News just broke about 45 minutes before the official nomination at 8am that the pick to replace retiring justice Sandra Day O'Connor is Harriet Miers, 60, White House counsel to Bush. This is someone who is sort of a Dick Cheney pick in that Cheney headed the process in picking the VP pick for Bush and it ended up being him, and Miers headed the process in picking the Supreme Court nominee and ended up being her. From what I'm hearing, Democrats have mentioned that she is not on the list of people who would be filibustered and I've heard that some Democrats even suggested she be one of the nominees Bush choose.

She has no judicial background and therefore no paper trail on previous rulings. I don't think this is a choice that is going to please Bush's ultra conservative base. So...we shall see. From what I'm hearing though this is someone who will probably be confirmed. But, I'm gonna have to wait and find out more about this woman before I get somewhat excited that its not someone like Alberto Gonzalez or Janice Rogers Brown. She is someone very close to Bush and another one of his long time "buddies" so he may be criticized for appointing another one of his close allies to something, especially this being a Supreme Court nominee. But, it appears like a good strategic move for Bush. He picked a woman and someone who has no paper trail and someone who some Democrats seem to have already voiced not having too much issue with.

[ October 03, 2005, 04:43 AM: Message edited by: ltskinmdterp ]

This is an interesting choice for his nominee. My boyfriend is a Washington insider and said on Friday that it would be Miers. I don't know much about her so I wasn't in position to really debate whether or not she would or would not be Bush's choice. Ummm, I don't know. People need to do some big time digging on her since she does not have a paper trail but it APPEARS as though the pick could have been much worse and very conservative.

[ October 03, 2005, 04:59 AM: Message edited by: RangeRover06 ]

Oh boy...an ABC spokesman just said that Harriet Miers previously stated that George W. Bush was the most "brilliant" man she's ever met. Uhhhh...maybe this isn't such a good pick after all as she can't be too bright if she thinks that Dumbya is the most brilliant man she's ever met. :confused:


LOL @ Imus already talking about Miers saying she needs to lay off the eye makeup. He also said she looks like Lynn Cheney but isn't as "cute" as Lynn Cheney. He is a fool lol!

[ October 03, 2005, 05:35 AM: Message edited by: RangeRover06 ]

Be afraid..be very afraid....I think she is going to be on the far right plank. Another display of Shrubs mind at work. I think this pick will be another example of Shrub valuing loyalty over anything else, including credentials. Plus, she is a fellow Texan. Style over substance.

[ October 03, 2005, 05:53 AM: Message edited by: puckman1 ]

Just got a link from my brother's boyfriend. It seems that Ms. Miers is a former board member of Exodus International, the group that claims to help people be cured of homosexuality through the power of Jesus. Here's a link to her CV:
Harriet Miers

She's sixty years old and never been married. Dyke or old maid?

I think Miers is probably a good pick overall, but I will be interested in knowing more about her Board service and pro-bono representation of Exodus Ministries. While it doesn't automatically disqualify her in my book, it gives me pause. I need to hear more from her and about her.

[ October 03, 2005, 07:37 AM: Message edited by: Munson Man ]

The "Exodus" group she was involved with is not the "ex-gay" group, but a Dallas based group that "seeks to encourage ex-offenders, to reunite them with their families, and to empower them to become self-sustaining, productive, Christ-centered members of society."

Whew, thanks for that clarification, hummer. I'm relieved to know it's not that band of crazy homophobes. Based on that, this seems more and more like a good choice.

I just scanned some of the headlines at both msnbc.com and cnn.com, and it appears that Shrub's choice has done just what he didn't want it to do, and that is to piss off some of his core supporters. Preliminary conservative opinions are not very favorable.

I like how all the Republican Senators are speaking of how great a choice this is and how she'll do on the Supreme Court.

I'm sure they all know her well.

Looks like another lightweight crony. You know, like "Brownie."

I guess the Dems will take an extra ten days to cave on this one.

