The Harriet Miers - W Relationship Is Kinda Creepy

[Nbadan]

Letters reveal Miers' profound admiration for Bush
BY JAY ROOT
Knight Ridder Newspapers


"You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect!" she wrote in 1997, in a belated birthday note that was typical of the tone she used in her correspondence with then-Gov. Bush.

The letter was one of a handful of personal notes included in more than 2,000 pages of documents released Monday by the Texas State Library - most of them routine legal memos, press releases and transcripts. The letters offer a rare glimpse into the mutual admiration that sprung up between Miers and Bush after they began working together on Bush's first campaign for Texas governor in 1994.

Bush responded to her birthday wish in kind, and included a humorous, if baffling, postscript.

"I appreciate your friendship and candor. Never hold back your sage advice," he wrote. "P.S. No more public scatology." Whether Bush was referring to Miers' rough-and-tumble time as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission or something else isn't clear. Scatology refers to "the study of or preoccupation with excrement or obscenity," according to Webster's dictionary.

Bush and Miers had met briefly at a banquet in 1989, but their political partnership began in late 1993, as Bush was preparing for a race against incumbent Texas Gov. Ann Richards.

Dallas businessman Jim Francis, then Bush's campaign chairman, had recommended that he hire Miers, a prominent lawyer and the first female president of the State Bar Association of Texas, to be his general counsel.

She took the job and has been at Bush's side ever since. Now Bush wants to elevate his devoted friend to the highest court in the land. Some critics have questioned whether Miers was nominated based on friendship and loyalty alone.

Francis, however, said the friendship flows from a professional relationship and Bush's trust in her ability as a skilled lawyer.

" It's a personal relationship, but it's based on a very professional business working relationship. She calls him `sir' and `Mr. President,'" Francis said. Asked if the two were friends, Francis said: "I think they have a friendship, but it's based on a professional relationship. It's obvious that he likes her and she likes him. If that's a definition of friends, I think the answer is yes. But they're not buddies."

Indeed, Miers oozes with deference and awe in her letters to Bush. In a 1995 note, she thanked Bush for a visit and called a ride in a plane with him "Cool!" When she wrote Bush a thank-you note for meeting with a lottery job applicant in 1997, she wrote, "You are the best!"

Likewise, in a 1996 letter thanking Bush and his wife, Laura, for serving as chairs of a Dallas luncheon honoring Miers, the future Supreme Court nominee spoke of a little girl who'd raved about getting Bush's autograph.

"I truly believe if the governor told her she should be an Astronaut, she would do her best to become one," Miers wrote. "I was struck by the tremendous impact you have on the children whose lives you touch."

Bush had introduced Miers to the luncheon crowd with his now-famous description of his personal lawyer: "She looks so petite and, well, harmless. But put her on your case," Bush said, "and she becomes a pit bull in size 6 shoes."

Bush, who nominated Miers to the high court on Oct. 3, has been roundly criticized for his choice by conservatives in the Senate and elsewhere. They contend that too little is known about Miers' conservative pedigree, and they're distressed that Bush failed to nominate someone in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas as he said he would in the 2000 campaign.

While Miers' confirmation hearings haven't been scheduled, they could start near Thanksgiving, said Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa.

Sun Herald (http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/news/nation/12868383.htm)

Either Miers is the world's biggest ass-kisser, or there seems to be a little bit more than just mere 'admiration' going on between these two here. Maybe something along the lines of a school-girl crush. Very unprofessional.

[boutons]

She's a sicko, a supreme, sycophantic suck-up.
And dubya pads his bubble and life with sycophants so he doesn't have to face the reality that's he's too stupid and chicken to face.

dubya's own personal rot extends to everyhing he touches.
An asshole with an anti-Midas touch.

[Marcus Bryant]

Actually a good portion of professional life is spent being "unprofessional".

[mookie2001]

well she did say Bush was the most brilliant person she had ever met in her life

George W. Bush
the current president

[xrayzebra]

I think she is a nice lady. And I think you folks who don't agree have a reallllllly big problem. You got Bush for three more years and it is eating you alive.....Don't you just love it. I do.

[Nbadan]

http://www.surveyusa.com/chartfx62/temp/CFT1011_0828050CFBC.png

[boutons]

October 12, 2005

Op-Ed Columnist

To Sir, With Love
By MAUREEN DOWD

WASHINGTON

W. was the best Harry ever had.

"You are the best Governor ever - deserving of great respect!" gushed Harriet Miers, then the Texas Lottery chief, to George W. Bush in 1997. The belated birthday card she sent her boss with a sheepishly eager puppy poking his head up and a poem that read: "This is the wish/That should have been sent/Before your birthday/Came and went."

According to a cache of mash notes released by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in response to formal requests from The Times and other news organizations, Ms. Miers also told W. that he was "cool" and "the best!"; that he and Laura were "the greatest"; that Texas was "in great hands"; and that the governor should "keep up the great work. Texas is blessed."

Since there is no breathtaking Miers judicial record to pore over, I was eager to read more breathless Miers missives to a president she describes as the most brilliant man she has ever met. How could I get the notes from the White House, given how opposed Mr. Bush is to leaks? I called Scooter and Karl and they sent the secret documents right over.

