Third Party & Independents Archives

Harry and Harriet?

You could almost feel the waves of shock and disbelief hit many in the blogosphere this morning when President Bush made the announcment that Harriet Miers was his nomination to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court. Senator Harry Reid was one of the first to comment. Some are stating he even suggested Miers. What is happening here? Democrats actually liking someone President Bush nominated? Republicans by the dozens stating Bush has lost their support forever?

First on many parts of the Liberal Blogosphere the call went out for the Democrats to hold firm to fight this one out that filibuster had to happen. Then, as they noted some of the more "famous" conservative bloggers expressing displeasure with Harriet Miers, that changed.

What is Harry up to? Does he really feel this way about Harriet?

I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.

Is he the only one? Will this make Democrats turn on him or is Harriet Miers going to turn out to be a consensus nominee? After all she did donate to Democrats in 1988.

The mainstream media is already trying to make a huge issue out of her lack of experience as a judge, which in reality is a non-issue if you look at the history of the court.

If you want to follow some if the initial comments in reaction to her nomination, from the Washington Post.

Posted by Lisa Renee Ward at October 3, 2005 2:25 PM
Comments
Comment #83253

Anyone know the last person nominated to the Supreme Court who had never been a judge?

Posted by: steve at October 3, 2005 2:44 PM
Comment #83254

William H. Rehnquist

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 3, 2005 2:46 PM
Comment #83262

It’s a sad state of affairs when the President has to nominate liberials to get them confirmed.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 3, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #83263

Until I see further info on this lady i prefer to withhold “judgement” as to her qualifications. I heard Bush’s statement this AM and, while I know he’s not about to say anything bad, all the things he DID say made me think Harriet might be a legitimate candidate.
By the way, and off subject, have you looked at the Appollo Alliance project? This could be a unifying organization for a REAL third party.

Posted by: jcp at October 3, 2005 3:43 PM
Comment #83271

Might be, I’ve heard some about them and I am signed up for their email updates. Haven’t had a chance to see locally what they are doing but I have contacted the rep for my State.

Here

For those who haven’t seen their website.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 3, 2005 4:15 PM
Comment #83285

Looks like Mier is yet another Texas Crony whose most important qualification is that she’s slavishly loyal to You-Know-Who.
I’ll no doubt have more to say later when I’ve had a chance to read more about her, but I just thought I’d throw this glaringly obvious fact out there right now.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 4:53 PM
Comment #83286

Frankly, Bush, or his advisors who made these selections of both Miers and Roberts, were brilliant politically. Make no mistake, Bush believes he is putting forth conservatives. On the other hand, Bush has little but loyalty and willingness to advance careers by speaking a party line, to assure him these nominees will rule the way he hopes.

Once Roberts and Miers are untethered from the Republican Party as SC Justices, no one, but the nominees themselves will know how they are going to rule and arrive at decisions. Roberts has conservative values, but, his respect for precedent can lead to supporting past liberal rulings. Miers, after listening to her speech sometime ago to new Republican Lawyers, does not appear to have an original thought in her head or the mental capacity to develop any. If that perception is even partially true, and given her conversion from Democrats to Republicans, indicates she will be a malleable Justice capable of being swayed by best arguments right or left.

One final observation. Since Bush has little on record in his presidency that the majority of Americans approve of, his selections may reflect his desire to do at least one Presidential thing right, and indisputably so. I commend the President for his choices. They wouldn’t be my choices, but, I believe he has placed responsible governance ahead of ideological demands of the right, in making these judicial nominee decisions, and that I believe is worthy of praise.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 5:01 PM
Comment #83289

Appollo Alliance project appears to be another name for Democrat/Liberal. The only thing missing from their website were pictures of people hugging trees.

Posted by: steve smith at October 3, 2005 5:06 PM
Comment #83309
Looks like Mier is yet another Texas Crony whose most important qualification is that she’s slavishly loyal to You-Know-Who. I’ll no doubt have more to say later when I’ve had a chance to read more about her, but I just thought I’d throw this glaringly obvious fact out there right now.

