The W
Views: 98539136
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.8.07 0735
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Harriet Miers Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 3 Next(209 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (42 total)
brick
Bockwurst
Level: 49

Posts: 395/535
EXP: 840010
For next: 43879

Since: 17.1.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 485 days
Last activity: 481 days
#1 Posted on 3.10.05 0850.06
Reposted on: 3.10.12 0852.35
Wow, everyone must be sleeping in today. I caught Bush's press conferance before I left for work and still nothing here.

Does anyone know anything about her?

She has never been a judge (not unpresidented).

She ran the Texas Loto (at least she wasn't judging horse shows).

She was the 1st woman president of both the Texas state Bar and Dallas bar.

And she has been Bush's personal lawyer and has headed up the search for Supreme Court nominee's.

That really doesn't tell me much about her views and whether she will be a good judge, or if this is just Bush rewarding another member of his inner circle with a huge appointment rather than say, ambasador to Canada.
Promote this thread!
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 216/257
EXP: -732609
For next: 1012547

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2608 days
#2 Posted on 3.10.05 0942.56
Reposted on: 3.10.12 0943.07
Remember when Dick Cheney headed up the committee to find a running mate for Bush?

I'm getting the same vibe here.

Frank

"Who me? I'm just a back-room boy."
- Francis Urquhart, "House of Cards"

(edited by Boston Idol on 3.10.05 0743)
redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 152

Posts: 4859/7534
EXP: 43475448
For next: 826314

Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 425 days
Last activity: 425 days
#3 Posted on 3.10.05 1028.31
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1029.01
When you are polling in the high 60's/low 70's, you might be able to pull this off. But, with Bush polling high 30's/low 40's, this is arrogance at its peak. There is a better chance of Bork getting confirmed than there is of Miers. Unless Bush is using her as a sacrificial lamb so he can get his real nominee through, this has the potential to be an epic disaster. Get ready for the filibuster to end all filibusters if somehow she actually gets through the Senate Judiciary.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 217/257
EXP: -732609
For next: 1012547

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2608 days
#4 Posted on 3.10.05 1045.22
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1051.21
A filibuster would be a bad idea. It only plays
to liberal interest groups who donate money. The
average voter wants the government to do something
as opposed to doing nothing but pointing fingers.

Democrats need to develop their own "Contract with
America" if they want to gain momentum in Congress.
Having Reid, Pelosi, and Dean constantly harp on the
Republicans won't win them many votes. They need to
present an alternative plan of action, not inaction.

And again, the Democrats claimed the sky would fall
when Souter was nominated, so their Chicken Little
act doesn't have much credibility outside their base.

Frank

Edit: These quotes may be significant.

"I like Harriet Miers."
- Harry Reid

"[Her closeness to Bush] raises serious questions about whether he has found a nominee who has the requisite qualifications and independence for the nation's highest court."
- Ralph Neas

You've got Reid sounding positive and ultra-nutty
Ralph Neas sounding negative, but since Mears is
a Bush nominee she must suck - bring on the 'buster!

(edited by Boston Idol on 3.10.05 0853)
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 6915/16172
EXP: 140187983
For next: 847803

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#5 Posted on 3.10.05 1052.47
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1055.55
    Originally posted by brick
    Wow, everyone must be sleeping in today. I caught Bush's press conferance before I left for work and still nothing here.
Sorry, I was sleeping in today.

Obligatory AP link: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_SCOTUS?SITE=RANDOM&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT


    Oct 3, 10:54 AM EDT

    Bush chooses Miers for Supreme Court

    By DEB RIECHMANN
    Associated Press Writer


    WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court on Monday, turning to a lawyer who has never been a judge to replace Sandra Day O'Connor and help reshape the nation's judiciary.

    "She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House.

    If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

    Senate Republicans said they would press for confirmation by Thanksgiving - a tight timetable by recent standards that allowed less than eight weeks for lawmakers to review her record, hold hearings and vote.

    ...

    Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid was complimentary, issuing a statement that said he likes Miers and adding "the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

    At the same time, he said he looked forward to the "process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court."

    Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, according to several sources familiar with the president's consultations with individual senators. Of equal importance as the White House maps its confirmation campaign is that the Nevada Democrat had warned Bush that the selection of any of several other contenders could trigger a bruising partisan struggle.

    [MORE]

    Originally posted by redsoxnation
    When you are polling in the high 60's/low 70's, you might be able to pull this off. But, with Bush polling high 30's/low 40's, this is arrogance at its peak. There is a better chance of Bork getting confirmed than there is of Miers. Unless Bush is using her as a sacrificial lamb so he can get his real nominee through, this has the potential to be an epic disaster. Get ready for the filibuster to end all filibusters if somehow she actually gets through the Senate Judiciary.

Call me crazy, but if Sen. Reid recommended her, I'd say she PROBABLY has a better chance of getting confirmed than Bork did. Also, way to post a kneejerk reaction without doing any reading.

On the other hand, if you're dying for controversy - and it certainly appears you are - perhaps the REPUBLICANS can sniff into why the leader of the Democrats LIKES her so much. ;-)

(edited by CRZ on 3.10.05 1055)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1469/2697
EXP: 8834943
For next: 153876

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#6 Posted on 3.10.05 1114.45
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1118.32
A very astute choice.

First - a woman.

Second - She shouldn't have much of a paper trail to trip her and since never a judge, no rulings to bite her in the ass.

The negative seems to be her wish to shun the spotlight. I heard her remarks and at best she seemed ill at ease. She will have to work on that or her path will be difficult.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 218/257
EXP: -732609
For next: 1012547

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2608 days
#7 Posted on 3.10.05 1127.23
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1129.01
So Miers has less charisma than Ruth Bader-Ginsberg?

Here is a link to some additional reactions:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/scotus_miers_quote_box_4

"The president has selected a loyal political
ally without a judicial record to sit on the
highest court in the land."
Barbara Boxer
Leroy
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 614/2254
EXP: 7247486
For next: 221455

Since: 7.2.02
From: Huntington, NY

Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 11 hours
#8 Posted on 3.10.05 1226.17
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1227.47
High Court Nominee Has Never Been a Judge

That seems to be the biggest "downside" to her appointment. Some judicial experience might be nice....
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 6917/16172
EXP: 140187983
For next: 847803

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#9 Posted on 3.10.05 1237.13
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1238.05
Thanks, but I posted this link already (it's the AP story).

    That seems to be the biggest "downside" to her appointment. Some judicial experience might be nice....
All those years of being a lawyer count, I hope.

Among many other examples, William Rehnquist was never a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court.

This story really seems to be bringing out the stupids today.
Boston Idol
Blutwurst
Level: -1

Posts: 219/257
EXP: -732609
For next: 1012547

Since: 17.2.03
From: San Jose, CA

Since last post: 2815 days
Last activity: 2608 days
#10 Posted on 3.10.05 1252.07
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1259.01
    Originally posted by CRZ
    This story really seems to be bringing out the stupids today.


I found this change interesting. I don't know if it reflects new commentary by Feinstein or a new editor.

"While I am pleased the president has named a woman
to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it remains
critically important that the Senate Judiciary
Committee, and, indeed, the American people learn
more about her positions on some of the most important
issues facing our nation."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, earlier story

"I see no negatives at this stage in Harriet Miers. ...
What her values are and where she will stand on this
court remains to be seen."
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, current story

Harry Reid has been positive and is said to have been
one of several lawmakers to suggest Miers. Was Reid
setting up Bush for a fall by suggesting a "crony?"
Seems unlikely, since obstruction of Miers for not
being a judge would invite Bush to nominate one of
several conservative judges.

Dumbocrats may think that Democrats can reject several
nominees and filibuster indefinitely, but the reality
is that it would be harder to block a second nominee.

