Harriet Miers?

[aways]

Looks like W decided to "go along to get along", but not with his base. I think that he should have nominated someone clearly on the right... and made the Democrats fight. She may be conservative, and probably is, but I also would have preferred someone younger.

[jyl]

A few preliminary thoughts from me:

1. No prior judicial experience whatsoever. A successful career as a corporate lawyer at a mid-to-larger-sized regional law firm. I realize that many Supreme Court jurists have had no prior judicial experience, but I personally prefer Supreme Court justices to have been lower court judges, as a sort of test of their temperament. Seems to me that to jump straight to the highest court in the land, you should be something truly unique and special.

2. Probably has little to no paper trail on major judicial issues, and the Administration will probably use attorney-client privilege to hide her opinions as White House Counsel. They probably hope she will be a "stealth candidate". The extent to which she will have to recuse herself in future cases may become an issue.

3. My guess is that the initial reaction will be that Bush nominated a long-time Texas crony, rather than that he nominated an accomplished woman lawyer. John Roberts has just set such a high bar in terms of professional achievement, scholarship, and photogenicity (if that is a word) that Miers risks coming off as a droopy-faced in-house lawyer.

Overall, I guess I'm not sold, to say the least, on this nominee. But I'll wait and see what other information comes out.

[legion]

Originally posted by jyl
Overall, I guess I'm not sold, to say the least, on this nominee. But I'll wait and see what other information comes out.

I agree. There isn't enough info available at this point for me to form an opinion.

[Racerbvd]

Is she cute, big boobies???:

[skipdup]

My wife started her career at Harriet's firm in Dallas. I remember the day my wife met her... she (my wife) couldn't stop talking, for days, about how impressive she was. She even played basketball with her at a party.

I don't know what her politics are, but as a person, she's supposed to be absolutely top notch. My wife has never heard one negative comment about her - which, as a head of a firm, is unheard of. Even the secretaries & the mail room at the firm loved Harriet - I've met some of these secretaries, and they absolutely LOVED to hate the partners.

My wife says this is the one person that she respects the most and would want to emulate. That is a huge statement, coming from my wife.

JYL- You may know more about this than I... But, wasn't every other current SC Justice previously a judge? My wife just told me that historically, the SC likes to have alternative (apart from "judges") views. They like to have a fresh view/perspective on "law".

Anyone know if Warren a judge (I don't believe he was)? Which others were not judges? Rehnquist?

Racer- She is NOT a looker.

- Skip

[jyl]

Originally posted by skipdup

JYL- You may know more about this than I... But, wasn't every other current SC Justice previously a judge? My wife just told me that historically, the SC likes to have alternative (apart from "judges") views. They like to have a fresh view/perspective on "law".

I think you are right, that the current justices were all previously judges.

I don't know about the Supreme Court's preference one way or the other.

Thanks for the input from your wife - that is interesting and positive.

[widebody911]

Some info on Harriet Miers' background, connections, etc

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_rob_kall_051003_immediately_oppose_t.htm

Is she the one that GWB's National Guards records?

http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2835

[techweenie]

I'm sure she is a fine person, but she wouldn't have been on the "top 100" list of any other potential President.

W nominating her is a lot like LBJ nominating Abe Fortas, who was far better qualified, but also was a close friend & attorney to LBJ. The Republicans filibustered and did not approve his appointment to the SC.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by aways
Looks like W decided to "go along to get along", but not with his base. I think that he should have nominated someone clearly on the right... and made the Democrats fight. She may be conservative, and probably is, but I also have preferred someone younger.

I do not see why there has to be a genital litmus test...Shouldn't the best person get the job, regardless of genitalia or what they do with theirs?

[aways]

Originally posted by Mulhollanddose
I do not see why there has to be a genital litmus test...Shouldn't the best person get the job, regardless of genitalia or what they do with theirs?

I agree with that. Bush blinked. I think it's likely that some RINOs warned W they'd bolt if he went for a strong conservative. However, I think Bush knows her views on Roe, and at least on that one issue will vote as a conservative. And that issue is important to Bush. With regard to affirmative action, for example, she may well be a closet pinko.

