TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Just in: Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor
Pages (2): [1] 2 »

Just in: Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor

Just in: Alberto Gonzales to replace O'Connor

Not really but he is my choice.

Let's see who Dubya picks at 8:00 AM.

edit

You were wrong.

He picked his White House counsel, Harriet Miers.



MrS

Oh what a shock, appointing a Bush crony on the bench. Anyone figure he wants her on the bench before the Fitzgerald indictments come around? No, that's not just idle speculation on my part:

quote:

[A] new theory about Fitzgerald's aim has emerged in recent weeks from two lawyers who have had extensive conversations with the prosecutor while representing witnesses in the case. They surmise that Fitzgerald is considering whether he can bring charges of a criminal conspiracy perpetrated by a group of senior Bush administration officials. Under this legal tactic, Fitzgerald would attempt to establish that at least two or more officials agreed to take affirmative steps to discredit and retaliate against Wilson and leak sensitive government information about his wife. To prove a criminal conspiracy, the actions need not have been criminal, but conspirators must have had a criminal purpose. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5100101317.html

And from Stephanopolis:

quote:

"...a source close to this told me this week, that President Bush and Vice President Cheney were actually involved in some of these discussions." http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/10/02.html#a5192

Since she's currently White House counsel, she may also be involved in the Plamegate affair (that part is my personal speculation ). But considering she has called Bush:

quote:

"the most brilliant man I ever met". http://frum.nationalreview.com/arch...2005.asp#077899

Can I get myself a fucking puke bucket now?

Oh yeah - she's never been a judge before either. So let's see, we have a new SC justice who's been on the bench himself for what, 3 years? And the next pick has never been a judge before? Not a huge point because there have been other nominees picked with little experience, but a considerable point nonetheless.

But she does seem to be 100% loyal to Bush to the fault, something which should raise some flags for both Dems. and Republicans. Her background is a bit interesting, especially involving Bush's AWOL and her time on the Texas Lottery:

quote:

White House counsel Harriet Miers has never served as a judge before, and while this career "hard-nosed lawyer" (as she is invariably described) from Texas certainly deserves some kudos for a trailblazing career as a female lawyer, she's not a legal scholar, either. But she does know better than just about anyone else where the bodies are buried (relax, it's a just a metaphor...we hope) in President Bush's National Guard scandal. In fact, Bush's Texas gubenatorial campaign in 1998 (when he was starting to eye the White House) actually paid Miers $19,000 to run an internal pre-emptive probe of the potential scandal. Not long after, a since-settled lawsuit alleged that the Texas Lottery Commission -- while chaired by Bush appointee Miers -- played a role in a multi-million dollar cover-up of the scandal. Whatever Miers knows about the president's troubled past, she may soon be keeping that information underneath the black robe of an Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. The AP is reporting that Miers, who not long ago succeeded Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez (also a possible nominee) as White House counsel, has leaped to near the top of the list to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor: Outside advisers say the candidates include federal judges and two persons who have never served on the bench: corporate lawyer Larry Thompson and White House counsel Harriet Miers. Miers is a skilled lawyer -- mainly on behalf of big business, including Microsoft and Disney -- and the first woman elected Texas State Bar President. But her main qualifications for the highest court in the land appear to be the same as most of Bush's recent appointments: He is unfailingly loyal to George W. Bush. Here's how Newsweek's Michael Isikoff, on July 17, 2000, described her initial foray in the morass of Bush's Guard service: The Bushies' concern began while he was running for a second term as governor. A hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers was retained to investigate the issue; state records show Miers was paid $19,000 by the Bush gubernatorial campaign. She and other aides quickly identified a problem--rumors that Bush had help from his father in getting into the National Guard back in 1968. Ben Barnes, a prominent Texas Democrat and a former speaker of the House in the state legislature, told friends he used his influence to get George W a guard slot after receiving a request from Houston oilman Sid Adger. Barnes said Adger told him he was calling on behalf of the elder George Bush, then a Texas congressman. Both Bushes deny seeking any help from Barnes or Adger, who has since passed away. Concerned that Barnes might go public with his allegations, the Bush campaign sent Don Evans, a friend of W's, to hear Barnes's story. Barnes acknowledged that he hadn't actually spoken directly to Bush Sr. and had no documents to back up his story. As the Bush campaign saw it, that let both Bushes off the hook. And the National Guard question seemed under control. So far, intriguing...but it gets better, and more complicated. At roughly the same time all of this was happening, Miers was also the Bush-named chair of the scandal-plagued Texas Lottery Commission. The biggest issue before Miers and the commission was whether to retain lottery operator Gtech, which had been implicated in a bribery scandal. Gtech's main lobbyist in Texas in the mid-1990s? None other than that same Ben Barnes who had the goods on how Bush got into the Guard and avoided Vietnam. In 1997, Barnes was abruptly fired by Gtech. That's a bad thing, right? Well, on the other hand, they also gave him a $23 million severance payment. A short time later, Gtech -- despite the ongoing scandals -- got its contract renewed over two lower bidders. A former executive director thought the whole thing stunk: The suit involving Barnes was brought by former Texas lottery director Lawrence Littwin, who was fired by the state lottery commission, headed by Bush appointee Harriet Miers, in October 1997 after five months on the job. It contends that Gtech Corp., which runs the state lottery and until February 1997 employed Barnes as a lobbyist for more than $3 million a year, was responsible for Littwin's dismissal. Littwin's lawyers have suggested in court filings that Gtech was allowed to keep the lottery contract, which Littwin wanted to open up to competitive bidding, in return for Barnes's silence about Bush's entry into the Guard. Barnes and his lawyers have denounced this "favor-repaid" theory in court pleadings as "preposterous . . . fantastic [and] fanciful." Littwin was fired after ordering a review of the campaign finance reports of various Texas politicians for any links to Gtech or other lottery contractors. But Littwin wasn't hired, or fired, until months after Barnes had severed his relationship with Gtech. Littwin reportedly settled with Gtech for $300,000. This all could be interesting fodder for a Miers confirmation hearing this fall. Then again, Bush could pick someone else -- Thompson, or maybe an appeals court justice from Virginia named Karen Johnson ("Karen Johnson"? "John Roberts"? Is Bush getting these names from a Motel 6 registry or something?) But they don't have Miers' top two credentials: Loyalty...and a little inside information. http://www.node707.com/archives/005399.shtml

