Harriet Miers picked to replace Justice O'Connor

[albionmoonlight]

I know nothing about her, but the rightwingers on redstate.org seem pissed at the pick, for what it is worth.

[Solecismic]

She was head of the Texas Lottery for 28 years. And she's never served as a judge. Everyone's pissed.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

I know nothing more about her than what Jim stated.

But I think it will be nice to have someone who never served as a judge before. IF (and this is a big IF) she has common sense. I think some of the decisions we've seen handed down this year would have been different had someone stepped away from all the legal mumbo jumbo and looked at the big picture. I'm specifically thinking about the Kelo decision....

[jeff061]

In the rumblings and grumblings department(aka this could be BS): I've read that she used to be Bush's lawyer than that Bush has taken it upon himself to give her a number of jobs.

[amdaily]

Warren and Rehnquist were not judges prior to their SCOTUS appointment, but they had other qualities that qualified them for the job. Not seeing much of that here...

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

ABC has her bio





Who Is Harriet Miers?

'Pit Bull in Size 6 Shoes' Has Distinguished Career

Oct. 3, 2005 - Harriet Ellan Miers, President Bush's nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, is a longtime Bush confidante whom he once called a "pit bull in size 6 shoes." Miers was Bush's personal lawyer in Texas and took on the tough job of cleaning up the Texas Lottery when he was governor. She followed him to Washington, first serving as White House staff secretary and then deputy chief of staff before being named to replace Alberto Gonzales, who was named U.S. attorney general, as counsel to the president.

Born and raised in Dallas, Miers, 60, earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a law degree from Southern Methodist University. In addition to her legal career, she served one term on the Dallas City Council.



Trailblazer for Women in Legal Profession

The White House and Miers' supporters praise her as a trailblazer and a pioneer in the legal field. The first woman hired by the prestigious Dallas law firm Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, she also was the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association and the first female president of the Texas Bar Association. Miers met Bush in the 1980s, according to published reports, and was counsel for his 1994 campaign for governor. He appointed her chair of the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995. Miers then was president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell and co-managing partner of Locke Liddell & Sapp before she joined the White House in 2001.

In addition, Miers was named one of the Top 50 Most Influential Lawyers by the National Law Journal in 1998, and received numerous other awards from groups including the Dallas Women Lawyers Association, the Anti-Defamation League and the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers.

A senior White House official told ABC News that Bush first considered Miers for O'Connor's spot on the U.S. Supreme Court after nominating John Roberts for chief justice. He offered her the job Sunday night, Oct. 2. In announcing Miers' nomination, Bush noted that her inspiration is her 91-year-old mother, who is said to be ill and living in a nursing home. Texas State Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who has known Miers for 31 years and once dated her, said, "I think she will be a great justice. She will work very hard."



Hero Worship in the White House?

Miers, who has never been married and does not have any children, is known for putting in long hours without complaint. She has revealed little about her own emotions or ideology, but has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration on a broad number of initiatives including tax cuts, Social Security reforms, restrictions on federal spending on embryonic stem-cell research, national security, education reforms and fighting terrorism. According to a blog by former White House speechwriter David Frum, Miers has been known for her loyalty and will not make headlines as a Supreme Court associate justice.

"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met," Frum's blog said. "She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions -- or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect."




Copyright © 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

She was head of the Texas Lottery for 28 years. And she's never served as a judge. Everyone's pissed.

This isn't a first by any means, though. Both Repubs and Dems have appointed non-judges to the High Court. Among them...

William O. Douglas (FDR) -- law professor and appointee to the Securities and Exchange Commission

Earl Warren (Eisenhower) former Governor of California widely acknowledged to have been nominated as a reward for helping Ike win election

Byron White (JFK)-- Deputy AG, political pal of JFK

Tom Clark (Truman) -- Attorney General

Arthur Goldberg (JFK) -- General Counsel of AFL-CIO/Secretary of Labor

[gi]

Bush has really crossed the line from loyalty to cronyism.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Her history of political contributions

