A most apropos and soon to be copied description.
I heard it here first. ;)
Posted on 10/04/2005 12:56:19 PM PDT by deport
October 3, 2005
Next Supreme Court Nominee Announced
by Pete Winn, associate editor
Bush selects his own White House counsel to replace the high court's swing vote.
For the second opening on the U.S. Supreme Court, President Bush nominated his own White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to succeed retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
"For the past five years, Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government, including one of the most important legal positions in the country, White House counsel," Bush said in making the announcement. "She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice. She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."
The appointment came on the same day the president's first nominee, John Roberts, began his new job as chief justice of the United States.
Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., welcomed Miers' nomination.
"President Bush pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it," he said. "He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy.' To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy."
Dobson said, based on what's generally known about Miers — and Bush's personal knowledge of her — she is not likely to be the lone exception.
"On the other hand, one cannot know absolutely about matters of integrity and philosophy until a jurist is given the tremendous power and influence of their position," he said. "As Lord Acton said, 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Sadly, that seems to have happened to Justices Souter and Kennedy. All we can say now is that Harriet Miers appears to be an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court."
If approved by the Senate, Miers would become only the third woman on the highest court. She would join sitting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and succeed O'Connor, who became the first female justice in 1981, at the invitation of President Reagan.
Who is Miers?
Former Texas Supreme Court Justice Raul Gonzalez has known the nominee for more than two decades.
"Harriet is an outstanding individual," he told CitzenLink. "She is a born-again Christian and goes to an evangelical church in Dallas. She is a very, very compassionate and able person."
On a professional level, Gonzalez said Miers is a very accomplished lawyer.
"She is a trailblazer, who managed to be named partner of a major firm when women were not particularly given that opportunity," he said.
As the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, Miers attempted to reverse the American Bar Association's (ABA) pro-abortion stance.
"She championed a position, on behalf of the lawyers in Texas, that the ABA should not be involved in social issues like abortion," Gonzalez said.
Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst at Focus on the Family Action, said Miers did not ultimately succeed, but applauded her efforts.
He said Miers is a trusted adviser and long-time friend of the president. She represented him while he was Governor of Texas and has been serving as White House counsel, succeeding Alberto Gonzales, who left that post to become attorney general.
"The fact that she has been working with and for this president since the early 1980s tells me that the president has high confidence in her, and that she will be exactly the kind of justice that he has promised the nation," Hausknecht said.
A Solid Record of Achievement
Born in Dallas, the 60-year-old attorney earned her bachelor's degree in Mathematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University.
In 1972, she became the first woman hired at the prestigious Dallas law firm of Locke Purnell Rain Harrell. She subsequently was elected the first female president of the firm — eventually supervising the work of 400 lawyers.
Like John Roberts, she served as a trial attorney, representing major corporations such as Microsoft and Walt Disney Co.
She became the first woman elected president of the state bar of Texas in 1992. The National Law Journal named Miers one of the nation’s 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the nation’s top 50 women lawyers.
Miers has also reportedly volunteered for more than a dozen non-profit organizations, including work for Christian organizations.
What's her philosophy?
The main question is: What kind of judicial philosophy will Miers exhibit? She doesn't have a track record as a judge, because she hasn't been one — a fact that led Family Research Council President Tony Perkins to take a "wait-and-see" approach.
"President Bush has long made it clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mold of current justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas," Perkins said. "We have no reason to believe he has abandoned that standard. However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers, and the absence of a record on the bench, gives us insufficient information from which to assess whether she is indeed in that mold."
But Raul Gonzalez said Miers is a disciple of judicial restraint.
"I believe she shares my view that there are limits to what a judge can and cannot do and that is, to rule on the law and not make social policy," he said. "There is a difference between being a legislator and a judge, and I believe she is of the view that judges should not legislate from the bench."
Hausknecht, meanwhile, said the lack of a judicial track record doesn't really bother him — there have been a number of U.S. Supreme Court justices to come from a non-judicial background — including the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
"It's quite commonplace," Hausknecht said. "In fact, 10 out of the 34 justices appointed since 1933 have come from within a president's administration."
In the end, Hausknecht said, Miers appears to have a strong track record with the president.
One important note, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., issued a statement indicating he likes Miers, adding, "The Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."
Interestingly, Reid had personally recommended that Bush consider Miers for nomination, indicating that Senate Democrats would certainly be hostile to other possible contenders, such as Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen.
Senate Republicans have indicated they will push to have Miers' confirmation hearings by Thanksgiving.
A little different take than the Donner Party faithful are spouting.......
LOL
I love it. I just wish they would start eating their own and let the rest of us get on with business.
A most apropos and soon to be copied description.
I heard it here first. ;)
But...but....but, she doesn't want to execute homosexuals.
Who is this woman Ms. Miers?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495772/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495688/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495763/posts
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/nation/stories/100405dnnatmiers.bab1b698.html
As I stated recently in reply to a post ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1496268/posts?page=16#16
"The screams and moans coming from the "Conservative" peanut gallery over this nomination prove one of two things to me.