Frank
spf
Scrapple
Level: 132

Posts: 3324/5402
EXP: 26994019
For next: 137985

Since: 2.1.02
From: The Las Vegas of Canada

Since last post: 31 days
Last activity: 5 days
AIM:  
#11 Posted on 3.10.05 1307.39
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1310.14
I have a sense that unless something very out of left field comes up about Miers (stories about her participating in baby-killing pagan rituals or something) that there is not a lot of energy for a filibuster or anything of that sort. While the small activist base will always be buzzing about, the rank and file of the left, the folks like myself who are the difference between 10,000 people and 10,000,000 people being upset about something, have pretty much decided to let the GOP do whatever they're going to do, keep on running things the way you want to, and eventually either people will get fed up and say "enough", or, as they did in 2004, they'll say "sure, go ahead and keep running things."

Personally, I'm a straight, educated,white, middle-class male who can pass reasonably enough for Catholic, so whatever happens isn't going to hurt me none.

So I'd like to be the first to congratulate Harriet Miers on her confirmation-to-be as Supreme Court Justice. May you rule wisely.
CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 212

Posts: 6918/16172
EXP: 140187983
For next: 847803

Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス

Since last post: 4 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on 3.10.05 1320.59
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1322.32
Well, the best story I could find about non-judge nominees was from Google's cache of a New York Times story that the Times now expects you to pay for. Nuts to that!

Picking Non-Judge Justice Would Return to Tradition (64.233.167.104)

    Of the 108 people who have served on the Supreme Court, only 48 - fewer than half - were drawn from the ranks of sitting judges.


I'm sure there's an actual LIST somewhere, but I've spent too much time trying to find it already.

Consider this third hand sourcing, but random surfing to gague reaction on this nomination has led me to more than a few reports on other message boards/blogs from people (who may have been listening to NPR) who offer THEIR impression that Miers is politically a carbon copy of ("moderate") O'Connor - they also suggest, in turn, that Bush might lack the political capital to substantially shift the court so he didn't go for someone further right of O'Connor as her replacement.

This *would* at least explain why the earliest and loudest protest sounded like it was coming from the far right and not the left.

Any applicable NPR webcasts don't appear to be online yet, though, so before I finally make up my own mind one way or another, it'll probably be up to The News Hour and Nightline to give me any punditry I'm too lazy to find online and want my television to deliver to me instead - that is, if I can remember to tear myself away from RAW Homecoming and/or UFC and/or the Packers game...


(edited by CRZ on 3.10.05 1331)
too-old-now
Bockwurst
Level: 48

Posts: 367/545
EXP: 793296
For next: 30252

Since: 7.1.04

Since last post: 1244 days
Last activity: 169 days
#13 Posted on 3.10.05 1353.24
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1359.01
I wonder how much of a press the democrats will try to hang on her that she's the counsel that handled the response to Bush's missing military service.

Will they ask her - hypothetically of course - would she recuse herself from matters involving the current President? Perhaps about lying to get us into a war in Iraq, or vote fraud, or any other conspiracy that might stick?

Many of you know I'm no fan of Dubya, nor did I think his predecessor was a prize either, but I don't want to turn this thread into another Bush-bash vs. Democrat-bash.

Since the Honorable (can we say that yet?) Ms. Miers doesn't have a judicial record to critique, there will have to be some questions asked about something, and I'm gonna bet it won't all be about her charitable works...


JoshMann
Andouille
Level: 87

Posts: 1760/2159
EXP: 6295989
For next: 96810

Since: 17.11.03
From: Tallahassee, FL

Since last post: 2238 days
Last activity: 2235 days
AIM:  
Y!:
#14 Posted on 3.10.05 1415.11
Reposted on: 3.10.12 1415.58

    Perhaps about lying to get us into a war in Iraq


Somehow I don't think that would fall into the terrain of the White House Legal Affairs Office. Send lawyers, guns and money INDEED.

(edited by Blanket Jackson on 3.10.05 1516)
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1470/2697
EXP: 8834943
For next: 153876

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#15 Posted on 4.10.05 0635.27
Reposted on: 4.10.12 0635.28
It's interesting that 24 hours later there is more grumbling from the neocons than the Dems. To trot out the VP on Neocon talk shows only hours after the announcement indicates to me that they are worried about their base.
ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter
Level: 56

Posts: 712/743
EXP: 1372502
For next: 25683

Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI

Since last post: 694 days
Last activity: 694 days
#16 Posted on 4.10.05 0856.26
Reposted on: 4.10.12 0856.37
So, this is gonna be a purely speculative idea I'm floating out.

