Bush nominates Harriet Miers for Supreme Court

Mike Teezie

macrumors 68020
Original poster
Nov 20, 2002
2,205
1
Link

SHOCKER.......He nominates his previous personal lawyer to the highest court in the land.

I don't know anything about her, and it seems neither does anyone else....
 

broken_keyboard

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2004
1,144
0
Secret Moon base
There is something about her face that makes me have no confidence in her.

Does anyone else get the same feeling? I have been searching Google Images for similar faces to see if maybe someone historical who looked like her has abused power or some such...
 

Attachments

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Hey, it's always a good idea to install people close to you on the SCOTUS. You never know when you'll need a favor from the court...
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
I think this will be a pattern in the future on judicial nominees as well. Lawyers with little or no experience on the bench (read: few decisions to comb through, and papers that can be withheld -- particularly if the nominee has been close to you or your party) will be nominated to prevent the opposition from being able to dig up any major dirt. They will be carefully vetted to prevent getting 'Soutered' and they will likely be close to major power brokers in the nominating party. It seemed to work well for Roberts.

You can tell the GOP is still stinging from the Bork hearings.
 

broken_keyboard

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2004
1,144
0
Secret Moon base
takao said:
well i read that she has absolute no judge expierence.. hows that gonna work ? it's ridiculous
As Bush said in his speech, 35 previous Supreme Court Justices had no previous experience on the bench. They only have to be an accomplished person...
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
broken_keyboard said:
As Bush said in his speech, 35 previous Supreme Court Justices had no previous experience on the bench. They only have to be an accomplished person...
They really don't have to be an accomplished anything, in reality. They only have to be able to get through the confirmation process. Bush has nominated a cypher for political reasons. You can be sure Bush knows her views on the big legal issues of the day, but that even after the hearings are all said and done, that few Americans will.
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
broken_keyboard said:
As Bush said in his speech, 35 previous Supreme Court Justices had no previous experience on the bench. They only have to be an accomplished person...
well then the US _supreme_ court is not more than a joke or a political instrument .. over here the supreme court it's mostly made up of the most experienced judges

it doesn't make sense to me at all
 

mactastic

macrumors 68040
Apr 24, 2003
3,647
661
Colly-fornia
Well, you know, it worked out so well when Bush nominated a FEMA director with no previous experience that he figured he'd try it with the SCOTUS. :rolleyes:

Actually I'm less concerned with her lack of experience as I am with her lack of a paper trail (done on purpose no doubt, and abetted by the Senate Democrats who allowed Roberts through despite the lack of documents being provided by the WH) and her apparent close personal ties to Bush. This has become a hallmark of the Bush administration, take someone who never would have made the position on their merits and elevate them to a point that they owe their position to the don.... I mean to Bush.

You can guarantee that if the Bush family ever needs anything from the Supreme Court (gee, when could that happen?) she will be a reliable vote for whatever side they want from her.

Patronage is patronage is patronage.
 

ColoJohnBoy

macrumors 65816
Mar 10, 2003
1,129
0
Denver, Colorado
Strange... even though she has no judicial experience, she's one of the few people Harry Reid encouraged Bush to consider for the post. Except for being pro-life and mostly anti-gun control, Reid is quite liberal. Can't figure this one out. I almost would rather Bush had nominated Alberto Gonzales - he may be reprehensible when it comes to... well, the Abu Ghraib prisoners, but if he's as socially liberal as many conservatives believe.... I suppose what I mean to say is when to comes down to what expect of a Bush appointee, we liberals can't hope for too much. To have him nominate someone with liberal views on ANY issue is a blessing.

We'll see. Maybe John Roberts will turn out to be another Earl Warren and Harriet Miers another Sandra Day O'Connor... hopefully.
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
dunno the accuracy, but some interesting bits from the non-MSM:
New Supreme Court nominee's ties to Bush's National Guard scandal

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. Miers, who not long ago succeeded Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez as White House counsel, is now Bush's pick to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor:

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: She 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. But Bush apparently went for Miers' top two credentials:

Loyalty...and a little inside information.
(emphasis theirs)
 

Deepdale

macrumors 68000
May 4, 2005
1,965
0
New York
broken_keyboard said:
There is something about her face that makes me have no confidence in her. Does anyone else get the same feeling? I have been
It's basically the same reaction when I look at his face. For some reason when I glance at Harriet Miers I have a better idea as to what Norman Bates' mom may have looked like before she was moved to the fruit cellar.

