|
Just in: Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor
|
View this Thread in Original format
| ogvh5150 |
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 |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
You were wrong.
He picked his White House counsel, Harriet Miers.
MrS |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
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:
Since she's currently White House counsel, she may also be involved in the Plamegate affair (that part is my personal speculation :D). But considering she has called Bush:
Can I get myself a ing 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..... |
|
|
| 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. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| 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 ing 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 s 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. |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| 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 |
|
|
| St_Andrew |
Wow, that's aweful.
You think she will be approved tho? :nervous: |
|
|
| ogvh5150 |
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. |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
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. |
|
|
| Shakka |
| 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 ing 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 s 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?:disbelief |
|
|
| 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? |
|
|
| MrSquirrel |
| 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 |
|
|
|
|
