And the next Supreme Court Nominee is...

A

Al Norris

Moderator Emeritus
As first reported by Rebar here, Harriet Miers has been nominated by Bush to replace O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

More as information becomes available.
 
Bush has always been more pragmatic than ideological. Miers is probably "conservative" compared to a lot of people. Of course, since there is limited to no paper trail, who knows?
 
Bush has ALWAYS preferred cronyism over any other option. Why did I hope or expect this nominee to be based on anything else.

Miers is not qualifed for the position. I would expect a huge fight in the confirmation process up to and maybe even including the filibuster.
 
Just as an aside, Justices who never sat on the bench prior to joining the supreme court include, John Jay, John Marshall, John Evans Hughes, Harlan Stone, Warre Burger, Rehquist, Byron White, William O Douglas, Felix Franfurter and Louis Brandeis

WildsurethereareothersAlaska
 
Miers is currently white house counsel. Prior to that she was 2nd in command behind Alberto Gonzalez (former white house counsel and now head of the CIA) and prior to that she was a commissioner for the Texas State Lottery. She IS a licensed atty and has practiced in Texas.

AFAIK, she hasn't practiced in private practice in Washington. She hasn't practiced at the appellate level. She hasn't appeared before SCOTUS in any capacity. She has no record of decisionmaking on controversial issues or any other issues. Her record of being a judicial clerk is unknown but HAD she been one, SOMEONE would be saying so (but there's only silence so make your own decision on this one).

To be fair, she's probably one heck of a good lawyer. She's most likely well educated at a prestigious university. She's got a ton of contacts in high places and she's well known inside the beltway.

To me, that's not enough.

In order to be a SCOTUS justice, one MUST BE someone of "towering intellect". There's no indication of this in Miers. In fact, it could be said that there's the exact opposite since her position could be, and is, viewed as being gained by cronyism. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant to the APPEARANCE that it is. Someone of high intellect wouldn't appear to hold a position based upon nepotism or cronyism but rather would appear to be overqualified no matter what position they held under any commander.

A SCOTUS justice MUST BE a leader or someone who is looked to by others for wisdom. Miers, as I said, is probably a very good atty. However, not every "very good atty" is a leader or has wisdom. In fact, most attys in that category AREN'T leaders or sought for their wise ways. Given that there's no indication in this case either way, the onus is on HER to prove that she is. This burden is one she must shoulder every day and prove every day PRIOR to today. So far there's no indication - that tells me there's nothing there.

Lastly, a SCOTUS justice CANNOT be an "unknown". Choosing such places much power in someone who has never wielded power. When that is the case, the unknown has a tendency to "overuse" the power given to them because they do not understand the implications of the use of power. This is not something that a SCOTUS justice can afford yet Miers is an unknown being proposed for just that situation. Note I'm not saying that a non-judge cannot be chosen. What I'm saying is that an unknown cannot be chosen. Bush could have nominated Ridge, or Juliani, or Janice R. Brown, or even Cheney or a host of other QUALIFIED persons. The choices would have been between known entities differing only in philosophy and viewpoint. As it stands, we get to choose between being in the dark and being in the dark.

Out of all the possible candidates for the job, Miers should not have been on the short list. The fact that she was selected means that she HAS TO HAVE SOMETHING which places her above and ahead of the others who were considered. Had there been such, you know for sure that the White House would be saying so. However, all you get are stmts like: "She has [broken] down barriers to women in the Texas legal profession". That ain't a sufficient qualification for Justice in our Supreme Court the last time I looked.

Of course, all of this and $2 might get you a cuppa coffee.
 
Excellent article on the topic from National Review's David Frum at http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/10032005.asp#078263

"You can always count on George W. Bush to get the big ones right."

That line or something like it has consoled conservatives during their periodic bursts of unhappiness with this administration. And by and large it has been true. Oh, there were major mistakes, no doubt about that--prescription drugs, steel quotas, and so on--but it was always possible to rationalize those as forced on the president by grim necessity or some prior campaign promise.

The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error. Unlike the Roberts's nomination, which confirmed the previous balance on the Court, the O'Connor resignation offered an opportunity to change the balance. This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades--two decades in which a generation of conservative legal intellects of the highest ability have moved to the most distinguished heights in the legal profession. On the nation's appellate courts, in legal academia, in private practice, there are dozens and dozens of principled conservative jurists in their 40s and 50s unassailably qualified for the nation's highest court. Yes, Democrats might have complained. But if Democrats had gone to war against a Michael Luttig or a Sam Alito or a Michael McConnell, they would have had to fight without weapons. The personal and intellectual excellence of these candidates would have made it obvious that the Democrats' only real principle was a kind of legal Brezhnev doctrine: that the Court's balance must remain forever what it was in the days when Democrats had a majority of the votes in the U.S. Senate. In other words, what we have, we hold. Not a very attractive doctrine, and not very winnable either.

Read the rest of the article here.
Click to expand...

pax

It's the Supreme Court, stupid. -- popular online sentiment in the days before the last election
 
In order to be a SCOTUS justice, one MUST BE someone of "towering intellect".
Click to expand...

Pshaw...Rehnquist and Thomas come to mind as recent intellectual average joes

Someone of high intellect wouldn't appear to hold a position based upon nepotism or cronyism but rather would appear to be overqualified no matter what position they held under any commander.
Click to expand...

Read the biographies of Supreme Court justices...tell me how many werent"cronies"...Abe Fortas, Warren Burger, Tom Clark come to mind

Lastly, a SCOTUS justice CANNOT be an "unknown".
Click to expand...

Why not? Your generalizarions about power are non convincing

WildletsrollAlaska
 
Now, things get interesting.

