Posted on 10/03/2005 7:10:27 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for another pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.
"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.
Miers, whom Bush called a trailblazer for women in the legal profession, said she was humbled by the nod.
"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," she said.
Democratic and Republican special interests groups had been braced for a political brawl over the pick, but they may not get it. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress.
Miers has no judicial record, which may complicate any Democratic attempts to block her nomination. It is impossible to predict whether Miers and Roberts will shift the court to the right. She would replace O'Connor, a critical swing vote on the court who helped uphold the right to abortion and affirmative action. Rehnquist, the late chief justice being replaced by Roberts, was a consistent conservative vote.
"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Mier's judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said: "With this selection, the president has chosen another outstanding nominee to sit on our nations highest court. Ms. Miers is honest and hard working and understands the importance of judicial restraint and the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench."
Bush, his approval rating falling in recent months, had been under intense pressure to nominate a woman or a minority.
Miers had helped push Roberts' nomination through the Senate, and Bush said that "she will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench." Conservatives apparently agreed.
Initial reaction from conservatives was positive.
"She has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career," said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.
"Harriet Miers is a top-notch lawyer who understands the limited role that judges play in our society," said Noel Francisco, former assistant White House counsel and deputy assistant attorney general during the Bush administration.
The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.
Rehnquist, whose death paved way for Roberts' nomination, had not served as a judge before President Nixon put him on the Supreme Court. Nineteen other justices previously had never served as judges before getting on the high court.
According to the White House, 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933, including Rehnquist and the late Justice Byron White, were appointed from positions within the president's administration.
"Having never served as a judge, Ms. Miers has no `paper trail' of judicial opinions, and prospective opponents thus will have a hard time identifying positions to protest or complain about," said Supreme Court historian David Garrow. "What's more, Ms. Miers' professional record as an attorney in Texas is undeniably one of significant achievement and accomplishment, and her proponents will be able to present her as a female trail blazer whose life-record is at least arguably comparable to that of Justice O'Connor."
Known for thoroughness and her low-profile, Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave.
When Bush named her White House counsel in November 2004, the president described Miers as a lawyer with keen judgment and discerning intellect — "a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice."
He also joked of Miers, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul."
With no record, liberals say the White House should be prepared for Miers to be peppered with questions during her Senate confirmation.
"Choosing somebody who is not a judge would put that much more of a premium on straight answers to questions because there would be that much less for senators and the public to go on when looking at such a nominee's judicial philosophy," says Elliot Mincberg, counsel with the liberal People for the American Way.
Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with the president to the White House as his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk. Miers was promoted to deputy chief of staff in June 2003.
As an attorney in Dallas, Miers became president in 1996 of Locke Purnell, Rain & Harrell a firm with more than 200 lawyers where she worked starting in 1972. After it merged a few years later, she became co-manager of Locke Liddell & Sapp.
When Bush was governor of Texas, she represented him in a case involving a fishing house. In 1995, he appointed her to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission. She also served as a member-at-large on the Dallas City Council and in 1992 became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar.
I cited history. Are you contesting my claim that Rehnquist was not a judge? If you are, I'm certainly not the one that looks like a fool. If you want to oppose the nomination, that's fine. But base it on facts, not falsehoods. Falsehoods are not a strong way to back up your arguments and aren't convincing.
while trying to silence other opinions.
How have I tried to silence you? By responding to your post?
Is anyone else tired of living in the grey area? Never knowing for certain, always having to second-guess, and waiting constantly for the next shoe of doom/celebration to fall?
I didn't need to be this way. That's all I'm going to say.
Right, the Medicare expansion, the Kennedy-supported NCLB Act, the open borders/amnesty push - those weren't sellouts or anything, right?
ooops. One more thing. I should read It.
Sometimes political reality is that John McCain and 13 other senators have agreed to prevent a hard conservative from being chosen.
With only a 55-45 lead in the Senate, what is political reality?
"I find it more disturbing that we even have to have this debate upon whether we like the candidate. There are plenty of obvious, brilliant, well qualified and EXPERIENCED candidates. Why are we given a stealth candidate, and we get a maybe good=maybe bad. Dissapointing."
Exactamundo! Bush has gone WIMP. Too afraid to fight the Rats and is now taking advice from Harry Reid on SC picks. Not only is she stealth, all the info we can detect is she is a pro choice, GORE supporter!
"No they don't. Conservatives just need to take back the Republican party from these betrayers."
We thought we did with Bush.
Unfortunately, these people - the McCains, Keans, Bushes, etc have money - LOTS of it. And they and their thinking is entrenched in the Republican Party.
And the only difference between the way they think and the Rockefellers, Kennedys, etc, is a matter of degree.
The only solution is the dissolution of the Republican Party and its replacement by a Conservative Party which is more reflective of the Republican base than these elitist limousine liberals are.
But that's just my take. You might be right, but who is on the horizon to step into Reagan's shoes? I certainly see no one.
The lady has never even been a judge.
That COULD be a good thing. Maybe she will bring some good ol' Texas common sense to the bench.
This isn't what I helped campaign for, as a volunteer; and it's not what I supported, with numerous (and substantial) cash donations.
I didn't know that looks were a qualification for carrying out their duties.
This is a good time to trot out a theory. I've been wondering whether Sandy O'Connor has been blackmailing the President on this nomination. I've thought all along that it's highly irregular for a sitting Supreme court justice to announce her retirement BUT... remain sitting until her replacement is confirmed. All it would take is another announcement that she is un-retiring if Bush nominated someone she didn't like. Sure, it would make waves, but what does she care? She's a Supreme Court Justice. She doesn't answer to anyone -- she's higher than the President.
I mean, what's the point of starting the term? She's not going to be around to vote on the cases. Why sit around and take up space if you're not going to be there to do the work of the court? Who ever heard of a lame duck judge? It doesn't make sense.
This could explain why the President has nominated someone that goes against the grain of everything he has professed to be looking for. She's old (60), has gone both ways in the past (swing nominee), cut in Sandy's image, and most of all, she's female.
Hate to say it, she's Sandy's pick. This also explains how the New York Times got the tip last week.
If she's as old as she looks, she'll be a short timer on the High Court. I thought W was looking for a long term impact ?
We can't dissolve the Republican Party, it's already been taken over by former democrats.
And Ronald Reagan was a Hollywood Elitist, who ran a labor union, and voted four times for FDR. So what? The Democrat party changed, not Reagan. Miers was conservative Dem in the Texas Democrat Party which was about all there was in Texas up until 15-20 years ago. There were very few Republicans and even fewer elected to anything.
Rehnquist was never a judge, Clarence Thomas was never a judge, O'Connor was never a judge. On the other hand, Souter was a judge. Now tell me that matters?
That's more reasonable. We have a two-party system. Although it's not explicitly in the constitution, the way things are set up results in it. I think something more formal might be useful. A 'party' if you want to call it that. However, the goal would be more unity among conservatives (establishing agreed upon principles and goals) and to take back the Republican party, not competing head-to-head with both Republicans and Democrats.
She supported Phil Gramm for PRes in '96 and Pete Sessions too when he was starting ....
Cool ... she's no RINO supporter.
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.