View Full Version : Harriet Miers Nominated for SCOTUS
Roguish Lawyer
10-03-2005, 12:29
Thoughts? I think she's too old.
CPTAUSRET
10-03-2005, 12:43
Thoughts? I think she's too old.
That...She was GW's personal lawyer in Texas, and she has no judicial experience.
Good luck.
rubberneck
10-03-2005, 13:09
I think it is a horrible uninspired choice. If anything he should have learned the lessons of his father and not rolling the dice with a stealth candidate.
With so may well rounded and unabashidly conservative Federal court judges out there why pick a nobody? Seems to me that he is either trying to get one over or he is running from a fight.
The real problem with her is her lack of track record. One would think that the lack of a paper trail would be in her favor but I think it is actually going to work against her. The Democratic Senators who voted for Justice Roberts knew exactly what they were getting and that was a slightly right of the mainstream justice. With Miers they have no clue if they are getting the next Souter or the next Bork. That is a risk they cannot afford to take. Like wise there are a number of RINO Senators like Chaffee, Specter, Dewine, Stowe, Voinovich and Collins who are pro choice and lack a spine. Her confirmation seems questionable at best.
If I didn't know better I would think Rove is using her as a sacrificial lamb.
the lack of judicial experience should give the Democrats plenty to complain about...i am not sure time on the bench gives one a better insight into the Constitution...but then again, i'm just a dirt surveyor...
CoLawman
10-03-2005, 14:03
Thoughts? I think she's too old.
Depends on her leanings! She might be too young !
If I didn't know better I would think Rove is using her as a sacrificial lamb.i can't see the advantage of using anyone as a stalking horse at this juncture, although the thought did occur to me, as well...
She has the same track recod that RBG had when she was put forward.
And one thing in this one's favor is she didn't work for the ACLU.
D9 (RIP)
10-03-2005, 18:00
Why bother voting for Republicans, if they're going to make decisions to appease the Left the same way a Democratic candidate would?
If we wanted a nominee who would have pleased Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer we could have elected John Kerry. I think this really kicks sand in the face of those of us who took him seriously when he promised to appoint an originalist. He overlooked so many highly qualified, younger candidates to pick Miers. I think he's squandered - or at least rolled-the dice unnecessarily - a once a decade opportunity on the hopes it will give his sagging popularity a boost.
Very disappointed.
uboat509
10-03-2005, 20:44
Even some of his staunch supporters on the right are screaming "cronyism" on this one. Some of the harshest criticism is coming from the base. For more than few of them, this is the last straw and they are ready to write him off as a moderate, which is an insult in certain circles.
SFC W
SCOTUS?
You guys have too many acromyns. Or YOGUHT as I like to call it.
longrange1947
10-04-2005, 13:16
Cripes all mighty folks! This is silly.
She is not the first without judicial credentials. Hell, Rehnquist didn't have any. And since she does not have a "track record" how do you know she won't be the best thing for the bench?
And yes, lets go with a staunch right winger that will legislate from the bench just as we bitch about the libs doing. How about a fight that does harm to the Republican party because the media will spin it that way.
I want a judge that will follow the plain language in the constitution and not some idiot that is a knee jerk lib or right winger that will "interpet it" into what ever ideology he is married to.
Remember that crap cuts both ways, and once down that path it becomes tit for tat.
Let's try trusting POTUS's judgement and opinion instead of knee jerk bitching and claims of everything from idiocy, cowardice and cronyism.
Airbornelawyer
10-04-2005, 14:02
My mind is not made up on Miers. She certainly would not have been my first, second or tenth choice (but then neither would Roberts, Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter, Thomas or Kennedy).
But for a perspective on her experience and qualifications that differs from what is fast becoming the conventional wisdom, I would recommend visiting Beldar's blog: http://beldar.blogs.com/beldarblog/
"Beldar" is William Dyer, of counsel to Broemer & Associates, a Texas litigator with some 25 years of experience, so he has a pretty good perspective on the kinds of experience Miers had. He makes a number of good points.
Age is still an issue, though I would note that while Miers, 60, is considered too old, this was not as big an issue with Robert Bork (also 60 when nominated), Richard Posner (66), Ted Olson (65), Sen. Jon Kyl (63), Alice Batchelder (61), J. Harvie Wilkinson III (61), Edith Brown Clement (57), Emilio Garza (58), Edith Jones (56) and Janice Rogers Brown (56).
