US Supreme court nominees - Miers & Alito

Well with this nomination, no one can’t accuse Bush of not using Affirmative action. :wink:

This is the part that bothers me most as well. Keeping an open mind about what kind of justice she would be is one thing, but to my mind this pick certainly appears to be another example of Bush placing a greater importance on his own relationships with people (and their personal loyalty to him) above more objective standards.

I believe that cronyism is to some extent inherent in the system, and that all politicians do this to one degree or another. But it seems to me that Bush is particularly bad about it. Who knows – some may argue that Bush’s cronies have just been put to the test in various difficult circumstances and therefore have been “found out” in higher numbers than past administrations. I think that may be too kind to him, but I suppose it is possible.

But even if you buy that explanation (which, as I say, personally I do not), it doesn’t change the fact that Bush is seen as being more likely to surround himself with yes-men and cronies. To this exent the Miers nomination seems like a pretty stupid political move to me. In addition to upsetting his base (many of whom only accepted Roberts because they thought they would get a “real” conservative with pick #2) I think Bush has made himself look even worse with this selection. And I think this last point is true whether Miers is genuinely a quality candidate or not…

"I worked with Harriet Miers. She’s a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated … I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or–and more importantly–that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. . . Harriet Miers is a taut, nervous, anxious personality. It is hard for me to imagine that she can endure the anger and abuse–or resist the blandishments–that transformed, say, Anthony Kennedy into the judge he is today.
David Frum, former Bush speechwriter, National Review

Maybe they’ll setup a Woman’s Forum at the Supreme Court so she doesn’t have to put up with the big, bad men there.

Some of the posts on this thread are a real hoot!

Redandy - I pretty much agree with everything you’ve said so far.
No matter the President, a Supreme Court nominee is rarely chosen for their ability to “stir the pot.” In fact I can’t think of any chosen for this reason.
A reasoned judicial approach and demonstrated ability in the US Constituition are the prime reqisited for the position.
I personally would like to see some non-lawyer types appointed. Their is no mandate for the position to be filled by a law school graduate.
She is an unknown at this point. Not who I would have selected, but her Constituitional knowledge will be what makes or breaks her. Confirmation hearings will bring more of her to light. It wil be interesting.

It looks like the lack of dead fish in her closet is driving the anti-Bush attack-bots crazy…:roflmao:
Keep the insults flowing…it makes ya look real smart…:unamused:

Don’t stand up because most of the bullets are coming from behind you at this point:

"Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized

I’m disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record–someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown–to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

I’m depressed. . . . Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

I’m demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration–leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. . ."

William Kristol, editor, The Weekly Standard

justicemiers.com/

Some facts:

[quote]PROFESSIONAL CAREER

1972-1999 Private practice, Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, Dallas, TX
1985-1986 President, Dallas Bar Association (first female president)
1989-1991 Member, Dallas City Council
1992-1993 President, Texas Bar Association (first female president)
1995-2000 Chairman, Texas Lottery Commission
1999-2001 Co-managing partner, Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP
2001-2003 Staff Secretary, White House
2003-2005 Deputy chief of staff for policy, White House
2005 - pres. Counsel to the President, White House

HIGHLIGHTS

Miers Was the First Woman Hired By Her Dallas Firm. “According to published reports, she was the first woman hired by Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, a Dallas firm whose history extends to the 1890s. She went on to become a top commercial litigator whose clients included Microsoft and the Walt Disney Co.”
(Michael A. Fletcher, “Quiet But Ambitious White House Counsel Makes Life Of Law,” The Washington Post, 6/21/05)

Miers Was A Commercial Litigator. “A commercial litigator, Miers represented such clients as Microsoft Corp., Walt Disney Co., and Republic National Bank.”
(T.R. Goldman, “Down To The Last Detail,” Legal Times, 12/15/04)

Miers Spent One Term On The Dallas City Council. “Ask what motivated her to seek election to the Dallas City Council in the late 1980s, she says only: ‘I was asked to run.’ Ask why she bowed out after one term, and she is only a bit more expansive. The structure of the council had changed, she explains, converting her citywide seat into one representing one district. That did not suit her interest, so she moved on. ‘It was a natural progression,’ she said.”
(Michael A. Fletcher, “Quiet But Ambitious White House Counsel Makes Life Of Law,” The Washington Post, 6/21/05)