Things should get real interesting soon.....

Yea this woman doesn't really seem qualified for the position. Why the hell would you choose a candidate to be judge on the supreme court if that person has no experience as a judge? It defies common sense. Roberts didn't have a whole lot of experience, but at least he had some qualifications for the position.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea this woman doesn't really seem qualified for the position. Why the hell would you choose a candidate to be judge on the supreme court if that person has no experience as a judge? It defies common sense. Roberts didn't have a whole lot of experience, but at least he had some qualifications for the position.

I know you're asking a rhetorical question, but the obvious answer is loyalty. Now one small minor tidbit is interesting - she did give a contribution to the DNC and Al Gore in '88:

http://tray.com/docs/dnc88.pdf

http://tray.com/docs/gore1988.pdf

But she's been fiercly loyal to the Republicans since, especially to the Bush family. Interesting quote from the WaPost this morning:

quote:

Miers came with him to the White House in 2001 as staff secretary, the person who screens all the documents that cross the president's desk. She was promoted to deputy chief of staff before Bush named her counsel after his reelection in November. She replaced Alberto R. Gonzales, another longtime Bush confidant, who was elevated to attorney general. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5100300252.html

IOW, what Bush knows, she knows. She is intricately linked to anything and everything this Administration is and has ever done done since his days as Texas governor.

In all actuality it's another enigmatic pick that I think both favors Bush and will likely get her passed. We know next to nothing about her views on anything since she has no background at all in decisions, but I can guarantee you that Bush knows everything about her brain completely since she's spent some long hours with this Administration on his ranch, camp David, and in the Oval Office on deciding just how far he can skirt the line on various issues. He damn well knows where she stands on things, and despite the initial reactions of the wingnut Conservative crowd who thinks he should have picked Owens or Brown to force the Dem. filibuster, they should be happy that Bush knows where she sits on issues. She is loyal to the fucking core to Bush, which means he can continue to whisper in her ear at least for the next 3 years - and there are some major decisions to be made on the SC in the next 3 years.

I think the Dems. could filibuster this one if they actually had a backbone, but with little Bushlite shits like Lieberman running around, I doubt that will likely happen. The only thing the Dems. have surprised me on so far is their steadfastness with the Social Security plan. Other than that they have plenty of wavering, waffling twits who still believe their votes in line with the GOP counts for anything in negotiation matters.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Yea this woman doesn't really seem qualified for the position. Why the hell would you choose a candidate to be judge on the supreme court if that person has no experience as a judge? It defies common sense. Roberts didn't have a whole lot of experience, but at least he had some qualifications for the position.

