Posted on 10/03/2005 4:48:38 PM PDT by flixxx
Here we go again. Another pick for the Supreme Court without much--or, in this case, any--judicial experience. And that will make it hard for senators--or anyone else--to assess what sort of Justice Harriet Miers, currently George W. Bush's White House counsel, will be if the Senate confirms her as Bush's pick to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor. In announcing his selection of Miers, Bush said, "I believe that senators of both parties will find that Harriet Miers's talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice."
But what precisely is her "judicial philosophy"? And how can it be discerned? Miers has never been a judge (which should not be a disqualification). She spent most of her career as a corporate lawyer (Bush was once a client) before joining the Bush Administration as staff secretary. Does she qualify as a crony? According to the Los Angeles Times, Miers introduced Bush and Alberto Gonzales in the 1990s. (Given Miers's close personal connection to Bush, senators might want to ask whether it's good for the nation to have a Supreme Court Justice who has such a tight bond with a person whose decisions and policies come before the Court.) In private practice, she headed one of Texas' largest law firms, Locke Lidell & Sapp, and as a trial litigator she represented Microsoft and Disney. She also racked up a series of firsts: first woman to lead a major law firm in the Lone Star State, first woman to become president of the Dallas Bar Association, first woman to become president of the state bar.
But--again--what is her "judicial philosophy"? It seems that even conservatives are not sure--and worried. Conservative bloggers and commenters quickly expressed anxiety over this nomination, not knowing if Miers is truly a conservative. "Utterly Underwhelmed," proclaimed conservative blogger Michelle Malkin. On one conservative site, a reader posted campaign finance reports showing that Miers donated $1,000 to the Democratic Party in 1988 and $1,000 to Al Gore's presidential campaign that year, as well as $1,000 to a Democratic senatorial candidate the previous year. (Egads! Maybe this is not a disaster of a pick for Democrats.) Soon after Bush unveiled the Miers nomination, David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, observed:
I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated....I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left.
I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.
So if a former White House co-worker is unclear about Miers's "judicial philosophy," what's a senator to do? It seems it will take much probing to determine whether Miers's views on issues of constitutional law make her a "superb choice." But before any Democratic senator could raise a question, Republican Senator Bill Frist, the majority leader, was telling them not to push for too much information. In a press release, he stated,
As we begin the confirmation process, I hope the Senate continues to move beyond the partisan obstructionism of the recent past. I hope we carry forward the lessons learned from Chief Justice Roberts' nomination....A bipartisan majority of senators also agreed that senators can make an informed decision on the fitness of a judicial nominee by focusing on the individual's qualifications and not her political ideology and by looking at the individual's record, testimony, and writings, without probing into confidential and privileged documents. Finally, a bipartisan majority of senators agreed that we should not ask or expect nominees to compromise their judicial independence by pre-judging cases or issues that may come before the court.
Here was a warning: don't go after documents Miers has written or advice she has given while she has worked in the White House. But that might be necessary to suss out her "judicial philosophy." (By the way, I'd like to see a Democratic senator ask her how the counsel's office has handled the Plame/CIA leak case. Ms. Miers, can you tell us what advice you gave to the President or anyone else in the White House when evidence recently emerged showing that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had passed classified national security information to reporters? Can you tell us how the counsel's office reacted to this evidence, which showed that the White House had previously misinformed the public when it declared that Rove and Libby were not involved in this leak?) After decades of defending corporations and a few years working in the White House, there is not much of a record upon which to judge Miers's "judicial philosophy."
******
I expect Miers to make Dave Souter appear like a hard core conservative.
Ex democrat, Gore supporter. Do you have to hear any more?
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Yes, I do.
Do some research of your own and don't repost crap like "Gore supporter". She gave to Gore in 1988 when he was a conservative pro life candidate. It's a fact. Look it up. Texas at the time had conservative Democrats and Liberal Democrats.
She gave to Gore through her Law Firm which gave in mass to the candidate through a business function. Still counts, I know, but it is a practice done at law firms often.
She also gave to Texans for Life in 1988. Does this count?
Wonder what this guy would write if he knew that this wasn't Bush's last pick for SCOUS. Wonder what all the other "common taters" would say if the knew Bush will probably have two more picks?
Interesting twist here. Are the Republicans considering the filibuster now?
He knows this nominee better than any other he has nominated. We don't. But we didn't get any input on his other choices.
The prevailing sentiment among the breathless here at FR is that Bush made a bad nomination. They can't point to any facts to back that up, but they point to the fact that it can't be proven that she is Miss Scalia.
She's been in Bush's inner circle for nearly 10 years. She's had significant influence on the judges he has nominated.
The panic around here is irrational.
Ditto that. Let's back off until we have the time to find out what this pick is all about. I trust the President's judgement.
It is amazing what a bunch of Bush butt wipes the posters on this site really are. I voted for Bush twice. I contributed about $500 total between 2000 and 2004.
He's a loser. Big time. He's stabbed me in the back for the last time with a nobody for a USSC pick when he could have made history. Wait, he did make history. With two disastrous Supreme Court picks who will continue the legacy of his daddy.
I trusted Reagan's judgment throughout his presidency, and we got O'Connor and Kennedy. Judgment means nothing when it comes to picking SCOTUS nominees. We need a firm record of their constitutional philosophy.
your liberal, you take shots at his dad that gives you away
A few more leaps of logic and you'll be in a different universe altogether.
I've taken the same approach today. I basically gotta trust Bush on this one. He has been involved with her for years PLUS she was conducting the search for the nominees to the Supreme Court...so he MUST have some idea about her stands on important conservative legal issues...not much choice anyway at this point.
I expect you are 100% wrong. The more I hear about her the more I like her. Bush has made great appointments for appeals court judges. His cadidates that were interviewed for SCOTUS were too. Who was responsible for vetting and advising Bush on those judges? Harriet Miers. During the course of those conversaions they no doubt had very candid off the record exchanges about the various issues facing the court and what their opinions might be. So Bush knows far more about what she thinks about those issues than anybody they interviewed. And he decided she was the best choice to fulfull his promise to appoint judges like Scalia and Thomas. That is a completely different situation than Bush 41 who knew nothing about Souter and relied on the opinion of John Sununu. It's really what happened with Cheney when he was in charge of vetting possible VP candidates. Bush decided the best person for the job was the one doing the vetting.
Moreover I have heard quite a few solid consrvatives who know her quite well who have come out priasing the decision, including a very conservative TX Supreme Court Justice who attends the same church.
As for being an ex-Democrat, so were probably half the people on FR, not to mention Ronald Reagan. The key phrase is "ex".
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.