Maybe Bush actually WANTS her nomination to be shot-down. Then he can do the whole "I TRIED to put-forth a moderate, compromise nominee. This is somebody the Democrats recommended to me." spiel and turn-around and nominate a more right-leaning person. He scores points for TRYING to install a moderate, and he'll actually wind-up with a conservative justice (with just a slight delay).

Like I said, it's just a devious little idea that's really nothing more than a little "fantasy political booking".
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 469/711
EXP: 1289029
For next: 25169

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 744 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#17 Posted on 4.10.05 1105.50
Reposted on: 4.10.12 1111.21
    Originally posted by DrDirt
    It's interesting that 24 hours later there is more grumbling from the neocons than the Dems. To trot out the VP on Neocon talk shows only hours after the announcement indicates to me that they are worried about their base.


It's not surprising that conservatives intensely dislike this pick for a number of reasons. Realistically, there's absolutely no way that this pick can be viewed as anything other than cronyism at it's worst. We've, as a body politic, become relatively inured to cronyism within an administration because we know that those appointments are generally limited to the time in office of the appointing President and we unfortunately expect those types of things. This nomination is different because there isn't that limitation which makes it look like Bush considers the position of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court as nothing more than a crass political reward.

Second, a whole lot of the GOP base distinctly remembers the Bush campaign and him saying that Scalia and Thomas were the types of judges he admired and would appoint. Instead of any number of more qualified appointees who would meet the terms of that campaign promise, Bush nominates a cipher whose most important qualifications are her absolute loyalty to Bush and her gender. I don't recall the GOP being in favor of affirmative action, so why is that being used as a key criteria in selecting an appointee?

Finally, and most importantly for me, this nomination perpetrates the culture of the stealth nominee who has no paper trail as the ideal nominee. I didn't have much of a problem with John Roberts because he had a record that could be examined that demonstrated the competence and qualifications for the job as a justice on the court. On the other hand, Miers has, well, nothing substantial in the way of a record to indicate anything more than a fairly successful career as an attorney. It seems as though actually having positions on the relationship between the Federal and the State governments or on the limits or lack thereof of Congressional power under the Commerce clause or on 1st amendment relationship between church and state or freedom of speech or any number of other issues is actually to be avoided rather than to be sought. To me, that's a real shame and emblematic of a huge systemic problem in the nomination and confirmation problem.

Quite frankly, this is about the worst possible pick that Bush could have made without picking an actual family member.

Tim
BigSteve
Pepperoni
Level: 64

Posts: 813/1091
EXP: 2188863
For next: 25246

Since: 23.7.04
From: Baltimore, MD

Since last post: 2787 days
Last activity: 2515 days
#18 Posted on 4.10.05 1128.45
Reposted on: 4.10.12 1129.01
    Originally posted by bash91
    It's not surprising that conservatives intensely dislike this pick for a number of reasons. Realistically, there's absolutely no way that this pick can be viewed as anything other than cronyism at it's worst. We've, as a body politic, become relatively inured to cronyism within an administration because we know that those appointments are generally limited to the time in office of the appointing President and we unfortunately expect those types of things. This nomination is different because there isn't that limitation which makes it look like Bush considers the position of Associate Justice on the Supreme Court as nothing more than a crass political reward.


Or maybe she's very well qualified and Bush knows this better than us because he's worked very closely with her for a long time? I'm concerned that, whether it's correct or not, the angle on this nomination may end up being cronyism, and I certainly think that's something to be determined, but I don't see how the fact that she had a close working relationship with the President disqualifies her from a position or makes appointing her to a position automatically cronyism.


    Second, a whole lot of the GOP base distinctly remembers the Bush campaign and him saying that Scalia and Thomas were the types of judges he admired and would appoint. Instead of any number of more qualified appointees who would meet the terms of that campaign promise, Bush nominates a cipher whose most important qualifications are her absolute loyalty to Bush and her gender. I don't recall the GOP being in favor of affirmative action, so why is that being used as a key criteria in selecting an appointee?