August 2001 "Thank you so much for letting me bundle up and drag away the brush that you cut down today. And if I might add, Sir, I've never seen a man wield the nippers so judiciously. It was awesome! You are the best brush cutter ever!!"

September 2001 "I found out today that you handed down a decision for the White House mess to offer three different kinds of jelly with its P.B.&J. sandwiches. Sweet!! As you know, I'm the only member of the staff who eats three meals a day in the mess. Now I get to have a different type of jelly at every meal! The mess is blessed to have a president who cares so much. I know I'm probably just flattering myself, but I like to think that you are thinking of me, also. (Smile.)

"P.S. Can you believe Condi cares more about W.M.D.'s than P.B.&J.'s?"

April 2002 "I was worried that it could go unstated in the rush of business around here, but I just wanted to pause and say how amazing it is that, after doing so much for the American people already, you keep showing up for work most days. We have to come, but you choose to. You're the hardest-working president ever!!"

October 2002 "I'm not sure Condi has made the time to thank you herself, so I just wanted to say how much we appreciated the tickets to 'Madame Butterfly' on Saturday night. I wore my long black robe - I mean, opera cape. I just wish it had had that song from 'The Sound of Music' - I know you love it, too - 'Cream-colored ponies and crisp apple strudels. ...' You're one of my favorite things, sir!"

January 2003 "Just a quick note to say how cool it is that you picked Brownie to head FEMA. There's nothing like having someone you know and trust in a top job. Your gut is the best judge ever!!"

April 2004 "There is no other president who would have had the courage to allow torture, dude! (It's only too bad that Abu Ghraib rules out Alberto's chances of getting on the Supreme Court.) You are the best torturer ever!! xo, H."

June 2005 "Make sure you take a good, long vacation this summer! Last year, you only took two weeks. You are pushing yourself way too hard, Sir!!"

August 2005 "I've half a mind to come down there myself and chase that witch, Cindy Sheehan, off your property with an injunction!! Yours, with you in Christ, Harriet."

September 2005 "In all this fuss about that bad-girl buttinsky Katrina, no one else seems to have noticed - not even Karen - that you've achieved your bold vision of losing that seven pounds. That extra week of mountain biking was so much more important than people realize. You're the most chiseled commander in chief ever, and the most rad guitar player ever!!"

October 2005 "How can I thank you, Sir? I never, ever expected the Supreme Court. Phat! I hope Clarence doesn't make me watch 'Debbie Does Dallas' again. That movie is so anti-Texas! I miss you already!!

"But now I will be able to serve your interests - and those of your family - forever and ever. If there's another recount you need help with, count on me. They say I don't have experience, but I've had the experience of polishing the boots of the wisest ruler since Solomon. I may not know stare decisis, but I know when to be starry-eyed. I await your instructions, Master."

[boutons]

dubya has poked himself in the eye, and goosed Harriet. Sounds like the Dems are gonna vote for her, and the Repubs are gonna vote against her.

poor dubya, what a pitiful dumbshit. The wheels are coming off his bandwagon, from which the rats are jumping daily. a lame duck president with 3 fruitless, sterile years remaining and who "controls" both houses of Congress.

and Fitz's indictments haven't even been filed, yet.

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

The New York Times
October 12, 2005

G.O.P. Aides Add Voices to Resistance to Miers
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK

As the White House seeks to rally senators behind the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, lawyers for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expressing dissatisfaction with the choice and pushing back against her, aides to 6 of the 10 Republican committee members said yesterday.

"Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact," a lawyer to a Republican committee member said.

All the Republican staff members insisted on anonymity for fear of retaliation from their supervisors and from the Senate leaders.

At two stormy meetings on Friday - the first a planning meeting of the chief counsels to Republican committee members and the second a Republican staff meeting with Ed Gillespie, the former Republican Party chairman who is helping to lobby for the nomination - committee lawyers were unanimous in their dismay over Ms. Miers's qualifications and conservative credentials, several attendees said.

Many lawyers were critical or hostile, these people said, although Michael E. O'Neill, chief counsel to the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, tried to remain relatively neutral. Mr. O'Neill could not be reached for comment.

"You could say there is pretty much uniform disappointment with the nomination at the staff level," another Republican on the committee staff said. "It is clear there is quite a bit of skepticism, and even some flashes of hostility."

Another Republican aide close to the committee said, "I don't know a staffer who approves of this nomination, anywhere. Most of it is outright hostility throughout the Judiciary Committee staff."

In an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Specter emphasized that the senators would make their own decisions.

"I think those staffers, like anybody else, have a right to their opinions and to express them," he said. "Senators will make independent judgments. You have some pretty strong staffers on the committee, but you have got some stronger senators."

Of the 10 Republicans on the panel, Senators Sam Brownback of Kansas and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma have expressed the most skepticism about Ms. Miers. Most decline to commit themselves.

Don Stewart, a spokesman for supporter on the committee, Senator John. Cornyn of Texas, said: "I think that the staff are all very well versed in the process and in this particular nominee, but so are the senators. I think you will see, and already have seen, quite a lot of support out of the senators."