If you really want a conspiratorial bit of speculation, I would note that she is a member of an evangelical Christian church, so perhaps she is the only staunchly pro-life candidate President Bush could find that did not have any Roe v. Wade paper trail. Note that if any of the big name candidates had even sneezed about the possibility of overturning Roe, the Democrats and their interest group and media allies would have gone ballistic. With Chief Justice Roberts, pro-lifers have a man they hope might vote their way, but they really can't be sure. Perhaps President Bush knows something we don't.
By the way, there is some speculation on Volokh, another legally oriented blog, that Miers would be strong on gun rights, as she has been quoted as considering the right to keep and bear arms to be a fundamental civil right. That should make some, including TR, a little happier.
Cripes all mighty folks! This is silly.
She is not the first without judicial credentials. Hell, Rehnquist didn't have any. And since she does not have a "track record" how do you know she won't be the best thing for the bench?
And yes, lets go with a staunch right winger that will legislate from the bench just as we bitch about the libs doing. How about a fight that does harm to the Republican party because the media will spin it that way.
I want a judge that will follow the plain language in the constitution and not some idiot that is a knee jerk lib or right winger that will "interpet it" into what ever ideology he is married to.
Remember that crap cuts both ways, and once down that path it becomes tit for tat.
Let's try trusting POTUS's judgement and opinion instead of knee jerk bitching and claims of everything from idiocy, cowardice and cronyism.
Amen.
Roguish Lawyer
10-04-2005, 17:07
Let's try trusting POTUS's judgement and opinion instead of knee jerk bitching and claims of everything from idiocy, cowardice and cronyism.
We tried that with a guy named Souter.
longrange1947
10-04-2005, 18:14
We tried that with a guy named Souter.
Then who do we trust?
Who needs to be nominated? Some bozo that has already claimed how he will vote on an issue without hearing the facts? No thank you. That will cause nothing but division and obstructionism.
Why give the libs something to bring up in the media so that they, and the media elite, can beat up the Republicans over trying to legislate from the bench? We have beat up the libs over that very issue, why give them that club as well?
I will trust President Bush on this one and NOT second guess him. He is in the White House, I am not. As much as the Christian Right loves to claim they got the President elected, they merely helped. The Christian Right does not represent over 50 percent of the population and they sure as hell was not going to vote for Kerry anyway. Stop kidding everyone with the "you owe us". That merely scares the crap out of the moderates that DID get Bush elected.
Kyobanim
10-04-2005, 19:07
Cripes all mighty folks! This is silly.
She is not the first without judicial credentials. Hell, Rehnquist didn't have any. And since she does not have a "track record" how do you know she won't be the best thing for the bench?
And yes, lets go with a staunch right winger that will legislate from the bench just as we bitch about the libs doing. How about a fight that does harm to the Republican party because the media will spin it that way.
I want a judge that will follow the plain language in the constitution and not some idiot that is a knee jerk lib or right winger that will "interpet it" into what ever ideology he is married to.
Remember that crap cuts both ways, and once down that path it becomes tit for tat.
Let's try trusting POTUS's judgement and opinion instead of knee jerk bitching and claims of everything from idiocy, cowardice and cronyism.
Right on
rubberneck
10-04-2005, 19:14
Who needs to be nominated? Some bozo that has already claimed how he will vote on an issue without hearing the facts? No thank you. That will cause nothing but division and obstructionism.
Like you I don't want a justice that has already predetermined the outcome of a case but what I do want is a justice that understands the proper role of the judiciary. I want a justice that rules from the framework of the US Constitution not through decisions in the EU. I want a justice that doesn't create rights out of thin air and in the process totally disregards the right of the people to determine what is best for them. I want a justice that believes that the pharse "Congress shall make no law...." means exactly that. I don't know if Harriet Mier is the right person for the right time but this appointment will go a long ways towards ending or at the very least curbing Judicial activism.
One of the reasons why I voted for the President both times was his promise to appoint judges who strictly interpret the US Constitution. I was hoping for a nominee that has a track record of doing just that not some mystery candidate. As it stands now we have no real clue what Harriet Mier's will do when appointed to the bench.
