Bush Picks Harriet Miers for SCOTUS [Archive]

View Full Version : Bush Picks Harriet Miers for SCOTUS

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 12:41 PM

Newsday is reporting that Bush has nominated Harriett Miers to the Supreme Court...

THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
October 3, 2005, 7:04 AM EDT

WASHINGTON -- President Bush has chosen White House counsel Harriett Miers for Supreme Court, administration official says.

President Bush has chosen his second nominee to the Supreme Court and will announce his pick Monday at the White House, just hours before the court begins a new term with newly sworn-in Chief Justice John Roberts at the helm, administration officials said.

Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usbush1004,0,2695312.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines)

MannyIsGod

10-03-2005, 12:44 PM

Let the Harriett Miers fact finding begin.

Cant_Be_Faded

10-03-2005, 12:45 PM

They said on News 8 Austin that even less about her is known than that other chode that was nominated.

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 12:45 PM

President Bush Names Harriet Miers as Top Counsel

President George W. Bush today announced his intention to appoint Harriet Miers to be Counsel to the President. Ms. Miers will fill the position held by Judge Alberto Gonzales, following his confirmation by the Senate.

"Harriet Miers is a trusted adviser, on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice. Harriet has the keen judgment and discerning intellect necessary to be an outstanding Counsel. She is a talented lawyer whose great integrity, legal scholarship, and grace have long marked her as one of America's finest lawyers. I have deep respect for Harriet and look forward to her continued counsel in this new role," stated President Bush.

Ms. Miers currently serves as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff. Most recently, she served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Prior to joining the White House staff, Ms. Miers was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where she helped manage an over 400-lawyer firm. Previously, she was President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, where she worked for 26 years. In 1992, Ms. Miers became the first woman elected Texas State Bar President following her selection in 1985 as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council. Ms. Miers received her bachelor's degree and J.D. from Southern Methodist University.

White Houe.gov (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041117-15.html)

Critics are already calling her another Bush Crony, but her lack of Judicial record makes her an ideal candidate for the right.

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 12:47 PM

http://us.news3.yimg.com/us.i2.yimg.com/p/ap/20051002/capt.dcpm10610021659.bush_scotus_miers_dcpm106.jpg

White House Counsel Harriet Miers talks with White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, left, on the South Lawn of the White House before depart to attend the 52nd annual Red Mass at St. Matthew's Cathedral, Sunday, Oct. 2, 2005 in Washington. Miers has come up as a potential candidate for nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Bush on Sunday declined to say whether he had decided on a nominee. Chief of Staff Andy Card said the president was 'still working' on making his decision, 'still considering lots of options.' (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 12:48 PM

Miers, has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association. She also served on the Dallas City Council.

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 12:52 PM

Once described by White House chief of staff Andrew Card as "one of the favorite people in the White House," Miers has been there for President Bush at every turn for more than a decade.
...
Card, in a 2003 interview with the publication Texas Lawyer, said Mr. Bush's affinity for Miers is clear in the frequent invitations she receives to visit the presidential retreat at Camp David, "a privilege that is not enjoyed by a lot of staff."
...
Intensely loyal, Miers is happy to stay off the radar screen as long as her boss is happy, on the thinking that White House counsels only make news when there's been a mistake.
...
Miers reveals little of her own emotions or ideological persuasions, but has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration on a broad of initiatives including tax cuts, Social Security reforms, restrictions on federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, national security, education reforms and fighting terrorism.

CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/03/supremecourt/main897953.shtml)

Miers has supported Democratic candidates in the past, including in 2000 when she supported Al Gore.

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 12:58 PM

"Born and raised in Dallas, Miers, 59, is a graduate of Southern Methodist University. She went on to law school at SMU, earning her law degree in 1970 and going on to clerk for a federal judge in Dallas. In an era when there were few female lawyers, Miers set out for the top.

According to published reports, she was the first woman hired by Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, a Dallas firm whose history extends to the 1890s. She went on to become a top commercial litigator whose clients included Microsoft and the Walt Disney Co.

Miers, who is not married and does not have children, was active in professional organizations and eventually was elected head of the Dallas and Texas bar associations, where she was known for encouraging members to do pro bono work.

Miers met Bush in the 1980s, and was drafted to work as counsel for his 1994 gubernatorial campaign. In 1995, he appointed her to the Texas Lottery Commission. After working as a lawyer in Bush’s presidential campaign, she came to Washington with him in 2001.

MannyIsGod

10-03-2005, 12:59 PM

Throughout her career, Ms. Miers has been committed to public service. In addition to her extensive involvement in the State Bar of Texas and the American Bar Association, Ms. Miers has been an elected official, a statewide officeholder, and a strong advocate of pro bono work.

For example, while she served as President of the State Bar of Texas, Ms. Miers also logged 125 pro bono hours handling an immigration and naturalization case for Catholic Charities of Dallas.

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 01:02 PM

Miers, Harriett:

Miers is a Dallas-based lawyer and (former) chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. The former president of the State Bar of Texas and Dallas City Council member has done legal work for Bush and his political committee. As chair of the lottery commission, Miers came under fire when former commission executive director Lawrence Littwin sued the state's lottery operator, GTECH, for allegedly pressuring Miers to fire Littwin. Littwin and his attorneys have suggested throughout the proceedings that GTECH was allowed to keep its state lottery contract in exchange for former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes' silence. Barnes, a former GTECH lobbyist, stated under oath that he helped George W. Bush enlist in the Texas Air National Guard as an alternative to going to Vietnam 31 years ago.

Link (http://64.233.161.104/searchq=cache:AXe1UFdCJKAJ:www.publicintegrity.org/report.aspx%3Faid%3D231+Harriett+Miers&hl=en)

boutons

10-03-2005, 01:12 PM

Achebach blog, WP:

Posted at 11:25 AM ET, 10/ 3/2005
Harriet Miers: More Than Just a Bush Crony?

Crony is an ugly word, and we abjure it this morning, even though the definition of "cronyism" ("favoritism shown to close friends, esp. in political appointments to office") might conceivably be applicable to the current situation. Nor is it fair to call Ms. Miers a cipher, as the definition, "a person or thing of no importance or value; nonentity," doesn't apply to a highly intelligent and hard-working person who has managed to rise to the highest level of the president's innermost circle of obscure and deeply mysterious loyalists. Indeed we should all give Ms. Miers the full benefit of the doubt, and assume that as Supreme Court justice she will turn out to be Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter and Oliver Wendell Holmes rolled into one.

That said, the confirmation hearings should prove to be fascinating, since the typical custom of examining a nominee's judicial record will not be a viable option. Even looking through the clips, we note that Miers is reticent to the point of shy, virtually unquotable, someone who is comfortable being so low-profile as to be essentially invisible. Apparently she is very detail conscious. We learn this from Legal Times, which recently ran a profile of Miers that was hardly flattering (and borderline mean):

"She has also earned a reputation as exacting, detail-oriented, and meticulous -- to a fault, her critics say. 'She can't separate the forest from the trees,' says one former White House staffer...

..."One former White House official familiar with both the counsel's office and Miers is more blunt. 'She failed in Card's office for two reasons,' the official says. 'First, because she can't make a decision, and second, because she can't delegate, she can't let anything go. And having failed for those two reasons, they move her to be the counsel for the president, which requires exactly those two talents.'

