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

[BobG]

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."

Technically none of us know very many total stranger either until we get to know them... . 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.

:uhh: Actually, scrappleface is a news satire website.

Geez, Bush's credibility has sunk pretty low when it becomes impossible to tell the difference between satirical fictional quotes attributed to him and actual quotes. :rofl:

Edit: There's actually some funny satirical articles at that site as well:
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002342.html
http://www.scrappleface.com/MT/archives/002345.html

 

[sid_galt]

We are all entitled to deciding and finding our own path without infringing the right of others that is

Yeah, like jailing people just because they have opinions different from the party.
Or killing people to make beauty products.

 

[kublai]

An *experienced* judge surely must have a lot of personal equity in their previous decisions. Baggage is another name for it. Would it affect future decisions? Perhaps.

I like the idea of Mier being out of the club, so to speak.

 

[edward]

I have a problem with the fact that a lot of Miers experience revolves around Bush himself and various agencies of the state of texas. Most of her experience is not related to courtroom activity.

Even in the Disney and Microsoft cases which she was associated with, she was only one among many other attorneys involved.

When Bush decided to run for governor of Texas in the early 1990s, he turned to Miers to research his own background for information that his opponents might try to use against him. When terrorists struck the United States in 2001, she was with him as staff secretary on what had been a routine trip to Florida.

http://channelone.com/news/2005/10/04/ap_court/

 

[Gokul43201]

More fodder :

In the late 1990s two guys, a former pro football player named Russell Erxleben and Brian Stearns, ran a $40 million + ponzi (pyramid) scheme involving hundreds of people, bilking them out of tens of thousands of dollars a piece. The secret to the sheer magnitude of their scheme is that rather than keeping their money in a bank, they kept it in Locke, Liddell and Sapp's trust fund. They then convinced potential "investors" that the money was safe because it was locked up in this big law firm's trust fund. To close the deal, they told them that one Harriet Miers was a partner there and that she worked for the governor. Locke Liddell knew what was going on, kept quiet about it and ended up getting sued and having to settle for more than $30 million in the affair. At the time Miers was a managing partner, meaning she was on watch when this scandal went down.

Either Ms. Miers was in on the deal or she is highly incompetent.
..
..
Stearns was sentenced last July to 30 years in federal prison for defrauding investors of $40 million. Among his victims were 342 investors from Brady, the central Texas hometown of the beauty queen Stearns married in 1998. The Brady investors were swindled out of $4.5 million.

In August, Lock Liddell agreed to pay $8.5 million to settle the lawsuit filed by Brady residents and investors from California and Canada. The Brady investors recovered less than 70 cents on the dollar.

Locke Liddell denied any wrongdoing and said it settled the case to avoid lengthy litigation.

http://www.burntorangereport.com/mt/archives/2005/10/is_ms_miers_jus.html

 

[BobG]

Just how good of a job did Miers do as staff secretary?

Ms. Miers recent career has been marked by her participation at the highest levels of government.

She was appointed Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001. As Staff Secretary, Ms. Miers acted as "the ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nation's commander in chief." In addition to this important role, Ms. Miers supervised more than 60 employees in four departments.

In 2003, Ms. Miers was named Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff. As part of the Office of the Chief of Staff, she was a top domestic policy advisor to the President.

Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February 2005. In this role, she has served as the top lawyer to the President and the White House, and in particular has been the principal advisor judicial nominations.

That would have made her "the ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nation's commander in chief" for:

a) the President's October 2002 Cincinnati speech making a case for an Iraq invasion - a speech where a reference to Iraq attempting to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was removed.

b) the President's January 2003 State of the Union speech - a speech where the reference to the Niger yellow cake remained in the speech.

 

[SOS2008]

:uhh: Actually, scrappleface is a news satire website.

Geez, Bush's credibility has sunk pretty low when it becomes impossible to tell the difference between satirical fictional quotes attributed to him and actual quotes. :rofl:

That registered as satirical when it was originally posted. See how propaganda works? You keep repeating it over and over... But true, it was believable because of all the Bushisms--the best satire has a little truth in it.

I have a problem with the fact that a lot of Miers experience revolves around Bush himself and various agencies of the state of texas. Most of her experience is not related to courtroom activity.

Even in the Disney and Microsoft cases which she was associated with, she was only one among many other attorneys involved.

The cronyism and lack of experience seems to be just as big an issue--if not more--than her evangelical background.

 

[sid_galt]

Miers seems to be very much anti-abortion.

Sadly, I don't expect the democrats to put up much opposition with harry reid actually endorsing her.

 

[Astronuc]

Interesting twist to this story.

