Bush Picks Harriet Miers for SCOTUS

[FromWayDowntown]

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 cons utions. The Courts measure the act against the words of the cons ution, the policies that the act is supposed to serve, and the policies that the cons ution is supposed to serve. If the act violates some cons utional guarantee, it is struck down; if the act is compatible with the Cons ution, it survives.

If the Courts don't do that, what on Earth are they supposed to do? Faced with an act that violates the Cons ution, should a Court just say "well, we think the act is uncons utional, 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 cons utional 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]

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.

[spurster]

[FromWayDowntown]

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 Cons ution." Of course, someone can strictly interpret the Cons ution 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 Cons ution 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]

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.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

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]

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.

""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]

Looks like shrub and head 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 appe e, 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 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 Cons ution 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 la ude 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]

""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]

"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]

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



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

MSNBC

[boutons]

[Marcus Bryant]

Do we need a cons utional 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 ins ution like Harvard, Chicago or Yale and spent most of her legal career working in NYC, Boston or DC.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Do we need a cons utional 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 ins ution like Harvard, Chicago or Yale and spent most of her legal career working in NYC, Boston or DC.

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

[Marcus Bryant]

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.

[FromWayDowntown]

Do we need a cons utional 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 ins ution 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 Cons utional 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]

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 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]

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]

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.

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]

Something else to think about...as WH Counsel she undoubtedly had to deal with cons utional 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]

Time to see if she can cut it.

[Marcus Bryant]

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]

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

WTF? She was shrub's sycophantic nanny, part of his bubble team, explaining to his ignorant self how the ing world works. What bars is she a member of? Has she ever worked on any federal cons utional 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, dumb 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 dumb simpleton he always has been. Reliable as a rock, and just as dumb.

[SpursWoman]

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]

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 at udes 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 Cons ution 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