He is the guy who appoints people with zero emergency planning and response experience to head up FEMA, not once, but TWICE.

That should be answer enough as to "why".

I love how he is big on making sure a judge "will not legislate from the bench" when he is legislating by executive order after executive order. The checks and balances system is totally out of whack, and his branch is doing most of the out of whacking.


MrS

Wow, that's aweful.

You think she will be approved tho?

Confirmations are just dog and pony shows.

She's a shoe-in.

They might as well skip all the useless airtime and soundbites and just slap her robe on now.

It's common in many countries to appoint a Supreme Court Justice with no judicial experience.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ian_Corneil_Binnie

Justice Binnie was also a government lawyer equivalent to Miers.


Of course, Binnie was APPOINTED by our Dictator, and Miers was merely NOMINATED, subject to confirmation by a democratically elected body.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 IOW, what Bush knows, she knows. She is intricately linked to anything and everything this Administration is and has ever done done since his days as Texas governor. In all actuality it's another enigmatic pick that I think both favors Bush and will likely get her passed. We know next to nothing about her views on anything since she has no background at all in decisions, but I can guarantee you that Bush knows everything about her brain completely since she's spent some long hours with this Administration on his ranch, camp David, and in the Oval Office on deciding just how far he can skirt the line on various issues. He damn well knows where she stands on things, and despite the initial reactions of the wingnut Conservative crowd who thinks he should have picked Owens or Brown to force the Dem. filibuster, they should be happy that Bush knows where she sits on issues. She is loyal to the fucking core to Bush, which means he can continue to whisper in her ear at least for the next 3 years - and there are some major decisions to be made on the SC in the next 3 years. I think the Dems. could filibuster this one if they actually had a backbone, but with little Bushlite shits like Lieberman running around, I doubt that will likely happen. The only thing the Dems. have surprised me on so far is their steadfastness with the Social Security plan. Other than that they have plenty of wavering, waffling twits who still believe their votes in line with the GOP counts for anything in negotiation matters.

In other words, she's the gatekeeper. Have we finally located the dark Sith Lord?

STOP THE PRESSES...


wouldn't she have to recuse herself from participating in any cases where the adminsitration went before the court, to avoid any appearance of or actual conflict of interest? after all she would be judging her former employer. what good is she then?

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange STOP THE PRESSES... wouldn't she have to recuse herself from participating in any cases where the adminsitration went before the court, to avoid any appearance of or actual conflict of interest? after all she would be judging her former employer. what good is she then?

There is no official rule regarding the removal of oneself from a case while siting on the supreme court.

It is entirely at the discretion of the justice, and they can sit on any decision they feel like even if there is a conflict of interest. The supreme court has very few rules, nearly everything is dictated by custom more than a set of hard and fast rules.


MrS

of the 110 SCOTUS judges in history, over half never held a bench.

get over it.

Well like I said, not a big point to ponder because other notables have not been on the bench prior to nomination (Rhenquist comes to mind). Regardless, I still think it would be an important prerequisite to have, and it seems a bit strange to hire someone to the highest court in the land who have never held a gavel in their hands.

But from what I've heard from the Conservative wingnutters, you guys ain't happy with this pick at all. Limbaugh had a cow and needed Cheney to call him to reassure him, Hannity was all over it saying how weak a pick she was, Bill Kristol from the Weekly Standard mentioned this:

quote:

"It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine. http://today.reuters.com/news/newsA...COURT-MIERS.xml

Lowry over at National Review says this:

quote:

�DEPLORABLE� [Rich Lowry ] Just talked to a very pro-Bush legal type who says he is ashamed and embarrassed this morning. Says Miers was with an undistinguished law firm; never practiced constitutional law; never argued any big cases; never was on law review; has never written on any of the important legal issues. Says she's not even second rate, but is third rate. Dozens and dozens of women would have been better qualified. Says a crony at FEMA is one thing, but on the high court is something else entirely. Her long history of activity with ABA is not encouraging from a conservative perspective--few conservatives would spend their time that way. In short, he says the pick is �deplorable.� There may be an element of venting here, but thought I'd pass along for what it's worth. It's certainly indicative of the mood right now... http://corner.nationalreview.com/05...hive.asp#078320

Over at American Spectator blog, there's hints of even a Conservative filibuster:

quote:

Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers . . . There is now talk among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination . . . http://www.bullmooseblog.com/2005/10/hog-in-slop.html

All very interesting. I tend to wonder if it's not a head fake by the Conservatives here - I mean they trust Bush to the very end on every decision he makes. I see no reason why they think this decision he makes is an incorrect one.