Harriet Miers , 60 (bio) White House Counsel 2005 $10,500 Republican $3,000 Democrat $1,270 special interest total: $14,770
Contributor	Candidate or PAC	Amount	Date
MIERS, HARRIET E MS. ARLINGTON, VA 22202 U.S. GOVERNMENT/DEPUTY SHERIFF	BUSH, GEORGE W (R) President BUSH-CHENEY '04 (PRIMARY) INC	$2,000 primary	10/08/03
MIERS, HARRIET DALLAS, TX 75201 LOCKE LIDDELL & SAPP LLP	STENBERG, DONALD B (R) Senate - NE GOOD GOVERNMENT FUND	$500 primary	07/13/00
MIERS, HARRIET DALLAS, TX 75229 ATTORNEY	NEWTON, JONATHAN (R) House (TX 04) JON NEWTON FOR CONGRESS	$1,000 general	06/01/00
Miers, Harriet E. Ms. Dallas, TX 75201 Self Employed/Attorney	LOCKE LIDDELL & SAPP LLP PAC	$415 primary	05/17/00
Miers, Harriet Mrs. Dallas, TX 75201 Locke Liddell & Sapp/Attorney	BUSH, GEORGE W (R) President BUSH-CHENEY 2000 COMPLIANCE COMMITTEE INC.	$1,000 general	04/28/00
MIERS, HARRIET DALLAS, TX 75201 LOCKE PURNELL	HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R) Senate - TX KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE	$-1,000 primary	06/03/99
MIERS, HARRIET DALLAS, TX 75201 LOCKE PURNELL	HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R) Senate - TX KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE	$1,000 general	06/03/99
MIERS, HARRIET DALLAS, TX 75201 LOCKE PURNELL	HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R) Senate - TX KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE	$1,000 primary	05/11/99
MIERS, HARRIET E DALLAS, TX 75201 LOCKE LIDDELL & SAPP	BUSH, GEORGE W (R) President BUSH FOR PRESIDENT INC.	$1,000 primary	03/10/99
MIERS, HARRIET DALLAS, TX 75201 LOCKE PURNELL	HUTCHISON, KAY BAILEY (R) Senate - TX KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON FOR SENATE COMMITTEE	$1,000 primary	04/23/97
MIERS, HARRIET ELLAN DALLAS, TX 75229 ATTORNEY	FRIENDS OF PHIL GRAMM PAC (R)	$1,000 general	05/07/96
MIERS, HARRIET DALLAS, TX 75229 LOCKE & PURNELL	SESSIONS, PETE (R) House (TX 32) PETE SESSIONS FOR CONGRESS	$500	02/24/95
MIERS, HARRIET E DALLAS, TX 75229 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL	GRAMM, WILLIAM PHILLIP (R) President PHIL GRAMM FOR PRESIDENT, INC.	$1,000 primary	02/21/95
MIERS, HARRIET ELLAN DALLAS, TX 75229 LOCKE & PURNELL	SESSIONS, PETE (R) House (TX 32) PETE SESSIONS FOR CONGRESS	$500 general	09/23/94
MIERS, HARRIET E DALLAS, TX 75229 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL A PROFES	LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	$225 primary	01/08/90
MIERS, HARRIET E MS DALLAS, TX 75229	DNC SERVICES CORPORATION/DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL COMMITTEE (D)	$1,000 primary	11/03/88
MIERS, HARRIET E DALLAS, TX 75219 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL	LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE	$630 primary	02/16/88
MIERS, HARRIET E MS DALLAS, TX 75219 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL	GORE, AL (D) President ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC	$1,000 primary	02/16/88
MIERS, HARRIET E MRS DALLAS, TX 75201 LOCKE PURNELL ETAL	BENTSEN, LLOYD SENATOR (D) Senate - DC SENATOR LLOYD BENTSEN ELECTION COMMITTEE	$1,000 primary	03/30/87
Data Provided by the Federal Election Commission as of 9/26/05 -- 11,897,056 records

[Solecismic]

I disagree. I don't think common sense is enough. Or we might as well pick Judge Judy.

A huge part of the job is being able to write coherently, to have an intellectual curiosity toward the Constitution and being able to apply that toward today's cases.

Someone with no experience on the bench is not in a great position to demonstrate that intellectual approach.

Instead, I feel like we have George Bernard Shaw instead of George Bush running the show, and we're witnessing a rewrite of Pygmalion.

[QuikSand]

There is some debate/confusion about her past with an outfit called, I think, "Exodus Ministries." There exists an organization by this name whose mission is to "convert" homosexuals to a heterosexual lifestyle, though it appears there is another organization with the same name, who does work with ex-convicts.

[Barkeep49]

While I am very uneasy about Miers, I think several of our greatest jurists had no prior experience before being appointed to the Supreme Court and do not feel it should be a prerequisite.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

But I think it will be nice to have someone who never served as a judge before. IF (and this is a big IF) she has common sense. I think some of the decisions we've seen handed down this year would have been different had someone stepped away from all the legal mumbo jumbo and looked at the big picture. I'm specifically thinking about the Kelo decision....