Who says she isn't a strict constructionist? If Bush feels that she will be someone in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas why wouldn't he appoint her rather than someone else (i.e. Brown, Owen, Luttig, etc.) that is likely to cause a more contentious confirmation battle?

I agree fully with you that these nominations have become too politicized to the point that anyone admitting to be a strict constructionist, against Roe, against AA, etc. will have hard time being confirmed, but the fact is that those are the political realities for the foreseeable future. Given that, why not appoint someone who the President is confident will be the type of judge that he wants to appoint but who does not yet have a record that would cause confirmation problems? After all, Roberts is also a stealth nominee - do you feel absolutely certain that he will vote against abortion on demand, expansive interpretation of the Establishment Clause, and widening of the commerce clause? I think that he will, but there isn't a ton in his judicial record that would support that contention.

Am I guaranteeing that Miers will be in the mold of a Scalia, a Thomas, or (hopefully) a Roberts? No, I'm not, but the President has made this choice, and she is almost certainly going to be confirmed (barring anything unforeseen) so there's no going back now. I just think it's wise to wait to blast the President until the time comes when she proves that she is not the type of justice that we want on the court.
DrDirt
Banger
Level: 96

Posts: 1472/2697
EXP: 8834943
For next: 153876

Since: 8.10.03
From: flyover country

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 17 hours
#19 Posted on 4.10.05 1129.38
Reposted on: 4.10.12 1134.00
The whole process has become a bit silly because whether they publically state it or not, nominees have positions. And God forbid you have a record that indicates what you think and believe. It reminds me of lawyers trying to pick unbiased, uniformed jurors without any opinions. Is that who we really want or need? Both parties in the Senate bear alot of the blame for this. Here's an idea, shut up (both sides) and simply determine if they are qualified and able to render decisions based upon the Constitution.
bash91
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 470/711
EXP: 1289029
For next: 25169

Since: 2.1.02
From: Plain Dealing, LA

Since last post: 744 days
Last activity: 10 hours
#20 Posted on 4.10.05 1220.40
Reposted on: 4.10.12 1224.35
    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Or maybe she's very well qualified and Bush knows this better than us because he's worked very closely with her for a long time? I'm concerned that, whether it's correct or not, the angle on this nomination may end up being cronyism, and I certainly think that's something to be determined, but I don't see how the fact that she had a close working relationship with the President disqualifies her from a position or makes appointing her to a position automatically cronyism.


It's not the fact that she has a close working relationship with the President that disqualifies her, it's that there doesn't appear to be any other reason for nominating her other than that relationship. The question I always ask when facing questions of cronyism is "Would someone else have nominated/appointed this person?" If the answer is no, then I'm pretty comfortable saying it is cronyism. I can't even ask that question about Harriet Miers without starting to giggle. Bush may think she's qualified, but there is very little in her public record to make the rest of us believe it. At this point in time, Bush trying to make an argument from ethos just isn't going to work. To borrow a line from Reagan, "Trust, but verify." Right now, we can't do that and there's no indication that we'll ever be able to before she's seated. In this case, I can't help but think that this is nothing more than cronyism at it's finest.

    Originally posted by BigSteve
    Who says she isn't a strict constructionist? If Bush feels that she will be someone in the mold of a Scalia or a Thomas why wouldn't he appoint her rather than someone else (i.e. Brown, Owen, Luttig, etc.) that is likely to cause a more contentious confirmation battle?


Who says she is? Listening to Bush and to Cheney, I don't recall them ever suggesting she's a constructionalist. John Roberts isn't a strict constructionalist, why should I assume that Miers is one. If anything, based on past Bush's history with appointments, I'm pretty safe if I assume that Miers is not a constructionalist nor an originalist. Unfortunately, it really appears as though Bush valued loyalty over competence in this case.

Tim
Pages: 1 2 3 NextThread ahead: Libby indicted, maybe more to come
Next thread: JBL's video commentary.
Previous thread: Are we in the end times?
(209 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - Harriet Miers Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.201 seconds.