But here's some more interesting info. on the company she worked for. Sounds more like Kenny Boy really:

quote:

In case anyone thought Harriet Miers wasn't a corporate-shill-in-White-House-clothing, take a gander at how Miers did her best Ken Lay impression while heading a major Texas corporate law firm. That's right, according to the 5/1/00 newsletter Class Action Reporter, Miers headed Locke, Liddell & Sapp at the time the firm was forced to pay $22 million to settle a suit asserting that "it aided a client in defrauding investors." The details of the case are both nauseating and highly troubling, considering President Bush is considering putting Miers at the top of America's legal system. Under Miers' leadership, the firm represented the head of a "foreign currency trading company [that] was allegedly a Ponzi scheme." The law firm admitted that it "knew in March 1998 that $8 million in [the company's] losses hadn't been reported to investors" but didn't tell regulators. This wasn't an isolated incident, either. The Austin American-Statesman reported in 2001 that Miers' law firm was forced to pay another $8 million for a similar scheme to defraud investors. The suit, which dealt with actions the firm took under Miers in the late 1990s, was again quite troubling. As the 9/20/00 Texas Lawyer reported, Miers' firm helped a now-convicted con man "defraud investors and allowed the firm's [bank] account to be used as a 'conduit.'" The suit said "money from investors that went into the firm's trust account was deposited into [the con man's] bank accounts and was used to pay for his 'expensive toys.'" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david...eat_b_8277.html

Crony, that's all that comes to mind.

And BTW, anyone else find it a bit of good timing to have Bush push his nomination today when we see this on the very same day?:

quote:

A Texas grand jury on Monday indicted U.S. Rep. Tom DeLay on a new charge of money laundering. A different grand jury whose term ended last week indicted him on a conspiracy charge, forcing DeLay to temporarily step down as House majority leader. Both indictments accuse DeLay and two political associates of conspiring to get around a state ban on corporate campaign contributions by funneling the money through the DeLay-founded Texans for a Republican Majority Political Action Committee to the Republican National Committee in Washington. The RNC then sent back like amounts to distribute to Texas candidates in 2002, the indictment alleges. http://www.statesman.com/news/conte...Indictment.html

Different grand jury. Different charge.

Delay

Is

Fucking

Toast......

i realize from your first post that you did not hold up the argument that she has never held a bench.

there is some notable conservative dissent which i equate to knee-jerking. this Neocon, however, thinks this is a solid pick on not just merits but overall strategy. the others will come around. there will be no fillibuster Democrat or Republican.

as for DeLay...the bet is still on.

***cough***lesbian***cough***

So if she is a lesbian and neocon than that means she is in denial. So her being a lesbian will not be important. I think she got to where is going to soon be is due to the money she gave to bush and that is all. Bush is a dumbass he puts all his friends and the peeps who give lots of money into some of the most important positions in government. I mean what a dumbass hes puttting this whole country at risk.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo of the 110 SCOTUS judges in history, over half never held a bench. get over it.

You're a tad bit off:

Supreme Court Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience Before Becoming Justices (41 to date for those too lazy to click here)

quote:

Originally posted by metalgearsolid I think she got to where is going to soon be is due to the money she gave to bush and that is all. Bush is a dumbass he puts all his friends and the peeps who give lots of money into some of the most important positions in government. I mean what a dumbass hes puttting this whole country at risk.

she's an Evangelical Christian.

last time i checked, lawyers don't give their clients money, it's the other way around. whatever.

go ahead and keep being an ignoramus.

P.S. she's given more money to Democrats up for election that any Republican.

^^^no I am sure some of the peeps were GWB friends she might not be. I did know she gave money to demos but that still does not stop her from being a con.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 You're a tad bit off: Supreme Court Justices Without Prior Judicial Experience Before Becoming Justices (41 to date for those too lazy to click here)

i stand corrected. almost half.

i also correct my statement to metalgearsolid about Miers campaign contributions.

http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_...rriet_Miers.php

she gave $1000 dollars to Al Gore? wtf?

lol at conservatives. maybe KR has something up his sleeve or is the KR machine sputtering? i'm not holding my breath yet.