That sounds a whole lot like "I want someone who will legislate from the bench." I thought the GOP party line was this was a bad thing.

I tend to share this general opinion, though -- I am open to someone without judicial experience per se, though I would probably be comforted if the individual had demonstrated some degree of legal scholarship as a basis for the appointment. I don't know enough about Miers to know whether this is the case, though early sings aren't encouraging in that regard.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

That sounds a whole lot like "I want someone who will legislate from the bench." I thought the GOP party line was this was a bad thing.

I'm not sure how you get that from my statement - especially since I referenced the Kelo decision. (IMHO, the decision in that case as handed down was legislating from the bench.) It certainly wasn't my intention to leave that impression.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I know nothing more about her than what Jim stated.

But I think it will be nice to have someone who never served as a judge before. IF (and this is a big IF) she has common sense. I think some of the decisions we've seen handed down this year would have been different had someone stepped away from all the legal mumbo jumbo and looked at the big picture. I'm specifically thinking about the Kelo decision....

You mean a neophyte who got the job because she was a White House counsel and confidant of Bush ? Damnit, to quote Jonah Goldberg - stop appointing your friends to positions instead of you know, qualified people. A McConnell would have been a better choice. Heck, isn't it a little scary that she thinks that George Bush is the most "brilliant" man she ever met ? Bush supporter or detractor, I think one would be hard pressed to argue that point.

[Crapshoot]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'm not sure how you get that from my statement - especially since I referenced the Kelo decision. (IMHO, the decision in that case as handed down was legislating from the bench.) It certainly wasn't my intention to leave that impression.

And that's wrong - what the Kelo decision did, when people actually read through, is basically invite Congress to put in laws to restrict this - it simply made it clear that under current law, what was going on was legal. Congress took the hint and is doing just that.

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

I'm a bit confused. My understanding is that several Democrats also suggested to the President that she should be considered for the Supreme Court. I've tried to stay clear of most political discussions on this board for obvious reasons, but it would seem to me that Bush is trying to find a candidate for the position that both sides agree upon.

I'm generally speaking a conservative and was a bit leary initially when I saw that he nominated an internal candidate, but after further reading concerning some democrats also suggesting her nomination and some of her qualifications related to her law and government careers, I'm at least open to hearing what she has to say in the hearings. I have no clue what kind of harassment this post will draw, but I thought I'd at least take a shot and finally make a post in a political topic. Who knows, it may be my last.

[Blackadar]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm a bit confused. My understanding is that several Democrats also suggested to the President that she should be considered for the Supreme Court. I've tried to stay clear of most political discussions on this board for obvious reasons, but it would seem to me that Bush is trying to find a candidate for the position that both sides agree upon.

I'm generally speaking a conservative and was a bit leary initially when I saw that he nominated an internal candidate, but after further reading concerning some democrats also suggesting her nomination and some of her qualifications related to her law and government careers, I'm at least open to hearing what she has to say in the hearings. I have no clue what kind of harassment this post will draw, but I thought I'd at least take a shot and finally make a post in a political topic. Who knows, it may be my last.

I agree, though I'm a bit concerned about a candidate who's greatest claim to fame is that she's been the President's legal toady for a long time.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Mizzou B-ball fan

I'm a bit confused. My understanding is that several Democrats also suggested to the President that she should be considered for the Supreme Court. I've tried to stay clear of most political discussions on this board for obvious reasons, but it would seem to me that Bush is trying to find a candidate for the position that both sides agree upon.

That matches what I read last week--that this pick was heavily vetted and negotiated. It still seems a bit odd, though.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'm not sure how you get that from my statement - especially since I referenced the Kelo decision. (IMHO, the decision in that case as handed down was legislating from the bench.) It certainly wasn't my intention to leave that impression.

Based on the legal analyses I have seen, the Kelo decision seems like the exact opposite of legislating from the bench. The Court applied the law quite literally, refusing to cave in to pressures about what might be a more palatable outcome resulting from a different decision. As pointed out above, in making their legal ruling, they invited new laws to be enacted by the legislative branch - but declined to conjure up something new just to effect a particular result. As nearly as I can tell, this is the potential downside of the hard line against "legislating from the bench" - you have to live with somem regrettable outcomes from legal interpretations you might not like.

