The Impact of Alito's Nomination on Individual Rights and Government Power

[rachmaninoff]

[SOLVED] The coming Miers mire

Bush Picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, as his choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor this morning, his second nominee for the Supreme Court.
Ms. Miers, 60, a longtime confidant of the president's, has never been a judge, and therefore lacks a long history of judicial rulings that could reveal ideological tendencies. Her positions on such ideologically charged issues as abortion and affirmative action are not clear.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus.html

Another 'most qualified candiate' from the President's friendly clique.

 

[kat]

Oh My Gawd!

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002349.html

A clearly disappointed President George Bush this morning announced that he had failed to locate a total stranger to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and was forced to settle for someone he knows and trusts.

In a news conference to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers, 60, as an associate justice on the high court, Mr. Bush admitted, "I don't get out much, and I don't personally know very many total strangers. So, I had to settle for someone whose views, personality, intellectual abilities and work habits were familiar to me. I hope the American people will eventually find it in their hearts to forgive me."

As news broke of this new setback for the Bush White House, the president's popularity rating plunged into the single digits and despondent Republican lawmakers wondered if their party could manage to "keep the doors open and the lights on" until the 2006 mid-term elections.

 

[Astronuc]

Bush needs to get out.

Miers has no judicial experience, but is a lawyer.

But she was also deputy chief of staff to the president, and given Bush's history, that's problematic.

On the other hand, "apparently Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urged the president to consider Miers," according to the AP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus_32;_ylt=AjXKiAl1qruLVjtDalsU_QluCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl the link is probably good for some limited period on Yahoo.

 

[BobG]

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002349.html

The reason Bush doesn't think he knows any strangers is simple:

"people are strange, when you're a stranger...
no-one remembers your name, when you're strange..."
The Doors, on why Pres. Bush couldn't recall any strangers.

Uh, sorry, :uhh: ... couldn't resist

 

[kublai]

Meirs may not have prior juducial experience but she has good sense and a history of making sound decisions.

Extensive experience is detrimental if that experience is in making bad judgments.

 

[Astronuc]

bad judgments

Well that's an important point.

With two divergent political views on something like the 'right' to an abortion, or more generally, the 'right' of privacy, which is not explicitly stated, then one will find a situation where either of two sides considers a judgement 'bad' if it contradicts the political view of either.

What might be 'bad' in the mind of a 'conservative', might be good or great to a 'liberal', and vice versa.

Bush and many supporters do not want a justice to 'legislate". But that could mean, they simply don't want judges to 'interpret' the law, which is one of the functions of the Supreme Court going back to John Marshall.

I would hope if Miers is approved, she is simply honest, fair and impartial, and does not harbor a political agenda.

 

[Moonbear]

Well, the article I read this morning (link below) said that Miers was recommended to Bush by Senate Democratic Leader Reid...Bush was warned any of his other potential picks would meet with strong partisan resistance. The quotes from the Dems sounded positive, that they want someone who has real experience in a courtroom as a lawyer (bringing in a Supreme Court Justice who has no previous experience as a judge is not unprecedented). The biggest resistance to her appointment appears to be the far-right conservative Republicans (okay, some of that is redundant), because she is likely to be pro-choice (I've haven't seen anyone come out and make a definitive statement yet if her position on that is known).

But, it's a little too early to tell. She might be a good candidate despite the lack of a judicial record; she does have plenty of real courtroom experience at least, and was President of the Texas Bar Association, so she's not a nobody in the legal profession by any means. I'm not going to dismiss her just because Bush picked her.

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20051003/D8D0M6D00.html

 

[kublai]

Which is more important, how a judge would rule on a single issue like Roe v Wade , or all of the other cases (thousands) that the judge will face in a 20+ year tenure?

Single issues are the most dangerous basis I can think of to support a SC Judge

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

...but she has good sense and a history of making sound decisions...

Not if she chose to associate herself with the "Big Wuh", other than getting a lifetime appointment to a dream job, that is. OK,OK...she ran the Lottery Commission and was head of the State Bar of Texas...so what.

I had thought for a while that I could stop doing damage control for all the people from Texas that are perpetuating the FUBAR government and now this. I shudder to think that he'll probably balk on her and try to slip in "whats-his-face" with the glasses that said that the Geneva Convention is outdated, quaint, and the "Big Wuh" (Sweet Daddy G) dosen't REALLY have to follow it if he dosen't want to.

 

[pattylou]

A person's position on many of these issues may be indicative as to their general philosophy. Prochoicers are more likely to agree on the right to privacy, for example, than to disagree.

 

[rachmaninoff]

The White House counsel. He actually he picks his personal legal counsel. Wow.

Is anyone else freaked out by how much both judicial appointees are always extremely smiling? I looked at Miers today, her face looks just Roberts' to me. Is that natural?

 

[BobG]

Miers is an interesting choice. She looks like she was a Democrat until the early 90's, then has contributed to Republican campaigns ever since.

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

Interesting web site. Today's most popular search for campaign contribution history was for Harriet Miers, followed by John Roberts, followed by Jodie Foster. Why the interest in Jodie Foster's campaign contributions?