[On the Scotusblog this morning, Tom Goldstein offers an interesting analysis of the coming confirmation battle: "The themes of the opposition will be cronyism and inexperience. Democratic questioning at the hearings will be an onslaught of questions about federal constitutional law that Miers in all likelihood won't want to, or won't be able to (because her jobs haven't called on her to study the issues), answer. I have no view on whether she should be confirmed (it's simply too early to say), but will go out on a limb and predict that she will be rejected by the Senate. In my view, Justice O'Connor will still be sitting on the Court on January 1, 2006."]

| Permalink* | Comments (41)
Posted at 08:56 AM ET, 10/ 3/2005
Bush Nominates Totally Random Person for Court

The president carefully and deliberately selected as his nominee for the vacant Supreme Court position the first person he ran into in the hallway this morning. He has been up front about this technique all along, what he called "the dartboard approach." It could have been anyone -- an usher, a steward, a dog-walker, the guy carrying the nuclear codes. Liberals will rejoice that it wasn't Rove. It turned out to be his former staff secretary, Harriet Miers, currently the White House Counsel. Her qualifications for the position are as follows:

1. She's a lawyer.

2. She's tight with Dubya.

3. She works just a few feet from Bush and thus saved him from the hassle of a protracted search.

4. She has never been a judge and thus has no record that might generate problems in a confirmation hearing.

Presidents run into trouble when they start nominating for the Supreme Court someone who already has a professional record as a judge. The rule in Washington is: Anything you say can and will be used against you. The way to assure that your nominee will be confirmed is to make sure the nominee has no known beliefs, opinions, thoughts, notions, or anything else that might be criticized by Ted Kennedy and his Lefty hand-wringing friends.

To judge from initial reports, Miers is 60, single, no kids, no known friends, no hobbies, no favorite color. There are parking meters in Washington that have a higher public profile than Ms. Miers. Had she not appeared on television today, many people would argue that she doesn't actually exist. Conspiracy theorists will find it mighty suspicious that the person who spent years handling all the paperwork passing onto the president's desk is now in a position to interpret what is and isn't a crime in this country. Extreme conservatives will be nervous, partly because being nervous is their chronic condition lately, and partly because they will fear that Ms. Miers may not be a truly zealous footsoldier in the conservative crusade. Liberals will denounce her and say she will destroy the fabric of the republic and bring on the new Dark Ages.

But no doubt Ms. Miers will surprise us all in various ways. Prior to today, she was known primarily as the person who cleaned up the Texas Lottery for then-Gov. Bush. Looks like she just won a lottery herself.

Extra Stout

10-03-2005, 01:15 PM

Ugh. Not qualified. Not demonstrably conservative. Her seemingly only qualification is that she's loyal to Bush.

This is worse than hiring Michael Brown to run FEMA, because at least Brown could be fired. We're being asked to take it on faith that Bush has found the best candidate. He's pretty much expended his trust.

There are dozens of better available selections.

Well, at least the Democrats will love her. Chuck Schumer is already praising the selection. Lovely.

Between this betrayal and the looting of the Treasury by the GOP Congress, right now I see no compelling reason to go pull the lever for Republicans next November. Their rhetoric about both limited government and traditional values is empty. They care only about their corporate cronies and their own power.

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 01:28 PM

Miers recommended Alberto 'Torture' Gonzales...

Alberto Gonzales was recommended to Bush as counsel in the Texas Governorship by Harriet Miers, who has replaced Gonzales as White House counsel. Referred to by Bush as a "pit bull in size 6 shoes'', Miers is a former President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell and former chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell have given at least $65,000 to Bush campaigns and are major backers of tort reform. One case involved a unique law - passed under former Gov. George Bush - that blocked Texas consumers from recovering $6 billion in overcharges on car loans and allowed dealers to keep kickbacks secret. Two consumer groups have called on the Texas Legislature to repeal it. Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell were defendants of the litigation, which included auto dealers in Texas . Miers was also Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and responsible for a chain of events involving GTech, which ran the Texas Lottery, former Lt. Governor Ben Barnes, and accusations of kick-backs and illegal contracts. Yes, that Ben Barnes, who says he helped George Bush get into the National Guard. His original deposition on that subject was given in 1999, during this Texas Lottery Commission investigation, and has been permanently sealed.

Lightupthedarkness.org (http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=archives&month=2&year=2005)

MannyIsGod

10-03-2005, 01:29 PM

I wonder, what should the qualifications of a suprme court judge be?

I like what I've read about her so far.

MannyIsGod

10-03-2005, 01:30 PM

Miers recommended Alberto 'Torture' Gonzales...

Lightupthedarkness.org (http://www.lightupthedarkness.org/blog/?view=archives&month=2&year=2005)
Well, score that for one thing about her I definetly do not like.

Cant_Be_Faded

10-03-2005, 01:32 PM

You don't like the fact that she's never been a judge?

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 01:47 PM

Legal Beat: Bar Association Votes to Back Abortion Rights" August 12, 1992

SAN FRANCISCO -- After a contentious debate, the policy-making body of the American Bar Association voted to take a pro-abortion rights position at the organization's annual meeting.

The decision by the ABA, which followed Monday's vote by convention attendees to endorse the proposal, was a victory for abortion-rights advocates. At its annual meeting two years ago, the ABA adopted a neutral position.

Before the 276-168 vote yesterday, the ABA's new president, Michael McWilliams of Baltimore, told reporters that the ABA could no longer remain neutral.

"You can't dodge an issue just because it's tough," said Mr. McWilliams, a Baltimore lawyer, in remarks to reporters. "And you can't call abortion a non-legal issue."

The ABA's perceived alliance with one side or the other in the abortion debate was a matter of concern to lawyers attending the annual meeting here this week. Both the National Abortion Rights Action League and the National Right-to-Life Committee have been closely monitoring the ABA action, spokeswomen for the groups said.

"People who support this abortion rights resolution want the prestige of the ABA behind the pro-choice movement," Texas bar President Harriet Miers said Monday, arguing against adoption of the resolution supporting abortion rights.

DailyKOS (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/3/71556/3735)

spurster

10-03-2005, 01:47 PM

I wonder, what should the qualifications of a suprme court judge be?

I like what I've read about her so far.
What do you like?

boutons

10-03-2005, 01:50 PM

I would think that a SC judge would have been at least a judge with some years of experience. This is the second non-judge, no-paper-trail nominee from dubya. Roberts was at least a constitutional lawyer and scholar.

Miers seems to be nothing but a politicized, hick corporate lawyer and law firm executive with no constitutional law experience. Yet another incompetent dubya crony whose main point is that he has been dubya's personal counsel.

====================

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100300504.html

Miers Gave to GOP Candidates, Democrats

The Associated Press
Monday, October 3, 2005; 10:47 AM

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers contributed thousands of dollars to the campaigns of Republicans and Democrats, including Demcrat Al Gore's presidential bid in 1988 and former Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen's re-election campaign.

Through the years, Miers has contributed more than $10,000 to political candidates, focusing mainly on Texas Republicans such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rep. Pete Sessions and former Sen. Phil Gramm.

President Bush announced, Monday Oct. 3, 2005, that White House counsel Harriet Miers,the first women president of the Texas State Bar and Bushs former personal attorney, is his choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day OConnor. Bush made the announcement in the Oval Office in the White House. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
President Bush announced, Monday Oct. 3, 2005, that White House counsel Harriet Miers,the first women president of the Texas State Bar and Bushs former personal attorney, is his choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day OConnor. Bush made the announcement in the Oval Office in the White House.

Miers also has donated to Democrats. In 1988, she gave $1,000 to Gore, the Tennessee senator then seeking the party's presidential nomination. Gore won the Democratic nomination in 2000 and was defeated by George W. Bush in a disputed election.

Miers also gave $1,000 to another prominent Democrat _ Bentsen, the longtime Texas senator who in 1988 ran for re-election and also was Michael Dukakis' vice presidential choice on the Democratic ticket that year.

Bentsen won another term in the Senate, but the Republican ticket of George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle defeated Dukakis and Bentsen.

Miers contributed $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. in 1988.

Miers gave some $5,000 to Bush's 2000 campaign and his 2004 re-election bid. She contributed $1,650 to the presidential inaugural committee that paid for some of the festivities surrounding Bush's swearing in to a second term.

Nbadan

10-03-2005, 01:55 PM

Like Stout, some Conservatives are feeling betrayed by Miers choice...

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views.

Bush chose Miers, a lawyer but not a judge whose opinions on key issues likely to come before the high court are largely unknown, to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.

Conservatives who formed the bedrock foundation of Bush's re-election last November immediately protested the nomination as a betrayal of his campaign promise to pick conservative judges, pointing to her past campaign donations to Democrats.

Reuters (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2005-10-03T165626Z_01_EIC341094_RTRUKOC_0_US-BUSH-COURT-MIERS.xml)

Vashner

10-03-2005, 02:01 PM

The thing about her resume I don't like. Texas Lotto...

