Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

AVoiceOfReason · 10-03-2005, 06:29 AM

Ok, I'm thinking this whole thing is a fake-out of some kind. Nominate a woman with no judicial experience and let the Democrats tear her to shreds as a political crony of the President, then withdraw her and nominate a woman with actual qualifications for the job.

Or am I being too cynical?

Lebell · 10-03-2005, 06:54 AM

I saw this this morning.

Without more information on her credentials, it's hard to say.

I do confess to being confused as to a nominie with no bench experience, but then again, alot of nominies are only recently appointed to federal courts and then bumped up.

tecoyah · 10-03-2005, 07:13 AM

This concerns me...the Judiciary is the last check left in the supposed "checks and balances" put into place for the protection of our country....and it feels like its about to be removed. I have to wonder ....Why Her?

Other than the fact she works for Bush....and thus may be in his pocket to an extent.

President Bush on November 17 named Harriet Miers as White House counsel, a position she will hold upon the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales -- current White House counsel -- as U.S. Attorney General.

Most recently, Miers served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Prior to that, she was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP. Previously, she was President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, where she worked from 1972 until 1999. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Harriet became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council. Harriet received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University.

filtherton · 10-03-2005, 07:34 AM

I think clarence thomas didn't have bench experience either.

AVoiceOfReason · 10-03-2005, 07:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tecoyah

President Bush on November 17 named Harriet Miers as White House counsel, a position she will hold upon the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales -- current White House counsel -- as U.S. Attorney General.

Most recently, Miers served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Prior to that, she was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP. Previously, she was President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, where she worked from 1972 until 1999. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Harriet became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council. Harriet received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University.

I appreciate the posting of that resume. In looking at it carefully, I'm struck by the lack of anything that jumps out and says "this person is well qualified to be an Associate Justice of the SCOUS. I'm not seeing anything that would make me think she'd be someone we'd want on a Circuit Court, or a State Supreme Court.

I'm not questioning her intellect or ability to render appellate decisions, because I just don't know--and that's the trouble here. I'd have the same opinion if Clinton had tried to appoint Bruce Lindsey to the Supreme Court--my antenna would be WAY up on this.

AVoiceOfReason · 10-03-2005, 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

I think clarence thomas didn't have bench experience either.

That could be, and I'm sure over the last two centuries, there have been good choices that weren't sitting judges. This may work out fine, but it sure seems like this position is being treated as "entry level."

lurkette · 10-03-2005, 08:14 AM

I'm really surprised that he would nominate a crony with no experience after what just happened with Brownie. Learning from mistakes does not appear to be his forte.

SecretMethod70 · 10-03-2005, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

I'm really surprised that he would nominate a crony with no experience after what just happened with Brownie. Learning from mistakes does not appear to be his forte.

That's an understatement. I'm really hoping the senate, especially the few sensible Republicans left in it, have the guts to treat this seriously.

host · 10-03-2005, 08:58 AM

This is intentional. IMO, it is intended to insure that there is no challenge from SCOTUS to the emerging, "police state".

Quote:

How many have presided over even a single criminal or civil trial? The answer [is only] David Souter [who] was a New Hampshire prosecutor once upon a time, and later served as trial judge."

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/053...f,67940,6.html
,,,,,,,,Bringing a sharp light on the ignorance of most present high court justices about actual life in the streets is Stuart Taylor's "Remote Control" in the September Atlantic Monthly.

Taylor......asks questions that were almost entirely overlooked during the extensive coverage of the Roberts elevation:

"Now that Sandra Day O'Connor has announced her retirement, how many remaining justices have ever held elective office? . . . How many have ever been either criminal-defense lawyers or trial prosecutors? How many have presided over even a single criminal or civil trial? The answer [is only] David Souter [who] was a New Hampshire prosecutor once upon a time, and later served as trial judge." (Emphasis added.)

.........For all the strife about getting proper racial, gender, ethnic, ideological "balance" on the Supreme Court, Taylor focuses on "the greatest imbalance—the one in the collective real-world experience of its justices."