The resistance among the panel lawyers reflects the challenge facing Mr. Bush in unifying his party and the conservative movement behind Ms. Miers.

On Tuesday, James C. Dobson, founder of the conservative evangelical group Focus on the Family, explained previous comments about confidential information that had influenced him to support Ms. Miers, a mystery that led some senators to threaten to call him to testify before the Judiciary Committee.

According to a transcript of his radio broadcast today, Mr. Dobson said he was referring to a confidential telephone conversation with Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, about Ms. Miers that occurred two days before Mr. Bush announced her selection. Mr. Rove gave Mr. Dobson permission to discuss the call, and much of the information has now become public, Mr. Dobson said.

In addition to telling Mr. Dobson about her membership in a conservative evangelical church and her past support for an anti-abortion group in Texas, Mr. Rove assured him that Ms. Miers was the kind of conservative jurist that the president had promised to appoint, and that "the president knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence," Mr. Dobson recounted.

Republican staff members on the Judiciary Committee usually research and prepare arguments to defend the president's nominees. But Republican staff members on the panel said committee lawyers were doing research to rebut the "talking points" the White House has provided for senators to support Ms. Miers's nomination.

For example, committee lawyers said, the White House has told senators and conservative activists that Ms. Miers, as White House counsel, deserves credit for helping Mr. Bush select many strongly conservative federal judges. But lawyers for the committee say Ms. Miers, who became White House counsel last year, had no role in the most significant nominations.

People at the meeting on Friday of the judiciary panel lawyers said Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Specter's chief counsel , argued that Ms. Miers deserved a chance to speak for herself, especially because staff members were unacquainted with her legal work.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/po/2005/po051011.gif

[mookie2001]

well she did say Bush was the most brilliant person she had ever met in her life

George W. Bush
the current president

[boutons]

and here's shrub saying religion is an important aspect of and even qualification for Miers, why he chose her, while the Repubs was yelling everybody down that Roberts' religion absolutely must not be considered in his nomination. double-talking, double-standard, lying bastards.

Of course, dubya too fucking stupid to understand what double-standard and intellectual dis/honesty is.

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

The New York Times

October 12, 2005

Bush: Miers' Religion Key Part of Her Life
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 1:10 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and ''part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion.''

''People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers,'' Bush told reporters at the White House. ''They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion.''

Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination ''just to explain the facts.''

He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.

Not even a congressional recess nor Bush's preoccupation with hurricane recovery and affairs of state have shrouded the continuing controversy surrounding his selection of Miers to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Debate about Miers' credentials was prominent on the Sunday television talk shows and has continued to occupy considerable attention on the Internet.

Some of Bush's conservative critics say Miers has no judicial record that proves she will strictly interpret the Constitution and not -- as Busy says -- ''legislate from the bench.'' They argue that Bush passed up other more qualified candidates to nominate someone from his inner circle.

On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him ''she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life,'' but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

Sen. Patrick Leahy, ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said: ''The rest of America, including the Senate, deserves to know what he and the White House know.''

''We don't confirm Justices of the Supreme Court on a wink and a nod. And a litmus test is no less a litmus test by using whispers and signals,'' the Vermont senator said. ''No political faction should be given a monopoly of relevant knowledge about a nomination, just as no faction should be permitted to hound a nominee to withdraw, before the hearing process has even begun.''

Earlier Wednesday, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales asserted that Miers would bring ''a unique brand of experience'' to the high court and would that the concerns of critics would be eased once more is known about her.

Gonzales, himself once considered a leading candidate for a vacancy there, said there is ''nothing unique or earth-shattering'' about Miers' nomination and said people should give her time to say who she is and what she believes.

Also, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan acknowledged there were some prospective candidates who told the White House that they preferred not to be considered, citing the ordeal of the confirmation process.

''Washington scares people away? Is that new?'' McClellan asked. ''There are plenty of good people willing to be considered. The president found the best person.''

McClellan later said that ''it was just a couple of people'' who asked that their names be withdrawn, and it happened when the field of candidates was ''in the double digits.'' He declined to say whether ''a couple'' meant just two -- or more.

Asked why Rove would have discussed Miers' religious views if the president ascribes to a conservative judicial philosophy that backs a strict interpretation of the Constitution regardless of one's views on various issues, McClellan said it was just part of an ''outreach'' to help people get to know Miers.

''What we have seen so far,'' Leahy said, ''is more of a commentary on the litmus tests and narrow motivations of vocal factions on the Republican right than it is a commentary on the qualifications of Harriet Miers.''

* Copyright 2005 The Associated Press


http://images.ucomics.com/comics/ta/2005/ta051012.gif

[mookie2001]

Of course, dubya too fucking stupid to understand what double-standard and intellectual dis/honesty is.


no joke

[Dos]

Harriet Ellan Miers was born in Dallas on Aug. 10, 1945.

Miers received her bachelor's degree in mathematics in 1967 and JD in 1970 from Southern Methodist University. Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972. In 1972, Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas's Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely.

In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first woman president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first woman to lead a Texas firm of that size.

Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Miers became co-managing partner of a firm with more than 400 lawyers.

Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.

Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.

