Is Team Bush Attempting to Plant Miers on the Court As a Buttress against Impeachment Efforts?

Update: Moonie Times: Rove ‘Very Involved’ in Picking Miers

Loyal soldier Earlier, we postulated that nominating Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court was simply a bad decision made by a facile, unimaginative man, who was winging it without input from his minder, Vice President Cheney.

Of course, there could be a much more sinister reason for sending a true-blue Bush-woman to the court. Cheney, Karl Rove et al could be placing her there because they know that investigations into the CIA Leak and lobbyist Jack Abramoff will soon bring the world crashing down on their heads – and they are going to need a dependable swing vote – or, assuming she recuses herself on Bush matters, a spy – inside the Supreme Court.

If this sounds like our tin-foil hat is a bit too tight, consider the fact that Miers’ chief qualification for the Supreme Court is her loyalty to President Bush. Since when did loyalty to a president become a qualifier for the judiciary?

And consider the linchpin role the Supreme Court has played in the last two great presidential scandals:

While we are all speculating about what special prosecutors may or may not do, Team Bush has a precise forecast of the firestorm that awaits them, and they have been planning for this disaster for months.
  • In Watergate, the Supreme Court upheld a subpoena against President Nixon, forcing him to release his secret tape recordings. He resigned about two weeks later, on August 9, 1974.
  • During the Clinton wars, it was the Supreme Court ruling in Clinton v. Jones that allowed the Jones sexual harassment suit to proceed against President Clinton. In his deposition in the suit, the President was drawn into the perjury trap about his affair with Monica Lewinksy that led to his impeachment.

At this moment, only two groups of people truly know the outcome of investigations into the current White House scandals: the investigators – and the guilty parties in the West Wing. While we are all speculating about what special prosecutors may or may not do, Team Bush has a precise forecast of the firestorm that awaits them, and they have been planning for this disaster for months.

The Bushistas dragged this country into a war for no other reason than noblesse oblige. Can there be any doubt that the sort of Banana Republicans who would take a country to war on an aristocratic whim would attempt to plant a crony on the Supreme Court?

So Bush gets a spy on the court. For her part, Miers gets a place in history beyond her wildest dreams. And Senate Democrats get a one-to-one replacement for retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor.

The losers in this are the GOP’s wingnut base who elected Bush and, last but not least, the country.

Silly troglodytes! The Bushies never intended to overturn Roe. Public opinion is solidly pro-choice, and the Gops at the top know that converting abortion rights into a campaign issue in state, local and federal elections would destroy the GOP.

As for America – the damage that installing an unqualified and inexperienced, “B-plus” lawyer on the Supreme Court might do to the nation is, of course, trumped by the self-interests of President Bush and his handlers.


20 thoughts on “Is Team Bush Attempting to Plant Miers on the Court As a Buttress against Impeachment Efforts?”

  1. My theory is that Bush threw Miers out there expecting her nomination to be met with disbelief and derision, “but what the hey, maybe they’ll go for it.” I think he expects her to be rejected, and then he will be free to put who he really wants — longer time crony than Miers, Alberto Gonzales. He knew he had to nominate a woman, so he did — qualified or NOT — and if they turn her down, he can sigh, “Well I tried. So, how about that Alberto?” Democrats can’t turn down two people in a row without being called names, and you know how that stops them cold.

  2. I believe Trish has hit the nail on the head.My first feelings ,not usually wrong with Bushco ,is that this is a canard for exactly the reasons she stated.The Repubs will yell obstructionism on the second go around and the Dems will cave.Spineless.I have always maintained that the Dems have no plan for anything but this administration always has a bad plan.We all know a bad plan is worse than no plan because if you do not have a plan and you need one you quickly come up with a plan whereas a bad plan continues on to everyones chagrin.It won’t be Alberto however ,it will be someone much more conservative.

  3. On one hand ,the fact that Miers turned from Catholicism to Christian Fundamentalism shortly after John Paul II became Pope appears to be a bit telling. Particurlarly, when one remembers that JP (at the time) made his intentions of modernizing the Church widely known. This may have been anathema to Miers, threatening, as it did, her own Traditionalist views of a woman’s role in life.