If your own analysis, or those that you have read or heard, lead you to the opposite opinion about Kelo (which actually doesn't surprise me in the slightest), then obviously it becomes much easier to square the slogans with the latest round of jurisprudence (which may, indeed, be the point of such a "spin" on Kelo in the first place).

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

There is some debate/confusion about her past with an outfit called, I think, "Exodus Ministries." There exists an organization by this name whose mission is to "convert" homosexuals to a heterosexual lifestyle, though it appears there is another organization with the same name, who does work with ex-convicts.

I'm tracking that part of the story closely. I also have seen a rumor (but I think it has been created simply on sexist assumptions regarding her never marrying) that she is a lesbian. It's kind of funny to see rumors that she is both gay and a gay-basher.

It just proves Jim's point - right now, no one is happy.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Based on the legal analyses I have seen, the Kelo decision seems like the exact opposite of legislating from the bench. The Court applied the law quite literally, refusing to cave in to pressures about what might be a more palatable outcome resulting from a different decision. As pointed out above, in making their legal ruling, they invited new laws to be enacted by the legislative branch - but declined to conjure up something new just to effect a particular result. As nearly as I can tell, this is the potential downside of the hard line against "legislating from the bench" - you have to live with somem regrettable outcomes from legal interpretations you might not like.

If your own analysis, or those that you have read or heard, lead you to the opposite opinion about Kelo (which actually doesn't surprise me in the slightest), then obviously it becomes much easier to square the slogans with the latest round of jurisprudence (which may, indeed, be the point of such a "spin" on Kelo in the first place).

I agree with QS. Kelo confirmed what had been local law around the country for over 50 years. It left to local governments the decision to seize private land. It was a deferral to legislative bodies and kept the courts from being "activist." I disagree with the decision, but I don't think it could be construed as "activist."

[Ryche]

Originally Posted by John Galt

It just proves Jim's point - right now, no one is happy.

That's usually a good sign in politics.

[ISiddiqui]

I asked on another forum "Who" and I think many are asking that . Though if its pissing off conservatives, perhaps Bush did ask the Dems who they'd accept. But I knew jack about her... as does most everyone else.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

I asked on another forum "Who" and I think many are asking that . Though if its pissing off conservatives, perhaps Bush did ask the Dems who they'd accept. But I knew jack about her... as does most everyone else.

It was funny for me, though. I predicted her last week (for my first correction nomination prediction probably ever), but I still don't know anything about her.

[Barkeep49]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

I'm not sure how you get that from my statement - especially since I referenced the Kelo decision. (IMHO, the decision in that case as handed down was legislating from the bench.) It certainly wasn't my intention to leave that impression.

Kelo was NOT legislating from the bench, as the decision upheld the will of a democratically elected assembly (in this case a city council). The whole legislating from the bench argument falls apart for me when you consider that Clarence Thomas votes to overturn laws more than any other SC judge.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Farrah Whitworth-Rahn

"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met,"

That statement alone should be enough to sink her nomination.

[Raiders Army]

Harriet is a strange name for a judge. I think we should only elect people with cool names like Tonka.

[CamEdwards]

Originally Posted by Barkeep49

Kelo was NOT legislating from the bench, as the decision upheld the will of a democratically elected assembly (in this case a city council). The whole legislating from the bench argument falls apart for me when you consider that Clarence Thomas votes to overturn laws more than any other SC judge.

It is the job of the Supreme Court (in part) to decide whether laws or actions violate the Constitution. In the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court decided that "public use" could apply to the city govenment taking a private property under eminent domain and letting another private developer use that land.

Clarence Thomas might vote to overturn more laws not because he's legislating from the bench, but because he believes more and more laws violate the supreme law of the land.

[CamEdwards]

btw, federalist society seems to like miers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/...E0BHNlYwN0bWE-

"She has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career," said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

[Crapshoot]

Meanwhile, NR thinks this a crock of a pick. I find it hard to believe that the bible-thumpers are going to accept someone who was the head of the Texas Lottery Commission.

[Thomkal]

"He (Pres Bush) also joked of Miers, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul."

How can you not like her now?

[AZSpeechCoach]

Originally Posted by Raiders Army

Harriet is a strange name for a judge. I think we should only elect people with cool names like Tonka.

Or Whizzer

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by CamEdwards

It is the job of the Supreme Court (in part) to decide whether laws or actions violate the Constitution. In the Kelo decision, the Supreme Court decided that "public use" could apply to the city govenment taking a private property under eminent domain and letting another private developer use that land.