* In 1985, Miers was selected as the first woman to become president of the Dallas Bar Association.

* In 1992, she became the first woman elected president of the State Bar of Texas. Miers served as the president of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.

* She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the number two position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA's Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.

On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers.

Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas.

* In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.

* Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.

* From 1995 until 2000, Miers served as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.

Miers came to Washington, D.C., in 2001:

* She was appointed assistant to the president and staff secretary on Jan. 20, 2001.

* In 2003, Miers was promoted to assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff.

* Miers has served as counsel to the president since February 2005.

************************************************** ****
yup she is pretty stupid.. bah..

[boutons]

Dos misses the point completely.

[FromWayDowntown]

Harriet Ellan Miers was born in Dallas on Aug. 10, 1945.

Miers received her bachelor's degree in mathematics in 1967 and JD in 1970 from Southern Methodist University. Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972. In 1972, Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas's Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely.

In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first woman president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first woman to lead a Texas firm of that size.

Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Miers became co-managing partner of a firm with more than 400 lawyers.

Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.

Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.

* In 1985, Miers was selected as the first woman to become president of the Dallas Bar Association.

* In 1992, she became the first woman elected president of the State Bar of Texas. Miers served as the president of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.

* She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the number two position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA's Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.

On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers.

Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas.

* In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.

* Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.

* From 1995 until 2000, Miers served as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.

Miers came to Washington, D.C., in 2001:

* She was appointed assistant to the president and staff secretary on Jan. 20, 2001.

* In 2003, Miers was promoted to assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff.

* Miers has served as counsel to the president since February 2005.

************************************************** ****
yup she is pretty stupid.. bah..

I certainly would never suggest that she is "stupid" or use any such perjorative term to describe Ms. Miers.

But in looking at that resume, there's absolutely nothing (other than her association with the President) that makes Harriet Miers different than thousands of other attorneys across the country -- and none of those thousands of attorneys is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court and decide the sorts of issues that the Supreme Court considers. Her resume certainly does not offer any evidence of the sort of qualifications that one expects of a Supreme Court justice.

Again, its about a coherent jurisprudential approach to applying and interpreting the Constitution, which doesn't come about without long and devoted study of the document and the development of the law that supports that document. It's about a willingness to understand that one's personal views do not come into play when deciding issues of constitutional law.

For instance, many decry Justice Stevens' opinion in Kelo, which upheld the right of the City of New London, CT, to take a woman's home under the eminent domain power. But Justice Stevens has gone on record as saying that he personally did not agree with the decision and that the result was as it was solely because precedent compelled the result. Say what you will about it, but in a strict textual sense, Justice Stevens is probably right: the Eminent Domain Clause of the 5th Amendment provides only "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." If the law says that using property to increase tax revenues is a public use (and it does) then the 5th Amendment, incorporated to the States by the 14th Amendment, supports what New London did. If there's a flaw in the law, it is up to the State Legislatures or Congress to remedy that flaw. Justice Stevens' acknowledged that too.

And yes, there are matters that are inherently constitutional in nature that require interpretation of the document, regardless of which side of the political spectrum you choose. As was mentioned in an earlier thread, the Constitution says nothing of capital punishment, so the States and the federal government are permitted to execute convicts only if the Constitution is interpreted to allow such punishment.

Results-oriented judges, on either side of the political spectrum, make bad law. It appears, from the recitations about Rove's conversations with Dobson, that the White House has expressly or tacitly made promises about the results that Miers will vote for on certain issues. No Supreme Court justice should ever be so politicized as to be beholden to a particular party, interest group, or President. If Ms. Miers' appointment is about an attempt to ensure particular results without regard to the existence of structural reasons to support those results, the damage to our system of constitutional governance could be substantial.

[Dos]

aren't most judges lawyers before they become judges..? I'd like to know the facts..

[Dos]

Who is qualified to sit on the Supreme Court is a determination made on a nominee by nominee basis by at least 51 US senators. There are no set rules for qualification. Although every past justice has been a lawyer, 41 of the 109 justices had no prior judicial experience.

But many of the justices who lacked hands-on experience as a jurist nonetheless had achieved a high level of accomplishment and stature as intellectual or political leaders prior to their nominations.

"Judicial experience is not a prerequisite, but what you look for in place of judicial experience is distinguished experience as a law professor or public official, and Miers really doesn't have either of those two," says Michael Comiskey, a political science professor at Penn State University at Fayette.

[FromWayDowntown]

Most judges are lawyers before they become judges.

But being a judge on the United States Supreme Court is much, much different than being a judge on any other Court. I agree with Comiskey's statement. I also agree with Judge Bork's analysis that Miers' nomination is a disaster because she is not qualified by experience or education to sit on that Court.

[Dos]

I don't know but I think the hearings will decide if she is qaulified or not.. I don't understand all the uproar over this nomination after all it is only a nomination, which can either be accepted or rejected by the senate.. I say let the chips fall where they may...

[boutons]

Miers is just another examples of an totally incompetent, half-assed joker of a "president" propagating his own incompetence, inexperience, and inappropriateness into the SC. Miers primary qualification is a career of sucking off dubya, who loves to be sucked off by sycophants.