For example, Justice John Paul Stevens, speaking at the American Bar Association's Thurgood Marshall Awards dinner on August 6, emphasized that although Marshall, just before going on the high court, was an Appellate Court judge, he previously spent years "in countless trial court proceedings in hostile surroundings" in the cause of civil rights, and that "vast experience as a trial lawyer gives especial credence to opinions that he later delivered as a member of the Supreme Court."

By contrast, as William Raspberry wrote in the August 15 Washington Post about John Roberts: "Son of a wealthy steel executive, Roberts attended private schools, Harvard and Harvard Law School." He then went to clerk for a federal Appeals Court judge and Supreme Court Justice William Rehnquist, followed by two tours in the Justice Department and most recently two years on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Roberts's carefully planned next step was to what Stuart Taylor calls "a sort of aristocracy," the current Supreme Court—"unable or unwilling to clearly see the workings, glitches, and peculiarities of the justice system over which it presides from such great altitude."

John Roberts has never presided over a criminal trial—at which what Alan Dershowitz describes as "testilying" quite often takes place by police officers. <h4>But I know a judge who has been familiar with such prejudicial testimony. He is Andrew Napolitano. These days, as senior judicial analyst for the Fox News Channel, Napolitano continually denounces the Bush administration's serial violations of the Bill of Rights—often instructing Bill O'Reilly and John Gibson </h4>(of Fox News' The Big Story) in the commands of the Constitution........

In his valuable book Constitutional Chaos (Nelson Current, a subsidiary of Thomas Nelson), Napolitano writes that before he went on the Superior Court of New Jersey, he was so strong a conservative that he supported Richard Nixon's law-and-order, pro-police campaign. In the 1970s, Napolitano proudly wore a T-shirt proclaiming, "Bomb Hanoi!"

But by the time he ended his judgeship after eight years, he writes, "I was a born-again individualist, after witnessing first-hand how the criminal justice system works to subvert and shred the Constitution. You think you've got rights that are guaranteed? Well, think again."

While on the bench, Judge Napolitano issued a ruling, upheld by the appellate courts, that, as he writes, "forbade cops from stopping someone on a whim. . . . The police could stop any cars they wished. They didn't need any rationale." The judge's decision made these arbitrary stops illegal, thereby making any evidence secured by them excluded from a trial. Cops would "testilie" about the stops.

He applied "the exclusionary rule," going back in federal cases to Weeks v. United States (1914) and to state cases in Mapp v. Ohio (1961).

Judge Napolitano brought New Jersey back into the Constitution. By contrast, John Roberts—as constitutional-law professor Jonathan Turley notes—"has criticized the exclusionary rule . . . and [as an appellate judge] has favored police powers over privacy concerns."

.............Roberts has approved the "good faith" exception to police searches and seizures. This would allow police to testify that they acted in "good faith" in what would eventually turn out to be an illegal search. As Supreme Court Justice William Brennan told me, this "exception" lets judges wholly rely on the word of the police, "but on whom may the citizens rely to protect their Fourth Amendment rights?"

I use John Roberts's glaring lack of experience of the real, gritty world as an example of cloistered judges. But as for future nominations to the Supreme Court, Stuart Taylor's warnings should not be forgotten: "The Supreme Court is supposed to sit above politics and apart from popular whims. But when a large majority of the Court's justices have never cross-examined a lying cop or a slippery CEO, never faced a jury . . . something has gone wrong. As the Court has lost touch with the real-world ramifications of its decisions, our judicial system has clearly suffered."

I have included the most signifigant points in the article that are intended to persuade that appointment of SCOTUS justices who have not experienced law practice in the "real world", will, as an intended consequence, I believe..... remove the last best hope of redress for ordinary citizens who are victims of the denial of their constitutional rights by police, prosecutors, and politicians.

stevo · 10-03-2005, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lurkette

I'm really surprised that he would nominate a crony with no experience after what just happened with Brownie. Learning from mistakes does not appear to be his forte.

I think because of the brownie predicament the entire senate is going to really check her out and examine her credentials. I also think bush knows her well, better than the public or the media. I'm not sure how I feel about this since it appears that judges who have stuck to their priniples their whole carrers are being snubbed by bush here. What kind of messge is that to the true conservative judges? But we will wait and see, I'm sure the senate will take a deep look at this one.