Miers Encouraged Bar Members “To Do Pro Bono Work.” “Miers, who is not married and does not have children, was active in professional organizations and eventually was elected head of the Dallas and Texas bar associations, where she was known for encouraging members to do pro bono work.”
(Michael A. Fletcher, “Quiet But Ambitious White House Counsel Makes Life Of Law,” The Washington Post, 6/21/05)

Miers Was The First Female President In The History Of The State Bar Of Texas. “Just as they did three years ago, Dallas-area lawyers have swept their hometown candidate into office. And with her 2,640-vote margin of victory, Dallas’ Harriet Miers will become the first female president in the history of the State Bar of Texas. She’ll take office as president-elect June 19 at the Bar’s annual meeting in Houston, then assume the presidency in June 1992.”
(Robert Elder, Jr., “Miers Coasts To Victory With A Dallas Landslide,” Texas Lawyer, 5/6/91)

“[Miers] Received A Distinguished Alumni Award From The SMU Law School In 1997.”
(SMU Website, www.smu.edu/newsinfo/releases/00171.html, Accessed 9/29/05)

Miers Argued Against Ending The ABA’s Role In Vetting Judges. “She did raise some eyebrows early in Bush’s first term by arguing against eliminating the American Bar Association’s 50-year-old role of vetting potential federal judiciary nominations, a move led by Gonzales. (The ABA was removed from the vetting process in March 2001.)”
(T.R. Goldman, “Down To The Last Detail,” Legal Times, 12/15/04)

Miers’ Office Currently Vets Judicial Nominees, Including For The Supreme Court. “Working with her staff of 13 lawyers, and in cooperation with the Justice Department, Miers’s office provides guidance on issues from the legal parameters for the war on terrorism to presidential speeches. Her office also takes the lead in vetting and recommending candidates for the federal judiciary, all the way up to the Supreme Court.”
(Michael A. Fletcher, “Quiet But Ambitious White House Counsel Makes Life Of Law,” The Washington Post, 6/21/05)

“Miers has also taught law as a Trial Advocacy Instructor at Southern Methodist University School of Law and is a former National Institute of Trial Advocacy Program Instructor. She is licensed to practice law in Texas and the District of Columbia.”
(Bush-Cheney, Press Release, 1/5/01)[/quote]

As usual, Sullivan’s site manages to sift through what is being written every day and distill some of the most interesting comments:

[color=brown][b][size=117]Harriet worships the president and has called him the smartest man she’s ever known. … This president can be bamboozled by anyone he feels close to. If a person fawns on him enough, is loyal, works 25 hours a day and says you’re the smartest man I ever met, all of a sudden you

:roflmao: That’s hilarious!

Well, part of the critisism is legit and part isn’t. Some of it is just that she didn’t go to the right school, wasn’t in the right firm, hasn’t impressed the right people in Washington…yada yada yada.

On the other hand, if it comes out that she has as little Conlaw experience as her critics say, then that’s a valid point. And, as mentioned, her qualifications notwithstanding, this idea Bush apparantely had of picking a person as close to himself as possible is BS, even if she does turn out great.

[quote]

[color=brown]
Harriet worships the president and has called him the smartest man she’s ever known. …
[/color][/quote]

If true, this fact alone certainly questions her judgment. :astonished:

First Rice calls Bush her “husband,” and now Miers apparently worships him to such an extent that Bush may receive an honorary membership in Mensa. What makes Bush so irresistable to these middle-aged professional never-been-married women? Are there others? Doesn’t Laura get jealous?

:ponder:

He’s earned his nickname “Shrub”. Personally, I think the Dems’ are happy that he didn’t go anywhere near the other way, so by default they’ve got love her.

One famous Con Law scholar chimes in with this little rant

[quote=“Prof. Geoffrey Stone”]Let me be clear. I have no knowledge about Ms. Miers

Here is a different perspective, in favor of the nominee.

Some exerpts:

[quote=“RealClearPolitics”]President Bush is a politician trained in strategic thinking at Harvard Business School, and schooled in tactics by experience and advice, including the experience and advice of his father, whose most lasting political mistake was the nomination of David Souter. The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court shows that he has learned his lessons well. Regrettably, a large contingent of conservative commentators does not yet grasp the strategy and tactics at work in this excellent nomination.

