And Then There's Harriet Miers

[zynner]

Bush is packing in the statists -- but then, he and daddy are for a "New World Order," right?

Details about President George W. Bush's latest nomination to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, are making their way into print. According to World Net Daily editor Joseph Farah, she may not come nearly as close to "judicial objectivity" sought by most conservatives and libertarians as John Roberts did. Farah cites Miers' on record opinions supporting (among other things) "the establishment of the International Criminal Court, … a major local tax increase and women in combat." He points to her positions as "a leader of the American Bar Association, a Dallas city councilwoman and as presidential counselor" and sees a broad range of anti-liberty and otherwise "judicially activist" stances in her past. He cites Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, who said, "As White House counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments." Donnelly, Farah says, believes Miers' actions "could lead directly" to a future court ruling requiring women to register with the Selective Service for the draft. He also notes that in 1990 Miers voted for a seven percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council. - ST http://freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1210

Quite a pair ya picked, there, Dumya.

Republicans! Geesh! Is this the best you guys could come up with? C'mon!

~ zynner

[grandpa]

Quote by: zynner Bush is packing in the statists -- but then, he and daddy are for a "New World Order," right? Quite a pair ya picked, there, Dumya. Republicans! Geesh! Is this the best you guys could come up with? C'mon! ~ zynner

People will still approve of Miers because she's a Christian, I bet.

Grandpa h.

[PatrickHenry]

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/100605Z.shtml

The question is whether Miers was dispatched to the state lottery commission to cover up a mess on the verge of being brought to light by a whistleblower. We may never know.

Looks like it to me. Crooked lawyers made into Justices by a crooked President. I guess that's all we can expect from the worst President in the past sixty years.

[TheFederalistUS]

Some say Miers' qualifications are paper-thin. They ignore the fact that she has held numerous leadership positions. The liberals forget that for years she has broke through numerous corporate glass ceilings with hard work, sound moral convictions & absolute integrity. A lifetime devoted to the law and applying it to everyday situations. Now the left wing democrats do not even want to give her a chance. The liberals are only anti - Harriet Miers because she was recommended by President Bush. Liberal House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi would be singing the praises of Miers, from the House floor she would be talking about how Miers blazed a path for others to follow. Pelosi would be shaming anyone that came against Harriet, claiming that the establishment was trying to keep the “Old Boy Network’ intact and hold qualified women down. Yes Nancy would, except she can’t be objective. Pelosi can only be a Bush hater. The Senate should give Miers an Up or Down vote. The Judiciary Committee is only going to be wasted partisan politics.

[grandpa]

Quote by: TheFederalistUS Some say Miers' qualifications are paper-thin. They ignore the fact that she has held numerous leadership positions. The liberals forget that for years she has broke through numerous corporate glass ceilings with hard work, sound moral convictions & absolute integrity. A lifetime devoted to the law and applying it to everyday situations. Now the left wing democrats do not even want to give her a chance. The liberals are only anti - Harriet Miers because she was recommended by President Bush. Liberal House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi would be singing the praises of Miers, from the House floor she would be talking about how Miers blazed a path for others to follow. Pelosi would be shaming anyone that came against Harriet, claiming that the establishment was trying to keep the “Old Boy Network’ intact and hold qualified women down. Yes Nancy would, except she can’t be objective. Pelosi can only be a Bush hater. The Senate should give Miers an Up or Down vote. The Judiciary Committee is only going to be wasted partisan politics.

What are her actual qualifications to be a judge?

Grandpa h.

[RickSp]

Quote by: TheFederalistUS Some say Miers' qualifications are paper-thin. They ignore the fact that she has held numerous leadership positions........

You are funny. This is exactly the same post you made in Give Miers a Supreme Chance. It didn't make any sense then and a cut and paste repetition doesn't add much.

[RickSp]

What I find interesting about the Miers nomination is that it is less about her than about Bush. Bush told his base "trust me" and his base says "not so fast." It appears that the left is far more willing to trust Bush than the right. Trusting Bush seems like a bad idea under any circumstances.

[TheFederalistUS]

Quote by: RickSp You are funny. This is exactly the same post you made in Give Miers a Supreme Chance. It didn't make any sense then and a cut and paste repetition doesn't add much.