Man that thing really sucks.. it's not even Texas lotto anymore it's some multi state bs.

MannyIsGod

10-03-2005, 02:02 PM

You don't like the fact that she's never been a judge?
Not really. I don't think being a judge for any period of time actually makes you more qualified to be fair. And being a lower level judge is quite different from being a judge on the SCOTUS.

MannyIsGod

10-03-2005, 02:08 PM

What do you like?
I like her emphasis on pro bono work and the fact that she's been a trailblazing woman. I'd like to learn more on where she stands on certain issues but I'm by no means ready to have a knee jerk reaction against her because Bush nominated her and her lack of time on a bench.

SpursWoman

10-03-2005, 02:08 PM

The thing about her resume I don't like. Texas Lotto...

Man that thing really sucks.. it's not even Texas lotto anymore it's some multi state bs.

No, the Mult-state is in addition to the Texas Lotto....and the only reason I think it sucks is because I haven't won it yet. :spin

Extra Stout

10-03-2005, 02:31 PM

Not really. I don't think being a judge for any period of time actually makes you more qualified to be fair. And being a lower level judge is quite different from being a judge on the SCOTUS.The problem is not her lack of judicial experience.

There are plenty of justices in history who had never been justices prior to appointment.

What's troubling about Miers is that she has no experience in dealing with the overarching constitutional issues that are the stuff of Supreme Court cases. She has trial experience as a civil attorney, and from there has gone straight into administrative roles.

Maybe she thinks she's "conservative" now, but where's her intellectual anchor? Does she even have one? Kennedy thought he was conservative too. The best justices are like Roberts -- they base their decisions on process rather than results, and thus their opinions are the best thought-out and the strongest.

My guess is Bush picked her because she shares his views on the Global War on Terror as it affects civil liberties, and because he can.

Bush might as well have nominated Michael Brown to the Supreme Court.

Marcus Bryant

10-03-2005, 03:02 PM

If it really mattered anymore, I might care.

xrayzebra

10-03-2005, 03:06 PM

If it really mattered anymore, I might care.

Marcus, at this point who can say. I just worry that five people in black robes can make the calls for 200 million people. I really don't think our founding fathers had this in mind. 9-4=5.

Myself, I just wished we could get some folks who would read our constitution and rule accordingly. It is not a living document, it has served us well for many years up until we got people who thought they knew more than the founders. But I am just one voice. But I will continue to speak.

FromWayDowntown

10-03-2005, 03:06 PM

I agree with Extra Stout. As just a personal issue, this nomination leaves me a bit cold because it appears to "dumb down" the expected level of discourse on significant issues that is imperitive at the Supreme Court. Miers may be an extremely bright individual and she may have some hobby in delving into the nuances of federal constitutional law, but I doubt it. There is a monumental difference, IMO, between being bright and understanding in a process-oriented, structural sense what the Constitution is and does. I don't think that having that background requires that one have been a judge before joining the Court, but I do think that having some constitutional moorings (not just a political sense of the Constitution, but an historical and philosophical belief in how the Constitution operates) should be essential. Perhaps Miers has that or is learning that -- I suspect that she is being tutored for the confirmation hearings, since I'd be shocked if she could dance through the issues in the same way that Chief Justice Roberts did -- but I'm with Extra Stout in wondering where her soul is on those issues.

I think the appointment brings about another problem and that is the precedent of using blatant cronyism to justify appointments to the Supreme Court. The 9 precious seats on that Court should not be used as a means for doling out the political equivalent of a gold watch. It should take much, much more than a closeness to the President to support an appointment to that Court. If Miers had no association with Bush at all, there's no doubt that she would have never received any consideration for that position. I would hate to see the United States Supreme Court become the crony den that the Texas Supreme Court has become for some of Rick Perry's political allies.

I agree with Tom Goldstein's analysis that Miers runs a grave risk of not being confirmed by the Senate. Partisan politics aside, if the hearings go as it would appear they will and unless Miers is hiding her pedigree as a constitutional law wiz, she will likely be made to look exceedingly bad by very difficult questions that cannot be adequately answered without significant philosophical reflection. A confirmation isn't just a game of Constitutional Jeopardy; it's an explication of the very essence of the Constitution -- the answers shouldn't be just sound bites or regurgitations of trivia. I wonder whether Miers will be able to handle that sort of inquiry (I know I wouldn't be able to).

MiNuS

10-03-2005, 03:08 PM

Bush has a history of appointing people without experience to high posts.

SpursWoman

10-03-2005, 03:10 PM

I agree with Tom Goldstein's analysis that Miers runs a grave risk of not being confirmed by the Senate. Partisan politics aside, if the hearings go as it would appear they will and unless Miers is hiding her pedigree as a constitutional law wiz, she will likely be made to look exceedingly bad by very difficult questions that cannot be adequately answered without significant philosophical reflection. A confirmation isn't just a game of Constitutional Jeopardy; it's an explication of the very essence of the Constitution -- the answers shouldn't be just sound bites or regurgitations of trivia. I wonder whether Miers will be able to handle that sort of inquiry (I know I wouldn't be able to).

So what happens if she's rejected by the Senate? He has to pick someone else?

FromWayDowntown

10-03-2005, 03:11 PM

So what happens if she's rejected by the Senate? He has to pick someone else?

Yup.

Extra Stout

10-03-2005, 03:17 PM

Bush's obvious deference to a crony is put into steeper relief by the sizable pool of relatively young brilliant constitutional-law experts from which he had the chance to pick.

If George W. Bush ever joins a fantasy football league, I want in. Apparently he'd make all his draft picks based upon which players he gets along with the best.

Spurminator

10-03-2005, 03:18 PM

Hell, if you were chummy enough with him in that League, you might get an office in Washington yourself.

MannyIsGod

10-03-2005, 03:24 PM

Ok, I can buy into that FWD. You have a much better grasp on the process than I do.

Extra Stout

10-03-2005, 03:27 PM

Hell, if you were chummy enough with him in that League, you might get an office in Washington yourself.True.

FWD, maybe if you could suspend your ethics and principles for a while, and go to the White House for a couple years and do nothing but kiss Bush's ass and tell him how smart and cute he is, you too could become a Supreme Court Associate Justice!

Marcus Bryant

10-03-2005, 03:42 PM

I think I stopped caring the moment an allegedly "conservative" SC determined that a developer could force a town to take someone's property and give it to them.

nkdlunch

10-03-2005, 03:45 PM

She looks like a zombie!

freakin scary

boutons

10-03-2005, 03:52 PM

'She looks like a zombie!"

TX chicks don't know how to do makeup.
She needs to drop the heavy mascara, eye-liner. Halloween is still 4 weeks away.

FromWayDowntown

10-03-2005, 03:55 PM

By the way, I was wrong, the scotusblog entry was by Lyle Denniston, but it is pretty direct in calling President Bush crude for the way that he handled this appointment and suggests that there may be a long term consequence for that decision:

Another unresolved question as of Monday morning is why President Bush felt a need to upstage the ceremony in which Chief Justice Roberts formally joined the Court. There was no apparent need for urgency, and the effect was to overwhelm Roberts' investiture by the news of Miers' nomination. It was not an exhibition of refined manners. And perhaps it served mainly to draw an even more vivid comparison between the two of them, to her disadvantage.

scotusblog (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/10/the_burden_of_p.html)

True.

FWD, maybe if you could suspend your ethics and principles for a while, and go to the White House for a couple years and do nothing but kiss Bush's ass and tell him how smart and cute he is, you too could become a Supreme Court Associate Justice!

I've already purchased my plane ticket and sold my house. . . . now, should I go to Florida and get chummy with Jeb? to DC to glom on with some member of the Administration? or to New York to find Senator Clinton?

Marcus Bryant

10-03-2005, 04:29 PM

'She looks like a zombie!"

TX chicks don't know how to do makeup.
She needs to drop the heavy mascara, eye-liner. Halloween is still 4 weeks away.

boutons, don't forget to order yourself up a new "pocket pussy". Assuming, of course, that you find the real thing interesting...

JoePublic

10-03-2005, 04:34 PM

SCOTUS too much resembles SCROTUM.

