Results 1 to 16 of 16

Thread: Bush Picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

  1. #1
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955

    Bush Picks Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

    [QUOTE][B][U][SIZE=5]Bush Picks Miers for Supreme Court[/SIZE][/U][/B]

    Monday, October 03, 2005

    From FOXNews.com

    [U]WASHINGTON[/U] President Bush on Monday chose White House counsel Harriet Miers (search) to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor (search) on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States," Bush said during a press conference announcing his pick.

    Saying she has a "record of achievement with the law," Bush said Miers also has "built a reputation of character and integrity" and possesses a "deep compassion and abiding sense of duty."

    "She will bring that same passion for service to the Supreme Court of the United States," he added.

    If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (search) as the second woman presently serving on the nation's highest court.

    "I am very grateful for the confidence in me that you've shown by this nomination and certainly I am humbled by it," Miers told Bush during the press conference.

    Known for thoroughness and her low-profile, Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave.

    The president made his decision early Sunday evening, then told Miers in a meeting at the White House later that night. The White House is describing the nominee as "a woman of many firsts."

    When Bush named her White House counsel in November 2004, the president described Miers as a lawyer with keen judgment and discerning intellect "a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice."

    He also joked of Miers, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can filet better than Mrs. Paul."

    In making his announcement, Bush stressed that his nominee will not legislate from the bench. Conservative Republicans in recent years have complained that too many judges have been "activist" in their rulings in not strictly interpreting the Constitution on issues such as gay marriage and end-of-life issues.

    "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," Miers said. "If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

    Supporters call Miers a "top-notch lawyer" who understands the limited role they say judges should play in society. In nominating Miers, they say Bush is reaffirming his commitment to picking judges who will respect the letter of the law and not allow cultural or social trends sway their opinions.

    "Harriet Miers is a top-notch lawyer who understands the limited role that judges play in our society," said Noel Francisco, former assistant White House counsel and deputy assistant attorney general during the Bush administration. "In nominating Ms. Miers, the president has reaffirmed his commitment to appointing judges who will respect the rule of law and not legislate from the bench."

    Senate Republicans said they would press for confirmation by Thanksgiving a tight timetable by recent standards that allowed less than eight weeks for lawmakers to review her record, hold hearings and vote.

    Within hours of Bush's announcement in the Oval Office, Miers headed for the Capitol to begin courtesy calls on the senators who will vote on her nomination.

    Appeasing Both Side of the Aisle

    Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and Dallas Bar Association. She also was the first woman to run a large law firm in Texas Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell with a staff of 200 attorneys. She would fill the shoes of O'Connor, a swing voter on the court for years who has cast deciding votes on some affirmative action, abortion and death penalty cases.

    White House officials said Miers is conservative enough to satisfy the president's supporters and does not have a lengthy legal record that could embolden Democrats.

    "There's every indication that she's very similar to Judge [John] Roberts judicial restraint, limited role of the court, basically a judicial conservative," said Republican consultant Greg Mueller, who works for several conservative advocacy leaders.

    But others say Bush perhaps took the easy way out by picking Miers rather than someone like Priscilla Owen, who undoubtedly would be more controversial but more pleasing to conservatives.

    "It looks an awful lot like he flinched," said Bill Kristol, a FOX News contributor and publisher of The Weekly Standard. "He put up someone with no judicial record and it's hard to interpret that as anything but flinching from a fight."

    But not all conservatives are shrugging at the nomination.

    "I think she is a wonderful choice. She has gone through some of the same experiences Sandra Day O'Connor" did and is considered one of the top lawyers in Texas, Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, R-Texas, told FOX News.

    "I think it's very important to have someone on the bench who has been a practicing lawyer ... you need that real-world experience that brings another dimension to the Supreme Court."

    Miers has been leading the White House effort to help Bush choose nominees to the Supreme Court, so getting the nod herself duplicates a move that Bush made in 2000 when he tapped the man leading his search committee for a vice presidential running mate Dick Cheney.

    Miers, who has served as a liaison between Bush and the Senate in the Supreme Court nomination process of late, was suggested as a nominee by both Democrats and Republicans, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said.

    Senate Democrats for months have been warning Bush to pick what they call a "consensus nominee" whose ideology lies somewhere in America's "mainstream." They also continuously called on the president to include them in nomination discussions to make sure the person who was chosen for the court appealed to both sides of the aisle.

    Democrats are under pressure from liberal interest groups to fight Bush's second Supreme Court pick, and many observers speculated prior to the nomination that the fight for O'Connor's seat would be even more brutal than that of John Roberts (search), who began his job Monday as the new chief justice of the court. Confirmed last week on a 78-22 vote, Democrats were evenly split on confirming Roberts.