Here is a link to the W site - http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5833
I only pasted part of it.
For 30 years, Harriet Miers practiced law in Dallas with a quiet intensity, whether she was helping a large corporation avoid liability or keeping an illegal immigrant from being deported, say Texas lawyers and judges who know her.
Miers ... was always prepared, they say, and marshaled her arguments without resorting to what she called "Rambo" legal tactics. Not one to engage in good-ol'-boy banter with judges or other lawyers, she had a reputation for getting to the point. ...
Miers' no-nonsense, "business-like" style was a judge's "dream," says Bonnie Leggat, a state district judge in Harrison County in East Texas. "If you asked her a question, she knew the answer." As she heads for confirmation hearings this fall before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miers will need to display the deftness she showed in Texas courtrooms and boardrooms to secure a seat on the nation's highest court. ...
Bush says that when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, Miers is a strict constructionist in the mold of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and that she would not try to legislate from the bench. ...

What I mean by give her a chance is get the nomination out to the Senate floor. The Judiciary Committee is only going to be wasted partisan politics. Make sure your Senator has heard from you.

[Scribbler1]

Quote by: TheFederalistUS Here is a link to the W site - http://www.rnc.org/News/Read.aspx?ID=5833 I only pasted part of it. For 30 years, Harriet Miers practiced law in Dallas with a quiet intensity, whether she was helping a large corporation avoid liability or keeping an illegal immigrant from being deported, say Texas lawyers and judges who know her.

Okay, so she is a shill for corporate interests and keeping an ILLEGAL immigrant from being deported is fine with you, I take it? How about if she defended Enron and kept heroin peddlers from going to jail?
Lawyers do this kind of thing. Judges are not supposed to. Not much of an endorsement there.

Miers ... was always prepared, they say, and marshaled her arguments without resorting to what she called "Rambo" legal tactics. Not one to engage in good-ol'-boy banter with judges or other lawyers, she had a reputation for getting to the point. ... Miers' no-nonsense, "business-like" style was a judge's "dream," says Bonnie Leggat, a state district judge in Harrison County in East Texas. "If you asked her a question, she knew the answer." As she heads for confirmation hearings this fall before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miers will need to display the deftness she showed in Texas courtrooms and boardrooms to secure a seat on the nation's highest court. ... Bush says that when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, Miers is a strict constructionist in the mold of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and that she would not try to legislate from the bench. ...

All this is fine if you're selling yourself as a lawyer but it isn't good enough to qualify for a lifetime position on the court. We need to know her record as a judge and not only can we never know that, we can't gain anything from these fake "hearings". These hearings are job interviews and I would assume most or all of the people here have fudged just a teensy on their resumes. Only a fool would assume Meirs will happily testify as to anything she has done wrong in the past or divulge anything that would hurt her chances at the seat.

And it keeps going back to the same comparison in my mind. A lawyer works for the client, who is the boss and the guy paying her. A judge is not supposed to favor ANY side and we can't know that as it stands. A good lawyer does not automatically mean a good judge.

What I mean by give her a chance is get the nomination out to the Senate floor. The Judiciary Committee is only going to be wasted partisan politics. Make sure your Senator has heard from you.

They have heard from me and I said to reject her out of hand for the reasons I have outlined here and elsewhere. Congress has a DUTY and a responsibilty to exercise their role in the "advise and consent" part of the process. You indicate you want a rubber stamp from BOTH sides of the aisle because this woman has no record Congress can examine as a judge and they cannot, either Republicans or Democrats, advise or consent to anything with no knowledge of the nominee's performance in the past. Head of the Lottery Commission doesn't cut it.

Besides, when she is rejected, Congress will feel compelled to let Bush's #2 (and REAL pick, IMO) slide right through and the next guy will be so far right he would have never made it as first pick. Stay tuned and see what happens.

[Sonart]

Quote by: TheFederalistUS The liberals forget that for years she has broke through numerous corporate glass ceilings with hard work, sound moral convictions & absolute integrity. A lifetime devoted to the law and applying it to everyday situations. Now the left wing democrats do not even want to give her a chance.

Nope... no kneejerk partisan reaction here. :rolleyes:

Dood, the left isn't saying anything much at all about Miers... all the complaints are coming from the RIGHT! Which you'd know if you read a dang newspaper!

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

--"Not yet a mutiny, conservative anger over Harriet Miers has mushroomed into a significant challenge to President Bush's political stature because it has crystallized long-standing misgivings over federal spending and a family lineage sullied by a promise broken 15 years ago."--

Quote by: TheFederalistUS Bush says that when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, Miers is a strict constructionist in the mold of conservative Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and that she would not try to legislate from the bench. ...

Ohhh, you mean like Bush's brand new Chief Justice leading the charge to legislate from the bench by changing federal drug law to prevent Oregon from deciding what's the legal practice of medicine in their state. That kind of strict constructionist?