Extra Stout

10-03-2005, 05:31 PM

I think I stopped caring the moment an allegedly "conservative" SC determined that a developer could force a town to take someone's property and give it to them.In their defense, all three conservative justices voted against that.

It does bring up the question why out of the six appointments by Republicans, they've only managed three conservatives.

Marcus Bryant

10-03-2005, 06:02 PM

In their defense, all three conservative justices voted against that.

It does bring up the question why out of the six appointments by Republicans, they've only managed three conservatives.

Before Rehnquist went six feet under, GOP presidents had appointed seven of the nine justices and ended up with only 3 'true' conservatives...

scott

10-03-2005, 06:05 PM

She looks like she's about to croak.

exstatic

10-03-2005, 07:58 PM

It is not a living document, it has served us well for many years up until we got people who thought they knew more than the founders.

Actually, the founding fathers made SURE it WOULD be a living document by allowing for amendability. Take a freaking civics course. You do realize that the slaves are free now? :rolleyes

I know that you've slapped a coat of varnish on the way you look at things and declared it good, but please don't drag the rest of us down your kneejerk path.

Yonivore

10-03-2005, 08:03 PM

Actually, the founding fathers made SURE it WOULD be a living document by allowing for amendability. Take a freaking civics course. You do realize that the slaves are free now? :rolleyes

I know that you've slapped a coat of varnish on the way you look at things and declared it good, but please don't drag the rest of us down your kneejerk path.
No, Einstein, they hoped the document wouldn't have to be amended but, it beat the crap out of having people just read into the rest of the document whatever the fuck they wanted. Amendments require the consent of the governed...intepretation by a black robe doesn't have that luxury.

I think President Bush made a choice that wouldn't become a Justice Souter 10 years down the road. He chose a person whom he trusted and knew...if only his Dad had done the same. Well, at least he's not committing the sins of the father.

RandomGuy

10-03-2005, 09:18 PM

Heh, you said "Scotus"...

RandomGuy

10-03-2005, 09:23 PM

FromWayDowntown

10-03-2005, 09:36 PM

"Judicial activism" is a code word for people who want judges to be judicially active in ways they agree with, but not "active" in ways they don't.

It is nothing more than a poorly understood legal concept that ignorant people latch onto as some panacea against change.

Precisely.

Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism, in the way that term is thrown around today, but I can't imagine that anyone in this forum would argue seriously that the Court shouldn't have done what it did in 1954.

RandomGuy

10-03-2005, 09:44 PM

Precisely.

Brown v. Board of Education was judicial activism, in the way that term is thrown around today, but I can't imagine that anyone in this forum would argue seriously that the Court shouldn't have done what it did in 1954.

Are you kidding? Those 3/5ths persons shouldn't be allowed in the same schools...

God forbid we might actually progress in our understanding and methods of government.

We clearly all know that our nation is a sparsely populated agrarian economy, and that hasn't changed in over 200 years...

FromWayDowntown

10-04-2005, 08:18 AM

What I think is so ludicrous about the "judicial activism" argument is that it assumes that the judiciary will be a rubber stamp for the Legislature and the Executive, which makes one wonder what the courts are actually supposed to do.

Basically, people get upset about "judicial activism" because the Courts are concluding in the context of specific cases that some legislative or executive act runs afoul of either the federal or state constitutions. The Courts measure the act against the words of the constitution, the policies that the act is supposed to serve, and the policies that the constitution is supposed to serve. If the act violates some constitutional guarantee, it is struck down; if the act is compatible with the Constitution, it survives.

If the Courts don't do that, what on Earth are they supposed to do? Faced with an act that violates the Constitution, should a Court just say "well, we think the act is unconstitutional, but you know, the Legislature enacted this law and we can't really second guess what the Legislature has done?" Should the Courts be relegated to doing nothing other than assessing liability in tort, deciding contractual disputes, and ensuring that evidence is sufficient to support criminal convictions? If you think that, what limits could there ever be on Legislative or Executive power? Basically, a legislature that shares the executive's view could pass a law that patently infringes some constitutional guarantee -- a law that prohibits certain people from speaking in public, for example -- and there would be no recourse for citizens adversely affected by the enactment. Is that the society that we want to live in? I don't.

Extra Stout

10-04-2005, 08:36 AM

spurster

10-04-2005, 09:01 AM

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2005/10/03/1128397903_3678.gif

FromWayDowntown

10-04-2005, 09:57 AM

FWD, what I succinctly would describe "judicial activism" to be is when a judge predetermines what he or she wants the outcome of a case to be, and then manufactures an interpretation of the law to support it as best as possible.

My preference is to have Supreme Court justices who have a well-developed concept of the law and apply it to cases, even if the outcome does not coincide with their personal beliefs.

I agree with you that for most people though, "judicial activism" just means "legal philosophy I dislike." Any conservative who bashes judicial activism and then turns around and points to Janice Rogers Brown as an ideal Supreme Court justice is talking out of both sides of his mouth.

I would agree with you, Extra Stout, on that definition, but I think that you and I agree that most people don't apply that definition to the question. Largely, this is because those who feed information to the masses talk in soundbyte-ese, offering (repeatedly) a mantra that a non-activist judge is someone who "strictly interprets the law and the Constitution." Of course, someone can strictly interpret the Constitution and still find that a law is invalid. But there are some who seem to believe that "strict interpretation" means "won't ever strike down a law."

It's also true, though, that judicial activism as you and I frame the issue is found in judges on both the political right and the political left. The Texas Supreme Court, for example, is as activist as a court can be in predetermining results and manufacturing reasoning. That's particularly true in cases involving, say big business or insurance. A large component of my practice is dedicated to framing issues to seek review in the Texas Supreme Court. In my office, we know that the Court is "interested" in certain issues and that the Court "will not let" certain things stand. It's amazing how the law in Texas changes when the Supreme Court is convinced that certain things "should not stand."

To bring this back to the Harriet Miers nomination, I think there's a significant difference between a political ideologue, who IMO is more likely to be the sort of results-oriented activist who so many complain about, and a principled liberal or conservative thinker, who IMO is more likely to reach a result through a process of reasoning. The distinction is one of degree, in a sense, but as someone who deals with judicial opinions every day, the difference is significant. An ideologue (broadly) will use reasoning that supplies a result in a particular case, but that tends to fall apart when the facts are even slightly different. A thinker (broadly) will reach the result compelled by his or her reasoning (which is influenced by a political/judicial/personal philosophical bent) and that reasoning will make sense in every case, even if the results may be distasteful to some.

With Roberts, there seems to be little cause for concern about how he'll decide cases -- not as an ideologue, but as a thinker. With Miers, I think there is tremendous concern (from both sides, really) that she has no particular philosophical moorings to define her judicial decision-making. I'm not thrilled with the conservative view of things in our society, but I can take a judicial nominee who has a defined philosophical understanding of how the Constitution must operate (adaptable to varying situations). That's why I couldn't, in an intellectually honest fashion, oppose the Roberts nomination. But its precisely why I'm far, far more skeptical of Ms. Miers.

Marcus Bryant

10-04-2005, 11:48 AM

Cant_Be_Faded

10-04-2005, 12:10 PM

Not really. I don't think being a judge for any period of time actually makes you more qualified to be fair. And being a lower level judge is quite different from being a judge on the SCOTUS.

Maybe, but they're not black and white opposites. When you deal with the scotus, I'd have to imagine those judges do alot more than just use their sense of fairness.

But I'm not sure how the scotus works so im just throwing that out there. I'd be more comfortable if she had some experience being a judge.

But I dig the pro bono work.

Cant_Be_Faded

10-04-2005, 12:11 PM

If Bush's social conservative flank wasn't already in an uproar because she didn't have a demonstrable conservative legal record, they will probably be now. (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1112940,00.html)

""The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."

if she still believes in that, then she just gained some extra points, but that was back in '92

but skimming over that link, makes you wonder why Dubya would choose her to begin with............

boutons

10-04-2005, 12:29 PM

Looks like shrub and dickhead aren't feeling so macho and unbeatable these days.
No balls now for Bork-level or Thomas-level of confirmation fight.