As long as she is dedicated to the law and strictly upholds the constitution and the intentions of the framers, than I could care less if she has previous judicial experience or not.

AVoiceOfReason · 10-03-2005, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

I have highlighted the most signifigant points in the article that are intended to persuade that appointment of SCOTUS justices who have not experienced law practice in the "real world", will, as an intended consequence, I believe..... remove the last best hope of redress for ordinary citizens who are victims of the denial of their constitutional rights by police, prosecutors, and politicians.

A good article, Stuart Taylor is generally trustworthy. I was surprised that only Souter had presided over actual trials. That is disturbing to me, as a trial lawyer.

Of course, it could be that not many trial lawyers WANT to be judges--pay cut and all.

Lebell · 10-03-2005, 10:10 AM

Apparently 10 out of the last 33 sitting justices worked for the president that nominated them.

Didn't seem to be an issue before so I don't see why it should be now.

AVoiceOfReason · 10-03-2005, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Apparently 10 out of the last 33 sitting justices worked for the president that nominated them.

Didn't seem to be an issue before so I don't see why it should be now.

That's interesting. Drawing just on my admittedly faulty memory banks, I could think of Clarence Thomas at the EEOC as working for the first Bush, and that's about it.

But if it wasn't an issue for Republicans when Democrats did it, and wasn't an issue for Democrats when Republicans did it before, then I agree, it shouldn't be an issue now.

That doesn't address qualifications, of course, but would take out the political angle.

AVoiceOfReason · 10-03-2005, 11:01 AM

I just heard Harry Reid say that Harriet Miers was a "trial lawyer." That may address some of the Stuart Taylor concerns.

flstf · 10-03-2005, 11:41 AM

In today's political environment any opinionated intelligent person with a track record causes a lot of problems in the confirmation process and will get slammed by the Left, Right or both. Better to pick someone who has never written or voiced their opinion on any of the important topics of the day.

I'm not saying that Harriet Miers is like this, but it wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure the pundits on both sides will let us know more about her in the coming days.

Hardknock · 10-03-2005, 12:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SecretMethod70

That's an understatement. I'm really hoping the senate, especially the few sensible Republicans left in it, have the guts to treat this seriously.

You have more confidence in them than I do.

CShine · 10-03-2005, 12:47 PM

Gotta luv the cronyism here. It seems to be her only qualification for the job.

stevo · 10-03-2005, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

Gotta luv the cronyism here. It seems to be her only qualification for the job.

To the cynical perhaps....but I see where it comes from

powerclown · 10-03-2005, 02:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CShine

Gotta luv the cronyism here. It seems to be her only qualification for the job.

I have to disagree. The lady was President of the State Bar of Texas, the authority responsible for qualifying ever other lawyer in Texas. Crony: maybe. Unqualified: that wouldn't be my opinion.

Anyway, I'm getting the impression she's a staunch conservative. I've been hearing phrases like, "Iron Maiden" and "Bulldog" being used to describe her. Somehow, I don't see these terms being used to describe Justice Ruth Ginsburg. I think she's a solid choice for the Supreme Court.

CShine · 10-03-2005, 02:31 PM

Here's an interesting take on the situation, especially the second paragraph.

Quote:

There are two possible ways to think about appointments, one is to appoint those who will simply "vote right" on the Court, the other is to be more far-reaching and to try to change the legal culture. Individuals such as Brandeis, Holmes, Warren, all changed both the Court and the legal culture, by providing intellectual heft and credibility to a certain intellectual view of the law. Thomas and Scalia have been doing the same thing for some time now, with their view of the law. This is, of course, precisely why Bork was taken down as well. Rehnquist, by contrast, may have changed the voting patterns of the Court but did not change the legal culture through intellectual leadership. Even worse, pick someone who supposedly "votes right" but has no developed judicial philosophy, and soon you have someone who doesn't even do that (Blackmun, Souter, etc.).

