pissed off. She's Dubya's dream nominee because none of her papers can be released because they're "privileged." Yeah . . . right.

[0007]

37. At least most fence post stand straight up to be seen. (Clarence Thomas)

It will be interesting how the repubs greet her when questioned at the hearings. I can't wait! Have popcorn & depends will travel

An 0pera will be written called, "The Harriet Fandango" or maybe that'll be the name of the new dance.