We'll see if the hard-right is gonna give "their" president a fight he doesn't want.

===============================

October 4, 2005

Supreme Court Choice Shows Bush Is Not Spoiling for a Fight
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - There is still much to learn about Harriet E. Miers, but in naming her to the Supreme Court, President Bush revealed something about himself: that he has no appetite, at a time when he and his party are besieged by problems, for an all-out ideological fight.

Many of his most passionate supporters on the right had hoped and expected that he would make an unambiguously conservative choice to fulfill their goal of clearly altering the court's balance, even at the cost of a bitter confirmation battle. By instead settling on a loyalist with no experience as a judge and little substantive record on abortion, affirmative action, religion and other socially divisive issues, Mr. Bush shied away from a direct confrontation with liberals and in effect asked his base on the right to trust him on this one.

The question is why.

On one level, his reasons for trying to sidestep a partisan showdown are obvious, and come down to his reluctance to invest his diminished supply of political capital in a battle over the court.

The White House is still struggling to recover from its faltering response to Hurricane Katrina. The Republican Party is busily trying to wave away a scent of second-term scandal. The relentlessly bloody insurgency in Iraq continues to weigh heavily on his presidency. And no president can retain his political authority for long if he loses his claim to the center.

"The swagger is gone from this White House," said Charles E. Cook Jr., editor of The Cook Political Report, a nonpartisan newsletter, citing a litany of other difficulties afflicting the administration, including high gasoline prices and the failure of Mr. Bush's push to overhaul Social Security. "They know they have horrible problems and they came up with the least risky move they could make."

Looked at another way, the choice is much harder to explain. In selecting Ms. Miers, Mr. Bush stepped deeper into a political thicket that had already scratched up his well-tended image of competence, the criticism that he is prone to stocking the government with cronies rather than people selected solely for their qualifications.

Perhaps even more seriously for him and his party, he left many conservatives feeling angry and deflated, if not betrayed, greatly exacerbating a problem that has been growing more acute for weeks because of the right's concern about unchecked government spending following Hurricane Katrina. For an administration that has at every turn tried to avoid the mistakes of Mr. Bush's father, especially the first President Bush's alienation of his right wing and the subsequent lack of enthusiasm for his re-election effort in 1992, the fallout on Monday was especially glaring.

A few months and a political epoch ago, Mr. Bush was willing to go to the mat for a controversial conservative nominee, pressing the Senate repeatedly to confirm John R. Bolton as ambassador to the United Nations and then giving Mr. Bolton a recess appointment when Democrats blocked him. On Monday, weakened and struggling to avoid premature lame duck status, the administration had to defend itself against suggestions from the right that it has not lost just its way but its nerve.

Writing for National Review Online, David Frum, a conservative commentator and former speechwriter for Mr. Bush, said the president's supporters had reason "to be disappointed and alarmed." When Vice President Dick Cheney, who was dispatched to the conservative radio talk shows on Monday, defended the choice to Rush Limbaugh, saying that in 10 years Ms. Miers will have proven to be a "great appointment," Mr. Limbaugh responded, "Why do we need to wait 10 years?"

Ms. Miers is undoubtedly a conservative. Mr. Bush has worked closely with her for more than a decade, and on Monday he made clear his belief that she meets the standard that he most frequently sets out for his judicial nominees, that they faithfully interpret the Constitution and not legislate from the bench. There is nothing in her background that suggests she would stray far from conservative doctrine in her thinking, and some indications, including her involvement in an evangelical church and a dispute about abortion she was involved in when she led the Texas Bar Association, that she is very much part of the social conservative movement.

But there is no clear public evidence that she meets another test that Mr. Bush long ago suggested he would apply to his nominees: that they fit the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, who have aggressively sought to move the court rightward, becoming heroes to many conservatives in the process.

What Ms. Miers does bring to the court is a long record of loyalty to Mr. Bush, a trait that some scholars said would be attractive to the White House at a time when the court faces a welter of conflicts, beyond abortion and other social issues, that are of immediate concern to the administration.

Foremost among them, said William P. Marshall, a former deputy White House counsel in the Clinton administration, are executive power and government secrecy. In both areas, Mr. Bush has sought to establish wide latitude for the executive branch, especially in battling terrorism and religious extremism at home and abroad.

In this area, Mr. Bush might be better able to count on a loyalist than on an ideologue, said Mr. Marshall, a law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Beyond politics, ideology and Mr. Bush's thinking about the issues on the court's plate, there is another way of assessing his selection. Mr. Bush has always prided himself on his ability to judge character and putting into high-ranking or sensitive jobs people with whom he feels comfortable. He puts a premium on loyalty, and Ms. Miers has served him in a long list of jobs with that most prized of traits among the Bush family, discretion.

Mr. Bush also seems to relish challenging, from time to time, conventional political wisdom, and detaching himself from the day-to-day scrums in Washington to take the long view. And he has always taken delight in surrounding himself with strong women - a trait publicly reinforced in this case by Laura Bush, who has expressed more than once a hope that he would nominate a woman to the court.

"There's a point at which as president you can't game out everything," said Charles O. Jones, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Wisconsin. "You've got to go to the core of your own way of doing things. This is a nominee, I would guess, in whom he has confidence and senses in his own mind that she has got the qualities for the job."

FromWayDowntown

10-04-2005, 12:32 PM

""The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."

if she still believes in that, then she just gained some extra points, but that was back in '92

but skimming over that link, makes you wonder why Dubya would choose her to begin with............

I think he chose her because she has shown herself to be committed to what Bush stands for. But that makes me wonder a lot about whether she has any firm convictions about the law. It sounds to me like she's either really not a social conservative, but is willing to act like one, or like she's got no real philosophical moorings at all. Both, it seems to me, are dangerous traits in a Supreme Court justice.

boutons

10-04-2005, 12:46 PM

"shown herself to be committed to what Bush stands for."

correction: committed only to Bush, whatever that may be, and which is just what his handlers tell him to stand for. In the same sense that AG Gonzalez will come up with a legal position that fits whatever his boss wants, like justifying torture, ignoring Geneva Convention, etc. She's just one more sycophant inside shrub's hermetic bubble.

Nbadan

10-04-2005, 02:03 PM

Maybe Miers is the reason W never got the August 6th 2001 memo? Bin Laden determined to strike inside the U.S.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/051003/051003_miers_hmed_8a.h2.jpg

Harriet Miers, at the time staff secretary, is seen on Aug. 6, 2001, briefing President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9577329)

boutons

10-04-2005, 07:21 PM

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/sc/2005/sc051003.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2005/po051004.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/bs/2005/bs051004.gif

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/wpswi/2005/wpswi051004.gif

Marcus Bryant

10-04-2005, 08:04 PM

Cant_Be_Faded

10-04-2005, 08:07 PM

Marcus Bryant

10-04-2005, 08:09 PM

FromWayDowntown

10-04-2005, 08:10 PM

Do we need a constitutional amendment so that every nominee to the Supreme Court has been a federal appeals court judge? There have been associate (and Chief) justices of the Supreme Court who had rather thin resumes before they made it into the SC. Not that I believe Miers would end up being a distinguished justice, but to pan her selection simply on the lack of such experience seems a bit elitist and certainly flies in the face of SC history. I wonder if the reaction to her nomination would have been a bit different had she been a graduate of an institution like Harvard, Chicago or Yale and spent most of her legal career working in NYC, Boston or DC.

I don't think experience as a federal judge should ever be a requirement -- even if you disagreed with him, Rehnquist was among the better Supreme Court justices in the last 100 years at least, and he had no judicial experience before his appointment; O'Connor had never served in the federal judiciary, either.

But I also think it takes more than having practiced law to sit on that Court. The issues that the Court wrestles with every day are not issues that most lawyers experience more than a few times in a long career. In a daily practice, even a top-notch lawyer at a big law firm doesn't consider the nuances of Constitutional law on a daily basis. The exception is a small fraternity of supreme intellects like Roberts. I do think that, whether through scholarship or practice, evidence of that type of consideration should exist to support a nominee.

Cant_Be_Faded

10-04-2005, 08:11 PM

Rehnquist was never a judge before being nominated to be an associate justice. Again, not that Miers is of his caliber, but if the knock on her is simply going to be that she was never a judge, that seems like a weak test.

