Harriet Miers (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/03/politics/03cnd-scotus.html):
President Bush nominated Harriet E. Miers, the White House counsel, as his choice to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor this morning, his second nominee for the Supreme Court. Ms. Miers, 60, a longtime confidant of the president's, has never been a judge, and therefore lacks a long history of judicial rulings that could reveal ideological tendencies. Her positions on such ideologically charged issues as abortion and affirmative action are not clear.

Many of President Bush's allies had lobbied the president to choose a conservative justice to replace Justice O'Connor, a key swing vote on the court, in order to affix a conservative stamp on the court for years to come. The president has vowed to turn the court rightward. Democrats in the Senate however, have warned that a conservative pick to replace a moderate justice would lead to a drawn-out partisan battle.

Ms. Miers has spent her life serving others, Mr. Bush said in making the announcement at the White House. "And she will bring that same passion," for helping others to the Supreme Court, he said..

Mr. Bush said Ms. Miers had devoted her life to the rule of law and added, "She will not legislate from the bench."

If Ms. Miers is ratified by the Senate, she would be the third woman to serve on the nation's highest court - after Justice O'Connor and Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who currently sits on the court. She was a leading candidate in the search for Justice O'Connor's successor, and was also part of the White House team that led Mr. Bush to Judge John G. Roberts Jr., who was confirmed by the Senate as chief justice last week and begins work today on the Supreme Court's new term.

The president had signaled his desire to name a woman or a member of a minority group to the Supreme Court last week when in response to a question about how close he was to choosing a successor, he said "diversity is one of the strengths of the country."

Ms. Miers was the first woman to become a partner at a major Texas law firm and the first woman to be president of the State Bar of Texas. At one point, Ms. Miers was Mr. Bush's personal lawyer.

In 1995, Mr. Bush, then governor of Texas, named her chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission and gave her the task of cleaning up that scandal-plagued agency.

The White House said last week that officials had consulted about 70 senators to seek names in the selection process. But Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat who is on the judiciary panel, said that it was "consultation in name only" and that Ms. Miers called him to ask for suggestions in a conversation that lasted less than five minutes.

"There is no back and forth," he said. "It's just, 'Give us some names.' I said to her, 'Look, I'd like to know who the president is considering.' And she didn't say anything."

Among others who were reportedly considered by the White House were Judge Edith Brown Clement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; Larry D. Thompson, a former deputy attorney general and now general counsel of Pepsico in Purchase, N.Y.; and Judge Karen J. Williams of Orangeburg, S.C., who sits on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
My favorite comment on this so far actually predates the selection and comes from a writer for National Review Online (http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp):
HARRIET MIERS [John Podhoretz (jpod@sprynet.com)]
I am going to assume that this is a classic Bush head-fake gambit. If I'm wrong, I will spend the weekend banging my head against a concrete wall. This is the Supreme Court we're talking about! It's not a job for a political functionary!
Posted at 10:40 AM (http://corner.nationalreview.com/05_09_25_corner-archive.asp#077908)

I have no idea where the snippet came from, but they played it this morning on the local radio show and were joking about it.

Pres Bush: "She is a Texas gal, just like me." (or something real close to that)

Here is my favorite.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899

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.


lol.

http://graphics.cs.uiuc.edu/%7Ewnbell/fark/kool-aid-rnc.jpg

If it were up to me, I'd suspend the court, heavily fund cloning research, and plop down an O'Connor 2.0 before it can resume.

It's a good pick. Not as conservative as I would have liked but a very good conservative. I would have liked a Scalia clone.

The public oppinion here was that he put her forward thinking that she'll get denied, stating that he tried to put a woman in but the Democrats rejected her ... and then put some guy he actually wants in.

The public oppinion here was that he put her forward thinking that she'll get denied, stating that he tried to put a woman in but the Democrats rejected her ... and then put some guy he actually wants in.

I find that to be quite plausible; the one drawback to that however is it would leave O'Connor on the bench when the next session opens and the two cases on abortion are heard in late November.

My initial gut reaction this morning was to agree with Kelraz; imho this nominee is a red herring, intended for the Democrats to reject, so that they'll have blown their wad, so to speak, when he puts his true nominee forward, and will be under pressure to accept him/her regardless of how unpalatable he/she may be. In the event that they *do* confirm her, then he has a known loyalist and crony on the bench, so it's a win/win for him either way...

Who knows, she may, as his council, even be in on the strategy.

