Posted on 10/03/2005 8:18:19 PM PDT by Miami Vice
Dear MoveOn member,
This morning, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Miers is a long-time political appointee, campaign counsel, personal lawyer and Bush loyalist who has never served as a judge.
Ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown taught us that vital national positions must be filled with qualified candidates, not political friends with limited experience. With such a thin public record, how can Americans know Harriet Miers' approach to critical issues like corporate power, privacy and civil rights?
Right now we urgently need more information, and we need your help to get it. In the next few hours the Internet will fill with facts, anecdotes and rumors about Harriet Miers. We need your help to sort through it all, select the relevant and important details, and let us know what you find—decentralized, grassroots research.
We've set up a simple web form where you can post facts and sources that will fill out the picture on what kind of Supreme Court justice Miers would be. We'll get your research to the media, the Senate and our partner groups. This info will also be crucial in setting MoveOn's course for this nomination. Even if you just have a few minutes to spare, it could help a lot at this crucial time.
You can post facts right now at:
http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-5096225-8bfkMH25uLFZBvLnzzfuJQ&t=3
Here is a quick chronology of Harriet Miers' career, courtesy of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, to help jump start your research.
1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School 1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes 1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell 1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association 1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors 1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council 1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar 1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign 1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush 1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm 1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp 2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary 2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush 2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy 2004—Selected as White House Counsel
There are many important questions that need to be addressed, including:
What policies did she advocate for on the Dallas City Council? What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission? What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for? What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the "commerce clause" or equal protection As White House councel Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening America's stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role? Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush? It's important that we move quickly in answering these questions. The Bush spin machine has been prepared for this nomination for some time and is already cranking at full speed. The strategy is to move Miers through as an enigma. We need to make sure the facts about her views are known.
This kind of decentralized research may never have been tried before at this scale. But a Supreme Court nominee with a record only the president really knows is a new national challenge. If we act quickly, we can meet that challenge together.
Please pitch in by taking some time to research today, and post what you find at:
http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-5096225-8bfkMH25uLFZBvLnzzfuJQ&t=4
Thanks for all that you do,
–Ben, Marika, Rosalyn, Joan and the MoveOn.org Political Action Team Monday, October 3rd, 2005
PAID FOR BY MOVEON.ORG POLITICAL ACTION Not authorized by any candidate or candidate's committee.
So I guess you are not interested in the how only the what?
You " I already got everything figure out" types are worse than the liberals.
Uh I think that is called fundraising
Duuuuhhhhh
Of course not.
You " I already got everything figure out" types are worse than the liberals.
Whatever. I don't pretend to know everything about Ms. Miers, I will however say, that I am reserving judgement for a later time when more facts are known about her. Unlike a whole slew of FReepers who say they have no clue who she is, and immediately stamp her as the worse pick.
Though Soros and his crowd are giving me good reason to like her, I'm just not there yet. I would've preferred someone like Brown, Luttig, or Owens.
If Harry Reid (MINO - Mormon In Name Only) likes her, we're in big trouble.
Once Reid gets on the same page as the MoveOn goofballs, he'll be wholly against her.
LoL... "the most brilliant person I ever met," that looks like Alfred E. Neuman..
Day? I thought her middle name was "european law."
When liberals say, "corporate power, privacy and civil rights," what they actually mean is, "redistribution of wealth, abortion and affirmative action." What will it take to penetrate their thick skulls and enlighten their tiny little minds to the difference between the legislative and judicial branches of American government? Apparently college education has failed them.
Thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed it. I had fun writing it!
"Maybe I will "create" some research and send it in."
That would be funny.... but you probably want to be careful - and make sure it's not something you'd regret if they post it on the internet.
Fair question. Here's a few reasons:
This doesn't mean she's a bad person or a bad lawyer, it just means she's thoroughly mediocre.
As far as the Bar Association is, being a wheel in the TBA is like being a wheel in the teachers' union -- because that's all a Bar is, a lawyers' union, and the committees and what not attract the hacks and those who seek to make connexions and advance themselved by cronyism. Which is a pretty effective way to get ahead with this President. Unfortunately.
Even in the White House, she didn't lead on those cases she worked on (i.e. Bush v. Gore.)
This is what many of us supported Bush for, and he give us his worst. Appointment. Ever.
Worse than Julie Myers at ICE (cause you know this Administration is feeble on border enforcement, even if they don't put a twentysomething bimbo in charge of messing it up).
Worse than Brownie and the hackerama at FEMA (they handled four 'canes in Florida fine last year, they were just not ready for a situation with a 90-IQ mayor and a governor who collapsed into blubbering inutility when the people looked for leadership).
Good God, this person was not the best woman (by any means) for the job, she wasn't even in the top 20.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
A case in point would be Louis Brandeis.
He graduated first in his class from an elite law school (Harvard) and was lead counsel in many important cases in a highly respected Boston law firm. But as SC Justice, he gave birth to such novel and insupportable judicial notions as a "constitutional right to privacy" and application of the federal commerce clause powers so broad and vague as to imply a constitutional requirement for command economy rather than free enterprise.
He was the Harry Houdini of judicial opinion, contorting himself into elaborate rhetorical knots in support of his lifelong conviction that America was intended to be a socialist paradise rather than a constitutional republic.
He jumped through all the hoops you require in your post but his subsequent performance on the court did massive injury to the Constitution he swore to uphold.
There are non-lawyers here in this forum whose understanding and support for our Constitution put Brandeis in the shade. Meirs couldn't botch the job as bad as Brandeis did even if she tried to do so.
Anyway, she's gone and I say good riddance. Proves that even the Gipper can throw away a perfectly good opportunity to bring the judiciary back to its senses.
So I guess you are not interested in the how only the what?
Of course not.
Big mistake on your part never to be interested in the how.
I already know the "how".
The primary point used against her will be that she is close to Bush and doesn't have enough dirty laundry to air.
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.