O Canada...

My initial reaction: DISAPPOINTING ... lackluster ... standard crate of bar ass'n credentials, but nothing really outstanding or thought provoking ... longtime TX crony and trusted insider ... lack of national legal experience raises questions about her ability to address issues affecting USA as a whole ... will be considered a lightweight by her fellow justices if confirmed ... lack of any judicial experience troubling ... would make a good appointment to a state or federal trial court, but clearly not ready for appellate level work.

And yes, Puckman, THIS is the one who I believe will be the sleeper right-winger. Where are Kennedy, Biden and Schumer when we need 'em? frown

I just don't understand how someone with no judicial experience can be named to the highest court in the land. She's been Bush's private counsel and White House Counsel, but I don't see how that qualifies her as a Supreme COurt Justice.

Well nevermind. I just heard that there have been 40 justices who had no prior judicial experience. Just seems ridiculous to me.

I could be mistaken, but I don't think Rehnquist had any experience as a judge prior to being nominated by Nixon. And Clarence Thomas barely had a couple of years. I don't think a lack of experience necessarily hurts a nominee (especially if they have been working within the judicial system for a long time, and would know the ins and outs, etc.) Actually, I'm glad that he picked someone outside of the club of DC Circuit judges, since its always good to have a variety of backgrounds and experiences represented in the judiciary.

However, I'm inclined to agree with gmginsfo. While Meirs has had an extraordinarily successful career by anyone's standards, I don't get the sense that she's done anything on the kind of broad scale meriting Supreme Court elevation, other than being W's loyal soldier.

That said, who knows? She could be a brilliant legal mind.

[quote]Neptune:
[QUOTE]
That said, who knows? She could be a brilliant legal mind. [/quote]How brilliant can the woman be? She thinks Bush is the most brilliant man she's ever met. There is something fishy and robotic-like about Roberts to me and this woman I think is being presented as this choice that both sides should be happy with but I don't know. I don't trust ANYTHING this administration does.


As for her not having any judicial experience thats not an issue. Previous justices and nominees had no prior judicial experience but have their careers in the legal field. Maybe I should just move to Spain now as it appears I'll never enjoy the benefits of gay marriage in this country as soon as I'd like.

Oh...and for any conspiracy theorists out there...is Haliburton the modern day "Manchurian Global?"

[ October 03, 2005, 12:53 PM: Message edited by: RangeRover06 ]

[quote]RangeRover06:
[quote]Neptune:
[QUOTE]
That said, who knows? She could be a brilliant legal mind. [/quote]How brilliant can the woman be? She thinks Bush is the most brilliant man she's ever met. There is something fishy and robotic-like about Roberts to me and this woman I think is being presented as this choice that both sides should be happy with but I don't know. I don't trust ANYTHING this administration does.


As for her not having any judicial experience thats not an issue. Previous justices and nominees had no prior judicial experience but have their careers in the legal field. Maybe I should just move to Spain now as it appears I'll never enjoy the benefits of gay marriage in this country as soon as I'd like. [/quote]I'm usually pretty pessimistic about such matters, but I think we'll see either marriage or civil unions within most of the northeast and northwest within the next 10 years. If you're in the rest of the country...don't hold your breath.

Anyways, I just don't know anything about Miers other than what the press has reported, so I'm going to withhold judgment for the moment. I wouldn't even scrutinize her "Bush is brilliant" quote too heavily--it just sounds like she's really loyal to her boss/friend, which I can't fault her for on a personal level (though I am quite suspicious of anything this admistration does). My point is that I won't immediately reject her nomination simply because she hasn't had the same high profile as past nominees--there are lots of really sharp thinkers who have chosen to work outside of the spotlight.

On a side note, I'm surprised he didn't pick someone younger.

Is she as conservative as you think?