--"Chief Justice John Roberts stepped forward yesterday as an aggressive defender of federal authority to block doctor-assisted suicide as the Supreme Court clashed over an Oregon law that lets doctors help terminally ill patients end their lives."--

Nah, what Bush actually means by "Trust Me" is that Miers is a born-again Evangelical Chrisian.

--"James Dobson, the founder and chairman of the evangelical organization Focus on the Family, told Fox News' Brit Hume: "We know people who have known her for 20, 25 years, and they would vouch for her. ... I know the church that she goes to and I know the people who go to church with her." On the Wednesday edition of his radio show, Dobson was more specific: "I know the individual who led her to the Lord."

Rather mysteriously, Dobson, who was briefed on the nomination by Bush's chief lieutenant Karl Rove, told Hume: "I do know things that I am not prepared to talk about here." He was equally cagey with The New York Times: "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about." The intrigue whetted the curiosity of Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who said that "if the White House gives information to James Dobson, that information should be shared equally with the U.S. Senate."--

The ultimate stealth candidate to appease the Religious Right.

.

[Scribbler1]

I like the quote from your link, " ...conservative anger over Harriet Miers... " that says, "An editorial yesterday in the Manchester, N.H., Union-Leader, a key voice of the conservative establishment, declared, "If a conservative is someone who believes that government should be as small, lean and local as possible, then it is hard to argue that President Bush is one. If he is, he has a most peculiar way of showing it."
Some of the folks I see on these forums who blindly support this guy don't even consider the possibility that Bush is a mile away from a true Republican Conservative. These people are more groupies than politically astute conservatives.

[Livemike]

Quote by: TheFederalistUS Some say Miers' qualifications are paper-thin. They ignore the fact that she has held numerous leadership positions. The liberals forget that for years she has broke through numerous corporate glass ceilings with hard work, sound moral convictions & absolute integrity. A lifetime devoted to the law and applying it to everyday situations. Now the left wing democrats do not even want to give her a chance. The liberals are only anti - Harriet Miers because she was recommended by President Bush. Liberal House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi would be singing the praises of Miers, from the House floor she would be talking about how Miers blazed a path for others to follow. Pelosi would be shaming anyone that came against Harriet, claiming that the establishment was trying to keep the “Old Boy Network’ intact and hold qualified women down. Yes Nancy would, except she can’t be objective. Pelosi can only be a Bush hater. The Senate should give Miers an Up or Down vote. The Judiciary Committee is only going to be wasted partisan politics.

She has held numerous leadership positions in the role of corrupt influence peddler.
She her main job has been to cover up and excuse the activities of the Republican
elite.

[Sonart]

So, have we figured out which of the 3 Harriet Miers threads currently running is gonna be the official Harriet Miers thread? :rolleyes:

Anyway, I'm telling you guys, it's becoming more obvious that Miers is Boy George's stealth sop to the Religious Right, and that her religious affiliation is being secretly promoted as her main qualification.

From this morning's paper...

[CENTER]Senators ask if 'backroom' deals struck in nomination
Conservative's endorsement of Miers raises questions[/CENTER]

--"Senators from both parties said yesterday they plan to question whether White House adviser Karl Rove gave inappropriate "backroom assurances" to secure conservative support for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers."--

--"The White House acknowledged Rove has been among those making calls to key conservative supporters, but denied anything improper has been promised.

The issue arose from remarks made on a syndicated radio show by James Dobson, founder of the conservative advocacy group Focus On The Family. Dobson said last week he had spoken in confidence with Rove about the Miers nomination and that their conversation persuaded him to support her."--

.

[Boetie]

Miers is cronyism par excellence. Like Brown in FEMA or any of the other cronys that got a spot just for the price of a little donation or loyalty, no experience neccessary, stupidity not a problem.

[Cephus]

Quote by: Boetie Miers is cronyism par excellence. Like Brown in FEMA or any of the other cronys that got a spot just for the price of a little donation or loyalty, no experience neccessary, stupidity not a problem.

The funniest thing about this is Bush took a lot of flack for appointing unqualified political cronies and he denied it. Now, he's putting up an unqualified political cronie for the Supreme Court.

Is he really that stupid? And yes, that's a rhetorical question.

[ericsp23]

Quote by: Sonart Anyway, I'm telling you guys, it's becoming more obvious that Miers is Boy George's stealth sop to the Religious Right, and that her religious affiliation is being secretly promoted as her main qualification.