There is a doom-and-gloom element on the Right which is just waiting to be betrayed, convinced that their hardy band of true believers will lose by treachery those victories to which justice entitles them. …

There is also a palpable hunger for a struggle to the death with hated and verbally facile liberals like Senator Chuck Schumer. Having seen that a brilliant conservative legal thinker with impeccable elite credentials can humble the most officious voices of the Judiciary Committee, they deamnd a replay. Thus we hear conservatives sniffing that a Southern Methodist University legal education is just too non-Ivy League, adopting a characteristic trope of blue state elitists. …

These critics are playing the Democrats

Here’s an excert that’s not in favour of Miers nomination

So, while she was the head of a law firm, her company was involved in defrauding investors. Shouldn’t Supreme Court Justices be a bit more squeaky clean than this?

Here’s the link

[quote=“Gilgamesh”]
So, while she was the head of a law firm, her company was involved in defrauding investors. Shouldn’t Supreme Court Justices be a bit more squeaky clean than this?[/quote]

Maybe she should hire the team who defended Bill and Hillary in the Whitewater case.

Is that really the best her supporters can do? She managed a business? The President trusts her? She has White House experience?

We’re talking Supreme Court here, not Chief of Staff. C’mon, y’all are gonna have to try harder if you want to convince us that a candidate is suitable for leading the nation’s judiciary!

We might well find out she turned out to be an excellent candidate, 15 years hence, but Supreme Court positions are too important to take that kind of gamble. We need candidates whose judiciary brilliance and positions (or neutrality) on key issues are a matter of public record. If they have not been judges, then certainly a position as an eminent scholar of constitutional law would be vital. I don’t buy this ‘she’s managed a business, so she brings a different perspective’ BS. That’s just setting the bar far, far too low for our top judiciary body, sorry.

Given the rancour between the parties, a strong, sharp court is all the more important. I don’t know enough about Miers–I don’t think anyone does–to say what she’s likely to do, but nor do I think that neutrality is a necessary attribute. But I would like to see the best and brightest on the bench, and so far nothing suggests that she comes close.

Interesting that she’s getting attacked from the right more than from the left.

[quote=“Jaboney”]
Interesting that she’s getting attacked from the right more than from the left.[/quote]

Why is it interesting?

[quote=“Comrade Stalin”][quote=“Jaboney”]
Interesting that she’s getting attacked from the right more than from the left.[/quote]

Why is it interesting?[/quote]
Why not? :wink:
Because she’s been nominated by a president who governs from the right. Because she seems to present a pretty soft target to those on the left eager to draw blood from Bush, but they’re passing, so far. My initial thought was that Bush might have been staking her out to draw fire and ire, only to cut her loose and then nominate a far-right justice. At which point he could say, “Well, I gave you a more moderate choice and you didn’t want her, so now you can just suck it up.”

I know that personal loyalty is important to Bush, but the choice still surprises me. Unless, of course, he’s feathering the nest for the next Bush clan member who runs for the Whitehouse. You never know when you’ll need a loyal voter on the high court.

I suspect that many of the attacks from right are at least partly motivated by an almost emotional disappointment that one of the hoped-for “established” conservatives didn’t get picked. So I think some of the anger will diminish over time. (Certain details, such as Miers having contributed to various Democratic campaigns in Texas – and to Al Gore’s first presidential campaign etc. are already starting to be put in the proper context.)

On the other side of the street, I also think the attacks from the left will probably increase as time goes on. Hard to say how intense they will become though, especially since a number of Democrats already seem to have made up their minds. Of course, nobody will admit to making up their minds until the photo-op/pony-show confirmation hearings are held, but I’ve already read comments from Senator Durbin (Democrat, IL), for example, describing Miers has something like “a bridge between the two parties”. As I recall, Miers was also specifically recommended to Bush by Senate Minority Leader Reid as the kind of person the Democrats would like to see for the O’Connor seat.

[quote=“Jaboney”]
Because she’s been nominated by a president who governs from the right. [/quote]

Bush is a moderate who was elected by moderates and the right simply because be was the best choice. Only someone far to the left would believe Bush to be of the right. :laughing: