link Democrats, Rejoice: Right Says Wrong on Harriet Miers Conservative disappointment at Bush’s Supreme Court pick by Laura Rozen October 3rd, 2005 1:31 PM The most notable reaction to Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to be his next Supreme Court justice pick has come not from liberals, but from conservatives. They’re howling with dismay. "I'm disappointed, depressed and demoralized," wrote William Kristol, the editor of the neoconservative Weekly Standard. "What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration. Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?" "I'm actually hoping there are no more vacancies during this presidency," sniffed Mark Levin, at the "Corner" weblog of the conservative National Review Online, reflecting the conservative consensus sense of having been let down by the White House. "The Miers nomination. . . is an unforced error," wrote David Frum, former Bush speech writer, in his column at National Review Online: Unlike the Roberts nomination, which confirmed the previous balance on the Court, the O'Connor resignation offered an opportunity to change the balance. This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades.There was no reason for [Bush] to choose anyone but one of these outstanding conservatives. So the question must be asked: Why not the best? "I'm appalled," writesconservative UCLA law professor Stephen Brainbridge. "This appointment reeks of cronyism, which along with prideful arrogance seems to be the besetting sin of the Bush presidency. At this point, I see no reason—none, nada, zilch—for conservatives who care about the courts to lift a finger to support this candidate." By contrast, the reaction from Democrats has been far more muted. Crony appointment? Sure. Thin on experience? Perhaps. Unknown quantity? Definitely. "Miers is a 'stealth' candidate, who has not written or spoken much about the key issues that fill the Supreme Court's current docket," writes Yale law professor Jack Balkin. "Presidents will turn to such candidates when they have to please many different constituencies in their party and when they face the prospect of a significant confirmation fight if they choose an ideological stalwart." But Democrats realize, if only from the reaction of conservative outrage, that this pick could have been worse. Indeed, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada sounded positively warm and fuzzy about the 60-year-old Miers: "I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association." Reid added: “In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court." "Bush should at least be given credit for nominating a candidate who has united the right and left—in being underwhelmed," writes legal eagle blogger Brian Tamanaha. Indeed, Democrats might worry, that if they choose to filibuster Miers, conservatives would be only too happy to help them, and force Bush to give them someone more reliably conservative. Laura Rozen can be found online at War and Piece.
A few right wing bloggers are mystfied as well... http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005556.php David Frum of the National Review called the pick "an unforced error". "I’ve been wondering why President Bush chose Ms. Miers, and I think I’ve hit on the main reason: confirmability. Like John Roberts, Miers is a cipher. Every other candidate had a paper trail; Miers has none. And some Democrat senators apparently told the president that they’d support Miers. Assuming the president knows that Miers is a genuine conservative, she must have seemed the obvious choice to avoid a confirmation fight. " http://polipundit.com/index.php?p=10261 I also noticed that Progress for America has started a website supporting her nomination, JusticeMiers.com Who is Progress for America? PFA was registered as a 501c4 group in February 2001 by Tony Feather, a political director of the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign and partner at DCI Group as well as at the affiliated telemarketing and fundraising firm of Feather Larson Synhorst-DCI (FLS-DCI). Feather set up PFA as a “grassroots organization that mobilizes the public to contact their members of Congress about pending legislation and to write local newspapers to publicize the White House’s agenda,” the Center for Public Integrity wrote in 2002. During the first part of the George W. Bush administration, it led campaigns to support tax cuts, conservative judicial appointments and energy legislation. Total Contributions $44,929,178 Total Expenditures $35,631,378
Everyone across the board seems to be mystified by this pick. I think Jim Beam made Dubya pick Harriet Miers.
I thought her task is to be responsible at Supreme Court justice. Why all of the sudden experience no longer matters, confirmability becomes first priority? A highly honorable position at Supreme Court, where ones action and view and above all PROFESSIONALISM AND LEGAL EXPERTISE would affect lives of millions of Americans, just downgraded to a balancing bargaining chip between two parties? In other words, they only need to pick someone from the street, who didn't vote for Bush nor Kerry in 2004, he/she is qualified for that post. What a joke.
I put this up there with buying a puke green car in the 70's. Husband picks a color of car he likes, wife picks a color of car she likes; but they decide on a color of car that nobody would like.
Lest we forget, William Rehnquist had no experience as a judge, and his boss Richard Nixon would embarrassingly refer to him as "Renchburg."
Lest we forget, William Rehnquist graduated Stanford Law School, one of the top students of his class, clerked under Supreme Courth Justice Jackson and had a strong reputation as a brilliant, if conservative, legal mind. I agree that being a judge isn't a prerequiste or necessary but it still should be someone with a strong reputation and background. Miers is probably a decent attorney but SCOTUS material???
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-sirota/miers-led-law-firm-repeat_b_8277.html
Wow! Seems like this is being poo poo'd by a lot of the right establishment. Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized Mon Oct 3,11:11 AM ET Washington (The Daily Standard) - I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized. I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of. I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. 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. ---------------- I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush? William Kristol is editor of The Weekly Standard. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=sto...tandard/disappointeddepressedanddemoralized_1
My theory is that Bush really wants to insure that Roe vs. Wade is NOT overturned. However, he has to act like he does,so he has a stealth candidate. He really doesn't care about about fetuses, but the whole issue is very useful to keep the faithful voting against their own economic interests and for wars that they don't realize kill lots of foreign fetuses.
Our Con Law prof thinks that she is "intellectually undistinguished" and will end up like Thomas, being led around by Scalia. Great.
Knowing the republicans record on stealth candidates, I'd say the Democrats should be damn happy about this appointment.
Wow, she'll be the first lesbian on the bench. Go figure. Maybe Bush lost a bet to Cheney's daughter.
I've heard this theory before from a Republican. He left out the voting against economic interest part and foreign wars part but put it this way that the RNC is very well that if Roe V Wade were overturned that could prompt a huge backlash and so continue to talk up the issue but only act marginally.
I didn't really know what to think about Harriet Meirs but after that Nightline piece I think there is good reason to worry from both the Left and the Right. The thing that really had me worried was that one of the guests who interviewed her said that she bascially parroted all of the President's lines and didn't seem to have thought through many of the issues. Unlike Roberts who was deliberately reserved about his answers Meirs just might not be all that thoughtful or knowledgeable.