(Wow! Martha Stewart had made over $180,000 in political contributions! Most interesting is her listed occupation(s): Martha Stewart Omnimedia founder; felon)

(I wonder if Mayor Nagin regrets the $1000 contribution he made to Bush's primary campaign in 2000)

 

[Informal Logic]

The extreme right's power does not come from numbers but from being passionately persistent. Their claim that Bush owes them his reelection is a bit of an exaggeration, and that they expect him to represent their minority agenda at the high cost of congressional war is deplorable. Bush has been trying to select conservatives, but this is not good enough for these people. They want assurance that the candidate will be extreme like them, and do not care what this will do to the unity of our nation. What do they teach in church these days?

 

[pattylou]

I thought some of you would find this information interesting.

Here is a quick chronology of Harriet Miers' career, courtesy of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, to help jump start your research.

1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary
2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004—Selected as White House Counsel

 

[Ivan Seeking]

When I heard that it was his personal lawyer I about came unglued...as is usual these days. But it seems that Miers had a sort of pre-approval by the Dems in Congress.

 

[deckart]

She is an evangelical Christian. She switched from Democrat to Republican, allegedly, over the pro-choice/life issue.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

TEST

The thread seems to be locking up...

Hmmm, seems okay now. Never mind.

 

[BobG]

She is an evangelical Christian. She switched from Democrat to Republican, allegedly, over the pro-choice/life issue.

Where do you get that info?

She has been a board member for Exodus Ministries and Pioneer Bible Translators, so it's possible. She's also been on the board of about 10 or so other community organizations, including Goodwill Industries, Meals on Wheels, Dallas Women's Foundation, Dallas Women's Center, and was a trustee for the Dallas Police and Fire Pension Board.

 

[SOS2008]

She is an evangelical Christian. She switched from Democrat to Republican, allegedly, over the pro-choice/life issue.

And let's not forget that Reid is pro-life. So Bush was able to find another stealth nominee--she has even less of a record than Roberts, and her service for Bush can't be released. So if she ducks questions, we have no idea who we are placing in a lifetime appointment in the highest court in the land. But, what really concerns me is I understand she says Bush is one of the smartest men she knows. Yeh, in a tricky-slicky kind of way, maybe... :yuck:

 

[BobG]

So Bush was able to find another stealth nominee--she has even less of a record than Roberts, and her service for Bush can't be released. So if she ducks questions, we have no idea who we are placing in a lifetime appointment in the highest court in the land.

This part is what concerns me. We still have no idea who Roberts is and now another complete unknown is being nominated. For both, you can probably assume a vague conservative leaning, but I'm not that ecstatic about what has become a common practice of just snubbing the Senate and ignoring their right to make an informed yes/no vote. The idea that winning the Presidential election entitles someone to unlimited powers that the Senate has no right to question doesn't quite cut it. (This isn't something new to Bush - it's gotten worse everytime a president's nominee failed).

Unrelated, but ironic. The male Ginsburg was rejected during Bush 41's presidency because Ginsburg admitted smoking marijuana. In '92, the President we elected was a draft dodger (even if dodged legally) that admitted trying marijuana, but he didn't inhale. By '00, we elected a president that dodged the draft and dodged doing the service that allowed him to dodge the draft, plus had some significant substance abuse problems. Are we going the wrong direction?

 

[deckart]

Where do you get that info?

She has been a board member for Exodus Ministries and Pioneer Bible Translators, so it's possible. She's also been on the board of about 10 or so other community organizations, including Goodwill Industries, Meals on Wheels, Dallas Women's Foundation, Dallas Women's Center, and was a trustee for the Dallas Police and Fire Pension Board.

I drive back and forth from Seattle to Spokane every 2 weeks. Nothing to listen to but talk radio. Alot of Christian broadcasting, Limbaugh, and others, on the AM dial. Christians are very excited about the new nominee. And they are confident that she is the swing vote for the conservatives.

 

[Anttech]

America the first modern Christian theorcracy :tongue2:

 

[Polly]

America is...a terrible example to follow :uhh:

 

[C1ay]

I think he nominated a swing vote to replace a swing vote. Is there a reason he should have nominated a more conservative or more liberal vote to replace the retiring swing vote?

 

[SOS2008]

I drive back and forth from Seattle to Spokane every 2 weeks. Nothing to listen to but talk radio. Alot of Christian broadcasting, Limbaugh, and others, on the AM dial. Christians are very excited about the new nominee. And they are confident that she is the swing vote for the conservatives.

I thought Limbaugh was unahppy about the selection, and many others were quoted as VERY unhappy in news reports.

I think he nominated a swing vote to replace a swing vote. Is there a reason he should have nominated a more conservative or more liberal vote to replace the retiring swing vote?

If the court is conservative, and she is conservative, she's just another conservative vote. O'Conner was a moderate.

 

[deckart]

Ya, Limbaugh is a bit concerned, to say the least. And, Polly, are you suggesting China is an example to follow?