Clarence Thomas might vote to overturn more laws not because he's legislating from the bench, but because he believes more and more laws violate the supreme law of the land.

Just to add on to what has already been said:

One cannot have it both ways. The majority of the people, as expressed through the legislature of Conn., decided to take someone's land as part of an economic development scheme.

The person whose land was being taken argued that the law violated a constitutional right. That the will of the majority they argued, while important, must give way to the individual rights of the minority protected by the constitution. They argued that the courts should strike down the law. In other words--that the courts should interpert a constitutional provision in order to thwart the will of the people because the people willed something that was unconstitutional. They wanted the court to issue a decision that changed the law on the books--to "legislate from the bench" as that term is (mis)used in common discourse. Remember, none of this comes up unless the majority of the people wanted to take the land.

The Kelo court (wrongly in my mind) decided to take a limited view of the constitutional provisions at issue and to not strike down the will of the people. It did the EXACT OPPOSITE of "legislating from the bench."

Solely from the perspective of "legislating from the bench:" When the majority of the people, as evidenced through their legislature, want to execute the mentally retarded, and those laws are challenged as violating the constitution, the people who are in favor of the supreme court overturning the law are the same as the people who wanted the law in Kelo struck down. The people who want states to have the right to execute the retarded are the same as the people who wanted the Conn. law to stand.

There are, of course, other--better--factors at play when deciding how to interpert the Constitution than whether one is "legislating from the bench." One may have a view of individual liberties that, for instance, says that states should have more leeway when punishing criminals than it does when making decisions about private land ownership. In that case, you can be against the decision in Kelo and against the decision that said that states cannot execute the retarded and still be intellecutally consistent.

But to say that a judge is "legislating from the bench" whenever she makes a decision with which you, personally, disagree is to stretch the definition of the phrase to such an extent as to make it nothing more than hollow words.

Edit--I am not accusing anyone here of purposefully misusing the phrase. I am more reacting to the 10,000 times I have heard the "legislate from the bench" soundbite over the past couple of months--with no one really getting (or caring about) what it means.

[albionmoonlight]

dola--

snap reactions to the nomination:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003660.htm

and a quote from my friend at a Texas firm:

All I know is that she used to be the managing partner at Locke Liddell and that she's been working with Bush for several years. I have heard people say positive things about her in the past - just the general likable, smart, hardworking, etc. stuff you would expect to hear. I haven't really heard anything interesting; I'll let you know if I do.

[Crapshoot]

I don't think Malkin ever qualifies as a "reaction" worth noting - her goal in life appears to be Ann Coulter, v2.0. NR's collective blech is definitely more interesting.

[albionmoonlight]

double dola--

FWIW, I would be pissed if I were a religious conservative who spent the last two elections volunteering and stamping envelopes and going door to door--all in anticipation of a 100% rock solid conservative being appointed to take over O'Connor's seat. Miers may end up being that conservative, but nothing about her makes that clear. I would feel somewhat betrayed by the expectation that Jones or Luttig or Garza would be the choice.

[John Galt]

Great post by albionmoonlight regarding Kelo. I agree entirely.

And I also agree with Crapshoot - Malkin is never worth noting. She is an intellectually dishonest hack. However, in this case, she is just collecting opinions, so that isn't too bad.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by SkyDog

This isn't a first by any means, though. Both Repubs and Dems have appointed non-judges to the High Court. Among them...

Earl Warren (Eisenhower) former Governor of California widely acknowledged to have been nominated as a reward for helping Ike win election

Marge: Do you want your son to become become Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, or a sleazy male stripper?
Homer: Can't he be both, like the late Earl Warren?
Marge: Earl Warren wasn't a stripper!
Homer: *Now* who's being naive?
-- ``Itchy and Scratchy: The Movie''

(and the scary thing is that I don't think this is the first time I've posted this quote on the board)

SI

[MrBigglesworth]

I don't know anything about this person, but in the wake of the FEMA nightmare, the fact that she is general counsel of the White House and worked as a lottery commissioner in Texas (does Bush know anyone outside Texas?) hints at cronyism a little. People seem to like her though, even the minority leader of the Senate. Something just doesn't seem right about this: every conservative blog is negative about it, and it's getting praise from Reid. It will be interesting to see the conservative media reaction a couple days from now after the dictats are handed down by Rove, though he seems to be off his game lately.