    Even today, she gives every appearance of being fixated on the role of woman as subservient to a strong “godlike” male. Witness the almost religiously adorative gaze she focuses on Bush at times, along with the long hours of intense, almost slavish devotion she gives to him while working.

    On the other hand, casting off Catholicism for Fundamentalism, and her subsequent flirtation with gay rights advocacy et al, may have been a stage she went through at a religiously troubling time in her life – a phase she has since reconciled while remaing a Fundie, but returning to (and firming up) her original beliefs in the role of women.

    That said, I’m afraid, if one wants to gain insight into her future on the Court, all one has to picture is a female Scalia, subservient to the strongest – albeit, sometimes well disguised – male religious presence among her peers.

    If that’s the case, then look for a transference from Bush to Scalia with the passage of time and Bush’s fortunes.

    (It’s my opinion that it is just this quality of religious submission that makes her so attractive to very religious males holding high power, like Hatch and, seemingly paradoxically, Reid.)

  4. Jon,

    I totally agree with your logic. On Monday I had predicted that the Miers nomination would eventually be withdrawn, but in light of George Stephanopolus’ comments to George Will on Sunday (that George Bush and Dick Cheney were up to their eyeballs in plotting the retaliation against Joe and Valerie Wilson) and the ongoing train wreck known as the Abramoff inquiry and Bush’s predilection for military intervention in domestic affairs (natural disasters, pandemics, etc.), I subsequently came to the same conclusion as you.

    Miers is part of the Rove/Cheney/Bush strategy (along with Roberts) of keeping their sorry asses out of prison on any number of counts: outing a CIA NOC, war crimes, election corruption, ad nauseam. I believe the grounds for impeachment are now up over 25 separate counts and rising at a rapid click. That would make at minimum four justices (Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Miers) voting pro administration, effectively skewing the Court balance in the administration’s favor.

    Would these paragons of “virtue and family values” — you know, the compassionate conservatives — pitch their Christian base over the side to save their sorry asses? Every time, bucko. Every time. No sweat off their noses. They’re not running for another election, now are they.

    Yep, you nailed it dead center!

  5. I think you’re both right.

    But maybe not Gonzalez. The Boy King does, after all, have a base to cow to — right wing “christians”, Gonzalez, however, is flakey on abortion. The christers want a nutcase to advance their particular agenda on the rest of us.

    When the civil war erupts here you can bet its going to be the “christians” against the rest of us. It’ll be a bitch in the American South. Miers is a front to cover for somebody else and the Demos have little or no choice in the matter. Their problem is who would be the lesser of two evils — Miers or somebody worse. Do they use what’s left of their filibustering abilities on this or do they wait for some, hypothetically, “worse”.

    Whatever happens the country has already gone to hell in a hand basket. Now we’ve got to trash it to restore it its original purpose.

    What a mess.

    The way I see it is either way we’re fucked. But we all ought to be used to that now, right?

  6. This is all done for the purpose of overthrowing the Government. My guess is some major thing will just happen as to leave the next election from happening…..the Supreme Court will then side with Bush to remain as Prez and the takeover will be complete.

  7. I read on another website how Lyndon Johnson’s attempt to get Abe Fortas on the Supreme Court in 1968 failed because of the national perception he was a crony to the President from Texas with a long history of personal and professional interaction. Lyndon was interested in things like Great Society and roundly criticized for trying to pack the court like FDR was accused of doing. I was a teenager back then, but I remember the controversy in that it had elders in the small towns talking. They feared big government. They didn’t like central power. They thought the courts were out of control already. The Miers nomination has not struck such a chord as the Fortas nomination, but the issues are the same.

  8. Hi all:

    I agree with all the comments I’ve just read. We should know well enough that nothing is done by this administration for the reasons stated. The good news side of this if true is that they know more than we and if they’re scrambing to cover their butts, well, what does that tell us?

  9. Kefa has hit the nail on the head: Whether its Miers, or Alberto the Torturer, or some other right-wing Bush loyalist, the plan is that they won’t go in 2008. I have suspected this for a long time. Without even packing the Court, Bush was able to to get the Supremes to declare him president, despite the fact that he had not been elected. The next step is some national emergency just before the next election. Say good-bye to what’s left of the Constitution.