Do the Democrats let this one slip by, and get accused by their constituents of kowtowing to President Bush and being soft on the Republicans? There is a large part of the Democrat Party who wants their elected officials to fight President Bush tooth-and-nail on everything, and who won't look kindly upon being kind to the Republicans, what with midcycle elections coming up.

Or do they refuse to confirm her, bringing the so-called 'nuclear option' back on the table, and allowing the Republicans to point at the Democrats and opine, "The Democrats turned down Harriet Miers because she's a woman" while going into the mid-cycle election.

Of course, if the Democrats refuse to confirm this candidate, then the next candidate tapped by President Bush has that much better a chance of being confirmed -- either through the 'nuclear option', or by Democrats trying to save bi-partisan face.

Might be fun to watch.

LawDog
 
Personally, I think this one will go pretty much like Roberts did. The Dem's will act tough to impress their base, but she'll get bipartisan support and be confirmed.

Which makes me concerned. To me, its a stinging indictment when Chuck Schumer says "It could've been a lot worse." (heard that quoted on the Laura Ingram show.)

I would feel much more comfortable with someone that Schumer really hates.

OTOH, she's largely an unknown. So she might be good??? But I'd feel more comfortable if it was someone we KNOW is good.
 
Who is Miers? What has she done?

Harriet Ellan Miers was born in Dallas on Aug. 10, 1945.

Miers received her bachelor's degree in mathematics in 1967 and JD in 1970 from Southern Methodist University. Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972. In 1972, Miers became the first woman hired at Dallas's Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely.

In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first woman president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She became the first woman to lead a Texas firm of that size.

Locke, Purnell eventually merged with a Houston firm and became Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, where Miers became co-managing partner of an over-400-lawyer firm.

Miers had a very distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc.

Throughout her career, she has been very active in the legal community and has blazed a trail for other women to follow.

* In 1985, Miers was selected as the first woman to become president of the Dallas Bar Association.

* In 1992, she became the first woman elected president of the State Bar of Texas. Miers served as the president of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.

* She played an active role in the American Bar Association. She was one of two candidates for the number two position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the White House. Miers also served as the chair of the ABA's Commission on Multijurisdictional Practice.

On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the nation's 100 most powerful attorneys and as one of the nation's top 50 women lawyers.

Miers also has been involved in local and statewide politics in Texas.

* In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.

* Miers also served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.

* From 1995 until 2000, Miers served as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup.

Miers came to Washington, D.C., in 2001:

* She was appointed assistant to the president and staff secretary on Jan. 20, 2001.

* In 2003, Miers was promoted to assistant to the president and deputy chief of staff.

* Miers has served as counsel to the president since February 2005.

(Source: The White House.)
Click to expand...

FindLaw has her litigation record. The profile hasn't been updated since November 2004, but she hasn't left her job at the White House yet. Judging from the above, she is at least as qualified as was Souter and Thomas (who was a judge for even less time than Roberts).

Tactics can win battles. But it is Strategy that wins the war.

Anyone who plays Chess or that once popular game, "Stratego," knows this. It is without question that it takes a long-term strategic goal coupled with good tactics to win.

Having said this, it is now abundantly clear that Bush is playing a game of tactics and has no clear goal, no strategy in mind.

This administration seems to be intent upon winning minor tactical victories while consistently failing to plan with long-term strategic goals. These appointments (Roberts and Miers) seem to confirm my criticism of this President.

This particular nomination could go several different ways. I'll leave it to y'all to argue amongst yourselves. My take is that however it goes, it doesn't bode well for conservatives in general or the Republican Party as a whole. Bush is once again stacking the deck with people who are loyal to him and believe in his personal goals of power (Think war on terror and executive power, folks). Whomever gets the nomination (Miers or someone else should she back out or isn't confirmed) will help to turn the Court even more towards Big Business and Big Government.

No matter what happens, expect CRONYISM to be repeated so often as to make one sick. Even if it isn't, the appearance of such will not go away. There are simply too many other real conservatives that are heads above Miers.

The Democrats have two choices. They can let her pass, and suffer the wrath of their base (see next item), or, they can fight like hell (and lose) becoming more irrelevant than they are now.

Should Miers be successful, it is entirely possible that Stevens may decide to step down. With another possible Supreme Court pick, Bush could well stack the Court with neo-cons - and heaven help this country. The Court would then have only Scalia and Thomas to try and check the legislature and the executive.

This would make Roosevelts "New Deal" policies look like ice cream in comparison.
 
I just want to know whether she can correctly identify something - anything - that is NOT interstate commerce...

We know O'Connor could.

Of course, Scalia and the left wing of the court know better...
 
Lastly, a SCOTUS justice CANNOT be an "unknown".
Click to expand...
I give you Justice David Souter.

Her main qualification is that she is known well by Dubya, and more importantly, he trusts her judgement.

Rick
 
In order to be a SCOTUS justice, one MUST BE someone of "towering intellect". There's no indication of this in Miers. In fact, it could be said that there's the exact opposite since her position could be, and is, viewed as being gained by cronyism. Whether that's true or not is irrelevant to the APPEARANCE that it is. Someone of high intellect wouldn't appear to hold a position based upon nepotism or cronyism but rather would appear to be overqualified no matter what position they held under any commander.
Click to expand...

Good words. But then again, how does this compare to some of the towering intellects of the Senate who will examine her for confirmation.

I'll be prepared with my usual giggles when Kennedy and Biden pontificate.
 
Janice Rogers Brown

300px-Judge_brown_sacramento.jpg



i would of been VERY HAPPY with Janice Rogers Brown, but NOooooooo Bush couldnt go with a real conservative because thats not what he is. grrr neo-con


at least Miers isnt a blatant liberal... and there is a chance she could be like scalia *heres to hoping at least
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top