I can already guess how the hearings are going to play out:

Democratic Senator: [asks a question about past involvement in some case.]

Miers: I can’t comment on that because it would violate attorney-client priviledge.

Democratic Senator: [asks a question about a hypothetical case.]

Miers: I can’t comment on hypotheticals.

Democratic Senator: [asks a question about a recent case.]

Miers: I can’t comment because I don’t know the facts in the case to make an informed judgement at this time.

Posted by: steve at October 3, 2005 6:03 PM
Comment #83320

David, I tend to agree with you on your views on this especially when it comes to John Roberts. I also understand why Miers was selected, it was still however unexpected. Though the rumor mill was stating the name Miers, they often are not correct.

The Mainstream Media is harping on her lack of Judical experience. Anyone who has done any research on the history of the Supreme Court knows this is a non-issue. Eight of the Chief Justices had no prior experience as Judges, and 31 other Justices had no prior experience as a Judge. Several of them worked in the Department of Justice or as Attorney General.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 3, 2005 6:39 PM
Comment #83322

By the way, and off subject, have you looked at the Appollo Alliance project?

Sounds like another neolib outfit to me.

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 3, 2005 6:40 PM
Comment #83326

Agreed, Lisa. Politically, given Bush’s cronyist appointments without relevant experience, it would have been more prudent for him to nominate someone with judicial or Constitutional experience. But, the absence of it, is in and of itself not justified as a criticism for the reasons you point out.

One very possible justification for Bush’s choice is pure political party expedience. If, (and Bush already knows if this is true or not), Miers is unwilling to overturn Roe v. Wade, the rationale is that the Republican Party would not survive the 2006 or 08 elections if Bush’s nominees did overturn Roe v. Wade. Majority public opinion and the media would turn against Republicans as the implications and consequences of such a reversal became evident. It is very possible Bush’s choices reflect conservative value without running the risk of overturning R v. W. which would have devastating consequences to the Republican Party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 6:47 PM
Comment #83330

Cute, Ron, some of their ideas for energy conservation are worth looking into.

David, that is a very valid point.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 3, 2005 6:57 PM
Comment #83333

David:

I’m sure Bush appreciates being damned by your faint praise (“his selections may reflect his desire to do at least one Presidential thing right”)

I can almost hear your teeth gritting and see your brow furrowing as you wrote your post trying to compliment Bush. For me, its a fun visual image. :)

Posted by: jeobagodonuts at October 3, 2005 7:05 PM
Comment #83336

Just a thought…
Miers is a straw-woman selection.
She has no history.
The Republican’s already don’t like her.
There’ll be not enough support for a life-time appointment to the SC.
Bush will then appear forced to make a second choice (but it’ll be someone who was really his first choice) and this will end up being somebody hardcore-horrible like Rogers-Brown.
Then, the Dem’s will feel forced to go along so they don’t come off as “unreasonable obstructionists”.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 3, 2005 7:06 PM
Comment #83337

Jbod, fun but erroneous.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 3, 2005 7:09 PM
Comment #83339

I don’t think the Republicans will end up being against her, I think this was just the inital shock. As I believe it was Schummer that stated earlier that there was a real chance she could be a concensus nominee. Rush is doing his best to “boost” them up from what I heard.

:-)

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 3, 2005 7:14 PM
Comment #83345

Meirs is a big surprise. Knowing so little about her, I haven’t made up my own mind, but it does seem that lots of conservatives are pretty disappointed.

I have an inkling that the left is going to obstruct her since the main issue for them on appointees is Roe vs. Wade, and it seems that Meirs is pretty much a fundamentalist evangelical Christian (according to the little I’ve read about her so far).