Miers Gets Mixed Reception from Christian Right

All Things Considered, October 5, 2005 · Some Christian conservatives have expressed support for Harriet Miers, President Bush's nomination to the Supreme Court. But others say her choice marks a watershed for a movement betrayed.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4946766

. . . she is highly incompetent.

or if she believes that Bush is one of the most intelligent men she has ever met, I would have to question her judgement.

 

[rachmaninoff]

Ior if she believes that Bush is one of the most intelligent men she has ever met, I would have to question her judgement.

Why? If the only reason she has any position whatsoever is because she latched on to a Texas governor and lampreyed her way to the top on his back, how would it not be good judgement to say exaggerated good things about her benefactor? She apparently has few real qualifications of any kind, so this kind of sucking-up to the higher ups is very good judgement on her part.

 

[Astronuc]

Why? If the only reason she has any position whatsoever is because she latched on to a Texas governor and lampreyed her way to the top on his back, how would it not be good judgement to say exaggerated good things about her benefactor? She apparently has few real qualifications of any kind, so this kind of sucking-up to the higher ups is very good judgement on her part.

I don't know that she doesn't have experience that would qualify her for a position as a judge. How many judges have experience as judges before they become one. She has tried cases as a lawyer, and she was president of the Texas Bar, so she does have experience as a lawyer and knowledge of the law.

The questions are:

Does she have an in-depth knowledge of Constitutional law?

Is she fair and unbiased, or does she have a political /religious agenda?

Even if she has deep personal religious beliefs, can she put those aside when ruling on a law that affects other's beliefs or freedoms?

There is this - Supreme Court Nominee Harriet Miers' Spiritual Journey
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4949038
Morning Edition, October 7, 2005 · The story that's emerging of Harriet Miers' religious conversion is an important part of her life -- and a key factor in the deliberations over her nomination to the Supreme Court. But Miers' faith doesn't fit a simple stereotype of an evangelical.


However, this is somewhat encouraging.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051007/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_religion_3;_ylt=Aon5.4bEhz_ptFQ_eFKpwbVuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

If Harriet Miers is confirmed, evangelicals can finally claim one of their own on the U.S. Supreme Court. Yet the spiritual journey that led her to be born again and spend 25 years affiliated with a conservative church has not eased concerns among Christians about her views on abortion, gay rights and other key social issues.

 

[Skyhunter]

Just how good of a job did Miers do as staff secretary?


That would have made her "the ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nation's commander in chief" for:

a) the President's October 2002 Cincinnati speech making a case for an Iraq invasion - a speech where a reference to Iraq attempting to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was removed.

b) the President's January 2003 State of the Union speech - a speech where the reference to the Niger yellow cake remained in the speech.

Wouldn't that also include the August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled "Osama bin Laden determined to strike inside the US"?

 

[BobG]

Quote:
Originally Posted by BobG
Just how good of a job did Miers do as staff secretary?


That would have made her "the ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nation's commander in chief" for:

a) the President's October 2002 Cincinnati speech making a case for an Iraq invasion - a speech where a reference to Iraq attempting to buy yellow cake uranium from Niger was removed.

b) the President's January 2003 State of the Union speech - a speech where the reference to the Niger yellow cake remained in the speech.

Wouldn't that also include the August 6th, 2001 PDB entitled "Osama bin Laden determined to strike inside the US"?

Yes, but I'm not sure what responsibility the staff secretary would have for that.

Considering the coordination and double checking that must go on to make sure the President doesn't say something totally stupid or flat out wrong, I would think having a statement taken out for one speech, but left in for another, would raise red flags all over the place for someone who is intimately involved in that coordination process.

 

[SOS2008]

I posted what I heard on CNN, but didn't want to sift through transcripts to provide evidence, then just read this earlier today:

Harriet Miers, who apparently called President Bush the "most brilliant" person she's known

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5445086/

The entire article is interesting aside from this (especially those who are dissapointed that it won't result in a knock-down, drag-out fight ). Just because Reid seems to like her, I don't know why there is an assumption that other Dems will vote for her nomination. Add to that the Repubs who may not vote for her, I'm not so sure she is the shoe-in people think she is.

 

[faust9]

Apparently (and this is contrary to what Bush has been saying mind you) Miers wasn't the "most qualified" for the position of SC justice; rather she is the *ahem* most qualified *ahem* conservative who didn't turn down the position.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=afZ1uUaVxVgU&refer=top_world_news

This is too funny. The Wh has been caught in yet another lie. Bold faced mind you. Miers wasn't even in the top 9 picks for the SC:

McClellan declined to identify any of the people who declined to be considered. He said the list of possible nominees was ``well into the double digits'' at the time.

A PRIME example of spin over substance.