The Repugs profoundly despise federal government (their "libertarian" angle) and treat it like a piece of shit, appointing Allbaugh/Brown types of cronyistic, political hacks to critical governmental functions, while spending it into fiduciary hell.

[Ocotillo]

Miers is described by Bush and his supporters as an evangelical Christian.

Dobson, in his public pronouncements, takes this as a leap of faith that she will be friendly to cultural right wing causes (i.e. overturning Roe).

Isn't it ironic that while the Texas State Lottery was opposed most vigorously by Evangelicals, she chose to serve as commissioner rather than politely declining?

[mookie2001]

Isn't it ironic that while the Texas State Lottery was opposed most vigorously by Evangelicals, she chose to serve as commissioner rather than politely declining?
yes

[Marcus Bryant]

Miers is just another examples of an totally incompetent, half-assed joker of a "president" propagating his own incompetence, inexperience, and inappropriateness into the SC. Miers primary qualification is a career of sucking off dubya, who loves to be sucked off by sycophants.

The Repugs profoundly despise federal government (their "libertarian" angle) and treat it like a piece of shit, appointing Allbaugh/Brown types of cronyistic, political hacks to critical governmental functions, while spending it into fiduciary hell.


Do you even think before you post? Furthermore, do you recognize that most people aren't psychotic and will have trouble understanding what you post?

Yikes.

[Mr Dio]

Do you even think before you post? Furthermore, do you recognize that most people aren't psychotic and will have trouble understanding what you post?

Yikes.


Now you know how I feel when I read your pathetic posts. :lol

[exstatic]

Good article on Time's website about this nomination here (http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1115673,00.html?cnn=yes). One of the quoted had a good point: Jimmy Carter also describes himself as an Evangelical, and said person would NOT support a Carter nomination to the SCOTUS. :lol

Stringbean Ann Colder hates this nomination, which makes it good enough for me. On the other hand, FoF's James Dobson likes the nomination, so maybe my head will just explode from having to share a view with one of those two.

Topical funny bumper sticker:
Focus on your own damn Family!!!

[FromWayDowntown]

I don't know but I think the hearings will decide if she is qaulified or not.. I don't understand all the uproar over this nomination after all it is only a nomination, which can either be accepted or rejected by the senate.. I say let the chips fall where they may...

The hearings will determine if she's qualified only if the members of the committee do their jobs. Of course, if the Democratic senators engage in serious questions about Miers experience, philosophy, or beliefs, they'll be castigated for turning the hearings into some sort of political spectacle -- for not simply rubber-stamping the President's nominee.

The bigger problem, I think, is that most people don't really understand either what the Supreme Court does or how it does it. The absence of pervasive knowledge concerning those matters allows the development of misconceptions about the complexities of the Court's tasks; that allows politicians to devolve the Court's activities into empty sound-byte sized catch phrases like "judicial activism," "strict constructionist," and "legislating from the bench."

Nobody seems really sure what any of those things mean.

But they're all sure that they want judges who aren't judicial activists (though judicial activism brought about desegregation of public schools, while a refusal to engage in judicial activism permitted the City of New London to seize a home to allow a more profitable commercial endeavor to begin).

They want judges who are strict constructionists, though the text of the Constitution is far too vague, in many instances, to "mean only what it says."

And they want judges who won't legislate from the bench, but don't understand that with respect to constitutional issues, the Supreme Court is offered choices by the parties and must determine if a federal or state enactment does or does not comport with the Constitution and that "legislating from the bench" has become synonymous with "striking down a law that I liked, regardless of what the Constitution says."

[Marcus Bryant]

Now you know how I feel when I read your pathetic posts. :lol


You're right. I should think before I waste any more time responding to your drivel.

[boutons]

from a conservative, probably as good a take as any. shrub has fucked his sycophantic dick-sucker. For a lawyer, she can't write for shit.

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

The New York Times
October 13, 2005

Op-Ed Columnist

In Her Own Words
By DAVID BROOKS

Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself. In the early 90's, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.

Of course, we have to make allowances for the fact that the first job of any association president is to not offend her members. Still, nothing excuses sentences like this:

"More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Or this: "We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism."

Or this: "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."

Or passages like this: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."

Or, finally, this: "We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support."

I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers's prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.

Or as she puts it, "There is always a necessity to tend to a myriad of responsibilities on a number of cases as well as matters not directly related to the practice of law." And yet, "Disciplining ourselves to provide the opportunity for thought and analysis has to rise again to a high priority."

Throw aside ideology. Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively. Miers's columns provide no evidence of that.

The Miers nomination has reopened the rift between conservatives and establishment Republicans.

The conservative movement was founded upon the supposition that ideas have consequences. Conservatives have founded so many think tanks, magazines and organizations, like the Federalist Society, because they believe that you have to win arguments to win political power. They dream of Supreme Court justices capable of writing brilliant opinions that will reshape the battle of ideas.

Republicans, who these days are as likely to be members of the corporate establishment as the evangelical establishment, are more suspicious of intellectuals and ideas, and more likely to believe that politics is about deal-making, loyalty and power. You know you are in establishment Republican circles when the conversation is bland but unifying. You know you are in conservative circles when it is interesting but divisive. Conservatives err by becoming irresponsible. Republicans tend to be blown about haplessly by forces they cannot understand.

