So, Bush has nominated a woman named Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, someone whose “major” legal experience (besides being a lawyer, of course) has been to be in charge of the Texas Lottery and W.’s attorney (which is a position she stepped into after Alberto Gonzales stepped into the Attorney General’s spot), and who has been a friend of W.’s for 30 or so years.
First off, this is just such obvious cronyism that I cannot believe anyone could possibly think otherwise.
Second, I think it’s pretty clear that W. is essentially lying when he suggests he doesn’t know his good friend’s feelings about issues like abortion. He may have never had the conversation with her, much in the way that I haven’t had that conversation with a lot of my friends and colleagues, but I am sure he has a pretty good idea where she stands.
And to make matters worse, this article from the LA Times suggests that Harriet might be a pretty scary-assed nominee. Here’s a quote:
Nathan L. Hecht, a Texas Supreme Court justice, has been a close companion of Miers since they first worked together for a Dallas law firm 30 years ago. His comments are the clearest indication to date of Miers’ view on abortion â€” which, as with other issues she would be likely to face on the high court, is unknown.
Hecht is known as the most conservative member of the conservative Texas Supreme Court. “He’s sort of the [Antonin] Scalia of that court: smart, aggressive and very conservative,” said University of Texas law professor Douglas Laycock.
Hecht, a vocal opponent of the abortion right, said in an interview Tuesday that Miers shared his views. The two attend the evangelical Valley View Christian Church near Dallas.
“Harriet goes to a church that is pro-life. She has for 25 years,” he said. “She gives them a lot of money. Her personal views lie in that direction.”
But when asked if her personal opposition to abortion would give her sufficient cause to overturn the Supreme Court’s abortion precedent, Hecht said, “I think she’ll say they won’t.”