Justice Miers?

Don't know much yet, but once again, I like what little I've heard.

She, like Chief Justice Roberts, will undoubtedly work to preserve, protect and defend the wealthy and powerful, or what the President, in a moment of candor, referred to as, "My base."

But she also has a history of pro bono work and dedication to equal opportunity. She certainly understands the role of the Courts, trial attorneys, and the law.

I am not terribly concerned that she has never been a trial Judge. I would make it a requirement that EVERY appellate Judge, State or federal, have a trial attorney background. I would be less insistent, however, on requiring appellate Judges to have trial Judge experience.

From the standpoint of the Bar, she is a good choice.

She will, however, INFURIATE the religious right. Or so I predict!

 

Apparently due to low approval ratings, Bush has finally reached out to the Democrats for thier opinion (something which he rarely did as President or Governor). -- Sen. Reid actually suggested her nomination. Most likely a shoe-in. On the surface, she doesn't have any negatives and doesn't have any judicial presidence to question.

 

You both miss the boat....

She is not a judge so she has no paper trail for the Dem's to grab onto during their questioning. She is personally loyal and a close confident of the president so he believes he is fairly sure of her political/judicial views.

Her appointment is probably a pure statement of the president's personal beliefs. However, since there are few indicators in her background, we'll have to wait for the future to unfold to see what they are.

In my opinion, a background in the judiciary is not necessary to serve on the Supreme Court. They are an appelate body so they do not hold trials so to speak. I look for a good background in the law and she seems to have that....

I hate to break it to you but this is an oft stated incorrect statement:

"She, like Chief Justice Roberts, will undoubtedly work to preserve, protect and defend the wealthy and powerful, or what the President, in a moment of candor, referred to as, "My base."

There have been numerous surveys to indicate that wealth is not necessarily an indicator of political belief's. Actually, the super wealthy tend more liberal as many of them believe they should help their fellow man even if it isn't for altruistic reasons.....

 

Oh, I absolutely agree that people don't necessarily vote their pocketbooks! I don't, for one.

I am merely suggesting that in her professional career, she has shown an affinity for the legal needs of the wealthy and powerful; that's how you GET to running a large commercial firm.

Whether lots of ordinary Americans happen to agree with her position, if it even IS her position, isn't the point. The wealthy and powerful will not suffer at her hands, that's all.

Anyway, I do think that she'll be okay.

Oh, as to trial experience: Believe me, appellate Judges who have never seen the inside of a trial Courtroom (and they exist) work at a serious disadvantage. Trust me on this. I, through my Judges, have to live with this!

 

Nosbourne,

Couldn't "my base" be the "religious right"?

Not much of a paper trail with her. I almost wish the Pres had picked someone a little more contentious (just to see how Dems would react) but...with his ever sinking approval ratings, his hands may be tied on this one.

 

But she has....

She just hasn't been a judge. Also, as an SMU grad she is a change from the Harvard cabal building in the Supreme Court....

 

Who is this person?

 

William Rehnquist was a relative unknown (but with a more controversial paper trail) when he was nominated. He'd never been a judge, either, and had held a similar position in the executive branch to Ms Miers.

She's a total wildcard, she could become another Rehnquist--who became the justice of his nominating president's dreams--or another Warren--who became the justice of his nominating president's nightmares.

Totally up in the air.

 

Her resume...

1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary
2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004—Selected as White House Counsel

 

I noticed this on Drudge, which turned me to look to the notice on quorum report (Texas).

It shows, when you actually read the note, that she in no way is advocating any kind of "gay activism," as far as I can tell.

Here it is. What do you guys think?

October 4, 2005 7:38 AM
1989 QUESTIONNAIRE, MIERS SUPPORTS CIVIL RIGHTS FOR GAYS
Also supports community wide effort and funding to battle AIDS
During her 1989 campaign for Dallas City Council, Harriet Miers filled out a questionnaire for the Lesbian Gay Political Coalition of Dallas. While she stated she was not seeking their endorsement, she did answer the questions. In it, she endorsed the same civil rights for gays as for non-gays, but opposed revoking current statutes. She also supported funding to battle AIDS and appropriate community funding.

The questionnaire first surfaced on Americablog.org.

ã Copyright October 4, 2005 by Harvey Kronberg, www.quorumreport.com, All rights are reserved

 

I have heard that some spokespeople of the religious right are not happy with the nomination. (NPR, again)

It's awful early to tell yet, but my instincts tell me that they are right to be upset, at l;east according to their lights.