For the first years of his presidency, George Bush healed the division between Republicans and conservatives by pursuing big conservative goals with ruthless Republican discipline. But Harriet Miers has shown no loyalty to conservative institutions like the Federalist Society. Her loyalty has been to the person of the president, and her mental style seems to be Republicanism on stilts.

So conservatives are caught between loyalty to their ideas and loyalty to the president they admire. Most of them have come out against Miers - quietly or loudly. Establishment Republicans are displaying their natural loyalty to leadership. And Miers is caught in the vise between these two forces, a smart and good woman who has been put in a position where she cannot succeed.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[Mr Dio]

You're right. I should think before I waste any more time...

No shit U dumb bitch! :lol

[boutons]

It's just not the nuances that dubya never gets, he misses the Big Picture(s). His ignorance of federal government and Constitutional issues is appropriate for someone who is a "C student" in life and in politics. The Dunce of Oz will be further exposed when slimebag Rove is forced to resign under indictment. shrub is just the kind of malleable idiot that so much of red-state America likes because he's a simpleton like themselves, that the behind-the-scenes Repub string-pullers love to have a front man for their schemes to destroy federal government while pillaging it for the rich and corps.

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

The New York Times
October 13, 2005

Bush Criticized Over Emphasis on Religion of Nominee
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

WASHINGTON, Oct. 12 - President Bush prompted criticism from the right and the left on Wednesday after he said White House officials had told conservative supporters about the religious beliefs of his latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet E. Miers, as part of an "outreach effort" to explain who she is.

"People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," Mr. Bush told reporters in the Oval Office. "They want to know Harriet Miers's background, they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion."

Mr. Bush made his comments only weeks after some conservatives declared that any discussion of the religion of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. should be off limits in his confirmation process and that questions about his views amounted to an unconstitutional "religious test" of his faith as a Roman Catholic.

The president spoke on the same day that James C. Dobson, the founder of the conservative evangelical group Focus on the Family, said in remarks broadcast on his organization's radio program that Karl Rove, Mr. Bush's chief political adviser, had assured him that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a member of "a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life."

Mr. Dobson said Mr. Rove had given him the assurances in a conversation on Oct. 1, two days before Mr. Bush announced that Ms. Miers was his choice for the court.

Mr. Dobson's private conversation with Mr. Rove had become an enormous source of speculation among both Democrats and Republicans. Mr. Dobson said he was revealing the substance of the conversation because both parties were demanding to know what he knew and because Mr. Rove had given him permission to do so.

Mr. Dobson set off the frenzy last week when he said that he was supporting Ms. Miers because of something he had been told in confidence by the White House, a statement that led Democrats and Republicans alike to threaten to call him before the Judiciary Committee to testify.

A questionnaire sent to Ms. Miers by the Senate Judiciary Committee touched on her views and the internal White House process of her nomination. Among many queries, the questionnaire asks Ms. Miers to list all interviews and communications she had with anyone in the executive office of the president or at the Justice Department about her nomination.

The questionnaire, a standard part of the confirmation process, also asks Ms. Miers if anyone at the White House or Justice Department ever discussed with her any case or legal issue in a manner that appeared to solicit her opinion.

The White House efforts to promote Ms. Miers's faith were criticized on Wednesday not only by groups on the left and the right, but also by Senator Richard J. Durbin, the Illinois Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. Some religious conservatives denounced Mr. Durbin when he tried to have a private discussion with Chief Justice Roberts about their shared Catholic religion during Chief Justice Roberts's confirmation process.

"The White House is basically saying that because of Harriet Miers's religious beliefs, you can trust her," Mr. Durbin said in a telephone interview on Wednesday. "That to me is a complete reversal not only of the history of choosing Supreme Court nominees, but of where the White House was weeks ago with the nomination of John Roberts."

Joseph Cella, the president of the conservative Catholic group Fidelis, said in a Wednesday editorial in the National Review Online that "how Miers lives her faith should have no place or bearing in her confirmation hearings" and concluded that "faith is too precious to be used as a trumpet or as a sword by those who either support or oppose a nominee."

Mr. Dobson also said on the radio program that Mr. Rove had told him that some other candidates for the Supreme Court had taken themselves out of the running because "the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it."

Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, confirmed that "a couple" of people had withdrawn from a process that he said had become "rather ugly." Mr. McClellan would not name them, but he said, in response to a question about whether the process was keeping qualified people away: "Washington scares good people away? Is that new?"

White House officials said that they still expected confirmation hearings to begin in mid-November and that Ms. Miers was spending this week completing the questionnaire from the Judiciary Committee about her background, financial dealings and career, including nearly 30 years as a lawyer in Texas and five years as staff secretary, deputy chief of staff and counsel at the White House.

The questionnaire also asks Ms. Miers to explain how she would resolve any conflicts of interest "that may arise by virtue of your service in the Bush administration, as George W. Bush's personal lawyer, or as the lawyer for George W. Bush's gubernatorial and presidential campaigns."