Regards,
Nydia

If thats the thinking... they are fucking idiots.

Reid has already pronounced himself overjoyed at the prospect. Shit, he suggested her to Bush as a pick. If Bush doesnt want her, it looks like the Republicans themselves have to torpedo it.

Besides, it doesnt seem like Bush to throw one of his own and inner circle to the wolves. For all his faults and shortcomings, the man is very loyal to those who are loyal to him.

It's a good pick. Not as conservative as I would have liked but a very good conservative. I would have liked a Scalia clone

pardon me, but you'd know this how? By reading about her past judicial decisions?


edit: spelling

pardon me, but you'd know this how? By reading about her past judicial decisions?


edit: spelling

haha so true! Osg is a mushroom.

Hey now, Miers has years of Texas Lottery Commissioner experience from which any reasonable observer can draw conclusions regarding potential Supreme Court decisions.

-Thormir
P.S. And no, you can't look at her records from her work there or anywhere else. That's private material and -- like her CV -- completely irrelevant to anything having to do with the Supreme Court.

The entire situation is simply surreal.

I'm not sure what's scarier -- that it's a neocon political gambit, or they honestly believe in it. We all knew about the endemic cronyism, but my god, this the Supreme Court! TS Eliot was wrong, it's not going to end in a whimper, but in self-parody.

haha so true! Osg is a mushroom.


Meh... okie dokie.

I was watching his press conference today. A reporter asked Bush to address the people that are screaming cronyism. Part of Bush's answer was "just because she is my good friend...". Another Reporter asked him if he is still a conservative.

Anyone else notice the way Bush's jaw wiggles side to side when he finishes a sentance or while he is listening to the questions? I have seen people do that before and guess what? They were on drugs.

Wasn't that jackoff Brown who bungled FEMA to such an extreme as to be publicly shitcanned also a good friend of Dubya's or at least someone who curried his favor enough to be granted that position?

Bush needs to think in a manner of perhaps appointing competent people to the positions as opposed to hooking up friends, donors and people who walk the party line at least from the point of lip service. Ultimately its Bush's name that picks up the most taint when his buddies screw up.

Ah but Lummus, Bush is out of there in 2 years with a big ole Library in the middle of Texas and with enought cash and high powered friends to not have to worry about any decisions this screwball makes in the Supreme Court. I think the most recent polling data I've seen on him was 99.9% unfavorable with the only 2 favorable votes coming from Osgiliath666 and his mom. With that many people already knowing you're a fuck up, one doesn't need to care about a legacy!

make that 99.8%, Since I still approve of Bush.

What really bugs me about this whole affair is that people want to complain that this is the supreme court, and this nominee has zero judicial exp. Who fucking cares.. 41 previous justices had ZERO judicial experience. If I am not mistaken, Rehnquist was not a judge, and he seemed to do fine. What bothers most of you is that fact that she is a unknown, and you really do not know how she will work on the bench. Will she be a Scalia follower? Or will she be a Souter, who basically switched alliances after Bush Sr nominated him. NOBODY knows, and that scares everyone.

What scares me is that Harry Reid endorses her... /shiver

It's not just the fact that we have no paper trail to go on that concerns people on both sides of the aisle -- it's also the fact that the Bush administration has worked to prevent and obscure just that kind of information from coming to light.

I find the whole thing humorous. It displays Bush's arrogance, his loyalty to the point of stupidity to those who are loyal (or flattering) to him, and his willingness to give his base the finger. The right is at least as critical of this nomination as the left and middle, with a hefty feeling of betrayal to spice up their emotions.

I can't wait for the Q&A on this one.

It's also laughable to declare the head of a major Texas law firm, past president of the Texas bar association, and one of the top 100 most influential lawyers in America, as an incompetent attorney with no legal experience. She is obviously an extremely qualified lawyer.

I agree, however, with the other posters. I would have rather he select Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owens. If the Dems filibuster, we'll get one of those two. They have judicial experience.

Miers is qualified according to the job requirements...there's no "judicial experience preferred" clause. If that's something that the American people require- maybe we should look to add it, and review our processes a little more. It removes several good candidates from the pool, and we may not benefit as a result.
If the only motivator is that we can access rulings as a matter of public record, and can not access decisions made in the private sector- how far are we willing to go to allow access to our (yours, mine, Miers) personal or private/corporate decisions? I agree that we want to make educated decisions about Supreme Court appointees, so how do we go about doing this? Only accept the robes and not the suits?

