Thursday, October 20, 2005

NYT: "Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions" (David D. Kirkpatrick)

The Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers suffered another setback on Wednesday when the Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."
Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat, sent Ms. Miers a letter faulting what they called incomplete responses about her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar.
Their letter also asked her to provide detailed accounts of private reassurances about her views given by the White House or its allies to some conservative supporters who have been anxious about her positions on abortion and other social issues.

The above is from David D. Kirkpatrick's "Miers Is Asked to Redo Reply to Questions" in this morning's New York Times. What do we learn? How about this tidbit she just remembered:

She wrote that after submitting her answers on Tuesday, "I became aware that, as a result of administrative oversight, my Texas Bar license was suspended from Sept. 1 to Sept. 26, 1989, due to late payment of my bar dues."

For those keeping track, that's twice. Reuters reported that this year (see Tuesday night entry) that she let her DC license slip and now we know she did it in Texas in 1989. Is she not able to keep track of time? Is she not able to pay her bills? (How about a credit check on nominees?) How do you "become aware" of an incident you had to rectify in 1989? Twenty-five days without a license, seems like you'd remember that. You'd remember slapping your palm to your forehead and beating yourself up for forgetting to do something very basic to ensuring you can earn a livelihood. Apparently, Harri just says, "Oops! I pulled another Harriet!"

The article tells us that her law firm was responsible for paying the dues (the claim isn't sourced outside the White House so skepticsm may be in order). It doesn't matter. Let's say your a child care provider and your CPR certification is about to run out. Your job may provide the training but you do pay attention to the timing (or should). Harrie doesn't. Things just happen in the Land of Harrie. Like one minute you're just another suck up in a bad hair cut and the next you're a nominee for the Supreme Court.

Will this be her pattern on the Court as well? Will she become aware that a hearing is on and rush to make it in time? Or will she just file a late opinion after the fact? Does she grasp the work that serving on the Court entails? Does she grasp that her organizational skills will need to be raised from where they were in the past?

Miers isn't qualified. Arlen Specter's stating in Kirkpatrick's article that the questionairre she still hadn't finished Monday was supposed to have been completed last Friday. Remember too that Schumer asked her questions about two legal cases (Griswold and Meyer) her reply, according to Schumer, was, "I need to sort of bone up on this a little more," and "I need to come to conclusions."

Harriet Miers, the not ready for Supreme Court nominee.

Kirkpatrick has been providing a great deal of details in his coverage, but when he comes across something (such as her losing her license again), he needs to offer, "This is the second time that Miers lost her license as a result of dues not being paid."

We'll also note that Dan Coats has been referred to here as her handler. Dan Coats now apparently, from the article, wants to be "Daniel R. Coats" and the term desired is "appointed guide." "Dan Coats" was good enough for him when he served in the Senate, it's good enough for him now. As for "guide," if he shows up dressed in one of Lauren Tewes' Love Boat outfits, we'll be happy to refer to him as a "guide." Until that happens, he's her "minder."

It couldn't be any more laughable than the fact that Harri's getting a "do over" for her questionnaire.

Lloyd e-mails to note Matthew Rothschild's "Stop Arresting Pot Smokers" (This Just In, The Progressive):

This country is waging a crazy war against pot.
New figures just released by the Justice Department show that in 2004, 771,000 Americans were arrested on marijuana charges.
That's more than all of the arrests for all of the violent crimes combined--181,000 more, to be exact.
And the vast majority of the arrests for pot were not for dealing.
No, 89 percent were for mere possession.
We are flooding our jails for what should be, at most, a very minor offense.

Lloyd also notes Ruth Conniff's "Feminism in the Nursery" (Ruth Conniff's Online Column, The Progressive):

Not since James Dobson fingered Sponge Bob Squarepants for promoting the "homosexual agenda" to preschoolers has there been such a sneak attack of liberal depravity in the nursery. Recently the Reverend Donald Wildmon called for a boycott of American Girl dolls, telling conservatives who buy the historical dolls (widely admired as an educational and wholesome alternative to Barbie) that they are inadvertently supporting abortion and lesbianism.
Katie bar the door!
Unlike the Teletubbies, whose subtle demonic agenda could supposedly be detected in the purple, purse-carrying person of Tinkie Winkie, according to some evangelicals, the American Girl dolls are themselves inoffensive. (There's no lesbian abortionist doll.) It's the programs that help real girls that have the rightwingers riled.

Rod doesn't know any of the topics for Democracy Now! today, in case anyone wonders. But it'll be worth watching. (Or listening to or reading the transcripts of.)

The e-mail address for this site is