# Harriet Miers



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2005)

This woman was just nominated for one of the most powerful jobs on the planet, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.

Comments, anyone?


----------



## mantis (Oct 4, 2005)

comments can take u to jail
civil rights, aye!


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Oct 4, 2005)

How long has she been a judge?


----------



## Xequat (Oct 4, 2005)

Bob, I'm not sure if you're asking to make fun or not, but I just heard on the radio that she's never been a judge.  Nice.  I hope that isn't true, but somehow I wouldn't be surprised.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Oct 4, 2005)

Not sure of the numbers, but just like the Chief Justice is not always chosen from those already on the BENCH, some of those posted to the Supreme Court of the USA, are lawyers and served in differnet functions but never as a judge.

The precedence is there.

As to the lady in question, the comments I have heard are that she was chosen for her loyalty to the Bush team and her long service to the party, but not having any real public opinions, nor anything she has had written down for people to hang her hat on.

I can only speculate at this time, and that would onlt make it look even worse, so I shall refain for a few.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 4, 2005)

Ms. Miers is a lawyer who received her education from a small, undistinguished law school. She has never served as a judge. In the 90's, Ms. Miers was then Governor Bush's personal legal advisor. During the first term of the Bush Administration, Ms. Miers was Secretary to the President - no paper crossed the desk in the oval office without her approval. For the past year, she has been the White House legal council, apparently taking the position of Alberto Gonzalez when he was elevated to Attorney General of the United States.

The Constitution says the President can choose who he wishes to serve on the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. There is no requirement that the nominee even have legal background.

Approximately 35 of the 109 members of the Supreme Court had not served as judges prior to their appointment to the Court. The most recent of those was William Rehnquist, the late Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.


----------



## Ping898 (Oct 4, 2005)

Maybe it is just me, but I have to admit I do have issues with a Supreme Court Judge not having any previous judging experiences....


----------



## evenflow1121 (Oct 4, 2005)

I sort of do like the fact that she attended a small undistinguished law school because it allows me to believe that individuals attending non ivy league law schools still have a shot at the nation's highest judiciary.  Justice Thurgood Marshall for example, attended Howard, and was a very fine judge and a brilliant man.  The fact that she has never been a judge however, bothers me some what.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 4, 2005)

Oddly, conservatives are somewhat unhappy with her, while liberals are smiling quite brightly at her nomination.  


WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views....


http://go.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=9815435&src=rss/topNews


I would get such a tickle out of all this if she and Roberts proved to be all that conservatives fear.  Why, I might be downright gleeful.  

Roberts isn't the boogeyman some think he is, incidentally.  Two law professors here clerked with him for Rhenquist, and they both stayed good friends with him.  One is a liberal, the other a moderate.  Both say he won't stray too far to the right.  

As for her, not much is known yet, from what I've seen.  

As for judging experience, or lack of it, Rhenquist was never a judge.  Other justices lacked that experience as well.  Standing before the bench isn't the same as sitting behind it, I suppose.  Still, I imagine many lawyers know the law better than some of the judges they've argued before.  

Regards,


Steve


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

Frankly, I'm glad he went in a different direction.

Let's see a non-lawyer on the bench! Maybe a political scientist.


----------



## tradrockrat (Oct 5, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Frankly, I'm glad he went in a different direction.
> 
> Let's see a non-lawyer on the bench! Maybe a political scientist.


 
How about a Martial Artist?  I hear they are good people...:whip:


----------



## Marginal (Oct 5, 2005)

She has gone on record to state "George W Bush is the most brilliant man I've ever met." Other than that, nobody seems to know what her actual opinions are.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

tradrockrat said:
			
		

> How about a Martial Artist? I hear they are good people...


Yes! Of course, it would have to be the _right_ martial art...


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> She has gone on record to state "George W Bush is the most brilliant man I've ever met." Other than that, nobody seems to know what her actual opinions are.


Well, wouldn't you say that knowing she thinks that is enough?


----------



## shesulsa (Oct 5, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Maybe it is just me, but I have to admit I do have issues with a Supreme Court Judge not having any previous judging experiences....


