Instead, for 30 years, Hecht and Miers — President Bush's Supreme Court nominee — have nurtured a kinship that has entranced and confounded their closest friends. They are traditional conservatives content in a modern, nontraditional relationship, one that leaves plenty of time for their true love, their work, to take center stage."Freeper GarySpFc:
'I think they thought seriously about getting married,' said Dallas commercial litigation attorney Brady Sparks, who lived across the hall from Hecht in law school and has been friends with Hecht and Miers ever since. 'They both decided that it just wasn't in the cards for the agenda they both wanted, and that was to do about three lifetimes worth of work in one lifetime.'
When Miers was first nominated I contacted my best friend who is pastor in Dallas. I asked him if he knew anyone who was familiar with Miers. It just so happens his father has known HM since she was elected to the city council. He stated even back then she frequently stated, 'We need to refer back to the city charter.' She also said, 'Our courts have gone too far and left the Founders intent.' Hecht has also stated she reads her Bible like an originalist.American Spectator:
Would she vote pro-life? Hecht is simply being careful in his statements so as not to predjudice the Senate agains Miers. My buddy stated Valley View Christian is THE LEADING EVANGELICAL CHURCH in the Dallas area, and VERY PRO-LIFE....THINK FUNDAMENTALIST. Hecht has also stated Miers is pro-life. She is also very active in her church, and teaches and works on the missions committee, which also works with pro-life groups.
It appears that conservatives' long simmering distrust of moderate chief of staff Andrew Card has been confirmed with the nomination of Harriet Miers.David Frum:
Sources inside the White House say Card in several meetings literally shouted down opposition to Miers during the vetting process. "Harriet was his pick all the way up 'til the President jumped on board wholeheartedly," says a White House staffer. "This was not a Rove pick or Laura Bush pick. It was Card's pick." [...]
The natural question will be to wonder, "Where was Rove?" But sources inside the White House say Rove was not distracted by other issues, or overloaded with work. Rather, he was simply one of several voices speaking to the President. In this case, perhaps, he wasn't the last to be heard.
Freeper Pukin Dog:More talking over the weekend to more conservative lawyers in Washington. It is hard to convey how unanimously they not only reject, but disdain, the choice of Miers.
Another told me of a briefing session to prepare Miers to enter into her duties as White House Counsel. A panel of lawyers who had served in past Republican White Houses was gathered together. After a couple of hours of questions and answers, all agreed: "We're going to need a really strong deputy."
It's been reported the reason Miers was named White House Counsel in the first place was that she had proven incompetent as Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. Her boss, Chief of Staff Andy Card, badly wanted to get her out of his office - but couldn't fire her because she was protected by the president and the first lady. So he promoted her instead.
It's starting to look like this nomination is not only upsetting Bush's conservative base but also starting to cause the famously leak-free White House to spring a few. Who knows how much of the above is true, but I don't doubt some of is.Information was shared with me on Saturday, which described in no uncertain terms that Harriet Miers stands as the only nominee on Bush’s list which has any chance of confirmation by the Senate Judiciary Committee. The reasons for this are numerous, and would be embarrassing to the Conservative movement should one or many of the ‘stars’ who we hoped Bush would select be shot down in Committee, which again, if true, would be a certainty.
More than one of the persons we might have wanted made it clear to the President that they would not accept his nomination if selected. You can draw your own conclusions as to why, but the only hint I will provide is that data mining works too damn well these days. What we saw back when Clarence Thomas was nominated would seem like a walk in the park, compared to what would be done to some of our most popular jurists.
Our Democrat opponents have been quite busy, especially after John Roberts embarrassed them, searching for any information that would allow an open personal attack on a nominee. Sadly, many of the folks we wanted badly would have had their lives destroyed had they attempted confirmation to the bench, and wisely declined. There is no one among us who has not done (or had a family member do) things that we either regret, or would rather keep to ourselves. Because none of us are perfect, it is possible that had one of our choices been selected, we might have lived to regret that day for a very long time.