I wasn't knocking her. Like i said i'd just feel better. I know that someone can become a judge with no experience and do a kick ass job, just as a long time judge can still suck. But with all the shit they make you go through in law school, as a lawyer, as a judge, I am just assuming that due to the nature of the job, experience could not hurt. And in my eyes it would help.

FromWayDowntown

10-04-2005, 08:14 PM

Maybe. I never thought of it that way. But I'd just feel more comfortable if she had judge experience....being a normal judge can't possibly be hurtful if you're moving up to SC judge. I also had/have no real knowledge of SC electee history

Being a Supreme Court Justice is quite different than being any other type of judge. There are some similarities amongst the various levels and courts, but every case in the Supreme Court is a weighty one for reasons that extend beyond the facts and parties of the particular case. For the most part, every case that the Supreme Court decides is binding upon every citizen of every state; no other Court in this country has that sort of power.

I don't think that being a judge on a lower appellate court brings that sort of responsibility, and I don't think that being a judge on those courts would make anyone more qualified to be a Supreme Court justice.

SpursWoman

10-04-2005, 08:14 PM

Maybe. I never thought of it that way. But I'd just feel more comfortable if she had judge experience....being a normal judge can't possibly be hurtful if you're moving up to SC judge. I also had/have no real knowledge of SC electee history

Several of them had never been a judge prior to their appointment.

I say, if she can make it past Biden & Crew she deserves a lot of respect...that guy is a Supreme Asshole. :lol

If she can't cut it...and I don't think you can hide inexperience at this point...all the cronyism or whatever in the world can't answer the questions for her, then she's rejected (and more than likely humiliated in front of the entire country) by the Senate and maybe that might catch someone's attention that perhaps there ARE better qualified individuals out there.

But who knows.....it's not yet written in stone.

Marcus Bryant

10-04-2005, 08:15 PM

Something else to think about...as WH Counsel she undoubtedly had to deal with constitutional concerns on a daily basis. That, and an impressive career in private practice would seem to indicate that Miers has the intelligence, knowledge and drive necessary to handle a role as an associate justice. What more do we need?

Cant_Be_Faded

10-04-2005, 08:17 PM

Time to see if she can cut it.

Marcus Bryant

10-04-2005, 08:29 PM

Well, you have one side generally opposed to any nominee of the president and you have his own side which is generally lukewarm if not feeling rebellious about her nomination.

She has some fairly steep hurdles to climb. Plus, she certainly has one tough act to follow.

boutons

10-04-2005, 09:09 PM

"she undoubtedly had to deal with constitutional concerns on a daily basis. "

WTF? She was shrub's sycophantic nanny, part of his bubble team, explaining to his ignorant self how the fucking world works. What bars is she a member of? Has she ever worked on any federal constitutional cases?

Look at the points of the political cartons I posted. In a country of 300M people, 1M lawyers, 1000s of state and federal judges, shrub says the best candidate is his WH legal nanny? GMAFB

Part of the problem is shrub himself, who has never had a serious political or legal career, and so has a very limited contact with the best and the brightest the US has to offer. Obviously, the best and brightest in the US know shrub is a unqualified, dumbshit amateur.

As the right wing senses, HM is quite a risky candidate, since nobody really knows WTF she is. She might turn out to be a quite "liberal" justice when/if actually given the job. ie, she could rise to the job's responsibilities and obligations in unpredictable ways. She won't be the first to do that.

That's what I adore about dubya. Many presidents are transformed in ways they never foresaw by the burdens and responsibilities of the office, and mostly for the better. But good ol' dubya, 5 years in office, is the same old, inarticulate dumbshit simpleton he always has been. Reliable as a rock, and just as dumb.

SpursWoman

10-04-2005, 09:37 PM

FWIW

Ms. Miers currently serves as Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff. Most recently, she served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Prior to joining the White House staff, Ms. Miers was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where she helped manage an over 400-lawyer firm. Previously, she was President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, where she worked for 26 years. In 1992, Ms. Miers became the first woman elected Texas State Bar President following her selection in 1985 as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council. Ms. Miers received her bachelor's degree and J.D. from Southern Methodist University.

boutons

10-04-2005, 11:07 PM

uh oh, a fallen away Catholic and now an evangelical Christian.

No way she believes in separation of church and state, and is anti-abortion, probably anti-gay/lesbian, anti-same-sex marriage, and in general for legislating public morals and private adult behavior.

=======================

The New York Times
October 5, 2005

In Midcareer, a Turn to Faith to Fill a Void
By EDWARD WYATT and SIMON ROMERO

DALLAS, Oct. 4 - By 1979, Harriet E. Miers, then in her mid-30's, had accomplished what some people take a lifetime to achieve. She was a partner at Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, one of the most prestigious law firms in the South, with an office on the 35th floor of the Republic National Bank Tower in downtown Dallas.

But she still felt something was missing in her life, and it was after a series of long discussions - rambling conversations about family and religion and other matters that typically stretched from early evening into the night - with Nathan L. Hecht, a junior colleague at the law firm, that she made a decision that many of the people around her say changed her life.

"She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," Justice Hecht, who now serves on the Texas Supreme Court, said in an interview. "One evening she called me to her office and said she was ready to make a commitment" to accept Jesus Christ as her savior and be born again, he said. He walked down the hallway from his office to hers, and there amid the legal briefs and court papers, Ms. Miers and Justice Hecht "prayed and talked," he said.

She was baptized not long after that, at the Valley View Christian Church.

It was a pivotal personal transformation for the woman now named for a seat on the United States Supreme Court, not entirely unlike that experienced by President Bush and others in the Texas political and business establishment of that time.

Ms. Miers, born Roman Catholic, became an evangelical Christian and began identifying more with Republicans than with the Democrats who had long held sway over Texas politics. She joined the missions committee of her church, which is against legalized abortion, and friends and colleagues say she rarely looked back at her past as a Democrat.

"There weren't that many Republicans in Texas in those days," said Merrie Spaeth, a director of media relations at the White House under Ronald Reagan who met Ms. Miers after moving to Dallas in 1985. "Harriet is what you would call a Southern lady. It is marvelous to watch her in meetings with huge egos, where she allows people to think good results are the product of their own ideas."

To persuade the right to embrace Ms. Miers's selection despite her lack of a clear record on social issues, representatives of the White House put Justice Hecht on at least one conference call with influential social conservative organizers on Monday to talk about her faith and character.

Some evangelical Protestants were heralding the possibility that one of their own would have a seat on the court after decades of complaining that their brand of Christianity met condescension and exclusion from the American establishment.

In an interview Tuesday on the televangelist Pat Robertson's "700 Club," Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the Christian conservative American Center for Law and Justice, said Ms. Miers would be the first evangelical Protestant on the court since the 1930's. "So this is a big opportunity for those of us who have a conviction, that share an evangelical faith in Christianity, to see someone with our positions put on the court," Mr. Sekulow said.

But other conservatives were unappeased, looking for someone with clearly stated public commitments on social issues like abortion.

While Ms. Miers rarely wore her religious thinking on her sleeve, her gradual tilt toward conservative views resulted in some uneasy moments when she took a break from a lucrative law practice and delved into politics with a campaign for the Dallas City Council in 1989, running for a nonpartisan post. She appeared as a candidate at the Dallas Gay and Lesbian Political Caucus, but even though she said gays should have the same civil rights as others in society, she stopped short of endorsing a repeal of a Texas law criminalizing gay sexual activity.

Religion appears to have influenced her views on certain subjects. In a discussion with her campaign manager in 1989, Ms. Miers said she had been in favor in her younger years of a woman's right to have an abortion, but her views evolved against abortion, influenced largely by her born-again religious beliefs, said Lorlee Bartos, a Democratic campaign consultant in Dallas who managed Ms. Miers's City Council campaign.

"She was someone whose view had shifted, and she explained that to me," Ms. Bartos said.

Still, pragmatism, not ideology, seems to have guided Ms. Miers on most issues in her brief period in public office before she went on in 1995 to be named by Gov. George W. Bush to head the Texas State Lottery and then followed him to Washington.

