Posted on 10/10/2005 10:19:20 PM PDT by CalRepublican
...these are stories that are going to come out, that need answers, and frankly, the White House hasn't done the homework.
Imagine John Fund, of ALL people, talking about "stories that are going to come out" about people.
Absolutely amazing.
Well, I think that's been painfully clear since day one when she became the nominee.
Hahaha No they don't. A law firms PAC clears everything with the managing partners. It's no different than Insurance company PACs of which I have personal experience. There is no doubt in mind every contribution was okayed by the managing partners of that firm. They determined Hillary Clinton served their interests over Rick Lazio. An interesting bet for a Texas legal firm to make considering their was no incumbent in the New York race.
I practiced law for years--big and small firms. Managing partners handle issues involved in the running of the firm as a business organization:
Partner allocations;
Procedures for hiring new attorneys;
Budgeting and making sure the firms stays on budget;
Handling problems like "why is the litigation dept getting 5 new associates this year when the tax department is only getting 3?";
Making sure clients are paying their bills;
Deciding whether to do copying in house or outsource it to a third party;
Handling client complaints if they can't be handled by the responsible attorney;
And on and on and on.
But in all of this, the managing partner is a managing peer. It is not hierarchal like a corporation. A large law firm has multiple power bases and each of the rainmakers regard themselves as a power in the firm. They rarely regard the managing partner as being their boss--rather it's someone who devotes part of their time to management issues.
So the managing partner would not ordinarily be involved in the advice one of the other partners or associates gives to a client. That's between the attorney and the client. If it's a really important issue and big money is involved, it might go to and be approved by the department head. Not the managing partner.
------- From what I'm seeing on the web, ...
No need to worry about having a shortage of messengers to attack here.
Did the recently deceased Chief Justice meet our wants?
Some have attacked the nominee. That is without question. But there are many cogent and thoughtful posts that attack the nomination. There is reasoned specuation that this pick is costing the GOP some power. And that ball was not set in motion by the objection - it was set in motion by the nomination.
Enjoy your break.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Ok if you are a lawyer, why would you imagine she was deciding the advice other partners would give? She certainly might have had ideas bounced off her, but you don't decide for others. And certainly partners including her determined what associated did. But she is responsible for the advice she gave or that she allowed associates under her direct supervision to give.
Heck I am not an attorney and I know this. I also know enough about DC where everyone is advising both Dims and GOP clients to know that this is a nonstarter as far as confirmation goes.
Her qualifications are a bit more than you are suggesting.
1. She was a partner in a big law firm.
2. She became managing partner.
3. She was elected president of the Dallas and Texas Bar associations.
4. She did run a state agency.
5. She did clerk for a federal judge.
6. She has been counsel to the President of the United States.
Some of this is like the Mike Brown stupidness. Mike Brown was FEMA's deputy director during the four FL hurricanes. Yet the Dims act like he never had that job or experience and last worked for the horse association. Similarly Ms. Mier was and is counsel to the president. You can be like the Dims stuck on stupid in with Mike Brown and ignor that experience, but it is wrong.
She also has maybe the key qualification for a GOP nominee. I am surprised how many people either miss it or don't understand how important a qualification it is. Do you know what it is? Roberts had the same qualification that Coulter never caught on to.
Please explain to me, with specifics, how, since Harriet Miers was in charge of the vetting process for the Supreme Court nominee, since she ended up being picked herself, please explain to me exactly how much vetting was done, who did the vetting, and to what extent the vetting that was done on her was different, or the same as it would have been for any other nominee? You need to get the answers to those questions, because I have to tell you. I have gotten information on the vetting that was done with her. And frankly, it doesn't past muster for even a district court appointment.
You obviously don't know about John Fund's SCANDALOUS past.
Would either Thomas or Rehnquist have met your list of wants when they were nominated to the Court?
Doesn't this go far beyond Fund?
It just seems a little odd, being a spectator, and observer, I can't help but notice that all that have brought up many seemingly legitimate questions and concerns regarding this nominee, have been throughly attacked. And I am referring to not just the author of this article, but many other conservatives across the landscape.
You're confusing "financial" and "individual" liability, and professional negligence and misconduct. We have no way of knowing yet whether Miers would have simply been financially liable for some negligence of another attorney in her firm, or actively participated in some misconduct that could make her liable for breach of duty, criminal indictment or professional discipline. This is the problem with a candidate with so many years in private practice---the same reason malpractice premiums go up with each year you're in practice---because the potential for claims goes up, even if you haven't had any actual claims made against you or your firm. By contrast, judges have only reversals to worry about, and law professors their tenure track.
Is it my fault that John Fund was having an affair with a mother and daughter at the same time?
He is certainly nobody to be casting aspersions about anybody; and you're think he, of all people, would know what specious rumors can do to a person.
And before you say anything else, I DEFENDED John Fund when that happened; but I'm not defending ANY of them anymore.
Doesn't this go far beyond Fund?
It just seems a little odd, being a spectator, and observer, I can't help but notice that all that have brought up many seemingly legitimate questions and concerns regarding this nominee, have been throughly attacked. And I am referring to not just the author of this article, but many other conservatives across the landscape.
Please tell me you posted that twice and I'm not having a stroke. :-)
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.