 

[faust9]

Hmmmm, religion was a basis. I guess Bush doesn't have a "litmus test"; however, selecting a SCJ based on their religious background might is a litmus test contrary to what Mr. Bush thinks. http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/12/miers.ap/index.html

 

[SOS2008]

Though limited, documents and history are beginning to emerge. It appears that Ms. Miers should be given the Brown-nose Medal.

 

[BobG]

Though limited, documents and history are beginning to emerge. It appears that Ms. Miers should be given the Brown-nose Medal.

What, a new MO for the Bush administration? Now if you screw up, instead of being awarded the Medal of Freedom, they name a new medal after you?

 

[rachmaninoff]

Though limited, documents and history are beginning to emerge. It appears that Ms. Miers should be given the Brown-nose Medal.

What, a new MO for the Bush administration? Now if you screw up, instead of being awarded the Medal of Freedom, they name a new medal after you?

:rofl:10 characters

 

[faust9]

Well, she has the wingnut vote. http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453

 

[faust9]

Scotty is having some fun answering ---gasp---questions. I know, questions are anathema to the Bush Wh but they are being asked now and Bush can't seem to make them stop. Not even with a NYC terror threat.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001305157

 

[Skyhunter]

Scotty is having some fun answering ---gasp---questions. I know, questions are anathema to the Bush Wh but they are being asked now and Bush can't seem to make them stop. Not even with a NYC terror threat.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001305157

I love to watch the Scotty dance, he is so awkward.:rofl:

 

[Informal Logic]

I love to watch the Scotty dance, he is so awkward.:rofl:

If the questioning had been about her qualifications, why do I suspect the dance would have continued? :rofl:

 

[Astronuc]

The president says Harriet Miers' religious convictions figured into his nomination. Democrats question White House assurances given to religious conservatives.

Karl Rove mentioned to a religious and evangelical broadcaster, several days before Bush announced the nomination publicly. Why all the secrecy, and why the need to re-assure the religious community.

It doesn't bode well for the integrity of the process.

 

[sid_galt]

Here's John Fund of WSJ's piece
How She Slipped Through
Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.


http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007398"

Democrats have always spoken for abortion. Now we have a candidate who by all indications is severely pro-life. Where are the Democrats now?

 

[faust9]

Here's John Fund of WSJ's piece
How She Slipped Through
Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007398"
Democrats have always spoken for abortion. Now we have a candidate who by all indications is severely pro-life. Where are the Democrats now?

OK, first off your source is an opinion piece. The WSJ does good reporting of news and events but their OP/ED page is as far right as you can get. What are you getting at with the "where are the dems..." question? The Dems are letting Bush hang himslef on this one. He essentially said she has pre-judged abortion cases and has done so for religion reasons. The fact that Bush tried to nominate an unknown and then follwed up by using religion---this tactic has ticked off a lot of conservatives---is galling, but Bush is doing it to himself. No need to attack Miers when there are more than enough votes (for now) to stop her advancment in the SC (something like 20+ senate republicans IIRC have spoken out now: may this is just a scheme though) along with the 40+ dems in the senate. She and Bush will hang themselves here. The dems will get her during questioning and when they start subpoening(sp?) people who have had assurances from Karl Rove.

No need to play dirty politics while Rove is OOC because Bush cannot muster a good fight for himself. Bush will keep saying things like "Religion was a factor[paraphrase]" and the media will jump on it because everybody loves to watch politicians twist in the wind: especially now that Bush's polling numbers are in the 30's to 40's.

 

[sid_galt]

The WSJ does good reporting of news and events but their OP/ED page is as far right as you can get.

I did not notice anything right wing about it. Partisanship doesn't matter. What matters is whether you were rational or not which the piece was.

No need to attack Miers when there are more than enough votes (for now) to stop her advancment in the SC

I sincerely hope so

especially now that Bush's polling numbers are in the 30's to 40's.

I knew they were in 40s. Where did you get they were in the 30s?

 

[BobG]

I knew they were in 40s. Where did you get they were in the 30s?

39% in the latest poll - just under 40%.

Democrats have always spoken for abortion. Now we have a candidate who by all indications is severely pro-life. Where are the Democrats now?

And people say Bush isn't a uniter.

To be honest, I hope Dems do vote against Miers along with Republican defectors. It would be a shame to appoint an unqualified person to a post that she'll hold for so long just for the joy of seeing Bush 'twist in the wind' - besides, if she is approved, instead of twisting in the wind, Bush has achieved a personal victory.

The humorous thing about this is Republicans like Pat Buchanon saying they think this nomination must have been the President's idea. Even Republicans tend to blame Bush for the bad decisions and give credit to Rove and Bush's staff for the decisions they agree with.