If that happens, I don’t see Republicans bothering to “go nuclear” in support of a candidate with such tepid conservative support. But when and if that occurs, Bush is just going to nominate somebody else and we’ll back at square one.

A very odd situation all the way around.

Posted by: sanger at October 3, 2005 7:55 PM
Comment #83362

Harriet Meirs doesn’t care about black people.

Posted by: Kanye at October 3, 2005 9:32 PM
Comment #83365

And you know this about Harriet Miers how?

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 3, 2005 9:43 PM
Comment #83376

I’ve met, and had a few conversations with Harriet Miers.
She’s not a bad person.
However, she’s not an extremely prolific,
outgoing, or charismatic person either.
As far as lawyers go, she’s not the worst I’ve seen by a long ways. I actually felt that she had some scruples. She’s not a power hungry bitch at all.
She had photos in her office with members of the Bush family,
so she probably has had aspirations for a long time
to get into politics for quite some time.

I think Harriet Miers is a loyal person.
Bush has a lot of faith in her.
I really think he trusts and respects her.

But, personally, I think there are probably
many more qualified candidates, with far more
experience, and writings, and decisions, and history.

Personally, I think this country should know a
whole lot more about their Supreme Court.
Harriet Miers is a bit nebulous. And she has
herself to thank for that really, because she
doesn’t really like the lime light (not a bad
quality really).

If you met Harriet Miers in person, you’d
probably like her a lot. However, this is the
Supreme Court. If she is appointed, I wouldn’t
be too alarmed. But I do think there are most
likely much more qualified candidates.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 3, 2005 10:13 PM
Comment #83381

d.a.n.

There probably are more qulaified people for the position ; but the political climate of the day with both sides of the aisle demanding the court be as partisan as congress. i agree that not seeking the limelight is a good quality for a justice.

Most likely any nomination with a record at all would fail. Personally i think Roberts and perhaps also Meirs will surprise the majority with an independance that will defy pigeon-holing.

Posted by: jo at October 3, 2005 10:26 PM
Comment #83410

D.a.n.,

I read today that Harriet Miers has been quoted as saying she thinks Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever met. This alone tells me she should not get a life time appointment to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 4, 2005 12:11 AM
Comment #83418

With Congress looking to confirm Ms. Miers to the Supreme Court, I do believe that she at least needs to answer honestly 10 questions. Although the Left and Right don’t have the political courage to do this, this Independent Pundit has no problem posting these questions to her.

1.) Now that you have the opportunity to serve on the Highest Court of the Land, what standard or principle will be your guiding light when holding up the Constitutional Law for all Americans?

2..) Do you know why The Founding Fathers of America specifically wrote in The Declaration of Independence “The Laws of Nature and God of Nature?”

3.) What are the Unalienable Rights of all Humans and are they covered in the 9th Amendment? Are they limited to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

4.) Since some laws cross paths between Local, State, and Federal Rights for different reasons where is the line drawn over who has authority?

5.) Speaking “Purely Constitutionally” does the Executive Branch of our Government have all the powers it needs to carry out its sworn duty as of this date? If not, in your opinion what laws should congress pass to give our President the powers required to do the job?

6.) Does the Local, State, and/or Federal Government have the Constitutional Right over an Individual’s Body if they have not broken the Law? If yes, where in the Constitution does it give that right?

7.) If appointed to the Supreme Court for life, what do you hope would be your Legacy?

8.) While not all things are able to be broke down to Black and White for that is why we must have judges, how can even the Supreme Court follow the Law if the Lawyers bring in front of the Bench the wrong set of questions to be answered? For example, in 2000 both sides ask the Supreme Court to answer the question if the count should be stopped in Florida; however, the Higher and more correct question for the Court to answer is whether or not the election was done constitutionally.

9.) If a person or corporation knowingly uses the loopholes of the law to perform illegal activities otherwise prohibited by Law, is the person or corporation still guilty of breaking the Law? For example; the law states that I can only have 3 servings of vegetables a day and 3 servings of fruit’s a day. However, one day I want 4 Tomatoes. So if I say that 3 of the tomatoes are fruits and I of the tomatoes is a vegetable have I broke the Law?