"Mother, please stop complaining ... it won't be that chilly once I bring your favorite blanket down to you."
 

Lyle

macrumors 68000
Jun 11, 2003
1,874
0
Madison, Alabama
There is this interesting bit of information from one of the MSNBC articles:
One thing that is documented is Miers's political contributions. Miers has donated thousands of dollars to Republican candidates during the past 15 years, including to President Bush's campaigns. But in 1988, Miers contributed $1,000 to Al Gore's campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination.

She also donated to the Democratic National Committee in 1988 and to Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, a Texas Democrat, in 1987, according to the Federal Election Commission and the Center for Responsive Politics.
It is interesting to me that when Bush 41 was running, she was donating money to the other side. Of course, she may have been contributing to both political parties during that election (the article doesn't specifically address that question).
 

zimv20

macrumors 601
Jul 18, 2002
4,388
7
toronto
zimv20 said:
dunno the accuracy, but some interesting bits from the non-MSM:
following up, from today's WH press briefing (i'm guessing this is ABC's terry moran):
MR. McCLELLAN (ed. - this is obviously a reporter question): Scott, you mentioned her legal experience. Part of that experience is that she was the President's personal lawyer. Can you tell us some of the matters that she would have represented the President in? I understand there was a real estate matter. Did she get involved in the National Guard stuff, the jury duty -- can you tell us --

MR. McCLELLAN: There will be a confirmation process. No, I don't have specifics on that in front of me. She did, originally, I think, serve as counsel to the President's gubernatorial committee that was set up when he was first running for governor, back in '93, and I think it was some time after that she did represent him in some personal matters.

Q And you can get us details on what those matters were?

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll work on getting you more information. Obviously, that will be something that, I'm sure, will come up during the confirmation process.

Q And something else will come up, and I just want to let you have the opportunity to answer directly, and Kelly was getting at. What do you say when people will say he put his own lawyer on the Supreme Court? That's definitional, cronyism.
"cronyism" was mentioned several times in the briefing.
 

Sayhey

macrumors 68000
May 22, 2003
1,690
2
San Francisco
With the Roberts nomination and now this, I'm beginning to think the criteria for selection isn't ideological purity, but rather blind loyalty to Bush so he can count on them to keep him out of jail as his crimes come to light.
 

PlaceofDis

macrumors Core
Jan 6, 2004
19,232
4
Sayhey said:
With the Roberts nomination and now this, I'm beginning to think the criteria for selection isn't ideological purity, but rather blind loyalty to Bush so he can count on them to keep him out of jail as his crimes come to light.
well Bush has made it clear that he wants those who work under him to be his yes man, so it makes sense in a way.
 

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,528
OBJECTIVE reality
mactastic said:
Hey, it's always a good idea to install people close to you on the SCOTUS. You never know when you'll need a favor from the court...
Like an exoneration?

takao said:
well i read that she has absolute no judge expierence.. hows that gonna work ? it's ridiculous
Yeah. We get one guy promoted to chief justice before he's worked a day on the Supreme Court, and another one with no judicial experience.

Bush is laughing at us.

zimv20 said:
MR. McCLELLAN: There will be a confirmation process. No, I don't have specifics on that in front of me....I'll work on getting you more information.
Hmm...for a press secretary detailing such an important event, McClellan has suddently become Mr. Obtuse. Strange....
 

broken_keyboard

macrumors 65816
Apr 19, 2004
1,144
0
Secret Moon base
Sayhey said:
I'm beginning to think the criteria for selection isn't ideological purity
Well that's what he (Bush) has been saying all along...

He is being responsible and not picking ideologues, but as he says, those who will not legislate from the bench.
 

Deepdale

macrumors 68000
May 4, 2005
1,965
0
New York
Tonight's Charlie Rose show

A conservative commentator, clearly displeased with President Bush's earlier nomination to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, made a statement that Harriet Miers is on the record as having said that George W. Bush is the most intelligent man she has ever met.

That was greeted with polite laughter by both Charlie, Harvard professor Laurence Tribe and NPR's legal correspondent Nina Totenberg. Question: Should we be laughing or should we be very scared?