 

[Grogs]

No need to attack Miers when there are more than enough votes (for now) to stop her advancment in the SC (something like 20+ senate republicans IIRC have spoken out now: may this is just a scheme though) along with the 40+ dems in the senate. She and Bush will hang themselves here.

Is it just me or does this seem like the perfect opportunity for a little reverse psychology? If some of the far left-wing Democrats came out and gave her the same sort of endorsements the Republicans gave Roberts ('she deserves a fair hearing; we'll base our decision on her judicial views rather than partisan politics, etc') that the conservative Republicans would start chomping at the bit to get rid of her.

 

[loseyourname]

The humorous thing about this is Republicans like Pat Buchanon saying they think this nomination must have been the President's idea. Even Republicans tend to blame Bush for the bad decisions and give credit to Rove and Bush's staff for the decisions they agree with.

I'm pretty sure Buchanon left the Republican party long ago.

Anyway, at this point, my disappointment with how Roberts is approaching this Oregon right-to-die case has been the last straw for me. If I were a Senator, it would almost take a personal assurance from God to get me to vote for Miers. Bush appointee after Bush appointee cannot continue to simply be channeled through the confirmation process while his previous appointees continue to disappoint and bungle. I'm getting seriously ready for Bush to pull a Schroeder and call for a special election to find out whether or not the American public still wants him in office. He's Gray Davis in red.

 

[Skyhunter]

Is it just me or does this seem like the perfect opportunity for a little reverse psychology? If some of the far left-wing Democrats came out and gave her the same sort of endorsements the Republicans gave Roberts ('she deserves a fair hearing; we'll base our decision on her judicial views rather than partisan politics, etc') that the conservative Republicans would start chomping at the bit to get rid of her.

Well since she has no judicial record, and Roberts demonstrated brilliantly how to NOT express a judicial view during Senate confirmation hearings, we will never know her judicial view until she starts making decisions in Supreme Court cases. Unless you think that Bushco will release all of her writings as Bushes attorney. :rofl:

 

[Grogs]

Well since she has no judicial record, and Roberts demonstrated brilliantly how to NOT express a judicial view during Senate confirmation hearings, we will never know her judicial view until she starts making decisions in Supreme Court cases. Unless you think that Bushco will release all of her writings as Bushes attorney. :rofl:

That's what seems odd to me. There was no way you could pin Roberts down as a conservative, yet the right had no trouble accepting him from the get-go. The only one who seems sure of Miers stance is James Dobson. Did they have some inside information on Roberts the committee at large wasn't privy to? Or is it maybe the other way around and they know a bit about Miers and don't like what they see.

 

[Informal Logic]

Is it just me or does this seem like the perfect opportunity for a little reverse psychology? If some of the far left-wing Democrats came out and gave her the same sort of endorsements the Republicans gave Roberts ('she deserves a fair hearing; we'll base our decision on her judicial views rather than partisan politics, etc') that the conservative Republicans would start chomping at the bit to get rid of her.

I believe Reid was sincere in his own personal position on the matter. However, divide and conquer seems to be working well for the Dems on this one - they have not had to do any negative press or threaten to filibuster or anything. Or should I say Bush was given a long rope (allowing the MO of cronyism instead of qualification) so he could hang himself (twist in the wind)?

 

[Gokul43201]

I apologize, once again, if this has been talked about already. I just came upon references that talk about the very beginnings of the Miers nomination process.

The Washington Post reports that the person who recommended Miers for the SC spot was one William K. Kelly.

For those who don't know, Will Kelley is the Deputy White House Counsel - the person with the most to gain, if his boss' spot suddenly becomes vacant.

At that point, according to another senior official close to the process, deputy White House counsel William K. Kelley suggested to Card that Miers ought to be considered for the next seat that opened. "It began to be kicked around in a small circle of people," the official said.

And who does Mr. Andy Card pick for vetting Miers ? Why, none other that Kelley himself.

(from the NY Times, Wednesday Oct 5, 2005 - not available online without subscription)

The president discussed the idea with the White House chief of staff, Andrew H. Card Jr., and Mr. Card then directed Ms. Miers's deputy, William K. Kelly [sic], to vet her behind her back.

So, if Kelley finds that Miers is good to be nominated (and she does get the post) Kelley likely has himself a shiny, new job as the White House Counsel. But if he finds that Miers is not cut out for it (and Miers learns of his negative recommendation), that wouldn't help his relationship with his boss. What a dilemma !

Wait, did I hear someone say "conflict of interest" ?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

An interesting point on Miers: What is being sold by Bush and company are not her beliefs, rather it is her specific church membership that allegedly qualifies her to be a member of the Supreme Court. :yuck:

I can't believe this is happening in my country. That is, corruption never surprises me. What surprises me is willing acceptance of this abomination by the public.