10.) Given the debate over Ideology in the Nation, can you tell us what is the definition of being Unalienable Right Regardless and why that Standard of Law is required?

Although not the most perfect set of questions, I wonder if Ms. Miers would dare to answer even a few of them. No, President Bush lost many of his loyal followers with this nominations. I mean when the Right is crying harder than the Left over the Leaders idea of the best person for the job it must make us in the Middle wonder just what kind of Justice the Right Wing of the Republican Party is looking for.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 4, 2005 1:37 AM
Comment #83432
D.a.n., I read today that Harriet Miers has been quoted as saying she thinks Bush is the most brilliant man she has ever met. This alone tells me she should not get a life time appointment to the Supreme Court.

That doesn’t surprise me. She’s loyal to Bush. Like I said, there are probably many that are much more qualified. I’ll be surprised if she’s confirmed.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 4, 2005 7:46 AM
Comment #83436

To all:
I’ll bet a cup of coffee she gets approved.Here’s why:
1.Despite what previous post say,this woman has friends on both sides of the aisle.
Yesterday I heard the wind get knocked out of the left’s sails with this nomination and her posing shortly thereafter with House Democratic leadership.
2,Kerry will lead the charge against the nomination with Kennedy doing the orchastrating.Already Kerry is demanding every document she did in the White House…which will never happen.Kerry obviously forhot such concepts at attornet-client privledge and work-product priviledge.Nothing of substance will be realeased.
3.The ABA will have a tough time not endorsing her.Back in 1992 when she spoke out against the ABA’s decision to become a pro-choice organization,thousands of attorneys(including myself) tore up their membership cards.The ABA back then chose a path of legislative endorsement,instead of what it was supposed to be…an organization dedicated to professional development…not idealogicial development.
4.She will mimic Ginsburg at her hearings….probally she has already memorized the entire transcript…if I was advising her,that would be my first homework assignment for her.
5.She will be her own voice too…she is a reasoned thinker,really the only true qualification necessary.
6.Judicial temperment(she passes this with flying colors) and lack of corruption (likewise) were alway the dispositive qualifications until Douglas…and the president’s choice should reflect his philosophy at least initially.
Frankly,this nomination irritates the right far more than the left…but Bush will nail it down.
My thoughts,anyway

Posted by: sicilianeagle at October 4, 2005 8:37 AM
Comment #83450

Haha! Ken Mehlman wasted no time spewing the bullshit. He sent out a mailer saying, “Before Ms. Miers was even announced many Democrat groups said they would oppose her.”

According to FactCheck: Actually, none did.

What a bunch of liars.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 4, 2005 10:37 AM
Comment #83465

It doesn’t suprise me, I think Mehlman assumed there would be more of an organized movement against Miers. The initial demands for Democrats to hold strong and filibuster quickly stopped when it became clear some Republicans had issues with her.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 4, 2005 11:15 AM
Comment #83466

Lisa, you’re talking about the less famous liberal bloggers demanding that Democrats filibuster, right? Because I never heard any Democrats make that knee-jerk reaction. Even Senator Kennedy is taking a wait and see attitude.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 4, 2005 11:18 AM
Comment #83467

Depends on what your view of Armando and some of the others are as to their level of “fame”. I was speaking of bloggers only though, I agree there was not a politician that came out strongly demanding a filibuster.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 4, 2005 11:24 AM
Comment #83469

Lisa,
IMO the reason no one stepped out hard to demand a filibuster from the Left is that the Right starting with Rush was busy bashing their own President. I have still not heard anyone on the Right speak up and say that Ms. Miers is the absolute best that the President could find to put in The Supreme Court. In fact, in the President’s News Conference one of the reporters asked him about a Republican group of Women Lawyers that was not happy that he chose a woman who did not match up to the same standard as Mr. Roberts.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 4, 2005 11:33 AM
Comment #83471

I have to keep rubbing my eyes with disbelief at the Meirs nomination.

