Harriet Miers Nominated to Supreme Court

harriet miers.jpg

I’m interested in the local reaction to this nomination.

What do you think?

14 Comments so far

  1. Marty (unregistered) on October 3rd, 2005 @ 12:37 pm

    According to what I heard this morning on WBEZ, Miers prides herself on being one of the most powerful, yet least well known, member of Bush’s inner circle. I think I’m going to hold judgement until the confirmation hearings.

  2. tankboy (unregistered) on October 3rd, 2005 @ 1:13 pm

    I too am holding my judgement…but the fact that sh’e the WH GC without any judicial track record to examine does worry me a bit more than the whole Roberts nomination did.

  3. A E Hansen (unregistered) on October 3rd, 2005 @ 2:39 pm

    It is quite similar to Kennedy’s selection of Byron White.

  4. nikkos (unregistered) on October 3rd, 2005 @ 2:45 pm

    OK AE, you win the prize for most obscure polticial reference of the day.

    Please elaborate on your point for those playing along at home.

  5. EJ (unregistered) on October 3rd, 2005 @ 2:49 pm

    Well the conservatives feel completely betrayed by this nomination… like this nomination represents a complete missed opportunity for the GOP to put a true conservative on the bench. That to me means that this isn’t TOO bad of a thing… yet.
    She is in a government administrative position, so I am a little worried about her experience level, but I think you can be a beneficial, moderate justice without having judicial experience. On another note, she donated $1000 to Gore in 1988… so I’m of the opinion, it could have been worse.

  6. Marty (unregistered) on October 3rd, 2005 @ 2:56 pm

    The more I read about her, the less I like. Bush’s Whitehouse, especially his inner circle, is notorious for being loyal to the president. From what I remember, I believe he claimed that Loyalty was the most important trait for his staffers–but I could be wrong.

    I am starting to think Bush will have a very reliable individual in SCOTUS, and I am not at all partial to that.

  7. EJ (unregistered) on October 3rd, 2005 @ 3:06 pm

    In response to A.E’s post… Byron White was part of Kennedy’s administration — thus the similarity.

  8. James T. Struck (unregistered) on October 4th, 2005 @ 7:14 am

    One of my later in the day reactions was to ponder what effect the abolition of the presidency would have.

    One of the effects would be a decrease in america’s oil use as Airforce One would fly less.

    Another effect would be that we could not blame the president for policies and problems.

    I honestly think of the president as someone who we can blame for our problems just so we can avoid blaming local officials or ourselves sometimes. Sometimes yes problems are the president’s fault. Yes, sometimes clearly policies are the president’s fault.

    What would be the effect if every american were named FEMA chief or President of the US?

    In a political science sense that is called “anarchism.” In the city of the Haymarket problems and Lucy Parsons,etc. this kind of discussion is appropriate.

    It sounds obnoxious, but I think of one of the major roles of Washington D.C. officials is that we can blame them for things. We can blame them for things just like some people blame american or european tourists for things they have nothing to do with. Or we sometimes blame certain religions for things the religions are unrelated to.

    Part of my point is that she will do her job without any glaring difference between her and the other justices. She will express sometimes good opinions that people respect and sometimes opinions that people are very upset about. That sort of thing is true of every single Justice.

    I hope she answers more questions than Judge Roberts. Again, I see nothing wrong with saying “my personal beliefs are…”

    What else are the confirmation senators supposed to ask about?

    Are the senators supposed to blow kisses or smile knowingly at the candidate for Justice saying “We know you cannot comment on any pending case, so let’s sing Christmas carols and watch a football or basketball game.”

    James T. Struck

  9. A E Hansen (unregistered) on October 4th, 2005 @ 10:34 am


    Byron White was not only been part of the Kennedy Administration, but he had never been a judge before his nomination.

    Another similar case is Ian Binnie of the Supreme Court of Canada.

  10. nikkos (unregistered) on October 4th, 2005 @ 10:41 am

    Well, who can forget Ian Binnie?

    The “never been a judge before” line of attack is a straw man argument.

    Rehnquist was never a judge before he became a Supreme either.

    It’s much more common than one might guess.

  11. laila (unregistered) on October 4th, 2005 @ 12:17 pm

    Along with being in the G.W.’s inner circle, she is a devout Evangelical Christian. Whether she can keep her religious beliefs separated from her legal decisions remains to be seen. That said, Evangelicals are not known for keeping their religion out of politics, the law, legislation, etc…

  12. Cold Chilli (unregistered) on October 4th, 2005 @ 1:22 pm

    “I picked the best person I could find. ” — GWB
    … in his inner circle… Does this man now know anyone outside of his office?

  13. nikkos (unregistered) on October 4th, 2005 @ 2:34 pm

    For your daily dose of the theater of the absurd, check out the transcript from Bush’s Rose Garden press conference re: Miers from earlier today:


    Fave quote: “She is plenty bright.”

    Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

  14. AuntAcrid (unregistered) on October 8th, 2005 @ 10:05 pm

    From The New Republic
    post date: 10.6.2005
    issue date: 10.17.2005

    On Monday (October 3, 2005), Bush nominated Miers, the personal lawyer who fixed the paperwork on his fishing cabin, to the Supreme Court of the United States. Suddenly, it was no longer a competition. “I picked the best person I could find,” Bush said Tuesday. And so have we.

    We’d like to think that our process was slightly less arbitrary than the president’s. Judging such matters is admittedly subjective, but if one were to express hackishness as a formula, it would look something like the adjacent equation.

    Miers’s croniness quotient is high. After all, the president has given her five jobs over the past eleven years. And senior White House aides have repeatedly remarked about her devotion to Bush. A Bush official’s Danger to the Republic factor can generally be gleaned by the importance of his or her new job. And, while we grant that some unqualified candidates have turned out to be capable justices (see Jeffrey Rosen, “Judge Not,”), Miers’s lifetime appointment to the highest position Bush is authorized to fill is like winning the hack lotto.

    What, then, about Miers’s qualifications? This is where she left the competition in the dust. Take, for example, her two-year stint on the Dallas City Council. Although she may not have been guided by any awe-inspiring understanding of constitutional law, she is credited with calming down a crowd of protesters after a county commissioner punched a police officer.

    In announcing his choice, Bush pointed to her storied career as chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission. Although the Commission has historically not produced many Supreme Court justices, Bush has reason to be pleased with her lottery service. Miers may not have dealt with issues like civil rights or the death penalty, but she dealt with bingo. As chairman, she opined that she wanted all bingo-related games “to look and feel and smell like the game of bingo,” which seems like a reasonable position.

    Miers’s solid job at the Lottery Commission and her other work for Bush catapulted her into the upper ranks of the White House. After three years as staff secretary, she beat out Brett M. Kavanaugh, a bright conservative lawyer with a John Roberts-like resum

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.