I have to admit I am a bit confused by Miers nomination. It seems like what you say above is correct. All they talk about on the local news (I live in Texas) is that everyone who knows her characterizes her as a born again Christian, and she belongs to a huge evangelical church in Dallas known for promoting hard line right wing views. What I don't understand is why some Democrats seem to be giving her support, while the Christian right in the Republican party seem to be coming out against her. It all seems backwards to me and it makes me think there is more going on here than we are being told about.

Regardless of what her personal views are and which political camp she belongs to, I do find it hard to believe that she is the most qualified candidate that the Bush administration could find.

[xyzer]

WHew!
I'm amused at the 'cackling' I read about Ms Miers!
I've wondered and still wonder just what qualifications a judge/justice is supposed to have?
Seems to me that a candidate should have law degree(which I'm sure includes a course in Constitutional Law along with substantive, procedural law and the rules of evidence). Add to this a modicum of intelligence, plus some experiences as a lawyer or business person in our society and that ought to suffice. She fills that bill!Plus she has practiced at the seat of government.
We can't help but have jobs, beliefs and opinions as we go through life and to dwell on them as influencing our decision making is to be realistic. However, a judge takes an oath to consider the law in decision making and thats supposed to subordinate personal belief. I see no evidence, nor do I think any will be revealed, that this lady will somehow deviate from her duty if appointed.

I fear politics really complicates what should be pretty simple decisions. Bush won the election. He is nominating those he feels will represent the majority of voters who elected him. Thats the system sans political manuevering and party politics.

[Sonart]

Quote by: ericsp23 What I don't understand is why some Democrats seem to be giving her support,

I'm unclear that the Democrats are actively supporting her as much as simply making nuetral sounds while gleefully watching the Conservatives attacking her. If it gets out that she really is a far-right Evangelical Christian, and that it's her main qualification being stealthily promoted by Bush, watch the Democrats howl.

Quote by: xyzer I've wondered and still wonder just what qualifications a judge/justice is supposed to have?

Perhaps more than simply being a smart lawyer who the President secretly knows - and is secretly passing around - is a card-carrying member of far Religious Right.

For instance, some understanding of Constitutional Law might be helpful. Miers has zip, and I listened to a law professor explain the other day that it will likely take Miers two years to get up to speed on what she needs to know.

Quote by: xyzer Bush won the election. He is nominating those he feels will represent the majority of voters who elected him.

Nah, he's pandering to the hard-core activist religious conservative base that elected him. A base that's a tiny minority of the total American electorate. This is Dear Leader's shot at a legacy... a Supreme Court that supports Religious Conservative values. Think of it... abortion, school prayer, science, education, all dramatically altered for possibly generations to come.

.

[PatrickHenry]

Quote by: TheFederalistUS Some say Miers' qualifications are paper-thin. They ignore the fact that she has held numerous leadership positions.

Quote by: TheFederalistUS Miers ... was always prepared, they say,

Quote by: TheFederalistUS Miers' no-nonsense, "business-like" style

More like paper thin...

it turns out that a Supreme Court nominee doesn't even need to always be a lawyer in good standing. Harriet Miers shared a little secret about herself on her application to be an associate justice: "Earlier this year, I received notice that my dues for the District of Columbia bar were delinquent and as a result, my ability to practice law in D.C. had been suspended." Did that little dog on the birthday card she sent W. eat her dues? Ms. Miers, then the White House counsel, remedied the situation after she got the letter. But weren't the Bush spinners making a case for her by reporting that she was really great at managing the paper flow when she was the president's staff secretary? Now we discover that she could be such a scatterbrain about paperwork that a little tiny thing like being able to legally practice law slipped her mind while she was serving as the lawyer for the leader of the free world?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/101905C.shtml

[RickSp]

This is just getting embarrassing. Harriet appears to be incapable of even filling out the Senate's questionnaire. Rather than showing off her keen legal mind the Senate sent back the questionnaire and asked her to try again and to please try harder.

Ms. Miers had an opportunity to win over the skeptics this week with her answers to the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire. But her responses were so unimpressive that the top Republican and Democrat on that committee took the extraordinary step yesterday of instructing her to give it another try, this time with more "particularity and precision." She thus became perhaps the most important judicial nominee in history to be offered what amounts to a do-over on a take-home quiz. Question 17, for instance, asked Ms. Miers to describe any constitutional questions she had addressed as a public official. That gave her an opportunity to write at length about war powers, federalism, church-state issues and similar matters that must have crossed her desk. But in describing her work as White House counsel, she offered only a few terse lines that revealed close to nothing. Her answer to a question about "judicial activism" was a model of windy obfuscation.

The Trouble With Harriet