The angst you hear is the expression of the fear that the son will make the mistake of the father. How many important 5-4 decisions have gone the other way because his father played the same game with Justice Souter and lost? I voted for the first President Bush both times in part because he promised to appoint "originalists" to the bench. He betrayed that trust with Souter. I hop like hell we aren't heading down that path again.
longrange1947
10-04-2005, 20:16
I do not believe that this nomination is even remotely similar to the Souter nomination. This nomination has been a close friend and confidant of the President since before he was President. He has talked and worked with her over numerous years and I am sure that he has at least some inkling of whre she stands on many of these issues. She is not in the same mold as Souter, and unlike his father and the Souter nomination he is not trying to suck up to the Dems. He is trying to head off a giant fight that would make all loser and no winners except the lib and the media.
The media is formenting this "firestorm" and making the news due to the fact that Bush has out manuvered them and have given them a nomination that they can't pick apart through prior court decisions.
Relax and listen to the proceedings. See how she presents herself. From what I can find, she is a strict interpreter of the Consitution and that includes the right of the people to bear arms. Not the right of the UN to confiscate small arms for the "good of the people".
longrange1947
10-04-2005, 20:19
NDD - Surprised you haven't expressed an opinion on this one. :munchin
Ambush Master
10-04-2005, 21:09
A side to these, that has made very little Press, is that these will be with us for the LONG HAUL !!! I don't care how the media or the libs (or should I say the media/libs !!) try to portray him, GW has his shit together !!!
I think that Katrina is going to De-Mast more of the Dems than anyone else !!! Their 40+ year reign in New Orleans and Louisiana combined with their documented ineptness, will be their swansong !!
Roguish Lawyer
10-05-2005, 08:57
NDD - Surprised you haven't expressed an opinion on this one. :munchin
and TR . . .
CoLawman
10-05-2005, 09:11
For what it is worth........
Orin Hatch (R) Utah came out strongly in favor of the nomination.
At the risk of being tarred and feathered............I believe that the importance does not lie in whether a nominee is pro life or pro choice. I personally believe that the dissent from the Republicans on this candidate is abortion concerns.
In my own little world I am more interested in the Exclusionary Rule, Search and Seizure, Miranda, Death Penalty, Victim's Rights, and our Immigration laws.
O f secondary importance is State's rights, Property rights, Water laws, Environmental laws, and our Tort laws.
But of concern is .........you just never know.
A perfect example, of not ever knowing, is that All American from the University of Colorado (Go Buffs), Byron "Whizzer" White. I bet Ted Kennedy had many a sleepless nights on that particular choice of his brother's.
Still haven't decided on whether she is too old or too young! :D
Harriet Miers
Finally, a Supreme Court nominee who understands real people. (http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007361) (WSJ editorial (http://www.opinionjournal.com/))
Martin
Airbornelawyer
10-05-2005, 15:26
In my own little world I am more interested in the Exclusionary Rule, Search and Seizure, Miranda, Death Penalty, Victim's Rights, and our Immigration laws.
O f secondary importance is State's rights, Property rights, Water laws, Environmental laws, and our Tort laws.I agree on most of those, but in fact, these weighty issues are only a portion of the Court's work. Most of the Court's docket is taken up with more mundane questions of statutory interpretation, especially where there is a conflict among circuit courts.
For example, today's oral argument calendar covers two cases, Gonzales et al. v. Oregon et al. and Schaffer et al. v. Weast
The question presented in Gonzales is: "Whether the Attorney General has permissibly construed the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and its implementing regulations to prohibit the distribution of federally controlled substances for the purpose of facilitating an individual's suicide, regardless of a state law purporting to authorize such distribution."
The question presented in Schaffer is: "Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, when parents of a disabled child and a local school district reach an impasse over the child's individualized education program, either side has a right to bring the dispute to an administrative hearing officer for resolution. At the hearing, which side has the burden of proof -the parents or the school district?"
So in the latter you have a fairly mundane question of statutory interpretation, and in the former you have what is outwardly a controversial issue - physician-assisted suicide - but in fact turns out to be mostly about statutory interpretation (whether the Controlled Substance Act was properly interpreted and whether this trumps a state law which allows doctors to assist in suicides).