Bush's back-to-back appointments of Roberts and Miers is a clear indication that his goal is at best to merely change the voting pattern of the Court rather than to change the legal culture. One suspects that the best that conservatives can hope for from the two them is that they will consistently "vote right." But neither of them appears to be suited by background or temperament to provide intellectual leadership that will move the legal culture. I suspect that this is the source of the conservative outrage about Miers. In addition, historically those who come to the Court without a clear jurisprudential philosophy almost always end up moving left, which may add still further to the concern about her apparent lack of intellectual heft. Simply because she has stood up to the political criticism that she has received working in the White House does not mean that she will be able to withstand the intellectual criticism that she will receive. Writing a persuasive Supreme Court opinion that will hold a majority is a whole different ball game from stonewalling the Washington Post reporters.

http://www.volokh.com/archives/archi...tml#1128363647

aswo · 10-03-2005, 05:56 PM

I read that the appointment came as part of a recomendation from the gang of 16, i think thats what they are called and democratic majority leader harry reid already gave her recomendation.

politicophile · 10-03-2005, 06:19 PM

It was a gang of 14, actually.

Miers was an interesting pick because of her personal closeness to the President, to be sure. I think calling it "cronyism" is overly simplistic. Bush, I'm sure, remembers what happened to his father when advisors assured H.W. that a certain current Justice was a solid conservative choice. That same disaster will not befall Bush the Younger. Essentially, the only people who know how conservative Miers is are George Bush and Karl Rove, and perhaps a few other administration insiders. What remains to be seen is this:

Will conservative Senators take Bush's word that Miers is a solid conservative?

I'll tell you one thing: she isn't going to get 55 Republican votes...

pan6467 · 10-03-2005, 06:41 PM

FEMA all over again..... non qualified, close friend getting a political nomination from Bush.

She maybe a sacrificial lamb, one that has troubles getting nominated, has a skeleton or something in the closet come out (seemingly "minor" but causes her to have problems) and Bush withdraws saying that this proves that the Dems. have some agenda and he brings out someone far more conservative.

However, right now he has pretty low numbers and all the GOP scandals aren't helping, so he would be the village idiot to try something like that........ oh wait it is Bush we are talking about..... Nevermind.

In all seriousness, she may be a great justice, or she maybe a bad one but she is still only 1 voice and as long as she is qualified and knows the law and has what's best for the country (and NOT the GOP or the Dems or any special interest group) in her then she deserves the seat.

You never know who will be great or who will be bad until they make their decisions, and in history we've had some great ones and some bad ones sooooo

Hardknock · 10-03-2005, 07:22 PM

I look at this country sometimes and I think why bother.......

AVoiceOfReason · 10-03-2005, 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock

I look at this country sometimes and I think why bother.......

Hmmm, when I look at it, I see all kinds of reasons to "bother."

Seaver · 10-03-2005, 09:17 PM

Quote:

FEMA all over again..... non qualified, close friend getting a political nomination from Bush.

Did you not read the credentials above? While she's not my pick, being President of the BAR Association of the 2nd most populous state isn't exactly unqualified.

Elphaba · 10-03-2005, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hardknock
I look at this country sometimes and I think why bother.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by AVoiceOfReason

Hmmm, when I look at it, I see all kinds of reasons to "bother."

I am entirely "bothered." Hardknock, you have the choice of jumping in and making a difference, or burying your head. It doesn't matter who your party of preference is, because both parties are letting us down. Get "bothered."

host · 10-03-2005, 10:53 PM

Bush dengrates the reputation of the U.S. and the office of the POTUS, more every day that he occupies it. Meirs is an unqualified poitical hack, just like the hack who appointed her. Where is the substance of these two people? Why are some of my countrymen so willing to not only settle for so little substance in a POTUS and a SCOTUS justice, but actually defend it? This woman and our attorney general, and many others in high positions,"earned" those positions by vigorously working to cover up the truth of how inadequate Bush was and is, to be POTUS, when there was still a window of opputunity for knowledge of Bush's inadequacies to influence a greater majority to thwart his ascendancy.......

Quote:

http://www.freep.com/news/latestnews...6_20051003.htm
Monday, October 3, 2005

BY DEB RIECHMANN
ASSOCIATED PRESS

......Whatever her credentials for the high court, Miers' loyalty to Bush - who once called her a pit bull in size 6 shoes - is above question. When he first decided to run for governor in the early 1990s, he hired Miers to comb his background for anything derogatory that opponents might try to use to defeat him.