Stepping up a potential conflict with the administration over access to Ms. Miers's work in the White House, the questionnaire further asks Ms. Miers to "describe in detail any cases or matters you addressed as an attorney or public official which involved constitutional questions" and to provide any material related to those issues.

Last week at a news conference, Mr. Bush signaled that he would most likely reject any requests from the Senate for documents written by Ms. Miers during her time in the White House.

David D. Kirkpatrick contributed reporting for this article.

* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

[jochhejaam]

from a conservative, probably as good a take as any. shrub has fucked his sycophantic dick-sucker. For a lawyer, she can't write for shit.

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

The New York Times
October 13, 2005

Op-Ed Columnist

In Her Own Words
By DAVID BROOKS

Of all the words written about Harriet Miers, none are more disturbing than the ones she wrote herself. In the early 90's, while she was president of the Texas bar association, Miers wrote a column called "President's Opinion" for The Texas Bar Journal. It is the largest body of public writing we have from her, and sad to say, the quality of thought and writing doesn't even rise to the level of pedestrian.

Of course, we have to make allowances for the fact that the first job of any association president is to not offend her members. Still, nothing excuses sentences like this:

"More and more, the intractable problems in our society have one answer: broad-based intolerance of unacceptable conditions and a commitment by many to fix problems."

Or this: "We must end collective acceptance of inappropriate conduct and increase education in professionalism."

Or this: "When consensus of diverse leadership can be achieved on issues of importance, the greatest impact can be achieved."

Or passages like this: "An organization must also implement programs to fulfill strategies established through its goals and mission. Methods for evaluation of these strategies are a necessity. With the framework of mission, goals, strategies, programs, and methods for evaluation in place, a meaningful budgeting process can begin."

Or, finally, this: "We have to understand and appreciate that achieving justice for all is in jeopardy before a call to arms to assist in obtaining support for the justice system will be effective. Achieving the necessary understanding and appreciation of why the challenge is so important, we can then turn to the task of providing the much needed support."

I don't know if by mere quotation I can fully convey the relentless march of vapid abstractions that mark Miers's prose. Nearly every idea is vague and depersonalized. Nearly every debatable point is elided. It's not that Miers didn't attempt to tackle interesting subjects. She wrote about unequal access to the justice system, about the underrepresentation of minorities in the law and about whether pro bono work should be mandatory. But she presents no arguments or ideas, except the repetition of the bromide that bad things can be eliminated if people of good will come together to eliminate bad things.

Or as she puts it, "There is always a necessity to tend to a myriad of responsibilities on a number of cases as well as matters not directly related to the practice of law." And yet, "Disciplining ourselves to provide the opportunity for thought and analysis has to rise again to a high priority."

Throw aside ideology. Surely the threshold skill required of a Supreme Court justice is the ability to write clearly and argue incisively. Miers's columns provide no evidence of that.

The Miers nomination has reopened the rift between conservatives and establishment Republicans.

The conservative movement was founded upon the supposition that ideas have consequences. Conservatives have founded so many think tanks, magazines and organizations, like the Federalist Society, because they believe that you have to win arguments to win political power. They dream of Supreme Court justices capable of writing brilliant opinions that will reshape the battle of ideas.

Republicans, who these days are as likely to be members of the corporate establishment as the evangelical establishment, are more suspicious of intellectuals and ideas, and more likely to believe that politics is about deal-making, loyalty and power. You know you are in establishment Republican circles when the conversation is bland but unifying. You know you are in conservative circles when it is interesting but divisive. Conservatives err by becoming irresponsible. Republicans tend to be blown about haplessly by forces they cannot understand.

For the first years of his presidency, George Bush healed the division between Republicans and conservatives by pursuing big conservative goals with ruthless Republican discipline. But Harriet Miers has shown no loyalty to conservative institutions like the Federalist Society. Her loyalty has been to the person of the president, and her mental style seems to be Republicanism on stilts.

So conservatives are caught between loyalty to their ideas and loyalty to the president they admire. Most of them have come out against Miers - quietly or loudly. Establishment Republicans are displaying their natural loyalty to leadership. And Miers is caught in the vise between these two forces, a smart and good woman who has been put in a position where she cannot succeed.
* Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

Come on bouts, no link? Couldn't google up her quotes...

[Extra Stout]

I don't know but I think the hearings will decide if she is qaulified or not.. I don't understand all the uproar over this nomination after all it is only a nomination, which can either be accepted or rejected by the senate.. I say let the chips fall where they may...

Why the uproar?

Well, the first reaction was surprise and disappointment, which is understandable since conservatives had gotten their hopes up for one of the Federalist Society All-Stars.

But since then, the White House has been on a bizarre binge of attacking conservative Republicans because they did not march in lock-step with the President, calling them "sexist," "elitist," and now "anti-evangelical."

I mean, how stupid is that? How much of a fucking idiot does a President have to be to go postal on his base? He's throwing a temper tantrum because he didn't get his way.

[Marcus Bryant]

The behavior makes sense if you view it as a matter of pre-emption. As in, the White House sought to pre-empt what it saw as a Democrat caucus ready to filibuster the next nominee. Problem is, it's looking more like a self-inflicted strategy at this point.