I live in the best country on the planet. No matter how many problems we have, I would not live anywhere else.

 

[SOS2008]

Let-Down Lady
Harriet Miers isn't just no John Roberts. She's no Sandra Day O'Connor.
By Emily Bazelon
Posted Monday, Oct. 3, 2005, at 1:35 PM PT

Can anyone really imagine that she'd be the nominee if she weren't a woman and the president's friend and loyal adviser? Cronyism and affirmative action: It's a nasty mix.

http://slate.msn.com/?id=2127361&GT1=7125

Ouch!

 

[edward]

Where do you get that info?

She has been a board member for Exodus Ministries and Pioneer Bible Translators, so it's possible. She's also been on the board of about 10 or so other community organizations, including Goodwill Industries, Meals on Wheels, Dallas Women's Foundation, Dallas Women's Center, and was a trustee for the Dallas Police and Fire Pension Board.

She also served on the Dallas city council. She has been a very busy lady, I wonder if she knows anything about Arabian horses?

Seriously the thing that bothers me about her is that conservatives are saying:
"There have been other justices who never were judges." Thats fine , but that doesn't mean she is qualified. For all we know she was lifted up the ladder of success the same way GW was.

Was she involved in any significant court cases? Being president of the Texas bar association and being Bush's personal lawyer when he was in Texas pales in comparison to being a Supreme Court Judge.

 

[Skyhunter]

Recommended by Joe Allbaugh

She also served on the Dallas city council. She has been a very busy lady, I wonder if she knows anything about Arabian horses?

It seems that she shares a common friend with Brownie.

Harriet Miers, Michael Brown and the crony connection
If you're playing "six degrees of separation" with Harriet Miers and, say, ousted FEMA Director Michael Brown, you've just gone about five degrees too far.

Here's former Bush-Cheney fundraiser Joe Allbaugh in 2004, when George W. Bush named Allbaugh's friend Harriet Miers to succeed Alberto Gonzales as White House counsel: "She's the kind of person you want in your corner when all the chips are being played. She will give the president advice unvarnished, and that's exactly what he wants."

And here's Joe Allbaugh in 2003, when Bush named Allbaugh's friend Michael Brown to succeed him as the director of FEMA: "In my opinion, the president couldn't have chosen a better man to help . . . prepare and protect the nation. Mike Brown is a great leader and a great man who I am proud to call my friend. He will be a tremendous asset to the homeland security team."

-- Tim Grieve

If Brownie is any example of Allbaughs judgement, we could be in deep trouble.

And as for Bush's judgment..."Brownie your doing a heck of a job."

 

[Gokul43201]

So, is there any truth to the report that Miers claimed that Bush was "the most intelligent man" she ever met ?

 

[BobG]

So, is there any truth to the report that Miers claimed that Bush was "the most intelligent man" she ever met ?

Probably. She's 60 and never married - there must be a reason. :rofl:

The important thing here is whether Miers's and Robert's are judicial legislators or http://slate.msn.com/id/2127371/nav/tap2#Spellbound :rofl:

 

[motai]

http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002349.html]In[/PLAIN] a news conference to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers, 60, as an associate justice on the high court, Mr. Bush admitted, "I don't get out much, and I don't personally know very many total strangers. So, I had to settle for someone whose views, personality, intellectual abilities and work habits were familiar to me. I hope the American people will eventually find it in their hearts to forgive me."

Technically none of us know very many total stranger either until we get to know them... :uhh:. What I don't understand is why he didn't choose someone with experience. I'm quite sure that there is a good chance that he could find at the very least a competent judge if he visits any local, state, or DCA courthouse. There are most likely many decent and honest judges who would be aching to get a spot on the Supreme Court.

And also, an apology?

 

[Astronuc]

So, is there any truth to the report that Miers claimed that Bush was "the most intelligent man" she ever met ?

If that be the case, then more shock than surprised.

Either she doesn't know many men, or at least not intelligent ones, or Bush has been hiding something.

 

[Polly]

And, Polly, are you suggesting China is an example to follow?

Nooooooo, we would never be that presumptuous or arrogant :tongue2: . We are all entitled to deciding and finding our own path without infringing the right of others that is

I live in the best country on the planet. No matter how many problems we have, I would not live anywhere else.

:grumpy: I can imagine why you don't want us to know where it is

 

[SOS2008]

Technically none of us know very many total stranger either until we get to know them... :uhh:. What I don't understand is why he didn't choose someone with experience. I'm quite sure that there is a good chance that he could find at the very least a competent judge if he visits any local, state, or DCA courthouse. There are most likely many decent and honest judges who would be aching to get a spot on the Supreme Court.

And also, an apology?

Aside from that quote qualifying for the Bushism collection, that reasoning struck me as odd. Even with a little too much vacation time at the ranch...a governor or president doesn't get out much? (True, he was only governor for five years--indicating that he himself was not particularly qualified for president). Bush wanted to find another candidate like Roberts who didn't have much of a record to be scrutinized. What a strategy, but this time the qualifications aren't there either.