She is NOT who I would have picked, prefering more of a top-flight conservative judge. But the reaction across the parties has been incredible and I can’t believe that Bush is actually pulling this off right under the Democrats noses.

A lot of conservatives have been dreaming of their own favorite candidates, so they started grumbling loudly when somebody was picked they didn’t know much about.

But the Democrats are DELIGHTED by the Republican consternation, and they seem to think, “Well, if she pisses of the Republicans, she’s all right with us!”

The fact is, however, that Meirs is most likely well to to the right of Scalia OR Thomas and is a Born Again Fundamentalist Christian who is close pals with Bush, Laura, Rove and Cheney. Her own pastor said that she is an absolute literalist when it comes to interpreting the Bible.

The Republican’s first reaction was alarm—before they’d looked closely at the candidate—and as a result, now the Democrats are going to let a fundamentalist Christian anti-abortion candidate slide through confirmation without a fight. I never thought I’d see the day.

Posted by: sanger at October 4, 2005 11:36 AM
Comment #83474
The fact is, however, that Meirs is most likely well to to the right of Scalia OR Thomas

Haha! Apparently not, sanger:

Senator John Cornyn, a Texas Republican who said he has known Miers for 15 years, said he could not assure conservatives that Miers would be like Scalia and Thomas, but called that fact a virtue for a nominee.
Posted by: American Pundit at October 4, 2005 11:42 AM
Comment #83476

I don’t disagree with that Henry.

I will admit Miers was the last name I expected, I assumed the rumors concerning her name were to throw us off as what happened with John Roberts.

After watching the Presidential news conference he at least publicly is stating how the Miers confirmation goes is up to the Democrats. He clearly did make a comment concerning the number of Democrats that voted against John Roberts.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 4, 2005 11:54 AM
Comment #83480

Cornyn can’t assure anyone of anything he’s not in a position to know.

Do you really suppose that that this Born Again Evangelical Christian who not only attends but is ACTIVE in a church that’s fundamentalist even by Texas standards is really some closet liberal or moderate? Wow.

She’s close personal buddies with Karl Rove, George and Laura Bush, but John Cornyn’s uncertainty is what we should really focus on?
She says that George Bush is the most brilliant man she’s ever met, but she doesn’t share his conservative values?

Again, I can’t believe that this happening. Democrats are optimistic about this pick. Reid has endorsed her, and people are focusing on small campaign contributions to Democrats fifteen years ago!

Meirs is not who I’d have picked at all. She’s far right even by my standards.

Posted by: sanger at October 4, 2005 12:03 PM
Comment #83482

Cornyn’s known her for 15 years. How long have you known her, sanger?

Posted by: American Pundit at October 4, 2005 12:05 PM
Comment #83492
The Republican’s first reaction was alarm—before they’d looked closely at the candidate—and as a result, now the Democrats are going to let a fundamentalist Christian anti-abortion candidate slide through confirmation without a fight. I never thought I’d see the day.

Sanger,
Your read of this situation is right on target. I never thought I’d see the day.

I’d go a step further and suggest the reaction from the right is scripted to ease democrat objections.

Posted by: Schwamp at October 4, 2005 12:31 PM
Comment #83495

What is really going to be fun is watch as both sides try to attempt to protect themselve in the up coming hearings. However, her lack of public record and insider trading of favors will make her difficult to confirm. The fact that no major players is coming out string in support of her does not add well to this selection.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 4, 2005 12:36 PM
Comment #83506

Op-ed well worth reading about Harriet’s lack of qualifications:
Cronyism and the Court

Posted by: Adrienne at October 4, 2005 1:15 PM
Comment #83510

I keep hearing commentators say that they do not know the personal philosophy of Harriet Miers. I hardly think this is true. Having worked for Mr. Bush during the 2004 campaign and also now as his legal advisor, it is obvious that she agrees with Mr. Bush. Mr. Bush does not keep anyone around him who do not agree with him. He does not LISTEN to anyone who does not agree with him. She is a low key, behind the scene person, but she also must be a carrier of the Bush Banner.