  10. Regarding kefa’s comment: There is some talk that the “major thing” that will be used to stop 2008 elections will be US economic collapse. The US borrows $2 billion PER DAY. This money comes from the savings of other nations, 83% of which has already been sucked up by the US. Only 17% to go. Alternative websites have also reported that so many ultra-wealthy Republicans have expatriated to the Caymens that the government there is putting a moratorium on wealthy, gated communities since the number of “ex-Americans” living there is exceeding the native population. Collapse of the American economy is predicted to cause such chaos in this country that martial law will be declared purportedly preventing elections. Truth may indeed be stranger than fiction.

  11. I totally agree with Kefa. There will not be another election. The Nazis’ will not give up power, so the only way they will be able to keep it is create “another crisis”,implement marshal law, suspend the constitution. BUSH remains PRESIDENTE.

  12. Two points: 1) Miers is admittedly, Bush’s counsel, both WH and TX Gov. (as so Gonzales re WH) — and would this not mean that [Miers] would have to recuse herself re any of the criminal issues swirling around Bush and his aides? If this is so, then his appointing Miers, at least on “those” issues would be a plus, because that would take her out of any rulings that would possibly make there way up to the Supreme Court, and would inevitably bring “the ruling” back to a more level sanity.

    2) as far as a “civil war” here in the states, we still have states rights. I have been thinking about that one for a long time: much was printed about Vermont wanting to leave the Union (and become part of Canada. The thought was that they lacked enough power to accomplish this — but if you look at a map of Canada, the blue states of the US are in line to become three more provinces: CA, WA & OR for one, the Great Lake States, and the Northeast. The fact within this is CA is the largest economy and along with the Northeast and the Great Lake States accounts for over 80% of the nation’s total assets — if all of these states together contended they would pull away from this government, it would be too much for the Bush Admin to fight. Basically, (and I’ve seen many internet sites that have the blue states separated by the rest of the country, with a placate on the red states reading: Jesusland), for the Blue States to march out of the union and become part of Canada, would allow Canada not to have to absorb US citizens in their already situated borders, and would allow Canada to be the one largest World Power, both economically and land mass. It’s a win/win for Canada… and blue state populations wouldn’t have to move north… they’d just “become” It would settle the world’s woes as well. Economic packages could be worked out with the remaining Red States so that they would have some form of income while they attempt to provide their own economy, etc. Frankly, I am sick of paying the high taxes (us CA’s do), so that our money can go to Alaska for roads to nowhere and to other red states for crony programs, that never accomplish financial accomplishments for those red states, they still remain the poorest — only the politicians and their cronies reap the benefits. Regardless of whether it worked completely or not, the political upheavel would be so great that it would ruin the now-leading GOP for decades! Pull “our” money and Bush & Company would go belly up! As far as alternative energy: you would have the states with water (for hydro-electrics), and the already realized ability/infrastructures for solar and other forms of alternative energies, so the environment would be closer to being saved — which is the number one priority because without a sustainable environment, ten years up the road is going to look extremely frightening for everyone regardless of their political viewpoints!!! (along with education and all the other programs for all of us he has dismantled). I think its a “GO.”

    One last note that has been bothering me since last election: The DNC and/or Kerry did the wrong thing when picking Edwards to be his running mate (not to diss Edwards, I like him… but) the Southern States are so embroiled in their own self-righteousness insanity right now that picking a “Southerner” to attempt to capture the Southern States’ vote was the hugest mistake I ever saw. As well, if Kerry had picked another Northeasterner, the election would have also been so close that Bush could do what he did in OH… and steal another election. but, had Gephardt been on the ticket with Kerry, Missouri would have gone to the blue side without argument (which has enough electorates that OH would not have mattered. And, most probably, OH would have been more overwhelmingly for the dem ticket, as well as Kanasas and Iowa, etc. They like Gephardt (a midwesterner!) out there and regardless of there party affiliation, midwestern states are not as polluted ideologically as in the South and the ticket would have been a stronger one. The southern states wouldn’t have mattered with the midwest’s support!