Miers also introduced Bush to Alberto Gonzales, who served as Bush's counsel in Austin and later in Washington, before being named U.S. attorney general.

During Bush's first term as governor, Gonzales used information turned up by Miers to persuade a local judge to excuse Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. The incident was not divulged until the waning days of Bush's 2000 campaign for the White House. ........

I wil not "get used to" a thug receiving appointment to the bench of the highest court in the land because she successfully hid the background of another thug, so that he could be electable to the office of the POTUS. How do you?

stevo · 10-04-2005, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Bush dengrates the reputation of the U.S. and the office of the POTUS, more every day that he occupies it. Meirs is an unqualified poitical hack, just like the hack who appointed her. Where is the substance of these two people? Why are some of my countrymen so willing to not only settle for so little substance in a POTUS and a SCOTUS justice, but actually defend it? This woman and our attorney general, and many others in high positions,"earned" those positions by vigorously working to cover up the truth of how inadequate Bush was and is, to be POTUS, when there was still a window of opputunity for knowledge of Bush's inadequacies to influence a greater majority to thwart his ascendancy.......

I wil not "get used to" a thug receiving appointment to the bench of the highest court in the land because she successfully hid the background of another thug, so that he could be electable to the office of the POTUS. How do you?

You should run for office host.

raveneye · 10-04-2005, 08:38 AM

This appointment is just plain BIZARRE. It satisfies nobody -- both parties are pissed off about it because she has no conservative credentials or credentials period. WTF ? ? ? ?

It gets a big "HUH?" from me . . . .

Seaver · 10-04-2005, 08:47 AM

Am I the only one who thought it was wrong NOT to pick Gonzalez?

Elphaba · 10-04-2005, 09:04 AM

Seaver, I think Gonzalez would have to recuse himself on a number of issues that are likely to reach the court. That would leave the possibility of a 4/4 tie and I think it is in Bush's interests to avoid that.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-04-2005, 09:07 AM

Plus Gonzalez would get reemed by the Dems, possibly even getting a filibuster; it's no big secret where he stands on many issues.

Seaver · 10-04-2005, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Seaver, I think Gonzalez would have to recuse himself on a number of issues that are likely to reach the court.

Please explain.

Mojo_PeiPei · 10-04-2005, 09:24 AM

He was working for the DoJ and wrote a bunch of policy under the first administration. Anything Guantanmo or Abu Gharab type stuff comes up he would have to recuse himself because he wrote the policy.

Seaver · 10-04-2005, 09:59 AM

Ah thank you.

host · 10-04-2005, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

You should run for office host.

Yeah....nothing to see here, I guess....moveon, host !!!!
This is supposed to be an appointment to the SCOTUS bench. It used to mean something to be appointed to the SCOTUS. It used to mean something to be elected POTUS. Now....all of it smells. There is a stench....an appearance of impropriety (everyone in high office declares that we must avoid those....), in everything that this administration has a hand in.

The crux of the material that follows, is that, when Harriet Miers was head of the Texas State Lottery, ( a position that Bush appointed her to) after she did a background search of Bush in 1993, at his behest, she was at the helm when:

Quote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Ar...935858,00.html
A new, clean-hands direc tor, Lawrence Littwin, was appointed by the Texas Lottery Commission. He ordered an audit of GTech's accounts, ended GTech's contract and put it out for re-tender. He also launched an inquiry into GTech's political donations.

Then a funny thing happened. The Texas Lottery Commission fired Littwin.

Littwin reacted by filing a lawsuit against GTECH. Littwin had come into his director position, presumably as an impartial auditor. He ended up feeling strongly enough in his opinion that Ben Barnes, who, as speaker of the Texas House of Rep., in 1968, had (Bush wants us to believe....) "made the call" to insure that Bush circumvented the waiting list to gain entry into the TANG, solely on the suggestion of "Houston businessman Sidney Adger, a longtime Bush family friend", held "undue influence over the Texas Lottery Commission".