    Asked if Democrats will be tougher on Miers than they were on Roberts, FOX News Supreme Court analyst Tim O'Brien said, "I don't know if toughness is the word.

    "This is such a critical appointment. She is going to be subjected to the most exacting scrutiny and I think that's appropriate they are going to challenge her understanding of constitutional law."

    Some Republicans have said they believe Democrats may even attempt to filibuster Bush's pick for the court because Roberts got such an even pass, even if the nominee isn't necessarily that far out of the mainstream.

    "My view on that is, the Constitution does not allow for a supermajority to be appointed to the Supreme Court," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, told FOX News Monday morning. "Never has a filibuster stopped somebody from being on the Supreme Court."

    Bush said the "American people expect Harriet's hearing to be handled with the same respect and civility that characterized the last three Supreme Court nominations" of Roberts, Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

    Sen. John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who served as a type of point-person in the Senate for the administration while Roberts was being shepherded through the confirmation process, said Bush's pick is a great choice.

    "It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent," he said. "This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."

    Lack of a Paper Trail

    Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., was up in arms when Roberts would not give details on his opinions on certain hot-button issues or cases that likely would come before the court. He said Monday that learning as much as possible about the new nominee is vital.

    "There is some hope that Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee, a very preliminary view indicates very little that she wouldn't be," Schumer said during a press conference. "This is a good first day in the process that begins to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor."

    Schumer said Bush has recognized that "the views of the extremist wing of his party are not the views of the American people."

    "We are certainly, we Democrats, are going to look at this nominee with a complete and open mind," he added. "Having said that, we know less of this nominee than we did about John Roberts in terms of" judicial philosophy and temperament.

    With no record, liberals say the White House should be prepared for Miers to be peppered with questions during her Senate confirmation.

    "Choosing somebody who is not a judge would put that much more of a premium on straight answers to questions because there would be that much less for senators and the public to go on when looking at such a nominee's judicial philosophy," says Elliot Mincberg, counsel with the liberal People for the American Way.

    Grassley said Miers has "kind of a blank slate" as far as judicial history is concerned.

    "I think the most important thing is, there's been a lot of demand that a woman be nominated to the court and obviously she fits that pattern very well," he added.

    During the press conference Monday, Bush noted that neither the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist nor did 35 other Supreme Court nominees had judicial experience before being named to the country's highest court. He also reminded the country that both Republicans and Democrats have encouraged a nominee that doesn't necessarily have a judicial background.

    Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with the president to the White House as his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk. Miers was promoted to deputy chief of staff in June 2003.

    Miers, a single, soft-spoken woman who guards her personal privacy, has led a trailblazing career. She grew up in Dallas, earning her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University.

    When Bush was governor of Texas, she represented him in a case involving a fishing house. In 1995, he appointed her to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission.

    She also served as a member-at-large on the Dallas City Council. In 1992, she became the first women president of the Texas State Bar. She was the first woman of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985.[/QUOTE]

    Thoughts, viewpoints, opinions???

    The Right-Wing Radio hosts I listened too this morning seemed VERY concerned and VERY unhappy with this choice.

  2. #2
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    11,692
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Thoughts, viewpoints, opinions???

    The Right-Wing Radio hosts I listened too this morning seemed VERY concerned and VERY unhappy with this choice.[/QUOTE]


    I don't know anything about her, but if Schumer is happy, I am not. One of the few reasons why I voted for Bush was the hope that he could finally get some sensible (i.e. conservative) people in the Supreme Court. Replacing O'Connr with a true conservative is a must. When he said he admired guys like Scalia and Thomas, that was huge for me. We need 9 justices like them, IMO.

    If he fails to do that, it will ruin his entire legacy, IMO.

  3. #3
    [QUOTE=jets5ever]If he fails to do that, it will ruin his entire legacy, IMO.[/QUOTE]

    5ever let's face facts the man's legacy is in the crapper regardless due to foreign policy mis-adventures.

    but as for this nomination, I honestly don't know enough to make an opinion either way. I guess her not ever being a judge could be a small hinderance.

  4. #4
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,955
    [QUOTE=bitonti]5ever let's face facts the man's legacy is in the crapper regardless due to foreign policy mis-adventures.

    but as for this nomination, I honestly don't know enough to make an opinion either way. I guess her not ever being a judge could be a small hinderance.[/QUOTE]

    Why is that? From the reports I've heard today, there have been a number of SC Judges who were not previously on the bench. I recall hearing today that Renquist was one of those.

  5. #5
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,366
    I think W took the easy way out: nominate someone who has no paper trail. Dopes like Schumer have to be taught that they are not President, that judges do NOT make law, and that THEY are out of the mainstream.