One of the most controversial issues before the Dallas City Council during Ms. Miers's single term that ended in 1991 was a battle over whether the city should adopt a plan doing away with council members elected at large, an election method that minority groups in Dallas criticized as marginalizing them from municipal politics.

Ms. Miers, elected as an at-large council member, initially favored the at-large system, but her position evolved to support a proposal that would create a collection of different districts in the city. This was adopted and eventually led to greater representation of blacks and Hispanics in Dallas.

While known as a moderate conservative, "Harriet didn't really distinguish herself," said Domingo Garcia, a lawyer who was elected to the Council in the early 1990's after the bitter redistricting fight. "She wasn't a leader and wasn't furniture," said Mr. Garcia, a former mayoral candidate in Dallas and the national civil rights chairman for the League of United Latin American Citizens. "She was in between."

And yet Ms. Miers, known for her thorough study of the issues before the Council, acquired the grudging respect of some colleagues across the political spectrum. "You might think she's a pushover because she looks meek and humble," said Al Lipscomb, a former city council member. "But can America handle a Republican conservative who's fair? She is a tigress when it comes to the law."

The Dallas of political battles over minority and gay rights, of course, was substantially different from the predominantly white and segregated city where she was born the fourth of five children. Few schools were more emblematic of the old Dallas than Hillcrest High School, from which Ms. Miers graduated in 1963.

"It was a school in the sense like schools were supposed to be," said Ron Natinsky, a classmate of Ms. Miers who is now on the Dallas City Council, referring to an atmosphere of respect and decorum. "Teachers were addressed as ma'am or sir."

The strait-laced student body at Hillcrest was also almost entirely white, with integration in that part of Dallas several years off when Ms. Miers graduated, Mr. Natinsky said. Her yearbook from 1963 shows photographs of a blond, smiling senior, described by classmates as "efficient, sweet and sincere, good at sports from what we hear." Mr. Natinsky remembered her as someone involved in clubs and school activities, but not part of the "cool crowd."

"She was almost an unseen person at school," Mr. Natinsky said.

Ms. Miers sometimes attended Mass at St. Jude Chapel in downtown Dallas, but before embracing evangelical Protestantism, her experience with religion was lukewarm and her attendance sporadic, Justice Hecht said.

Her friends say that there is much about her world experience that shapes her attitudes and views, from her rise in a male-dominated legal profession to her years of loyalty and counsel to Mr. Bush in Texas and Washington.

But as important as her professional trajectory, friends and family of Ms. Miers say, is the influence of religion on her approach to issues of political and legal importance. After joining Valley View Christian Church, she began teaching a Sunday night class for first, second and third graders at the church, called Whirlybirds.

Vickie Wilson, the office manager at Valley View, knew Ms. Miers from the time she began attending the church in 1979; Ms. Wilson's two daughters, now 27 and 30, were in Ms. Miers's Sunday youth group. Even though it was known that she was a high-powered lawyer in Dallas, "she never used the church to further her political career," Ms. Wilson said.

"She never took a role where she was trying to stand out front," Ms. Wilson said. "She put herself in servant roles, making coffee every Sunday morning and putting doughnuts out."

A close relationship with Justice Hecht - also a longtime member of Valley View - who frequently appears with Ms. Miers at social functions in Washington and in Texas, has been a steady feature of her life for nearly 30 years. Justice Hecht is known as one of the most conservative members of the Republican-dominated Texas Supreme Court.

Newspapers in Texas have reported that Justice Hecht and Ms. Miers were romantically involved, and when asked in an interview whether that was still the case, Justice Hecht responded that they were close, without going into great detail. "She works in Washington, I work in Austin," Justice Hecht said. "We have dinner when she's here; if she invites me to Washington I happily go. We talk on the phone all the time."

Justice Hecht and Ms. Miers spoke on Sunday evening, but she did not tell him about the pending announcement that she had been offered the nomination, he said. "She's a stickler for the rules," he said. He never asked Ms. Miers how she would vote on the issue of abortion if it came before the Supreme Court, he said. "She probably wouldn't answer, she wouldn't view it as appropriate."

"Yes, she goes to a pro-life church," Justice Hecht said, adding, "I know Harriet is, too." The two attended "two or three" anti-abortion fund-raising dinners in the early 1990's, he said, but added that she had not otherwise been active in the anti-abortion movement. "You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe" to be upheld, he said.

Apart from the questions about abortion and other issues Ms. Miers will face in confirmation hearings, the strong tie she and Justice Hecht have to their church is undergoing a test. The congregation at Valley View is in the middle of a schism, and Mr. Hecht said he and Ms. Miers are siding with the splinter groups that are forming a new church under Valley View's longtime pastor, Ron Key.

Church members said in interviews that Mr. Key was fired several weeks ago by the Valley View board of elders after he refused to take a less prominent role in the church's leadership. The members said that the pastor and the board members disagreed on several matters, including the appointments of new ministers and whether the church should adopt more contemporary forms of worship services to try to attract newer and younger members.

Dr. Barry McCarty, the Valley View pastor, said Ms. Miers has often asked the congregation to pray for her and the president, and he added that even if she is joining the roughly 150 members that have left to start a new church, he believes that the Valley View members will continue those prayers. "Our particular congregation is committed to starting new churches," Dr. McCarty said. "It's something they do with our blessing."

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting from Washington for this article.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

jochhejaam

10-05-2005, 06:33 AM

Limbaugh slammed the President for this selection so I'm not sure it bodes well for ultra-conservatives.
I thought I heard recently that 35 SCJ's had not worn the juducial robe prior to being nominated to the SC. That being the case, as many have already stated, it's not something that would lend support to those who would oppose her.

"She can't separate the forest from the trees," says one former White House staffer.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/images/20020809-1_ranch7-515h.jpg

President Bush tries to help her overcome those allegations.

boutons

10-05-2005, 09:21 AM

=======================

washingtonpost.com

Can This Nomination Be Justified?

By George F. Will
Wednesday, October 5, 2005

Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules.

First, it is not important that she be confirmed.

Second, it might be very important that she not be.

Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due.

It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks.

The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons.

He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections.

Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists.

In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do."

It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends.

The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination.

Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group.

The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench."

Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender.

Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences.

For this we need a conservative president?

[email protected]

=====================

Yonivore

10-05-2005, 10:33 AM

Misunderestimated again...even by his own party this time.

NameDropper

10-05-2005, 10:35 AM

Rumor has it Bush had no intention of nominating a hard core conservative because he knows that if Roe vs Wade was ever over turned it would be the end of the republican party. If he were really serious about his "right to life" stance this was his golden opportunity to act on it and he didn't even try.

Misunderstood my ass. Conservatives talk good talk but won't walk the walk.

Bush just proved it.

RandomGuy

10-05-2005, 06:09 PM

=======================
The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech.=====[excerpt from boutons post]

This fool equates money with free speech.
:cuss I find THAT idea morally repugnant. I can give a little on some things to the conservative point of view, but this is one where I really believe that this idea is evil.

Marcus Bryant

10-05-2005, 06:41 PM

Perhaps you are the fool. If I want to devote however much to a political cause, that's my choice, not yours.

But, I know, freedom for you and not for me.

boutons

10-05-2005, 06:48 PM

"his "right to life" stance this was his golden opportunity to act on it and he didn't even try."

She is evangelical and anti-abortion. If Roe vs Wade were up for overturning, she'd vote to overturn it.