[FromWayDowntown]

The behavior makes sense if you view it as a matter of pre-emption. As in, the White House sought to pre-empt what it saw as a Democrat caucus ready to filibuster the next nominee. Problem is, it's looking more like a self-inflicted strategy at this point.

I agree, but as you say, the notion of such a strategy is almost wholly undone by the nomination of a person who, if she was not White House counsel, would have never been considered for that post. Bush is putting Republicans in a precarious position -- if they don't significantly question Miers (given her history), they will appear to be rubber stamping hacks for the President and his cronies. If they question her strenously and her answers give away her lack of qualification, but they vote for her anyway, they're in an even worse position. And if they do significantly question Miers, they appear to be moving away from the conservative base of the party.

I'm not sure that the White House carefully considered those issues when deciding to nominate Miers.

[Extra Stout]

Bush's top priorities in selecting justices have been:

1) His personal impression of the person
2) A philosophy of promoting expansive executive power
3) A short paper trail
4) Nominal conservatism

Roberts met all of those criteria. That he is a brilliant legal mind with impeccable qualifications was merely incidental.

Miers also meets all of these criteria.

When Bush promised justices "like Scalia and Thomas," who "don't legislate from the bench," many folks thought he meant conservative textualists and originalists, as if Bush actually understands what those things mean.

It doesn't appear he meant that. Not even Roberts is a true textualist/originalist. He takes a more pragmatic approach. Taken as loosely as possible, Bush may have meant only in the simplest terms, "justices who don't make it up as they go along," in accord with the GOP talking points. FWD has intimated in other threads how this criticism is often facile, though I would argue, somewhat irrevently, that Justice Douglas appears to have been stoned when he wrote some of his opinions, and that Justice Ginsburg, in her eagerness to cite international law, likes to look over the crowd and pick out her friends, to paraphrase Justice Scalia.

Getting back to Bush, the obvious mistake in his priorities is a failure to establish an adequate level of professional qualifications for his choices. Also, his excessive personal loyalty distorts his judgment. This President places loyalty to himself above everything else, which explains his fondness for Miers in light of her longstading nauseatingly obsequious sycophancy, and also explains his petulant behavior towards his alleged ideological fellow-travelers following their unenthusiastic response to the nomination.

Bush got away with his anti-intellectual gut decision with Cheney. Apparently, that gave him a false sense of infallibility in evaluating people, and now with Miers, that has blown up in his face. He clearly expected his supporters to cheer whatever decision he made, never even bothering to go back and check Miers' background, and thus was caught flatfooted in stunned silence when it blew up in his face.

The White House never bothered to come up with a substantive fact sheet on Miers because Bush never figured he'd have to reassure conservatives. I believe he really thought people would say, "Yeah! Another stealth candidate the Democrats can't track! W stuck it to 'em again! Woo-hoo!"

[Marcus Bryant]

I'm seeing two ways out for Bush at this point:

1. Withdraw her name or allow her *wink* to do it.
2. Turn the nomination into a mindnumbing abortion battle.

[Extra Stout]

I'm seeing two ways out for Bush at this point:

1. Withdraw her name or allow her *wink* to do it.
2. Turn the nomination into a mindnumbing abortion battle.

For #1, Miers has to do it herself. Bush is too proud and too stubborn to withdraw her name. He'll gladly take the Republican Party over a cliff before he admits he made a mistake on this one.

As for #2, even a mind-numbing abortion battle won't help, because people will be asking, if you were willing to go to the mat in the Senate over this nomination, why didn't you nominate Edith Jones, Karen Williams, or Priscilla Owen?

Besides, the Dems are too busy rolling on the floor laughing their asses off to fight the nomination. If she turns out to be anti-Roe on the court, then Harry Reid, as a pro-life Democrat, has won on all counts.

Reid is pretty good at this politics stuff.

[Marcus Bryant]

With #2, while that would obviously be the question in hindsight, the benefit is that Bush stands to energize the base with such a battle. If he wins, good for him and if he loses, then Miers is a martyr.

[ChumpDumper]

How can an abortion war be started? Wouldn't she have to just come out and say how she'd vote on an abortion case to raise any objections? I imagine Democrats would have to feel like this nominee will probably be the best they're ever going to see from Bush on that issue.

[Marcus Bryant]

That's assuming she has to start it.

[ChumpDumper]

Ok, how else would it be started? A leak saying how she would vote?

[Marcus Bryant]

Maybe Bush does it himself. Maybe the leak comes from a senior aide or hell, JD himself says that he talked to her and knows she will, etc.

[boutons]

http://www.creators.com/1009/LK/LK1013g.gif

[Nbadan]

I think I figured out why the Bush-Mier relationship is so creepy..

http://www.bartcop.com/miers-accepts.jpg

[smeagol]

Fact: Anything that Bush does will be critiziced by boutons and Dan

[boutons]

'Fact: Anything that Bush does"

... is wrong, a lie, stupid, irresponsible, anti-American, paid for by rich + corps, ignorant, or will be proven to be so evetually.

If dubya and his dick-suckers don't like criticism and dissent, don't run for office.