Folks, this appointment is "payback" to Harriet. The 2004 campaign events demonstrate that Bush would not be president if the details of how he got into the TANG in 1968, was able to become a combat pilot with his low test score, and was able to refuse a flight physical and perform no further duty in the NG, and avoid being reassigned to active military duty, and yet receive an early "honorable" discharge from the TANG, were ever fully available, along with witnesses, to be examined by the public and the news media. Bush would not have run for Texas governor in 1994 if Harriet & co. were not successful in rehabilitating Bush's arrest records and military service records.

The "fixer" now gets to taint the SCOTUS by her very presence there. Lawrence Littwin received a cash settlement from his suit against Gtech, and the American people, lose again!

Quote:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...rnes092199.htm
Texas Speaker Reportedly Helped Bush Get Into Guard
By George Lardner Jr.
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 21, 1999; Page A4

..........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.............

Quote:

Copyright 1999 The Austin American-Statesman

Austin American-Statesman (Texas)

October 30, 1999, Saturday

......A lawsuit that led to the disclosure of details about how young George W. Bush got into the National Guard was settled Friday by a former Texas Lottery director and the firm he blamed for his 1997 firing.

Gtech, operator of the Texas Lottery, agreed to pay $300,000 to Lawrence Littwin. The company denied any wrongdoing and called the settlement a "business decision that was in the best interest of our company and the Texas Lottery."

"The company is extremely disappointed and frustrated that it ultimately became necessary to reach a settlement of this matter," Gtech spokesman Marc Palazzo said. "The cost and time associated with litigating this case would have been extensive and far more than the settlement."

Littwin and his attorneys were unavailable for comment Friday. In the settlement, Littwin accepted a confidentiality agreement severely limiting what he can say about the case.

Court records show Littwin wanted $2.6 million from Gtech. His lawsuit claimed the company had undue influence over the Texas Lottery Commission -- influence that led the commission to fire him -- because former Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a former high-dollar lobbyist for Gtech, had potentially damaging information about how Bush got into the National Guard. Gtech had cut its ties with Barnes -- paying $23 million to Barnes and associate Ricky Knox to terminate their contract -- before Littwin's five-month tenure at the Lottery Commission.

Last month, in a deposition sought by Littwin's lawyers, Barnes was asked whether, while serving as speaker of the Texas House in 1968, he helped Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard.

After the deposition, Barnes issued a statement saying he had been asked by Houston businessman Sidney Adger, a longtime Bush family friend, to recommend George W. Bush for the Guard slot that he eventually got. The statement said nobody in the Bush family had asked for favorable treatment for George W. Bush.

The governor and his father have said they were unaware of any efforts by Adger to get the younger Bush into the Guard. Littwin's lawsuit said Barnes "is alleged to have helped the current Governor George Bush avoid active duty during the Vietnam War."

The lawsuit also noted that two top former Bush aides, Reggie Bashur and Cliff Johnson, became Gtech lobbyists after leaving the governor's staff.

Under terms of the settlement, Littwin "admits that he has no personal knowledge of any of the criminal activity alleged in support of his claims against Gtech."

Littwin also agreed to give to Gtech or destroy all documents produced by the litigation, including transcripts of Barnes' deposition.

Gtech's ability to defend itself against the federal lawsuit took a direct hit recently when a federal judge ruled that Texas Lottery Commission Chairwoman Harriet Miers did not have to give a deposition in the case. Company lawyers had wanted to ask Miers about the reasons for Littwin's dismissal, which were never detailed by the three-member commission..........

Quote:

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/atty...es/002383.html

.......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..........

stevo · 10-04-2005, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by host

Yeah....nothing to see here, I guess....moveon, host !!!!

I wan't flaming you. You just seem to think you know an awful lot about politics and how things should run. If you know as much as you try to portray you should run for public office and fix all the wrongs you so easily point out.

Like I said before, Miers isn't going to just slide through the confirmation process. I'm nearly certain she will get a close examination.

host · 10-04-2005, 11:42 AM

stevo, I'm just an informed citizen, concerned because of what i've learned and the conlusions that I make as a result.

Quote:

http://www.villagevoice.com/news/054...2,68584,6.html
The Whistleblower and Harriet Miers
Questions linger about Court nominee's time with Texas Lottery
by James Ridgeway, with Isabel Huacuja
October 4th, 2005 3:12 PM..........