 I concur.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 5, 2005)

I'm really thrilled about her.  In fact, I think I'm going to join a dojo run by a white belt.  And next time I have surgery, I want an intern to operate on me.


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 5, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Frankly, I'm glad he went in a different direction.
> 
> Let's see a non-lawyer on the bench! Maybe a political scientist.


well, you still need to be careful. I don't want GW going down to the local Taco Bell and picking out the local burrito stuffer. Still, I'm sure there would be some good non-lawyer/judge people out there. However, unless they are in political science or something related to law, they are going to have a huge learning curve. There is still going to be a learning curve, but I don't want someone w/ no experience in the field making decisions that will possibly dramatically alter my life.

perhaps I should suggest GW nominate you Arnisador? hehe

There is some talk that GW might have to nominate another judge eventually. Has there been precedent for a single president having to replace so many judges? (not creating new seats, rather just replacing)

MrH


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> Maybe it is just me, but I have to admit I do have issues with a Supreme Court Judge not having any previous judging experiences....


I think having _one_ such person, out of 9, brings a nice diversity to the court. I favor that.

Having three would be too many, but one is good. As I said, I'd also like to see one non-lawyer on the court; that again allows for a fresh look at things that could be beneficial.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 5, 2005)

mrhnau said:
			
		

> perhaps I should suggest GW nominate you Arnisador? hehe


Who could afford to live in D.C. on a federal employee's salary?


----------



## mrhnau (Oct 5, 2005)

arnisador said:
			
		

> Who could afford to live in D.C. on a federal employee's salary?


I'm sure you could find some bribe money  *slips arni a $50*


----------



## mantis (Oct 7, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> This woman was just nominated for one of the most powerful jobs on the planet, Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> Comments, anyone?


 i ran into this
 check it out
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Miers-collection.wmv


----------



## mantis (Oct 7, 2005)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I'm really thrilled about her. In fact, I think I'm going to join a dojo run by a white belt. And next time I have surgery, I want an intern to operate on me.


 at least those are related to the field!


----------



## evenflow1121 (Oct 8, 2005)

Good video btw. I think the greatest concern for any staunch conservative individual is that she turns out to be like David Souter. David Souter is a conservative but he is not a staunch conservative and has been viewed as liberal by certain conservative groups. He is an excellent judge if you read his opinions, but he is not a hard line conservative and that doesnt sit well with a lot of people. 
I personally, dont think she is qualified because she does not have the judicial experience, but I would be willing to bet that the biggest fear for some of the real right winged republicans is that she turns out to be like Souter. And thats why they will not back her up. As far as liberals go, I wouldnt be gloating about this nominee either, she may turn out to be a true conservative. 
In any event I think it is a bad choice, yes she was the president of the Texas Bar and she may well be a great attorney, but there are a lot of great brilliant attorneys who never make it to county court judge. The judicial experience is a big factor for me, that is being able to interpret cases, having an idea of what you are deciding. These are issues that are going to affect 250 million Americans, and I for one dont feel that she is qualified for that job.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 8, 2005)

Turns out a number of S.C. judges lacked judicial experience...Marshall, Frankfurter, Rhenquist, Brandeis...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1007/p01s03-usju.html

Miers schooling isn't particularly impressive.  She went to Southern Methodist.  She never practiced Constitutional law.  She was a corporate litigator.

Gays are supporting her...isn't THAT interesting?  I wonder if that's a psychological ploy to turn the Religious Right against Miers and Bush?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 8, 2005)

The only 'qualifications' to become a Judge on the Supreme Court of the United States are that a) one is nominated by the President of the United States, and b) one serves with the 'Advice and Consent' of the United States Senate.

Ms. Miers has met the first qualification.

I expect that she will meet the second qualification.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 9, 2005)

Yes, I too predict confirmation.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 9, 2005)

It may happen that she's confirmed...but if so, it'll cause further damage to the Republican base.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3388326

Conservatives are increasingly unhappy with his performance.  He's lost thirty percent of his Evangelical base since the election.  Much of this because of Miers, but also because of his support for huge spending on Katrina reconstruction, immigration, etc.:

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3388326

He's getting questions from news reporters like "Are you still a conservative?"




Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 9, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> He's getting questions from news reporters like "Are you still a conservative?"