I did read a Q/A interview that was posted when she became President of the Texas Bar Association. Her answers were very good—what was expected. However the fact that she led the effort to have the bar association pole members with the thought that the bar association should not back a woman’s right to choose put in doubt in my mind that she would up hold that right should a case on abortion rights be revisited before the Supreme Court. I think she would be a very risky life time appointment to the Supreme Court.

Posted by: fiddle faddle at October 4, 2005 1:27 PM
Comment #83546

How can a Senate advise or consent based on critical review, if there is nothing to review? Looks like an end run around Constitutional checks and balances to me to nominate a person whose record is buried in attorney-client privilege with the President.

Posted by: David R. Remer at October 4, 2005 3:10 PM
Comment #83547

Does anyone know how to check out the transcripts of the so called trials she has been involved with? Surely, if she is as good as they say she is than they would make these transcripts available for review.

Posted by: h at October 4, 2005 3:16 PM
Comment #83567

I have been looking for actual transcripts or articles written by Harriet Miers. I do not want to depend on others to tell me what she has said or done; so far have only found a couple. Do any of you know of links to this information?

Posted by: fiddle faddle at October 4, 2005 5:43 PM
Comment #83592

Adrienne,
For once I agree with the Wall Street Journal. Nominating Miers is almost the very definition of cronyism. She should be rejected on that basis alone, by Democrats and liberals, Republicans & conservatives alike.

It has nothing to do with her qualifications, intelligence, political leanings, or likely rulings. Placing someone that close to the President on the Court is not good for the country.

Posted by: phx8 at October 4, 2005 7:00 PM
Comment #83601

fiddle, I haven’t found any journal articles she’s written either.

I did find out that Laura Bush was attending SMU the same time Harriet Miers was…but despite being on alot of organizations not much print.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers#Career

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 4, 2005 7:38 PM
Comment #83603

I found one:

http://www.abanet.org/cpr/mjp-hmiers.html

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 4, 2005 7:49 PM
Comment #83609

phx8:

“Nominating Miers is almost the very definition of cronyism.”

Yeah. Personally the Texas-Bush-Crony factor at play in this presidency has become downright creepy to me.

“She should be rejected on that basis alone, by Democrats and liberals, Republicans & conservatives alike.”

I’m really stumped on what’s going to happen.
How about you? Or are you getting a better sense than I am of whether or not she’ll be voted in?

“Placing someone that close to the President on the Court is not good for the country.”

I strongly agree. But it was after reading about her lack of qualifications and grasping the fact that they’re so obviously not up to snuff when viewed alongside of other judges who’ve risen to the SC (or even nominees who have been previously rejected), that decided it for me. Or perhaps I should say, once again sunk my opinion of yet another of the presidents choices for an important leadership role.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 4, 2005 8:35 PM
Comment #83613

Bush is simple minded.
He gravitates to what is comfortable.
Harriet is a loyal person.
They are friends. They like each other.
So, yet, it is cronyism, because
there are many other qualifed persons
that have benn overlooked.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 4, 2005 8:43 PM
Comment #83614

One of Bush’s biggest problems are his appointments.

Posted by: d.a.n at October 4, 2005 8:45 PM
Comment #83629

Will she be voted in?

Really hard to say. Republicans won the White House, Senate, & House in the last election. One of the consequences of being on the losing side is gritting teeth & nodding a grudging assent when Roberts becomes Chief Justice. That’s understandable. He might have been a corporate shill, and he may make many decisions which will be hard to take, but there’s no question, Roberts has the chops- he has the experience and ability and even brilliance to become Chief Justice.