The Conservatives want a democracy and not a representative government. Which if true, means they are not the Constitutionalists they claim to be, or they have suddenly become undone over the fact that Harriet Miers is a unmarried female, a Bible believing Christian, an anti-abortionist, and a believer in the Constitution as written."
And on another note, I was laughing outloud this afternoon as I listened to Rush dance all around the EIB microphone trying to get an understanding of how he felt about Harriet Miers. Ann Coulter must be speechless.
Can't wait for Ginsberg to follow the yellow brick road so GWB can give us another. ;)
Democrats have the research to show that perhaps as many as 10 million Democrats are part of the so called Religious right.
The media for some strange reason believes the Religious Right only consists of Republicans. That is not true. Perhaps more than half the Religious Right are economic liberals and registered Democrats. Abortion and gay rights are overriding issues with the religious right and they know it is in the hands of the Supreme Court.
It was to a great extent the loss of Religious Democrats in the rural counties of Ohio that cost Kerry the Presidency. ] P>I find it interesting that Leahy went off the reservation to support Roberts while Reid trashed Roberts. On this nominee Reid will support Meirs while Leahy trashes her. That appears to be called playing to the base or CMA for short.
What the president did was what many thinking conservatives were proposing in the last years of the Bush 41 administration. Republican presidents were to appoint stealth conservatives to the Bench. To prevent further Souters they should appoint people whose beliefs are known to the president but not to the media, or the political class. That is the definition of stealth candidate.
With both the media and the Democrats allied against any Republican nominee, the need to nominate stealth candidates that can be confirmed is required to achieve success.
By definition a stealth candidate is one the President knows all about, no one in the media, the right, the left, or the center has any real knowledge.
The mistake with Souter is Bush 41 took Warren Rudmans opinion. Bush on the other hand has taken his own opinion.
I am certain that the President has had Miers in mind for years.
I was amused by the story that Bush never discussed abortion with Miers. That reminds me of a Florida District Attorney who swore he had never discussed a case with me. What he didn't say was he sat next to me while another attorney questioned me on every aspect of the case. Yet the Attorney General could claim he had never asked me what my testimony would be before putting me on the stand. Those that think bush does not know where his trusted employee stood on cases just don't understand politics and lawyers.
It's real simple: if you trust Bush, you're OK with the pick. If you don't trust Bush, then you're not. It's a very clear litmus test on Bush among his own supporters. The more kool aid you drink, the more you like Miers.
Those that think bush does not know where his trusted employee stood on cases just don't understand politics and lawyers.
A far-right Conservative can't get elected nor can they get on the Supreme Court. You just have to face it.
Translation: accept failure.
By the way, who are these guys Scalia and Thomas I keep hearing about? Where do they work?
The only time either party has been able to do what it wants was when Barry Goldwater got the bright idea of kicking all the RINOs out of the Republican party. The massive Republican loss of 1964 with Barry at the helm, resulted in a Senate with 1/3 conservatives, 1/3 liberals and 1/3 DINOs.
The Republicans from 1964 until 1966 did not have 40 votes to filibuster. LBJ got liberal legislation passed that Roosevelt could not even get to the floor. All thanks to Barry thinking that there were enough conservatives to win elections in the USA. Talk about stuck on stupid.
It is very clear only about 1/3 of the voters are conservative.
First understand the problem. Understand the real situation. There are currently about 19 RINOS in the Senate and about 9 DINOS. In New England and some of the midwest only RINOS, DINOS and Liberals can be elected. Ohio for example has elected only one Conservative to a state office. Ohio is RINO DINO Heavan. And if he had not been black, Blackwell could not have gotten elected. Ohio is a swing state in presidential elections. There are 14 swing states. Swing state are not Democratic or Republican. They elect RINOs and DINOs and sometimes elect Republican Presidents and sometimes elect Democratic presidents. They control the outcome of every presidential election. In states like Ohio our choice for Senate Members is not a RINO or a Conservative. The choice is a RINO or a DINO.
There is no way to get 51 conservative members of the senate. It would take the lefist eqivelent of a Barry Goldwater to give us that kind of control.
I hate to tell you this, But Democrats are not DUMB enough to select as disasterous candidate as Goldwater!!!
Stop looking at an imaginary world. Try looking at the real world... then you just might understand the problem and might even figure out a solution.
Translation: You should realize the truth
Re Scalia and Thomas...
Scalia was BEFORE the LEFT's policy of personal destruction. Ask Thomas about that, why don't you?
Same difference. You're saying since they picked on our guys, we can't have our guys.
huh?
My original statement is that a far-right conservative won't make in on to the Supreme Court ever again.
However, I'll modify it to say: ...until there are 60 votes (without any RINOs or moderates) to break the new judicial filibusters (Hillary's idea, by the way).
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.