<-------- Visit Stingray blogsite for conservative Christian commentary
Posted on 10/03/2005 5:19:55 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
Oct. 3, 2005 — Harriet Ellan Miers is White House counsel and was formerly President Bush's personal lawyer in Texas. She first served in the White House as staff secretary and was deputy chief of staff before she was named counsel upon Alberto Gonzales' transition to attorney general.
When he was the governor of Texas, Bush once publicly introduced Miers as a "pit bull in size 6 shoes."
Born and raised in Dallas, Miers earned her undergraduate degree in mathematics and her law degree from Southern Methodist University. In addition to her legal career, she served one term on the Dallas City Council.
Miers, 60, broke barriers for women throughout her career. She reportedly was the first woman hired by the prestigious Dallas law firm Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, where she became a successful commercial litigator. She also became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985 and was the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association in 1992.
Miers met Bush in the 1980s, according to published reports, and she was counsel for his 1994 campaign for governor. He appointed her chair of the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995.
Miers then was president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell and co-managing partner of Locke Liddell & Sapp before she joined the White House in 2001.
In addition, Miers was named one of the Top 50 Most Influential Lawyers by the National Law Journal in 1998, and she received numerous other awards from groups including the Dallas Women Lawyers Association, the Anti-Defamation League and the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers.
Like what?
I think there are lots of reasons to be worried about this nomination, but her marital status isn't one of them. I can't even understand why anyone makes an issue of it. How is her marital status anybody else's business? Is being married (or not) is a qualification for the Supreme Court?
"She is single, and has never been married. This is rather unusual, and will raise some questions, certainly.
Like what?"
This is disappointing, but I'm wondering...think he's trotting Miers out, hoping she might not get confirmed, and then putting out his real nominee??
Nah....me either, but that would have made an interesting strategery.
All I have to say is you better be right. THe political donation record, which is all we have to go on, suggests otherwise.
Dear MineralMan,
"Is it relevant? Personally, I don't think so,..."
I don't know. Rumor has it that there is currently a sitting justice who is a homosexual. One wonders how this has played out in rulings in recent years concerning homosexuality, privacy rights, and yes, abortion.
I think one can make the case that it is relevant, in that it may represent an otherwise-hidden bias.
sitetest
To me, suggestions that she is homosexual simply because she never has married are offensive. I see it as on par with questions about the circumstances of Judge Roberts' adoption of his children, or John Kerry's debate reference to the Cheneys' daughter.
From what I've read, this candidate has been affiliated with Christian organizations, suggesting that she is unlikely to be a homosexual rights activist. Being married is no guarantee of heterosexuality, nor is it a guarantee of conservative voting. I don't see any reason for concern about her advocating an unconstitutional homosexual rights agenda, certainly not if the only basis for that suspicion is that she never has been married. Is Justice Ginsburg married? I believe so, yet marriage certainly doesn't seem to have diminished her credentials with the homosexual rights lobby.
I agree with you that the question should not be raised. I find it so inappropriate that I also would say it should not be acknowledged or seriously debated by Washington. Perhaps I misunderstood your post; I thought you were saying the fact that "questions will be raised" suggested she should not have been appointed. To the extent that these "questions" are raised by Democrats, it simply will further demonstrate the hypocrisy of the left. Those who would proclaim her as homosexual only because she never has been married I would call ignorant, regardless of political affiliation.
And a misunderestimated one at that. :)
"Perhaps I misunderstood your post; I thought you were saying the fact that "questions will be raised" suggested she should not have been appointed. "
You did misunderstand. Personally, I don't think it is or should be an issue. It will be, however, and not just from the left, I'm afraid.
Well said. A voice of common sense.
If Bush has known her for 10 yrs, then he will know well her thinking.
Miers is from Dallas, not New England.
<-------- Visit Stingray blogsite for conservative Christian commentary
Your argument is akin to a point I made a few days ago about why Bush would select a true conservative. His appellate court nominees have been outstanding thus far. I did not expect he would change course, and now we will have to see.
As an aside, the SCOTUS is the most important reason I worked hard to get GWB and Tom Coburn elected. I consider that "single issue" voters to be some of the most passionate people I have met.
There is no doubt in anyones mind the JRB is a conservative and I think she could get appointed with the help of the Vice President and of course we would also deal the death blow to the idea that SCJ's can be filibustered.
My posts do not take issue with your point of view, you may be completely correct in your assumptions, time will tell.
I take issue with your cheap shots at men and your method of reasoning. Because we disagree does not make me a "girlie man" no more than it makes you a she male.
Six years ago, Dick Cheney was helping Bush find a running mate.
I'd say that worked out pretty well.
In the 80's Algore was still pro-life, and many folks who now know better did the same. Anyway, I just heard on Rush that her donations to him and Bentsen were of a corporate nature because of her law firm, that they were not personal donations.
You honestly think that had Bush nominated Brown, Luttig, or Owen, FReepers would be complaining? I think you might want to read up on some FR SCOTUS threads preceding today's nomination.
Frankly, I'm glad she's not a judge. That means she's been doing REAL work for longer than some. She's been a corporate lawyer, and dealing with governmental regulations for the last 20 years or so, so she's in a unique position to judge cases dealing with business matters. How many of the other Supremes have had this experience?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.