But Miers? Personally, I’d be inclined to give the President the benefit of the doubt on most nominations. Roberts? Yes. Bolton? Well, a remarkable number of people came out of the woodwork to publicly call him an ass; but if that’s the President’s choice, well, ok.

But Miers? Her resume is underwhelming for a position of this caliber. There are literally hundreds of lawyers and judges with more impressive qualifications. She’s there because she and Bush are tight.

It’s cronyism. Now, most people wouldn’t object too vociferously to crony appointments in, say, low positions within the Department of Agriculture. But the Supreme Court?

It’s a branch of the government everyone depends upon to be independent. The elevation of the President’s personal lawyer, with almost no compelling justification other than her friendship with the President, is unacceptable in terms of judicial independence.

So I’m hoping politicians from all sides of the spectrum will reject her.

But I’m guessing Republicans will walk in lockstep, and approve her. Reid’s approval makes it even more likely to go through.

Posted by: phx8 at October 4, 2005 9:54 PM
Comment #83639

phx8:
“He might have been a corporate shill,”

Oh, I think he will still be…

“and he may make many decisions which will be hard to take, but there’s no question, Roberts has the chops- he has the experience and ability and even brilliance to become Chief Justice.”

I agree. As fearful as I am of how likely he is to side with Corporate Interests against the People, I think he definitely had the qualifications needed for that position.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 4, 2005 10:57 PM
Comment #83644

Phx8, cronyism can be a legitimate concern, but you have to look at whole range of other factors as well.

JFK sent his friend and one of his campaign chairmen, Byron White to the Supreme Court, and White had no previous judicial experience either.
But then JFK also made his own brother Attorney General. Cronyism? Of course. Did that mean RFK was a bad attorney general and White was a bad judge? You can debate whether they were, but cronyism is just one part of the picture.

Posted by: sanger at October 4, 2005 11:22 PM
Comment #83699
However the fact that she led the effort to have the bar association pole members with the thought that the bar association should not back a woman’s right to choose put in doubt in my mind that she would up hold that right should a case on abortion rights be revisited before the Supreme Court.

My understanding is that she only opposed it because she didn’t think the ABA should take any political stances whatsoever.

Posted by: American Pundit at October 5, 2005 3:21 AM
Comment #83803
The elevation of the President’s personal lawyer, with almost no compelling justification other than her friendship with the President, is unacceptable in terms of judicial independence.

Well said. And just as true as in the previous cases of White and Fortas.

But then JFK also made his own brother Attorney General. Cronyism? Of course. Did that mean RFK was a bad attorney general and White was a bad judge? You can debate whether they were, but cronyism is just one part of the picture.

And then what happened? Republicans pushed through a law to prohibit the hiring of relatives into government positions. Too bad we didn’t have a legal definition of “crony” to add to that law back then.

Posted by: steve at October 5, 2005 2:59 PM
Comment #83839

Just one question.
Would youall libs be so critical if Clinton had nominated his White House Consul (who wasn’t a judge) to the Supreme Court?

Posted by: Ron Brown at October 5, 2005 6:01 PM
Comment #83849

“The fact is, however, that Meirs is most likely well to to the right of Scalia OR Thomas and is a Born Again Fundamentalist Christian who is close pals with Bush, Laura, Rove and Cheney. Her own pastor said that she is an absolute literalist when it comes to interpreting the Bible.”

————————————
I live in the Dallas area and all I hear locally about Meirs is that she has been a competent attorney and is a very conservative evangelical christian. So I would think George Will, William Kristol and other Conservative pundits who are questioning this nomination are missing the mark. Bush is not stupid enough to appoint someone whom has been a close confidant to him for years without knowing how she would come down on certain issues. She’s conservative, she’ll vote the way he wants her to, that’s all there is to it.