Thoughts (http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/funddocs/fed/federa76.htm) from one of our founding fathers:"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment..."

...


"[The President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

a silent operation

Here's hoping Chuck Schumer shuts the fuck up.

Looks like it is onto the next crony:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/27/AR2005102700547.html

I'd bet a month's pay that it was planned this way from the start. Now he can put in a heavily conservative male nomination and say he tried to get the moderate female in, but ya'll wouldn't let me.

i dont' think it matters who the nominee is. someone will find out that he/she had an *impure* thought back in the 1970's or some crap like that, then all holy-batshit breaks out and they're gone too.

Well, we're back to the drawing board with our nominee. Miers is officially off the table.

"Other candidates mentioned frequently include conservative federal appeals court judges Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Priscilla Owen, Karen Williams and Alice Batchelder; Michigan Supreme Court justice Maura Corrigan and Maureen Mahoney, a frequent litigator before the high court."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051027/ap_on_go_su_co/miers_withdraws

I'd bet a month's pay that it was planned this way from the start. Now he can put in a heavily conservative male nomination and say he tried to get the moderate female in, but ya'll wouldn't let me.

You'd lose a months pay.

That tin-foil-esque scenario makes zero sense. This is just an example of a insulated, out of touch President making a "gut" based decision fueled by the hubris that the conservative base would sell all for an >wink< >wink< anti abortion person. He tried to spend political capital he didnt have and got burned and humilated for it. His motives were better than his method though, as he tried to come up with a legitimate consenus pick.
He has now boxed himself into a corner and will go for a ultra right wing choice, giving the two extreme sides the fight they both want. In my view he will prolly pick a ultra righty and walk away. Let the people who wouldnt back him get this next one through on their own. Doing this would restore the balance of power and reassert Bushes authority over his base.

Bush might have been simple enough to do that, but Rove would've never been thinking that few steps ahead.

Rove has never shown any of that type of political acumen.
Yes, he is a genius on the campaign and in forming an electable message and (especially) in defining the "other" guy.
When has he shown the ability to perform brillantly on the highest level of actually governing? He hasnt.
Other than campaigns... this administration hasnt really done a thing right. Iraq War is an example.. The divide wasnt that Saddam had to be dealt with. The problem was between the People in State / Intelligence vs the NeoHawks and Rove types.
Colin Powell wanted to wait until the end of the first term or the second term to tackle Saddam.. The Cheney/Rove/Rumsfeld camp wanted to do it ASAP, using the "political momentum" from 9/11.

My take is that Bush has been burned listening to Rove over his insticts in political matters and decided with the Miers nomination to trust his gut. Will he go back to Rove's advice? Heh.. he better hurry if he is.. Fitzmas is fast approaching.

speaking of Karl.
Not his week =/

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/gossip/story/359560p-306346c.html

I'd bet a month's pay that it was planned this way from the start. Now he can put in a heavily conservative male nomination and say he tried to get the moderate female in, but ya'll wouldn't let me

If that were really the plan he would not have asked for her withdrawal. He would have let the Judiciary Committee vote down the nomination, or if it passed let the Senate do it. The way it happened looks like she chose to leave but my way is more of a "I tried, but ya'll wouldn't let me" tactic.

I doubt this was planned. It was simply the height cronyism and a bad nomination. It takes a lot to get hated by BOTH sides of the aisle but this nomination did the trick.

Off to janice rogers brown, luttig or owens !

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051031/ap_on_go_su_co/bush_scotus

Told ya.

From early research on my own part I have to say I like this new nominee.

Though it's going to bring the usual party split on his confirmation I think he'll make it through.

Fandros

Thank God! Just what we need, another White Male Christian in our government.

Wow..

someone qualified... amazing.

Oh and Sandchk... nobody was doubting that he would pick a white male (Omg where are we going to find a white male judge!!). The part that was wrong was that it was planned this way from the start. Thats just silly

There's no way that any of us could prove it either way, but I think it's amazingly naive to think they really expected to get Miers in. It was the perfect bait and switch, using a close friend that would go along for the ride.

You may not like Karl Rove, but you can't rationally deny that this is right up his alley. His campaign genius that you acknowledge has always been through manipulations just like this one, and they've been working pretty well for him over the last thirty years.

Personally, I'm fine with how it went. I'm no hard core Dubya supporter, but I like the idea of a more conservative court. I was just making an observation.

P.S. Look: Sanchek. Some filter, huh!?

So Kelraz I have to ask...

Is that a racist, a sexist or a athiest/agnostic vision you have there?

Shouldn't you be more concerned with his history and qualifications then you are his race/gender and religious cant?

Fandros

"Shouldn't you be more concerned with his history and qualifications then you are his race/gender and religious cant?"

Race and gender should not matter, qualifications most certainly do. Religious views are important; however the history of a candidate can either render this a non-issue or the most important issue. Objectivity is the main concern. If history shows a judge makes rulings based on a strict, literal interpretation of the Quoran, Torah or Old Testament, you can't really say that that isn't a concern in the United States. (Granted, it is highly unlikely such a candidate would make it very far in the confirmation process) However, if a candidate is able to make rulings based on law and only the law as it is written, religion should not matter.

Aye I know Esbat. I was just teasing Kelraz about his post.


Fandros

Diversity proponents argue, in turn, that including women and minorities broadens the perspective of the court as a whole, granting better insight into cases relevant to those classes of individuals. Thus, diversity is worthwhile on its own merits, and should be pursued as part of the nomination process.

Diversity proponents argue, in turn, that including women and minorities broadens the perspective of the court as a whole, granting better insight into cases relevant to those classes of individuals. Thus, diversity is worthwhile on its own merits, and should be pursued as part of the nomination process.

A reasonable point of view. Also, one could say that the court should be color blind and gender neutral, so the race and gender of whomever is sitting on the bench is a non-issue.

I'm taking the position that in the end it really shouldn't matter much. The more we focus on differences like race or gender, the longer they will remain differences. Yeah, I know, what kind of fantasy world am I living in?

Couldn't have said it better myself Esbat. I wish our world was advanced enough that color/gender simply didn't matter. And I also agree that the more we focus on those , the longer division remains.

Yes Thor, it's true diversity brings about strength of the collective bodies. However isn't also true that by chosing folks of lesser qualities simply on diversity the weaker the body becomes.

Fandros

It's a cost-benefit view, Fanny. Perhaps the benefit of having this considerably qualified woman or black or hispanic or whatever on the bench outweighs the mild difference in qualifications between this person and a white male candidate. Obviously I'd not condone putting an unqualified person on the bench to suit some imaginary quota. Rather, one could look at the current makeup of the bench, then at a pool of top qualified candidates, and see if a woman or "minority" might be appropriate.

I say this in view of modern politics and a society still acclimating itself to notions of equality. I also hope that gender and race (which I consider an invention) continue to fade in relevance, in favor of sheer ability.

"Also, one could say that the court should be color blind and gender neutral, so the race and gender of whomever is sitting on the bench is a non-issue."

This is valid, but just as a person who grows up in the city and a person who grows up in the country will share different views of the world -- having multiple genders and ethnicities instead of one would also help have a broader spectrum of backgrounds and views representing the entirety of our country in its highest court.

So based on that statement alone Kel we should put my ole Granny on the Supreme Court. I'm sure her viewpoint alone is varied enough for that point of arguement.

Fandros

Well, being I was raised in the era of Father Knows Best and Leave It To Beaver, I often find myself looking at our society and wanting to return to the culture of my younger days (minus the segregation); so, I would like to see a Justice who does live according to Christian values(the Bible, not Jerry Falwell), and who looks at America as having and needing a national identity (which means English is our language, and immigrants will be expected to learn it and use it), who believes that our greatest gift to someone is the ability to teach them to care for themselves rather than taking care of them indefinitely, that government truly should be by and of and for the people and not only those that can afford large donations to campaigns, who believes that common courtesy and manners should be the accepted practice rather than the exception, who understands that our Constitution, Bill of rights and the Amendments are not the "property" of any political party but rather belong to the citizens of this country and should be treated with respect, and who is steadfast in maintaining the integrity of the Court and not feeling beholden to anyone but the American people.

(Whew, long sentence!)

It matters not to me whether male or female, white or black or plaid, etc.
Just have a profound respect and understanding of the responsibility given to you, and you should be able to grow into being a pretty good Justice.


P.S. As for the abortion question, I would prefer there could be as few as possible performed, but I adamantly disagree that a body of lawmakers predominantly male should have the right to tell females what they can and cannot do regarding their bodies and health. There just seems to be something flawed in that process, since women are no longer supposed to be second class citizens.