FromWayDowntown

10-05-2005, 10:23 PM

Here (http://www.scotusblog.com/movabletype/archives/2005/10/commentary_mort.html#more) is an interesting take on Bush's press conference yesterday and his comments about Ms. Miers' "judicial philosophy." I'll save the forum from a long quotation -- if you want to read it, I'd recommend it. Basically, the author questions (citing to historical examples like Harlan, Warren, Jackson, and Rehnquist, all of whom experienced some significant philosophical change while on the Court, whether an issue-related change or a doctrinal change) whether there is value in a judge having some implicit commitment to remaining what a President has assured she will be -- and whether that sort of monolithic approach will be viewed favorably by anyone on the Judiciary Committee:

If the President is right about her, she could be reminded, no change in political, social, cultural or economic circumstances, however radical, could move her to rethink constitutional dogma. Could she declare her independence of this President in a war on terrorism case, as Justice Antonin Scalia (a favorite of the President) did last year? How does she convince the Committee of that?
That, Denniston posits, puts Miers in an unenviable position both now and going forward:

Perhaps entirely sincere in attempting to persuade his conservative political allies that Miers would not become a liberal -- or even a moderate -- on the Court, the President on Tuesday put her in a position to either endorse his concept of constitutionalism for all of her service, come what may, or else find a way repeatedly to justify a betrayal of his reason for choosing her. Few (if any) Justices have gone on the Court in modern times with such a burden of loyalty to the President who placed them there. The independence that life tenure supposedly would guarantee a Justice Miers may well be compromised seriously if, over the next 20 years, she knows she will always be measured against his definition of her.
It's certainly one view of the current state of this nomination and some of the more nuanced problems that exist, for now.

boutons

10-05-2005, 11:02 PM

this article gives some historical perspective and viewpoint of conservative legal intellectuals, who are downfallen that shrub has not chosen someone from the conservatives who have been preparing for the nomination for 20 years. Basically, dubya blew them and the whole idea of meritocracy off (dubya counts loyalty above all else, even ignoring lack of competence).

===========================================

washingtonpost.com
The Right's Dissed Intellectuals

By Harold Meyerson
Wednesday, October 5, 2005; A23

You could cut the disappointment with a knife. "This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades," David Frum, the right-wing activist and former Bush speechwriter, wrote on his blog a few moments after the president dashed conservative hopes by nominating Harriet Miers to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

Bypassing all manner of stellar Scalia look-alikes, the president settled on his own in-house lawyer, whose chief virtue seems to be that she's been the least visible lawyer in America this side of Judge Joseph Crater. Miers has authored no legal opinions that can be dissected, no Supreme Court briefs that can be parsed, no law review articles that can be torn apart.

Which, I suspect, is why her selection cuts so deep in right-wing circles. The problem isn't only that Miers is not openly a movement conservative but that she's as far from a public intellectual as anyone could possibly be. In one fell swoop, Bush flouted both his supporters' ideology and their sense of meritocracy.

Worse, he bypassed the opportunity to demonstrate their intellectual seriousness -- conservatism's intellectual seriousness.

Consider the following from George Mason University law professor Todd Zywicki, writing on a right-wing legal-affairs blog on Monday: "There are two possible ways to think about appointments: one is to appoint those who will simply 'vote right' on the Court, the other is to be more far-reaching and to try to change the legal culture. Individuals such as Brandeis, Holmes, Warren, all changed both the Court and the legal culture, by providing intellectual heft and credibility to a certain intellectual view of the law. . . . Bush's back-to-back appointments of [Chief Justice John] Roberts and Miers is a clear indication that his goal is at best to change the voting pattern of the Court. . . . Neither of them appears to be suited by background or temperament to provide intellectual leadership that will move the legal culture."

Note Zywicki's trio of legal heavyweights: Louis Brandeis, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Earl Warren, all figures in the liberal pantheon (though Holmes was less a liberal than a dissenter from his era's conservatism). Now, after three decades of a legal counterrevolution against the egalitarianism of the mid-20th century, the right had developed its own pantheon, its Brandeises-in-waiting. And Bush ignored them all.

Many conservatives assumed that Bush knows his Harriet Miers and concluded that she'd probably move the court, and nation, to the right. But her nomination was nonetheless an affront to the amour-propre of conservative intellectuals everywhere. "For all we know, she will be so conservative that she'll make Clarence Thomas look like Kanye West," wrote commentator John Podhoretz. "It's still an unserious nomination, which is what those of us who are objecting to it are objecting to."

But the conservative intellectuals have misread their president and misread their country. Four and a half years into the presidency of George W. Bush, how could they still entertain the idea that the president takes merit, much less intellectual seriousness, seriously? The one in-house White House intellectual, John DiIulio, ran screaming from the premises after a few months on the job. Bush has long since banished all those, such as Army chief of staff Gen. Eric Shinseki, who accurately predicted the price of taking over Iraq. Yet Donald Rumsfeld -- with Bush, the author of the Iraqi disaster -- remains, as do scores of lesser lights whose sole virtue has been a dogged loyalty to Bush and his blunders. Loyalty and familiarity count for more with this president than brilliance (or even competence) and conviction.

Besides, just because the conservative intellectuals are itching for a fight over first principles doesn't mean their country is. The conservative legal movement may have been waiting for this moment, as Frum wrote, for two decades, but the conservative economic movement had also been waiting for more than two decades for its moment, its fight over Social Security. Bush indulged the economic right, and look what happened: Armed with the best thinking of Heritage, Cato and all the right-wing think tanks, the president took on the New Deal and has not yet recovered.

Now the legal right wants -- what? A public debate over the right to choice? A frontal assault on the right to privacy? A nominee who'll argue, as right-wing darling Janice Rogers Brown has, that the minimum wage and Social Security are unconstitutional? Is it any wonder that Bush, particularly in his weakened state, chose to sidestep those fights? Most of the right wing's legal agenda commands minority support in the country and provokes majority opposition. How many battles of ideas can Bush afford to lose?

With the Miers nomination, the counterrevolution proceeds again by stealth. It is, on the fundamental issues, the only way it can proceed.

[email protected]

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

spurster

10-06-2005, 09:17 AM

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Globe_Graphic/2005/10/05/1128569663_2659.gif

RandomGuy

10-06-2005, 02:11 PM

Perhaps you are the fool. If I want to devote however much to a political cause, that's my choice, not yours.

But, I know, freedom for you and not for me.

A choice, yes.

BUT

it is NOT free speech.

It is a choice to hit somebody in the head repeatedly with a hammer, but that isn't free speech either.

I hold unlimited donations to policitical parties on the part of individuals as harming societies just as much as someone who murders another person.

It is simply morally indefensible, and the surest way to destroy our country.

Marcus Bryant

10-06-2005, 02:42 PM

RandomGuy

10-06-2005, 02:52 PM

Oh please. If I want to spend the money to support what I believe in, that is expression. If I want to run ads myself, set up a website, give it to an issue advocacy group, a political party or a particular candidate then that is how I choose to represent what I believe in.

The hammer analogy makes no sense.

It does. Let's follow the logic.

Murder is illegal because we believe it is immoral, and it harms society.

Smoking pot is illegal because we believe it is immoral and it harms society.

Unlimited campaign contributions to a political party is illegal (mostly) because we believe it is immoral and harms society.

Same logical set-up.

I hold that unlimited money into a formal political party that runs for office basically makes the modern day equivilant of "3/5 persons" out of those who don't have the money to give, and takes away any semblence of representation from those who don't have money.

Governments should represent all interests, and that includes people with money. Their interests are no less AND NO MORE important than anyone elses.

Allowing unlimited donations to a poltical party will start us on the road to all sorts of unpleasant -isms.

Marcus Bryant

10-06-2005, 02:58 PM

It does. Let's follow the logic.

Murder is illegal because we believe it is immoral, and it harms society.

Smoking pot is illegal because we believe it is immoral and it harms society.

Unlimited campaign contributions to a political party is illegal (mostly) because we believe it is immoral and harms society.

Same logical set-up.

Sure, if you liken free political expression to murder, which, of course, makes no sense.

I hold that unlimited money into a formal political party that runs for office basically makes the modern day equivilant of "3/5 persons" out of those who don't have the money to give, and takes away any semblence of representation from those who don't have money.

Governments should represent all interests, and that includes people with money. Their interests are no less AND NO MORE important than anyone elses.

Allowing unlimited donations to a poltical party will start us on the road to all sorts of unpleasant -isms.

Oddly enough there have been plenty of instances in which the most well funded candidate or side did not win in local, state and federal elections.

Allowing restrictions on one's personal freedom sounds like some form of an "-ism" to me. Especially when you consider that limiting individual expression amplifies the power of media outlets to influence elections. I don't know about you, but I want to live in a country in which I can support what I believe in with however much I wish to devote to it.