The thing that disturbs me is the quote about being an absolute literalist when interpreting the Bible. Assuming she believes literally what the Bible says, I’ve got concerns about her objectivity in the performance of her work. What comes first for her, ecclesiastical law or secular law? Would that color her opinions with respect to a case? How would she come down on an appeal of the evolution versus intelligent design case currently being heard in Dover Pennsylvania?

Posted by: Dennis at October 5, 2005 9:21 PM
Comment #83851

Ron, I’m not sure if I agree with the claim of cronyism either. If it is indeed true that Harry Reid suggested her than her selection cannot be viewed as cronyism by the Democrats.

Posted by: Lisa Renee at October 5, 2005 9:27 PM
Comment #83860

Dennis:
“The thing that disturbs me is the quote about being an absolute literalist when interpreting the Bible. Assuming she believes literally what the Bible says, I’ve got concerns about her objectivity in the performance of her work.”

Yes, I absolutely share this concern, Dennis.
Because IMO, the ability to think objectively and the strict adherence to the ponderous dogma of Evangelicalism are two things which have never, and will never, go together.
In fact, if I am to be perfectly honest I would have to say that someone who is an absolute literalist when interpreting the bible is automatically displaying a mind that is Starved of Reason, Narrowly Restricted and Pre-programed, indeed, Crippled.

I am aware that this might sound very harsh, but nonetheless, think it is quite true — due to the fact that within the bible there can be found such a mass of contradictions that it would follow that this kind of person would very likely be a confused sort of thinker. And when paired with the highly bigoted and discriminatory views of modern-day Evangelicalism, and it’s political agendas, I feel that could only be a blight upon the nations highest court.

Such a mentality paired with a such strict adherence to religious dogma is the very last thing we should ever want in a lifetime appointed judge who is to sit on the SC bench — because they hold the ultimate power in interpreting Constitutional Law. Laws which in turn, affect ALL American’s.

“What comes first for her, ecclesiastical law or secular law?”

From the Evangelicals I’ve been aquainted with (some I’ve known quite well, others more superficially), I would say that a large majority of them consider themselves Evangelical Christians first, and American’s second. If Harriet Miers is as strict a literalist as has been posited here, then I believe that ecclesiastical law would often play an enormous role in many of her decisions.

Posted by: Adrienne at October 5, 2005 11:00 PM
Comment #84366

As a pragmatic conservative I have serious issues with the idea of a person who served in a position like White House Counsel being a member of the highest court in the land. As counsel she was privy to a lot of privileged information, which she already could never be forced to testify to. She could have actual knowledge of supposed true motives of the Bush administration. While I myself do not believe in 9/11 “Bush Conspiracy” theories, the fact they exist, or could exist with future administrations, is enough for me to say this is a precedent which should not be set. Political “yes men(women)” should have no place on a bench for either party. A key point of the life-time appointment was to ensure independence. Meirs career is based on dependence.

Posted by: keith at October 7, 2005 7:05 PM
Comment #87048

As I see it, our best hope (however faint it may be) is that she will prove to be a Constitutional literalist.

Posted by: Vince at October 21, 2005 3:42 PM
Comment #88281

Recently, in a reputable magazine, I saw an old, informal black and white photo of Harriet Meirs in college with a couple of her girlfriends. The girl standing next to Meirs was a young Laura Bush with a “clowning around” look on her face. Laura was wearing a sweatshirt that said, “Coors, the Beer of Champions”. This is ironic given her husband’s history of alchohol addiction. But that aside, has anyone seen this photo? It shows that Laura and Harriet were friends in college, or at the very least, acquaintances. Personally, I believe they’ve had a longstanding friendship and this explains why Harriet was Laura’s choice. I’m sorry I didn’t buy the magazine for the photo. It’s very telling. It’s shameful that our entire country had to be put through a waste of energy, time, speculation and resources based on a personal friendship and thus, ill-advised decision.

Posted by: ann at October 27, 2005 10:31 AM
Post a comment