Some of her political contributions (1988):

* $1,000 to Lloyd Bentsen Re-election Committee
* $1,000 to Albert Gore Jr. for President Committee

* $1,000 to Democratic National Committee

Among them the liberal Earl Warren - chief Justice in the 1960s and Sandra Day O'connor herself I believe.

Uh oh. This isn't good. Word out that she's an Evangelical Christian.

Hell, everyone's gonna be pissed over this nomination. Something to ponder, however, is this: Bush could very well know exactly what he's doing here, knowing she's a staunch conservative about whom many on both sides might complain--not enough known, perhaps--but who will be confirmed and cement his legacy of moving the Court to the right. IF, and this is a big if right now, this is true, he just might surpass Hillary as being the shrewdest politican in Washington.

Time will tell.

I dont like this hag, that suit doesnt make me trust her.

HOLLA!

"Hardball" was interesting as usual. He outlined how many staunch conservatives including Pat (gag) Buchanan who are not at all happy with this pick. Only one Dem. interveiwed. Senator from Arkansas, who said he is going to take a wait and see attitude, as little is known about her.

I don't think her conservative credentials are questionable for one second. She just wrote checks to anyone that might help her get a seat on the Federal Bench. BTW, how much did your's cost?

As went with Roberts, for the dems to demand anything in this situation... That's not how it works stop complaining. HAD YOU put up a decent candidate, you would not have to worry about this.

That said, he's giving you gifts that he's not putting up what he has every right to put up.. true arch conservatives. Dont blame him for the choices, blame your party.

I still dont like her, she looks like a skank.

BTW Horn, It's Dallas week.. you suck parcells swallows!

[ October 03, 2005, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: PhillyFan ]

It's a good sign if she's got the right-wing nuts upset. Which she has:

And poor little neocon Bill Kristol, or should I say drama queen!

AmericaBlog notes that supposedly when running for Dallas City Council, Miers answered a form from a gay group, the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas, stating that she supported equal rights for gays and lesbians. (Gov. Gropenführer, take note!)

She also may support gay adoption, and the International Criminal Court--at least she oversaw the ABA's taking such positions under her tenure. She's starting to sound a lot more "Christian" than many of the self-appointed fundy Talivangelist haters who tend to hog that title and discourse.

As for cronyism, what does anyone expect from W? If you're loyal, that's all that matters, no matter how incompetent (Rummy, Wolfie, Perlie, Chalabi, Brownie, etc.). If you tell the truth (Lindsay, DiIulio, O'Neill, Rowley, etc.), you'll be publicly dismissed and destroyed.

Given W's frequently poor judgment, I just hope she's not the Bremer or Kerik or Brownie of SCOTUS!

[ October 03, 2005, 05:47 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]

Isn't Miers a former Democrat who became a Republican after working for Bush? If so, that could explain her contributions to Gore, Bentsen, and the DNC.

With Roberts and now Miers, neither of whom were the optimal choices of the hard right Evangelical Republicans, is Bush telling those folks that he's not really one of them & that since he no longer needs their votes in any election, they can go hang themselves?

~Adam

Boy! Don't YOU look like the fool (as usual)! She was never on the federal bench, now or back in 1988 when those contributions were made.

Here's a towel to wipe that big egg off your face as well.

Ahh...but look again, Adam. She WAS/IS an Evangelical Christian. She gave money to a pro-life group. She's very close, as in close, "platonic-wise," with a staunch, pro-life Texas Evangelical.

As I said above, this could either be the disatrous choice Kristol believes, or it could be the shrewdest political move I've ever seen.

Remember this: whether someone is a Bush fan or detractor, he is perceived by many to be someone who is firm in his personal beliefs, one being his legacy regarding the federal judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court. Does Bush really want to betray so overtly his social conservative base? Does he wish to alienate the last bastion of his most loyal supporters? Or does he wish to truly cement conservatism as the prevalent--indeed, dominant--direction of the Court? The more I think about this selection, the more I'm beginning to think the latter.