[Joe Canadian]

It's the highest court in the US, and the third branch of government... yet some people think that you don't need previous experience as a job to get the job. Does anyone else find that weird?

I have no clue as to her political leanings, is she a O'Conner or a Thomas, who knows. But at least pick someone who's been a freakin' judge before.

[rkmsuf]

Harriet, sweet Harriet, hard hearted harbinger of haggis... Beautiful, bermused, bellacose butcher.

[NoMyths]

I find it...interesting...that the day she's announced, the big story seems to be a thousand bucks she gave to Gore's campaign over fifteen years ago. It's not exactly the kind of lead that is much of an issue at all, and it makes more sense as a "safe" target. Funny how I've seen this contribution thing come up in several places, rather than much discussion of her political past. Guess the question I'm asking is this: who benefits the most from this being the primary skeleton?

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I find it...interesting...that the day she's announced, the big story seems to be a thousand bucks she gave to Gore's campaign over fifteen years ago. It's not exactly the kind of lead that is much of an issue at all, and it makes more sense as a "safe" target. Funny how I've seen this contribution thing come up in several places, rather than much discussion of her political past. Guess the question I'm asking is this: who benefits the most from this being the primary skeleton?

I haven't seen anyone discussing the Gore thing, but I think her relative lack of any kind of record is a positive for the Bush team, because they can spin her as all things to all people, and there won't be any public record to counter it.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by NoMyths

I find it...interesting...that the day she's announced, the big story seems to be a thousand bucks she gave to Gore's campaign over fifteen years ago. It's not exactly the kind of lead that is much of an issue at all, and it makes more sense as a "safe" target. Funny how I've seen this contribution thing come up in several places, rather than much discussion of her political past. Guess the question I'm asking is this: who benefits the most from this being the primary skeleton?

Good question. I think that it was created by the media as the first noteworthy thing they could find. I imagine that it will go away once people find more about which to talk. I don't know who it really helps.

I also think that there were three ways that this pick could have gone: Rock-solid right wing (Jones, Luttig, Garza, etc.), intellectual/mainstream conservative (Roberts) or unknown/stealth right-wing (Miers). The right wing had to be hoping for #1. Willing to settle for #2 and see #3 as the worst possible option. They then, of course, will jump on the first negative things that they see about her--even if it is not very relevant.

[Young Drachma]

I think she'll get confirmed, the right wing be damned. That said, I don't see her not being solidly conservative. In other words, her name isn't spanish for Souter.

[MrBigglesworth]

Originally Posted by Dark Cloud

I think she'll get confirmed, the right wing be damned. That said, I don't see her not being solidly conservative. In other words, her name isn't spanish for Souter.

Much more likely to be German for it.

You'd think that she would be conservative, but Bush has never promised to put an anti-Roe judge on the SC. Does that mean he is secretly pro-choice? Or does it mean that they want to keep Roe around as a rallying point for social conservatives on election day, since they seem to keep on coming back despire not getting anything out of it? Otherwise, wouldn't this just be a scared pick by Bush? Or is it just the ultimate in cronyism? I still don't know what to make of this...

[ISiddiqui]

The New Republic, not your most unbaised source mind, brought up something very interesting:

http://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2832

SOME QUICK THOUGHTS ON HARRIET MIERS: This pick reinforces several traits Bush doesn't want reinforced right now. It's a pro-business pick. In Texas Miers specialized in "commercial litigation, including antitrust and trade regulations and intellectual property disputes" according to this bio. It's a pro-crony pick. She was Bush's personal lawyer as far back as the 1980s, and obviously loyalty to Bush trumped intellectual firepower. Finally, the Miers pick cements the idea that Bush is politically weak and scared of a major fight with Democrats. As Bill Kristol just pointed out on Fox, this choice will be depressing to conservatives at exactly the moment when they were looking to be bucked up by the president.
For instance economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council. And Miers's long affiliation with the ABA will serve up lots of interesting tidbits that are unlikely to please social and legal conservatives. For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA's House of Delegates. Here are two of the report's recommendations:

Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...

Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.

[Raiders Army]

Aren't Luke and Leia with the New Republic?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Joe Canadian

It's the highest court in the US, and the third branch of government... yet some people think that you don't need previous experience as a job to get the job. Does anyone else find that weird?

I have no clue as to her political leanings, is she a O'Conner or a Thomas, who knows. But at least pick someone who's been a freakin' judge before.

Not really. Being a judge doesn't make you "better" in my view. I do think you need a legal background however.