Houston Chronicle

quote:

Troy Newman, president of the anti-abortion Operation Rescue, called for the Senate to reject her nomination, saying too much is at stake and too little is known of her views.

they're going to shit in their pants when they learn that she likes to work on motorcycles and is a huge fan of Melissa Etheridge.

Excellent article:

quote:

Can This Nomination Be Justified? By George F. Will Wednesday, October 5, 2005; Page A23 Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due. It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons. He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing approaches to construing the Constitution. Few presidents acquire such abilities in the course of their pre-presidential careers, and this president particularly is not disposed to such reflections. Furthermore, there is no reason to believe that Miers's nomination resulted from the president's careful consultation with people capable of such judgments. If 100 such people had been asked to list 100 individuals who have given evidence of the reflectiveness and excellence requisite in a justice, Miers's name probably would not have appeared in any of the 10,000 places on those lists. In addition, the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution. The forfeiture occurred March 27, 2002, when, in a private act betokening an uneasy conscience, he signed the McCain-Feingold law expanding government regulation of the timing, quantity and content of political speech. The day before the 2000 Iowa caucuses he was asked -- to ensure a considered response from him, he had been told in advance that he would be asked -- whether McCain-Feingold's core purposes are unconstitutional. He unhesitatingly said, "I agree." Asked if he thought presidents have a duty, pursuant to their oath to defend the Constitution, to make an independent judgment about the constitutionality of bills and to veto those he thinks unconstitutional, he briskly said, "I do." It is important that Miers not be confirmed unless, in her 61st year, she suddenly and unexpectedly is found to have hitherto undisclosed interests and talents pertinent to the court's role. Otherwise the sound principle of substantial deference to a president's choice of judicial nominees will dissolve into a rationalization for senatorial abdication of the duty to hold presidents to some standards of seriousness that will prevent them from reducing the Supreme Court to a private plaything useful for fulfilling whims on behalf of friends. The wisdom of presumptive opposition to Miers's confirmation flows from the fact that constitutional reasoning is a talent -- a skill acquired, as intellectual skills are, by years of practice sustained by intense interest. It is not usually acquired in the normal course of even a fine lawyer's career. The burden is on Miers to demonstrate such talents, and on senators to compel such a demonstration or reject the nomination. Under the rubric of "diversity" -- nowadays, the first refuge of intellectually disreputable impulses -- the president announced, surely without fathoming the implications, his belief in identity politics and its tawdry corollary, the idea of categorical representation. Identity politics holds that one's essential attributes are genetic, biological, ethnic or chromosomal -- that one's nature and understanding are decisively shaped by race, ethnicity or gender. Categorical representation holds that the interests of a group can be understood, empathized with and represented only by a member of that group. The crowning absurdity of the president's wallowing in such nonsense is the obvious assumption that the Supreme Court is, like a legislature, an institution of representation. This from a president who, introducing Miers, deplored judges who "legislate from the bench." Minutes after the president announced the nomination of his friend from Texas, another Texas friend, Robert Jordan, former ambassador to Saudi Arabia, was on Fox News proclaiming what he and, no doubt, the White House that probably enlisted him for advocacy, considered glad and relevant tidings: Miers, Jordan said, has been a victim. She has been, he said contentedly, "discriminated against" because of her gender. Her victimization was not so severe that it prevented her from becoming the first female president of a Texas law firm as large as hers, president of the State Bar of Texas and a senior White House official. Still, playing the victim card clarified, as much as anything has so far done, her credentials, which are her chromosomes and their supposedly painful consequences. For this we need a conservative president? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5100400954.html

George Will, while I disagree with his positions on almost every issue, always forwards a very concise and compelling argument for his side of things.

And here a 10 year old crack smoking monkey could give a compelling argument against Miers being a supreme court justice. So his is double compelling.


MrS

quote:

the president has forfeited his right to be trusted as a custodian of the Constitution.

jeez, Will, get over yourself. i didn't hear you piss and postulate over the dozens of excellent Appelate and Federal benches Bush filled this and the last term. which, BTW, has been applauded profusely by the right as outstanding history making appointments capped by Roberts.

interesting article by a paranoid elitist that forgets about recent history in favor of who he wants as associate justice, not what is the constitutional right of the executive to choose.

i speculate, despite the aricle, he wants to be wrong.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.