And next week, the Court gets to address the hot-button questions of "1. Whether an entity not named or joined as a defendant in the lawsuit can nonetheless be deemed a 'real party in interest' to destroy complete diversity of citizenship in a case removed from state court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)." and "2. Whether a limited partnership’s citizenship for diversity subject-matter jurisdiction purposes is determined not by the citizenship of its partners but by whether its business activities establish a 'very close nexus' with the state."
The Reaper
10-05-2005, 20:40
By the way, there is some speculation on Volokh, another legally oriented blog, that Miers would be strong on gun rights, as she has been quoted as considering the right to keep and bear arms to be a fundamental civil right. That should make some, including TR, a little happier.
I would be a lot happier with Volokh.
With Roberts being the centrist candidate originally picked to replace O'Connor, I wanted this one to be the hardest right that could be confirmed 51-49.
I am not seeing it, but it is the POTUS's call. Only time will tell if he was right.
TR
uboat509
10-05-2005, 21:11
The outrage among the base seems to be rising to a rolling boil. Yesterday I even heard Ann Coulter talking about impeachment. Now, obviously you can't impeach a president just because you don't like his Sepreme Court nominations but the message is clear, conservatives are fed up with the president. Or, at least a great many of them are. Between all the deficit spending, the president's immigration policy and now this nomination they are furious. I read today that at a news conference the president refered to her as "the most qualified person in America to be on the Sepreme Court." Now, I am not a lawyer, I am just an engineer but even I have hard time believing that person whose highest previous accomplishment running the Texas State Lottery is the most qualified person for a LIFETIME appointment to our highest court. She may be qualified but I just don't think that she is the most qualified.
SFC W
rubberneck
10-06-2005, 08:51
I read today that at a news conference the president refered to her as "the most qualified person in America to be on the Sepreme Court." Now, I am not a lawyer, I am just an engineer but even I have hard time believing that person whose highest previous accomplishment running the Texas State Lottery is the most qualified person for a LIFETIME appointment to our highest court. She may be qualified but I just don't think that she is the most qualified.
SFC W
Not to quibble here but her highest previous position was White House Counsel which is significantly more important that running the Texas State lottery. In fact the late Chief Justice's most important position prior to being elevated to the bench was as the Staff Secretary at the White House. That was Miers last job before getting bumped up.
As to the qualifications from a purely academic stand point one couldn't make the case that she was the most qualified but what if the chief qualification for the next nominee wasn't academic pedegree but someone who has actaully spent most of their career at the pointy end of the legal spear.
I read yesterday that none of the current Justices have spent any part fo their careers trying cases. Roberts is the lone exception but his work was at the appellate level. Many thought the court was in serious danger of becoming a legal ivory tower ruled over by people that had zero clue how their decision actaully affected people on the back end. I am beginning to think that one of Miers chief qualifications is the type of diversity she would brong to the court. In all seriousness if legal scholarship gets us judges like Breyer than i'll pass. It is sort of like when Colin Powell became the first graduate of an ROTC program to become Chairman. A fresh perspective if you will.
I was very disappointed at first and while I still feel let down I read a editorial by Sen John Cornyn that strongly endorsed Harriet Miers. Sen Cornyn spent time as the AG of Texas and a Justice on the Texas Supreme court before winning his Senate seat. Cornyn was also at one point considered a candidate before Roberts appointment. He seems very comfortable with the pick (he knows Miers well) and he is in no way shape or form a moderate conservative.
Time will tell. My biggest complaint is I wanted a candidate that would throw down the gauntlet with the Dems. I guess we'll have to settle for a solid 5-4 majority and hope that Justice Stevens will somehow leave the bench before '08. Maybe them I'll get my donnybrook.
Airbornelawyer
10-06-2005, 09:58
I read yesterday that none of the current Justices have spent any part fo their careers trying cases. Roberts is the lone exception but his work was at the appellate level. Many thought the court was in serious danger of becoming a legal ivory tower ruled over by people that had zero clue how their decision actaully affected people on the back end. I am beginning to think that one of Miers chief qualifications is the type of diversity she would brong to the court. In all seriousness if legal scholarship gets us judges like Breyer than i'll pass. It is sort of like when Colin Powell became the first graduate of an ROTC program to become Chairman. A fresh perspective if you will.