The question works on the assumption President Bush is a conservative. 

Looking at the actions taken in office, he has not been a conservative. 

Conservatives attack taxes, but it does not follow that attacking taxes makes one a conservative. I believe conservatives have been willfully blind on this issue. The conservatives think they have a conservative in the White House despite the evidence against it (Medicare Perscription Drug Benefit - "No litmus test" - Federal Powers over State Powers). 

Sorry for the thread gank.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Oct 10, 2005)

We learned a lot about the quality of John Roberts legal mind when he appeared for confirmation. Perhaps we'll learn a lot about Meir's legal mind, or lack thereof as the case may be, when she appears before the Senate. If she's anywhere near as impressive as Roberts was (which I doubt) she'll have proven herself a good choice.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> The question works on the assumption President Bush is a conservative.
> 
> Looking at the actions taken in office, he has not been a conservative.
> 
> ...


  Well, michael, you are correct.  Bush has never been a conservative, he's always viewed himself as a moderate.  Bush has always liked to think of himself as a uniter before he went to Washington.  In Texas, Bush had a history of working in a bi-partisan manner with the Texas legislature, and was respected by Republican and Democrats alike.  

Going to Washington was a rude awakening for the man, and I truly believe he has never given up the grim hope that maybe, just maybe, he could do something that wouldn't make half the country mad.

I believe Harriet Meirs was an attempt to appoint what appeared to be a moderate to the Court.  Well, he half succeeded.  The Democrats are happy....It's the conservatives that are mad.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 10, 2005)

Well, it's in her hands now. I expect she'll do adequately well.


----------



## Kane (Oct 11, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> The only 'qualifications' to become a Judge on the Supreme Court of the United States are that a) one is nominated by the President of the United States, and b) one serves with the 'Advice and Consent' of the United States Senate.
> 
> Ms. Miers has met the first qualification.
> 
> I expect that she will meet the second qualification.


 Although she meets those qualification, I don't think she would be the best person for the job. The reason being she has no experiance as a judge, there are far more qualified people.

 But hey the president is the leader of our country, so I'll support but of course with suspicion.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 11, 2005)

Kane said:
			
		

> Although _she meets_ those qualification, I don't think she would be the best person for the job. The reason being she has no experiance as a judge, there are *far more qualified* people.
> 
> But hey the president is the leader of our country, so I'll support but of course with suspicion.


Ms. Miers has not yet met the second qualification listed; serving with the 'Advise and Consent' of the Senate. She has met the first qualification; having been nominated for the postion by the President.

The Constitutional qualifications are binary in nature. A person is qualified or not. There are not people who are 'more qualified'. There may be people with greater experience in a particular area or field, but experience is not a qualification for the position.

The argument could be made that there is 'gradation' of qualification in the second parameter; one hundred Senators participate in the Advice and Consent portion of a Supreme Court appointment. Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts received the approval of approximately 80% of the Senators. A 'more qualified' person, it could be argued would receive a higher percentage of 'Yea's'. 

The end result is that Chief Justice Roberts is 100% a Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, I find the 'Advice and Consent' a binary parameter.

As to whether Ms. Miers is the 'best person for the job' - a subjective decision - the President of the United States has unequivically stated the he believes she is accurate described with that phrase. What can we learn about him, from that statement?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 13, 2005)

Latest reports are the Ms. Miers 'qualifications', at least for President Bush, include her participation in a Evangelical Christian Church.


The Constitution of the United States specifically forbids any religious test for Federal positions.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 13, 2005)

This is a matter of the president's judgment...he can use whatever criteria he likes. I'm not so happy about it myself, but it's his choice. If sock color is how he chooses, that's his perogative.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 14, 2005)

The following comes from the G8 meeting in Canada; a few years back.



			
				President George W. Bush said:
			
		

> "We need common sense judges who understand that our rights were derived from God and those are the kind of judges I intend to put on the bench."


It seems the President is keeping his word. A religious litmus test will be required to serve on the Supreme Court.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 17, 2005)

The San Fransisco Chronicle has a story today about Ms. Miers failure to pay property taxes on properties owned by her mother, but for which she was responsible through a 1995 power of attorney document.

