Everybody’s buzzing on the reason for Harriet Miers.
To me, it’s a very rational decision tree:
No –> Stop. Yes –> Next question.
Does Bush need to appoint a token?
No —> Appoint a white neocon male. Yes –> Next question.
Might the token be anglo?
No –> Appoint an ethnic/non-white neocon male. Yes –> Next question.
Might Bush, Cheney, & Company: (a) be facing indictment; and,
therefore (b) be facing resignation rather than face a Senate
No –> Appoint a highly qualified white neocon female. Yes –> Next question.
Might a blanket pardon by Bush, prior to impeachment proceedings being
brought by the Senate, result in a legal challenge by Congress, which
would be brought to the Supreme Court?
No –> You must be kidding me. Yes –> Next question.
Where can we find a loyal white neocon female, who has never been a
judge and therefore does not have a body of rulings demonstrating her
integrity? Because we really really need a pal on the Supreme
Of course, those in the legal profession would laugh at my
reasoning. How little I know about the process of law! To
which I would reply, how little does George Bush know? I believe
he’s thinking in bowling terms: Nine justices = ten pins.
Got to worry about that “Big Five” split — he needs him a “love tap”
to pick up a “spare.”
Or maybe I’m crazy.
PS Pitt School of Law has an extensive section on Presidential pardons.