We'll know soon enough, because most Senators believe she could be confirmed by Thanksgiving, and there's a high-profile abortion case scheduled for oral arguments on November 30th. If confirmed before then, she'd participate in those arguments.

Well, she's damned loyal to W. Why? He paid her $19,000 to research and help clean up his sketchy National Guard service record. But she also was running the scandal-plagued Lottery Commission, which helped in the cover-up, it's being alleged. No wonder he wants to reward her as highly as possible! I guess she couldn't do anything about his missing service in Boston, but hey, it was enough to throw the right-wingers and independents off his trail. Nice work if you can get, and you can get it if you lie....

No, you keep the towel for yourself and re-read my f**king post. I never said she actually got on the bench. Reading is fundamental. What an idiot you are for someone who claims to have been a Federal Judge. Amazing.

There are your words, in black (and white).

I don't see her on the bench. I don't think anyone else here does. Maybe in your world she was or was trying to, but not in reality's.

Poor, poor horny. I shall pray for your recovery.

Yep, those are my words, but you don't understand plain english. And here I thought you were just pathological.

Oh, you poor child. Now you're denying what's plain as day. You can't even see what you've said. Please, please. Get help. Before it's too late. frown

In the for what it's worth category, some info on SCOTUS's traditions...

The Court and Its Traditions

For all of the changes in its history, the Supreme Court has retained so many traditions
that it is in many respects the same institution that first met in 1790, prompting one
legal historian to call it, “the first Court still sitting.”

Recent Justices have perpetuated the tradition of longevity of tenure. Justice Hugo
Black served for 34 years and one month prior to his retirement in 1971. In October 1973,
Justice William O. Douglas surpassed the previous longevity record of Justice Stephen J.
Field, who had served for 34 years and six months from 1863 to 1897. When Justice Douglas
retired on November 12, 1975, he had served a total of 36 years and six months.

As is customary in American courts, the nine Justices are seated by seniority on the
Bench. The Chief Justice occupies the center chair; the senior Associate Justice sits to his
right, the second senior to his left, and so on, alternating right and left by seniority.
Since at least 1800, it has been traditional for Justices to wear black robes while in
Court. Chief Justice Jay, and apparently his colleagues, lent a colorful air to the earlier
sessions by wearing robes with a red facing, somewhat like those worn by early colonial and
English judges. The Jay robe of black and salmon is now in the possession of the Smithsonian
Institution.

Initially, all attorneys wore formal “morning clothes” when appearing before the Court.
Senator George Wharton Pepper of Pennsylvania often told friends of the incident he
provoked when, as a young lawyer in the 1890’s, he arrived to argue a case in “street
clothes.” Justice Horace Gray was overheard whispering to a colleague, “Who is that beast
who dares to come in here with a grey coat?” The young attorney was refused admission
until he borrowed a “morning coat.” Today, the tradition of formal dress is followed only by
Department of Justice and other government lawyers, who serve as advocates for the
United States Government.

Quill pens have remained part of the Courtroom scene. White quills are placed on
counsel tables each day that the Court sits, as was done at the earliest sessions of the
Court. The “Conference handshake” has been a tradition since the days of Chief Justice
Melville W. Fuller in the late 19th century. When the Justices assemble to go on the Bench
each day and at the beginning of the private Conferences at which they discuss decisions,
each Justice shakes hands with each of the other eight. Chief Justice Fuller instituted the
practice as a reminder that differences of opinion on the Court did not preclude overall
harmony of purpose.

The Supreme Court has a traditional seal, which is similar to the Great Seal of the
United States, but which has a single star beneath the eagle’s claws— symbolizing the
Constitution’s creation of “one Supreme Court.”

The Seal of the Supreme Court of the
United States is kept in the custody of the Clerk of the Court and is stamped on official
papers, such as certificates given to attorneys newly admitted to practice before the Supreme
Court. The seal now used is the fifth in the Court’s history.

um, "MIGHT help" and "DID help" are two different things... it reads pretty clearly.