    If that witch Ginsberg, a former ACLU loser can make it, then I want Owens.

  6. #6
    [QUOTE=Warfish]Why is that? From the reports I've heard today, there have been a number of SC Judges who were not previously on the bench. I recall hearing today that Renquist was one of those.[/QUOTE]

    I was just speculating on possible shortcomings. Again I don't really know enough to feel strongly one way or the other.

  7. #7
    wow, could he at least nominate a judge? christ

  8. #8
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,366
    [QUOTE=BrooklynBound]wow, could he at least nominate a judge? christ[/QUOTE]

    A third of all SC justices in our history have not been sitting judges. :rolleyes:

  9. #9
    True Quantum, but I'm not so sure that is a good idea anymore as things have gotten more complex.

    I dont think she is the most qualified candidate, so this choice is based on something else (cronyism?).

    I also dont think that being a trial lawyer neccesarily makes for a good appellate judge. I've seen some good judges who were not distinguished lawyers, and some very good lawyers who werent great judges.

    Having seen her on TV, I dont trust anyone who wears enough mascara to be in the Rocky Horror Picture Show.

  10. #10
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,366
    [QUOTE=Jetcane]True Quantum, but I'm not so sure that is a good idea anymore as things have gotten more complex.

    I dont think she is the most qualified candidate, so this choice is based on something else (cronyism?).

    I also dont think that being a trial lawyer neccesarily makes for a good appellate judge. I've seen some good judges who were not distinguished lawyers, and some very good lawyers who werent great judges.

    Having seen her on TV, I dont trust anyone who wears enough mascara to be in the Rocky Horror Picture Show.[/QUOTE]

    Maybe you can loan her your bag? :P ;)


    Seriously - I read that having non-judges can help keep the Court "grounded" - in touch with the society that is so profoundly affected by their decisions. Don't know about that though...

    More disturbing is the fact that she contributed to Gore's campaign and that is some kind of olive branch to the Dims. Plus, it does reek of cronyism and after Brownie...that's not good at all. I still would prefer PO or JRB.

  11. #11
    I really dont buy into the "grounded" theory- first of all she is still a lawyer, so how well grounded in reality is that? ;)

    It's not like we are talking about a schoolteacher amongst astronauts on the rocket into space.

    Trial lawyers and trial court judges are mostly concerned with fact finding, while appellate judges already have the record of facts, and look to see if there was an error as a matter of law.

    And with no paper trail (other than representing Bush in lawsuits) she is somewhat of an unknown quantity. Whizzer White had no paper trail and turned out to be the complete opposite of what the president who selected him believed him to be.

    I am fairly convinced that she is not the most qualified candidate, and I am pissed that Bush thumbed his nose at those who supported him based on his promise of a conservative court.

    While I dont consider myself to be among that group, it shows a lack of loyalty to those who's votes he courted.

    As for her contribution to Gore in 1988, that speaks for itself. They can spin it however they want, but it still speaks volumes.

  12. #12
    Bush is not as dumb as he looks. This nominee is under radar but guaruntee when the rubber meets the road she's everything conservatives want out of a justice and more. She will not be another Souter.

  13. #13
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    LI
    Posts
    20,366
    She allegedly has the backing of that intellectual and legal giant, Harry Reid. :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

    So she must be good... :barf:

  14. #14
    Board Moderator
    Jets Insider VIP
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Location
    Westchester Co.
    Posts
    38,107
    [QUOTE=bitonti]Bush is not as dumb as he looks. This nominee is under radar but guaruntee when the rubber meets the road she's everything conservatives want out of a justice and more. She will not be another Souter.[/QUOTE]
    I think it's hard to make that call, she could end up going either way. 'cane nailed it cronyism.

  15. #15
    If Miers has no plans, like Bush said she doesn't, to legislate from the bench, then I see nothing wrong with her.

  16. #16
    Here's a reason she doesnt look like a great choice:

    [QUOTE=bitonti]Bush is not as dumb as he looks. This nominee is under radar but guaruntee when the rubber meets the road she's everything conservatives want out of a justice and more. She will not be another Souter.[/QUOTE]

    When liberals (you ARe liberal, bit :)
    are quietly saying 'she's okay", you know she's not okay from a conservative POV. I havent heard her position on various issues, but odds are that a woman attorney who was a trailblazer (first president of the Texas or Dallas Bar or something along those lines) will be very cognizant of women's rights, (not that there's anything wrong with that).
    As his attorney, i'm sure she and dubya had some privileged convos that lead him to know what she thinks.
    I think she may be Souteresq on some issues, but we wont know that for a while.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us