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by techweenie
W nominating her is a lot like LBJ nominating Abe Fortas, who was far better qualified, but also was a close friend & attorney to LBJ. The Republicans filibustered and did not approve his appointment to the SC.

Fortas was a lot different than W's pick...

As a sitting justice, he regularly attended White House staff meetings; he briefed the president on secret Court deliberations; and, on behalf of the president, he pressured senators who opposed the war in Vietnam. When the Judiciary Committee revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend (while a sitting Justice), equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course -- parenthetical mine

Fortas

[Mulhollanddose]

Originally posted by aways
I agree with that. Bush blinked. I think it's likely that some RINOs warned W they'd bolt if he went for a strong conservative. However, I think Bush knows her views on Roe, and at least on that one issue will vote as a conservative. And that issue is important to Bush. With regard to affirmative action, for example, she may well be a closet pinko.

I am not saying this woman is not qualified. I AM saying that Democrats are total hypocrites and make up false theories, like genital and Roe litmus tests, to manipulate public perception.

Republicans have proven themselves compromising to a fault; Ruth Buzzy was an actual head of radical left ACLU and she got near unanimous Republican support...Democrats, on the other hand, Bork anybody who their left-wing special interests force them too.

The fact that Republicans let Buzzy through is proof positive that it is Democrats who are the politial b!tchs of their special interests, not visa versa.

[gaijindabe]

No. 1 - This is the chick seat, and she is a chick. No. 2 - Bush knows her and likes her. That is the way it works with him.

[1967 R50/2]

THe fact is that NOBODY is going to be 100% pleased with whomever was nominated.

But it doesn't really matter. All of the justices hold peculiar views and tend not to vote in line with the politics of the administrations that appoint them.

Bush made a good choice in Roberts. He is moderate, experienced, and well liked...and yes, photogenic. In otherwords, imminently approvable at a time when the administration can use an easy win and build some bridges.

By comparison consider Robert Bork. Technically he was one of the best legal scholars in decades, but his firebrand style and his less than photogenic appearance (and name) branded him a radical. NOT the best material for appointment.

I don't know enough about Miers but I suspect we will know alot more in future days. But from what I've read so far, she seems to be Roberts part 2.

[widebody911]

Another list here

1. Politics

* She contributed to Bush and to the Bush-Cheney recount fund that helped Bush get selected to the White House over Gore in 2000 [via Newsweek].
* She has made campaign contributions to Democrats (Al Gore, Lloyd Bentsen, DNC) back in 1988, but has given much more to Republicans - and exclusively so after 1994 [via Americablog, Newsweek and Slingshot].
* As hard as it to believe, one conservative claims that her political contributions to Democrats in the late 1980s were requested by a Democratic law firm colleague - a request that she allegedly acceeded to (via WorldMagBlog). RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie claimed she was a "conservative Democrat" in the early 1980s before she became Republican [via Political Animal].
* "Reports on Miers donations to Gore forget Gore chair became Republican Texas governor [Rick Perry]" - Perry was a Democrat until 1989 [via Raw Story].
* She also contributed to "Nebraskan Donald Stenberg, of Stenberg v. Carhart fame, the leading national campaigner against late-term abortion." [via Slingshot]

2. Cronyism

* In fact, Miers has proven herself to be a GOP hack and both a personal and political crony of President George Bush. She was "a top-level regular in the �Strategery Group,� where Bush�s top political advisers contemplated how to use the levers of government to advance the Republican Party. As staff secretary, Miers had final say over every paper that crossed the President�s desk." [via Slingshot]
* President Bush's former speechwriter David Frum has claimed that "She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." [via Brad DeLong]
* She has "has represented the Administration's policies in the most favorable light, including economic policy, No Child Left Behind, and drilling in ANWR" [via ACS Blog]. Also, her belief that the Bush budget is "a restoration of fiscal discipline" makes it apparent that she is not exactly unbiased when it comes to this administration and its policies [via Carpetbagger Report].
* She is a staunch Bush loyalist and Bush worshipper (more here) who was also self-investigated Bush's TX-ANG AWOL problem [via Georgia10 at Dailykos, Political Animal and Newsweek]. It is not entirely clear what role did she play in the Ben Barnes payoff and the Texas Lottery scandal [via Attytood, Booman Tribune and Jensequitir at Dailykos]. Her research on Bush's past allowed Alberto Gonzales to get a jury duty waiver that allowed Bush to keep secret his 1976 arrest for drunken driving [via Newsweek]. More here [via Buzzflash].