..........The question is whether Miers was dispatched to the state lottery commission to cover up a mess on the verge of being brought to light by a whistleblower. We may never know.

The senate minority leader, Reid, has all but endorsed Miers. There will not be a full examination of her past.

But now you cannot say that you don't know about what she did for Bush in Texas, what she knows about him, and the silence that she keeps to advance her own career........

joshbaumgartner · 10-04-2005, 12:16 PM

I can tell you for a fact that the Democrats will not seriously challenge this nomination. Yes, they will question her at the hearings, but I expect as critical or even more critical questioning to come from the right on this one. The appointment of Miers will mean that after two Supreme Court appointments, there will have been no sea change in the court's composition, which is frankly what Democrats were so concerned about prior to these two appointments when debating the matter.

This does not mean that Miers is the left's justice of choice, obviously, but if she were to be defeated, it could me a more conservative nominee to follow...Dems won't risk that, they'll take status quo as a victory in this case.

10-03-2005, 06:29 AM	#1 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	Harriet Miers on the Supreme Court? Ok, I'm thinking this whole thing is a fake-out of some kind. Nominate a woman with no judicial experience and let the Democrats tear her to shreds as a political crony of the President, then withdraw her and nominate a woman with actual qualifications for the job. Or am I being too cynical? __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

10-03-2005, 06:54 AM	#2 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	I saw this this morning. Without more information on her credentials, it's hard to say. I do confess to being confused as to a nominie with no bench experience, but then again, alot of nominies are only recently appointed to federal courts and then bumped up. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-03-2005, 07:13 AM	#3 (permalink)
tecoyah Illusionary	This concerns me...the Judiciary is the last check left in the supposed "checks and balances" put into place for the protection of our country....and it feels like its about to be removed. I have to wonder ....Why Her? Other than the fact she works for Bush....and thus may be in his pocket to an extent. President Bush on November 17 named Harriet Miers as White House counsel, a position she will hold upon the Senate confirmation of Alberto Gonzales -- current White House counsel -- as U.S. Attorney General. Most recently, Miers served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Prior to that, she was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP. Previously, she was President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, where she worked from 1972 until 1999. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Harriet became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council. Harriet received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University. __________________ Holding onto anger is like grasping a hot coal with the intent of throwing it at someone else; you are the one who gets burned. - Buddha

10-03-2005, 08:14 AM	#7 (permalink)
lurkette My future is coming on Moderator Emeritus Location: east of the sun and west of the moon	I'm really surprised that he would nominate a crony with no experience after what just happened with Brownie. Learning from mistakes does not appear to be his forte. __________________ "If ten million people believe a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." - Anatole France

10-03-2005, 10:10 AM	#12 (permalink)
Lebell Cracking the Whip Location: Sexymama's arms...	Apparently 10 out of the last 33 sitting justices worked for the president that nominated them. Didn't seem to be an issue before so I don't see why it should be now. __________________ "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU! Please Donate!

10-03-2005, 07:34 AM	#4 (permalink)
filtherton Junkie Location: In the land of ice and snow.	I think clarence thomas didn't have bench experience either.

10-03-2005, 11:01 AM	#14 (permalink)
AVoiceOfReason Psycho Location: Greenwood, Arkansas	I just heard Harry Reid say that Harriet Miers was a "trial lawyer." That may address some of the Stuart Taylor concerns. __________________ AVOR A Voice Of Reason, not necessarily the ONLY one.

10-03-2005, 11:41 AM	#15 (permalink)
flstf Easy Rider Location: Moscow on the Ohio	In today's political environment any opinionated intelligent person with a track record causes a lot of problems in the confirmation process and will get slammed by the Left, Right or both. Better to pick someone who has never written or voiced their opinion on any of the important topics of the day. I'm not saying that Harriet Miers is like this, but it wouldn't surprise me. I'm sure the pundits on both sides will let us know more about her in the coming days.

10-03-2005, 12:47 PM	#17 (permalink)
CShine Crazy	Gotta luv the cronyism here. It seems to be her only qualification for the job.