    The blue states are going to vote dem without a “southerner” on the ticket — but the purple states (midwest) need a midwesterner to get them out of the dark age. Forget the south, go for the power!

    I hope someone at the DNC reads this. They screwed up bad in their last decision.

  13. All true. And to think as we examine their latest droppings, this crew is already packing for the last train out.

  14. Wow, Katherine. That was absolutely ridiculous.

    Did you know that the biggest Republican donors happen to be in California and New York?

    Maybe you should focus on purging the ranks of your claimed NE, upper MW, and West Coast territories so that you will be less “ideologically polluted” and more effectively fight your holy war against the South.

    Wow, what an f’in nutcase.

  15. The fact that Miers was Busholini’s personal lawyer gives her an ethical conflict of interest. She also is serving as WH Counsel. In Rove-Speak, that’s double double conflict of interest.

    If asked to rule on Bush, whom she served personally and officially, complying with a Congressional subpoena to produce certain documents, will she support his right to refuse, thus changing the balance of power between the 3 branches of government?

    There may be precedence for non judges to be appointed to the Supreme Court, but is there precedence for a sitting president appointing a personal lawyer and a curent WH Counsel?

    I think it’s unprecedented, and designed to cover butts in high places.

  16. A democracy without control and without division of power has degraded itself to dictatorship. Moreover the life long appointment should be thrown over. The builder of the American constitution never thought that anything like now could happen.
    Miers or not Miers, who cares, the democractic system has been destroyed finally, by both parties.

  17. I’m trying to not get caught up with all the conspiracy theories but one thought about all of these “concentration camps” I read about…Is this what they will possibly be using all of the closed bases for in the future??
    One more comment, Did anybody happen to catch the Tom Delay is innocent type commercial Wednesday afternoon on FOX…I couldn’t believe it.

  18. I’m coming to believe that Roe is a red herring – more Rovian misdirection.

    An impeached Bush faces the Senate, with his very own Mr. Roberts presiding. Suppose that Roberts goes maverick and decides against his benefactor (already this scenario gets unlikely to anyone that’s read a newspaper recently). Once convicted, the Lesser can now be prosecuted for some or all of the crimes he committed while in office. Even ignoring the many war crimes, that’s potentially a large number of crimes.

    Further suppose that just one or two of the ensuing trials resulted in conviction, followed by an appeal or two which puts us all right back at the Supreme Court. Not the court that disgraced itself by electing the second-place finisher to the White House in 2K, mind you, but the New, Improved Dubya White House (“We find you guilty of crimes against humanity…and in light of their heinous nature…levy against you a fine of $100”).
    Makes me wonder what this man has done, unbeknowst to We the People, that is motivating him to stack the deck in his favor so heavily. Something so nauseatingly unAmerican that even the most rabid Bush loyalist could be shocked into doing the right thing?
    Please, please, please let that be a conspiracy theory…

  19. Hey JB! Actually, your point – that some of Bush’s largest donors come from CA — solidifies my argument; socially, the bulk of CA is liberal, but there is a lot of money/corps that are reaping the benefits of the Bush tax cut… (even a few very liberal but very wealthy counties — though, they voted Dem in the last election, when I saw the vote tally, I was amazed and ashamed at the number of citizens that did cast ballots for Bush — those voters voted on greed. And certain parts of CA are more conservative, but the majority of the voters (still) remain “blue.” Lately, many organizations and corporations from CA are contributing to the Delay defense fund… such as the CA Prison Assocs. — hmmm, I wonder what emails will be found in that mess (and other contributor corps. that stand behind these crooks; i.e. – who got what deal, etc.) that will lead to further criminal investigations… they’re coming out of the woodwork lately. The Bush poison seems to have no boundaries where money is concerned. The fact remains, that nanny attorney of his has her hands all over the “work” that this Admin has done to make our country work for their profit. I, for one, would rather become a “social democracy,” such as Canada, than continue paying as a serf was forced to pay for the King’s personal fortune… which is the system we have now care of Bush & Co.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.