His insinuations are quite clear, and he has/had no evidence whatsoever to back up his ridiculous claims, other than blind, partisan rhetoric. He just pops in, babbles incoherently about some quid pro quo situation, then tries to cover it all up by splitting grammatical hairs. Truly sad, and definitely a sign of deeper problems.

$3,000 would have been an awfully cheap quid pro quo even in the 80's, don't you think? I live in Dallas and have for decades. I know who Miers is and where's she been. Aside from her nomination, the oldest news today is that she never sat on a bench, much less a federal one (unlike MIB).

Oh please, what are you now, a "psychologist" as well as a "judge"? Why haven't you said anything about her hatchet work for W in cleaning up his National Guard scandal mess? $19,000 isn't small change. She gave him thousands in return, and now she's sitting on a real honeypot!

It seems the American Taliban hates Harriet Miers. She must be a good woman. Even Rush is upset with the pick. She's got my vote! wink

So far what I've seen (cautiously) is she seems to support both gay rights and abortion rights. If this is the case I got no problems with her at all. My question though is why is she unmarried. Doesn't this administration have so many questionable people in it? What does it mean? I thought all christian republicans got married, unless of course they are like MIB and gimgy (gay), am I wrong?

[ October 04, 2005, 07:43 AM: Message edited by: gobar ]

I know I'm reaching a bit here, but one thing America is against is terrorists who rule their country based on religious beliefs....Isn't that what Shrub is staring to do by having religous people at the top of the barrel?

yes. and that is why some groups like Family Research Institute are on the Southern Poverty Law Center's hate-group list. Others, like Dobson's group, and Concerned Women for America, American Family Association are being watched for hate-speech activity. It seems that all extremist/fundamentalist groups have similar characteristics, regardless of being "christian" or other.

I know there's a big difference between "kill in the name of Allah and you'll get 72 virgins" and "Praise the Lord" but I just don't get people who can't get up and go to the store unless they consult the Bible first.

So there's something "questionable" about someone who's single? Why? And you aren't really going to put all Christian Republicans in one stereotypical category, are you? Isn't that like saying all blacks are...(fill in the blank), or all gays are....(more blanks, fill them in), or all Liberal Democrats are...(fill in those blanks)? Because she doesn't fit the limited mold doesn't make her less of a Christian Republican, in this case, because being married is not a requirement to be either . And, in some ways, isn't it a good thing that she is independent, has her own mind, and doesn't buy into conventions just because others have expectations? Seems like a good trait for a Supreme Court judge to have.

She's unqualified and is just a corporate lawyer. Probably homophobic.

Good Hands, to me there is something "questionable" about her, and Condi for that matter, and Mehlman etc never having been married. I don't know its just curious thats all I'm saying, sweetheart. And for the most part in my limited sphere, people who haven't gotten married by a certain advanced age are usually gay, or asexual.

Oh, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with either state of affairs.

Now I'll save my comments on the christian and rebublican issues as I'd best not start cussing this early in the day.

[ October 04, 2005, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: gobar ]

To me there's a big difference between questionable and curious. So thanks for clarifying.

No need to start cussing, babycakes. Just remember that not everyone with a label thinks or acts the same way as the stereotype. They, whoever "they" are, are still people. Flawed, imperfect people who don't deserve to be judged any more than they have the right to judge others. That's all I'm saying on this.

When it comes to Mehlman, my gaydar goes off (and then screams EEEEEWWWWW!!!!!)

Is there such a thing as lesbidar?

There was an interesting comment on Andrew Sullivan today


"Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about," - James Dobson, Focus on the Family. Isn't it strange that a man like Dobson now knows more about Harriet Miers than the Senate will ever likely be able to find out?

A very very scary comment.

Lk, don't read too much into that. What he was referring to could have meant something legally confidential or otherwise personal.