3. Legal Experience and Judiciary

* She has never been a judge and has no experience arguing cases before the Supreme Court. However, she would join a long line of past SCOTUS judges who did not have prior judicial experience. [via FindLaw].
* Her legal experience appears to be rather thin [via Americablog].
* She seems to have only argued 4 cases in Texas state courts in 30 years [via Is That Legal].
* She also seems to have argued only 3 cases in 30 years at the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (and lost all three) [via Is That Legal].
* The law firm where she was a Managing Partner had to settle or pay damages (in the millions) for defrauding investors [via David Sirota, Huff Post]. More here and here [via Blue Mass Group and Burnt Orange Report].
* Back in 1968 she authored a Law Review note where she seemed to effectively acknowledge that courts can legislate from the bench [via Is That Legal].
* She seems to be detail-oriented when she wants to be [via Legal Times].

4. Executive Power, National Security and Civil Liberties

* She was staff secretary and briefed Bush at his ranch on August 6, 2001 - which was when Bush decided to stay asleep at the wheel after reading the PDB warning that Osama bin Laden was determined to attack the U.S. [via Eschaton]
* She likely had some degree of involvement with the Bush White House response to the Valerie Plame identity leak probe [via Georgia10 at Dailykos].
* She provided significant guidance on the issues of Presidential powers during wars, torture, etc. [via Georgia10 at Dailykos].
* It is clear that one of the principal reasons for her cronyist nomination is to prevent judicial oversight over Bush's Executive powers in the unending "War on Terror" [via Slingshot].
* She does not seem to believe that filibusters are constitutional since it is her contention that the President's nominees deserve an up-or-down vote [via Washington Post] .
* She seems to have pushed for retaining American Bar Association (ABA) review of potential judicial nominees in the Bush White House, despite opposition from Alberto Gonzales [via David Corn in The Nation].

5. Corporatism and Economic Issues

* Her former law firm was anti-union and fought cases against unions [via Confined Space].
* She worked closely with Microsoft to allow Microsoft to push through defective software without legal ramifications [via Sligshot].

6. Socio-Cultural Issues

* At one time, she seems to have expressed some interest in addressing a gay group and taking positions in support of gay rights [via Americablog].
* However, she did not support a Bill to outlaw the Texas law banning sodomy (which was later repealed by the Supreme Court) [via Washington Blade].
* She is quite clearly anti-abortion. [via Americablog and Washington Blade] More on this here [via Olinda at Dailykos], here [via Free Republic] and here/here [via Tapped]. But also read this [via ACS Blog].

7. Law and Order and Civil Rights

* She has written that to reduce crime one needs to also address its root causes: "...the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction..." [via TNR's &c].
* She has worked with a "non-denominational Christian organization established to assist ex-offenders and their families become productive members of society by meeting both their spiritual and physical needs" [via Americablog]. More on this here [via Sentencing Law and Policy].
* She has encouraged Bar Association members to do pro bono work [via Americablog].
* There was one report suggesting she may not be opposed to an International Criminal Court (ICC) [via Americablog] but this is almost certainly inaccurate since the document in question did not reflect (any) recommended policy positions [via RedState].
* She received "a civil rights award from the Anti-Defamation League in 1996 and chaired the Dallas Bar's Committee for the Provision of Civil Legal Services to the Poor" [via Is That Legal].

8. Environmental Issues

* TBD

9. Religion/Church-State

* There are reports that she is a "devout Christian".

10. Other

* TBD

[1967 R50/2]

Good post widebody

So...long story short...she seems to be mostly liberal on civil rights, but conservative when it comes to supporting Republicans.