It would be an exaggeration to say the current justices had "zero clue how their decision actually affected people on the back end". Stevens, O'Connor, Scalia, Kennedy and Souter all have experience in private practice and/or trial courts. It is true that none has the extensive trial experience Miers has, and with one exception, none were partners in private practice. Stevens was a founding partner of Rothschild, Stevens, Barry & Myers (now Rothschild, Barry & Myers) and specialized in antitrust practice for 18 years before being appointed to the bench.
Roguish Lawyer
10-21-2005, 10:28
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110007433
REVIEW & OUTLOOK
The Miers Blunder
Walking the nominee into a political crossfire.
Friday, October 21, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear--even well before her Senate hearings--that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.
Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation. Instead, he picked a woman who was his personal and White House counsel, and who was unknown to nearly everyone outside the White House and his Texas circle.
After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don't know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution. What we have learned is that the White House has presented her to the country, and thrown her into the buzz saw that is the U.S. Senate, without either proper preparation or vetting. The result has been a political melee that is hurting not just Ms. Miers, who deserves better. It is also damaging the White House and its prospects for a successful second term.
Instead of a fight over judicial philosophy, we're having a fight over one woman's credentials and background. Instead of debating the Kelo decision's evisceration of private property rights, we are destined to learn everything we never wanted to know about the Texas Lottery Commission. (See John Fund's column today.)
Instead of dividing Red State Democrats from Senate liberals, the nomination is dividing Republicans. Pat Robertson is threatening retribution not against moderate Democrats but against GOP conservatives who dare to oppose Ms. Miers. Chuck Schumer couldn't have written a better script.
Regarding Ms. Miers's qualifications, we aren't among those who think an Ivy League pedigree or judgeship is a prerequisite for a Supreme Court seat. But the process of getting to know Ms. Miers has been the opposite of reassuring. Her courtesy calls on Senators have gone so poorly that the White House may stop them altogether.
And on Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee took the extraordinary step of asking her for what amounts to "do-over" on a standard questionnaire about her judicial philosophy. The impression has been created, fairly or not, that Ms. Miers is simply not able to discuss the Constitutional controversies that have animated American political debate for two generations.
We sympathize with Ms. Miers, who is an accomplished woman with many admirable qualities. The questionnaire fiasco is as much the fault of the White House, which is supposed to have several lawyers review these things. And more than one of our own lawyer friends have told us that even they would have a difficult time cramming for Senate hearings in four short weeks.
But this is another way of saying that the mistake here was that of the President and his advisers, who badly misjudged the political environment into which they have thrown their nominee. In earlier and less polarized times, someone without broad Constitutional experience might have avoided this trouble. But after decades of Republican anger over judicial activism, and 20 years of disappointing GOP Court selections, a nominee who was a blank slate was bound to get pounded. Mr. Bush has set her up to be hit by a withering political crossfire.
Senate Republicans now find themselves caught between their loyalty to the President and their entirely legitimate concerns about Ms. Miers's philosophy and qualifications. For their part, Democrats have so far largely been content to watch their opposition squirm and shout. But they will certainly play the opportunists, jumping on any opening on ethics or ideology to defeat her and embarrass the President.
The liberal base may even demand it, given that one of the White House's private selling points to religious conservatives has been that she is both an evangelical and is personally opposed to abortion rights. (Hint: She'd vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.) These assurances, if that's what they were, may turn out to have been doubly counterproductive, given that they also undercut Republican claims to believe in process- rather than results-oriented jurisprudence.
Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation. But so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things happen when a President decides that "diversity," personal loyalty and stealth are more important credentials for the Supreme Court than knowledge of the Constitution and battle-hardened experience fighting the judicial wars of the past 30 years.
I don't believe that she is the most qualified by any imagination...or even the best qualified of female possibles. I believe that the democrats will let her in because they will look worse in the long run and hurt their chances in 2008 by not letting her in.
On the lighter side, I think that her election to the Dallas City Council in the late 80's will ruin it for her...the only thing worse than a politician is a lawyer or is that a lawyer-politician j/k :D
"Miers withdraws Supreme Court nomination"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9837151/