The President stated that he wanted to appoint Justices like Scalia and Thomas.

From all we know to this point (not much, I'll admit) it looks like that's exactly what he DIDN'T do. He is eschewing radicals, at least at the Supreme Court level.

His appointees appear to be genuine conservatives, uninterested in upsetting the apple cart. After all, to business and commerce, stability is just about the ONLY really important feature of any governing environment.

 

The Associated Press reports that the nomination is not meeting with universal approval amongst republicans:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apwashington_story.asp?category=1154&slug=Scotus%20Miers

 

I don't know anything about Ms. Miers; however, based on all the belly aching I'm hearing from the radical right, she might end up needing the support of democrats to be confirmed.

(Wouldn't that be funny!)

 

Re: But she has....

Actually, her lack of Ivy league background is getting some criticism. That in turn is inspiring charges of elitism leveled at those who seem to feel only Ivy alumni 'deserve' a seat on the Supreme Court.

Kit

 

Theater of the Absurd

You have the right belly-aching and today Molly Ivins comes out and basically calls her a right wing nut. What a hoot!!!!!

Personally, all of that right there shows how smart a move this was......

 

Smart move?

I don't know.

She's probably not the ideal candidate; there is no constitutional requirement for prior judicial service but it looks...odd...to nominate someone whose never even sat in traffic court. It looks a lot like cronyism (perish the thought! ) on the President's part.

She's not even really a politician, was never a Senator or Representative.

I don't know. Fact is, she MAY not be confirmed. She's awful damned PRIVATE to be named to the country's highest Court. Do you really start your career in public service on the Supreme Court?

 

Re: Smart move?

Wow ITAWTP!!!

How can someone be nominated to sit on the highest court of the land without having a certain amount of public history that can be examined by us all??? While I like the fact that this nomination tweaks the sensibilities of the Majha Rushies of the world, she is a very scary nomination because she represents an unknown. The fact that on the surface this appears to be out-and-out cronyism and not at all based on merit certainly tarnishes this nomination.

 

Nothing new here....

Historically, many if not most appointentees had no time on the bench. And many, if not most have had a personal or professioanl relationship with the president that appointed them. In fact, many ex-politicians even ex-presidents have sat on the bench. This is an appelate court that is a panel of judges so there is not one person presiding over a jury. It reviews cases which have already been tried and appealed many times. What is needed is a good understanding of the law and that does not necessarily come from sitting on a bench. I am amazed many on here do not seem to understand what the Supreme Court is and does.....

 

DTechBA,

Well, I think I probably have about as good an idea as anyone who posts here and I find her lack of judicial experience troubling.

You talk, as many non lawyers do, as if the law and the constitution were somehow things removed from daily life, (the way many people insist on interpreting the Bible, BTW)

This is a a major mistake!

The law cannot be understood except in the context of the behavior it seeks to regulate.

Now, ideally, every Judge would possess all knowledge about all aspects of human activity, whether political, economic, or biological. Of course, this is impossible. That being so, Judges depend upon the lawyers to present a "slice" of reality, called "evidence" from which the Judge chooses to create a sort of stylized picture of the reality to which he must apply the law. This choosing and constructing is done by trial Judges (and Juries, BTW) by following certain rules and customs the mastering of which is not a trivial task.

This method of deciding disputes, which is, after all, what Courts are THERE FOR, carries the defects of its virtues. The Court of Appeals or Supreme Court cannot rehear the evidence and thereby construct for itself the picture of reality the trial Court created. It must rely on the trial Court's efforts except where those efforts are CLEARLY wrong.

In my experience and from my study of this issue, I believe that it works to the disadvantage of an appellate Judge not to have had some experience in creating these pictures because it is less clear to the appellate Judge what the limitations on such pictures might be. In short, she won't know that she doesn't know something.

I have a few concrete examples but I won't post them here for reasons of space and time. I think you probably grasp my point, anyway.

This isn't a deal breaker, I don't think, but I do find it troubling.

 

I been receiving E-mails from MoveOn.Com complaining about her nomination. Furthermore, the right wing conservatives don't seem to be happy with her nomination either. The fact that no one is pleased with her nomination tells me that she would be a great addition to the Supreme Court.

I am personaly thrilled with her nomination. I hope she gets confirmed.