10-03-2005, 05:56 PM	#21 (permalink)
aswo Crazy	I read that the appointment came as part of a recomendation from the gang of 16, i think thats what they are called and democratic majority leader harry reid already gave her recomendation. __________________ People who love people

10-03-2005, 06:19 PM	#22 (permalink)
politicophile Addict	It was a gang of 14, actually. Miers was an interesting pick because of her personal closeness to the President, to be sure. I think calling it "cronyism" is overly simplistic. Bush, I'm sure, remembers what happened to his father when advisors assured H.W. that a certain current Justice was a solid conservative choice. That same disaster will not befall Bush the Younger. Essentially, the only people who know how conservative Miers is are George Bush and Karl Rove, and perhaps a few other administration insiders. What remains to be seen is this: Will conservative Senators take Bush's word that Miers is a solid conservative? I'll tell you one thing: she isn't going to get 55 Republican votes... __________________ The peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error. ~John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

10-03-2005, 06:41 PM	#23 (permalink)
pan6467 Lennonite Priest Location: Mansfield, Ohio USA	FEMA all over again..... non qualified, close friend getting a political nomination from Bush. She maybe a sacrificial lamb, one that has troubles getting nominated, has a skeleton or something in the closet come out (seemingly "minor" but causes her to have problems) and Bush withdraws saying that this proves that the Dems. have some agenda and he brings out someone far more conservative. However, right now he has pretty low numbers and all the GOP scandals aren't helping, so he would be the village idiot to try something like that........ oh wait it is Bush we are talking about..... Nevermind. In all seriousness, she may be a great justice, or she maybe a bad one but she is still only 1 voice and as long as she is qualified and knows the law and has what's best for the country (and NOT the GOP or the Dems or any special interest group) in her then she deserves the seat. You never know who will be great or who will be bad until they make their decisions, and in history we've had some great ones and some bad ones sooooo __________________ I just love people who use the excuse "I use/do this because I LOVE the feeling/joy/happiness it brings me" and expect you to be ok with that as you watch them destroy their life blindly following. My response is, "I like to put forks in an eletrical socket, just LOVE that feeling, can't ever get enough of it, so will you let me put this copper fork in that electric socket?" Last edited by pan6467; 10-03-2005 at 07:01 PM..

10-03-2005, 07:22 PM	#24 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	I look at this country sometimes and I think why bother.......

10-04-2005, 08:38 AM	#30 (permalink)
raveneye Born Against	This appointment is just plain BIZARRE. It satisfies nobody -- both parties are pissed off about it because she has no conservative credentials or credentials period. WTF ? ? ? ? It gets a big "HUH?" from me . . . .

10-04-2005, 08:47 AM	#31 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Am I the only one who thought it was wrong NOT to pick Gonzalez?

10-04-2005, 09:04 AM	#32 (permalink)
Elphaba Deja Moo Location: Olympic Peninsula, WA	Seaver, I think Gonzalez would have to recuse himself on a number of issues that are likely to reach the court. That would leave the possibility of a 4/4 tie and I think it is in Bush's interests to avoid that.

10-04-2005, 09:07 AM	#33 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	Plus Gonzalez would get reemed by the Dems, possibly even getting a filibuster; it's no big secret where he stands on many issues. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-04-2005, 09:24 AM	#35 (permalink)
Mojo_PeiPei Kiss of Death Location: Perpetual wind and sorrow	He was working for the DoJ and wrote a bunch of policy under the first administration. Anything Guantanmo or Abu Gharab type stuff comes up he would have to recuse himself because he wrote the policy. __________________ To win a war you must serve no master but your ambition.

10-04-2005, 09:59 AM	#36 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Ah thank you.

10-04-2005, 12:16 PM	#40 (permalink)
joshbaumgartner Insane	I can tell you for a fact that the Democrats will not seriously challenge this nomination. Yes, they will question her at the hearings, but I expect as critical or even more critical questioning to come from the right on this one. The appointment of Miers will mean that after two Supreme Court appointments, there will have been no sea change in the court's composition, which is frankly what Democrats were so concerned about prior to these two appointments when debating the matter. This does not mean that Miers is the left's justice of choice, obviously, but if she were to be defeated, it could me a more conservative nominee to follow...Dems won't risk that, they'll take status quo as a victory in this case.