She is generally pro-business and anti-union.

Keep in mind that it is a lawyers JOB to take sides....and they don't have a choice in the matter most times. So when they say that her firm was "anti-union" I take that with a grain of salt. They would probably be very PRO-UNION if the right union retained them

[jyl]

Thom, the list paints a picture of an interesting person. I'm not convinced it paints a picture of a very exceptional person. I definitely don't yet see a picture of the "most-qualified person" to be found in the whole nation, as Bush claims.

Given all the "cronyism" issues currently dogging the Administration, I'm somewhat surprised at this pick. It's kind of playing right into a significant and negative public perception. For a lifetime post on the highest court of the land, Bush nominates a Texas crony / no judging experience / highest achievement was state lottery commissioner and so on.

Brian, I imagine the Democrats are trying to figure out how hard they really want to fight this nomination.

One option would be to put up a show fight designed to inflict political damage on Bush with the independents (yet another unqualified crony appointment, where are the Arabian horses?) and with the religious conservatives (each waffling or conciliatory answer on hot-button social issues is more evidence of Bush's betrayal) and then let her be confirmed "over protest". The theory would be that she's probably less radically conservative than other people Bush could have nominated and, being 60 y/o, has a shorter potential lifespan on the Court.

The other option would be an all-out fight to defeat her and force Bush to either advance another nominee of the quality of John Roberts, or to bow to the religious right and nominate a clearly extreme social conservative that will cost him support from independents and the business conservative type of Republican (as distinguished from the religious conservative sort).

It'll be interesting to see how the political maneuvering works out and whether the Democrats can actually get it together to form a strategy.

I personally haven't formed an opinion, although on a still-preliminary basis I don't honestly see, on paper, what makes her so exceptional. I've known and been underwhelmed by managing partners at very large law firms, and how impressive are the positions of state lottery commissioner (appointed by Bush) and White House counsel (appointed by Bush) anyway?

One thing I'm finding amusing is the feverish attempt by the Administration to reassure the religious conservatives that Miers will indeed vote to overturn Roe, while maintaining the fiction that there's no litmus test and that Bush and Miers, two born-again Christians, have never even mouthed the word "abortion" to each other during their decades of closeness. If the Democrats are competent, this could make for some scathingly funny questioning.

[rrpjr]

I disagree with some of this.

Regarding cronyism, it won't matter. This is not an issue that will resonate with anybody outside that hearing room. Americans are given to cronyism (and nepotism) themselves -- and highly liberal in their tolerances of both. What will matter is if she appears to be an independent, well-spoken and capable-seeming person. If so, how she was appointed will mean not much. If not, all bets are off.

I do agree that Bush had an opportunity to box liberals in, though I believe Janice Rogers Brown would have been more effective at this than a hispanic, especially after the charges of racism following Katrina. That he has lost his nerve is very possible. At the same time, there is no basis for assuming this nominee is a "Souter II," or not his ideal conservative, or will not move the court to the right. She is simply a cipher -- to all but him. There is also no evidence in my view to believe Roberts will pull the court to the left. He may, he may not. But from all we know he is a confidently principled legal mind with a classicly conservative sense of juris prudence along lines of Rehnquist.

In any case, Bush has certainly shattered any myth that he would be an idealogue and appoint extremists to the court, as the world had been told from leftist rooftops for quite some time.

[CamB]

I sorta understand, but then I don't again, the strength of feeling among people with respect to this appointment.

I have no frame of reference - we have no equivalent. We have neither a Constitution nor a Supreme Court.

It is interesting - is it really such a big deal? I guess it must be...

[kach22i]

This appointment has all the deep meaning of a Get out of Jail FREE card from Monopoly.

Bush and his cronies may never stand trial for treason and war crimes, for which they are guilty of. However given a remote chance they did stand trial, it would surely go the stacked Supreme Court.

One judge in particular very well versed in their defense strategy - having represented Bush for years. Based on whatever ethics are left in that court I’ll assume she will not remove herself from the proceedings.