This is a minor matter that will be interesting to watch as the splinter in the Republican base becomes more active as we approach the conference hearings.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/10/16/MNGJHF96591.DTL&feed=rss.news




Also, there are reports of a Evangelical Christian conference call, in which two prominent judges gave assurances to the attendees of the call that Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Mr. Dobson was reportedly on that conference call, as was Richard Land (another Miers supporter).

Watch for the attendees of this conference call to be summoned to appear before the Judiciary Committee's hearings. 
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 20, 2005)

One very evident question, in my opinion, is how will Ms. Miers, if elevated to the bench, deal with any cases where the Bush Administration is a petitioner.

The impartiality of the nominee needs to be examined very closely. Can a person who claims that President Bush is 'cool' and 'brilliant' sit impartially before a case involving this person?

As the Karl Rove - Valerie Plame - I. Lewis Libby - WHIG (White House Iraq Group) Controversy / Con Job becomes more revealed in what many expect to be the final days of Mr. Fitzpatrick's investigation, the nominee takes on a new visage. It appears there will be several Supreme Court cases concerning the Bush Administration.

How Ms. Miers addresses this question is one to watch closely during the Judiciary hearings.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 26, 2005)

Hmmm...she may be pro-choice, pro-women's rights, and a judicial activist.

Ain't that just SPECIAL!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5/10/25/AR2005102502038.html?nav=rss_politics



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Kane (Oct 27, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Hmmm...she may be pro-choice, pro-women's rights, and a judicial activist.
> 
> Ain't that just SPECIAL!
> 
> ...



Pro-choice huh? Why do I remembering hearing that Miers was for banning abortion?:idunno:

But hey I don't have problem with any abortion issues considering my views on abortion are centrist.


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2005)

Ms. Miers has asked to withdraw her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.


----------



## arnisador (Oct 27, 2005)

Yup, looks like she's out. I didn't expect that.

I'd like to see him put forward another non-judge. I still think that that diversity would be a good thing.


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Oct 27, 2005)

My personal opinion is that she should not be confirmed. She is simply a republican tie to the supreme court. The supreme court should stay clear of this kind of thing. Bush is simply nominating people close to him and not looking at a the canidates with equal interest.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Oct 27, 2005)

Kane, read the article.  It explains why you heard she was against abortion...and why she was also judged to allow its practice.

Moot point if she's out, I guess.  On the other hand, I suspect post-mortems are going to show the Republicans influenced her withdrawal...probably not the Dems.

I sort of feel bad for her.  This has had to be a tough time for her.   It probably would have been best had she turned the President down in his offer.

And who will he nominate next?

This just out from Ironictimes.com:  The President has used his remaining political capital to buy a stick of gum!  Story at eleven.


Regards,



Steve


----------



## mantis (Oct 27, 2005)

she quit!
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/4D673B8A-34C8-4B10-B4B4-760922CF906A.htm

didnt she?


----------



## michaeledward (Oct 27, 2005)

I think we will, perhaps, never know all of what occurred in the backroom discussions. 

Last evening, Ms. Miers spoke with President Bush indicating that she was going to withdraw her name from consideration. This morning, at approximately 8:30 AM, Ms. Miers gave a written note to the President asking for withdrawl of consideration and explaining the reason for the request.

President Bush publically stated that he, with regret, accepted Ms. Miers request. 


It would be a safe bet, I think, to assume that there was much more discuss and action behind the scenes. 

It would also be a safe bet that the Democrats had no involvment in this event; the spectators seats were comfortable enough.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Oct 27, 2005)

> the spectators seats were comfortable enough.


 
Oh, I'll bet!


----------



## mantis (Oct 27, 2005)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I think we will, perhaps, never know all of what occurred in the backroom discussions.
> 
> Last evening, Ms. Miers spoke with President Bush indicating that she was going to withdraw her name from consideration. This morning, at approximately 8:30 AM, Ms. Miers gave a written note to the President asking for withdrawl of consideration and explaining the reason for the request.
> 
> ...


 nah, they just had to check with church and get approval...


----------



## BlueDragon1981 (Oct 27, 2005)

Hariet has withdrawn her nomination.


----------

