Forget Roe and the Framers. Let's Talk Business

Washington Post ^ | 10/16/5 | Lorraine Woellert

[Crackingham]

Conservative howling over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers echoes unabated since President Bush introduced his friend and confidant to the public on Oct. 3. If anything, the clamor has intensified, with some in the conservative chattering class now hounding Miers to withdraw. But while Bush dodges the brickbats, another critical element of the Republican political base is applauding from the wings.

That would be big business. For the first time in more than three decades, corporate America could find itself with not one, but two, Supreme Court allies with in-the-trenches industry experience -- Miers and newly minted Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Don't be fooled by the low-key personas they have projected thus far; both are legal wonks who have packed a powerful punch in the corporate world. Together, they could be a CEO's dream team.

You wouldn't know it listening to the punditocracy, which is fixated on Miers's record -- or lack thereof -- on hot-button social issues. Bush is scrambling to quell this uprising by touting Miers's loyalty and Christian bona fides while the White House dispatches defenders to reassure his conservative base that she won't be Souter in a skirt.

Lost in the bitter brouhaha over abortion, gay marriage, God and the flag is another important facet of the Supreme Court debate: Miers has a blue-chip résumé that would wow Wall Street. Her record on constitutional issues is thin, but Miers's top-flight credentials in corporate law are attractive to the CEO-in-chief, who holds an MBA and was himself a businessman before being elected governor in Texas.

Her decades as a high-powered corporate litigator are just the beginning. She also has served on the corporate boards of a securities fund and a mortgage company. She's tackled the entire spectrum of commercial issues firsthand

[calrighty]

" Don't be fooled by the low-key personas they have projected thus far; "

Ok, I won't be fooled......

Now, don't you be fooled by Karl Marx.

[jeremiah]

Those poor poor corporations, all of the laws written just to give them advantage over the competition. Now that they will have a better friend in the the Judiciary, the small businessmen will finally quit ruining their plans.

[AmericaUnited]

For years, Miers was a driving force in Texas for reforms that would protect industry from lawsuits.

But we were told by the 'truth squads', that she has never stood up for anything.

She helped elect reform-minded judges to the state bench, including longtime friend Nathan Hecht, a Texas supreme court justice who is derided by trial lawyers as the father of Texas tort reform.

How about that...

Until 2001, Miers was a director of the Committee for a Qualified Judiciary, a Texas political action committee devoted to electing conservative judges.

"Lies I say", she is a uber liberal. She became director just to fool the sheeple into supporting her for nomination to the SC. Plus, she has no record to let us know where she stands on anything... none, zip, ....

[thoughtomator]

Businesses already have a disproportionate influence over the legislature and the executive. Why hand them another branch of government at the expense of citizens?

[TortReformer]

This is what we need to get the country on the right track. After much debate, I think that if Repbulicans focus on this, it will tip the balance for her confirmation.

[thoughtomator]

How will confirming her do a thing for tort reform? The legislature has to do that; the courts have no role in writing those laws.

[Cicero]

TortReformer, I disagree. It is good to have justices who are open to tort reform, since so many of them belong to the tort lawyers' club. But it's hardly enough to make her a strict conservative. She's good on this point, and has a real record; but she doesn't have a record on anything else.

AmericaUnited, you make an excellent case that she is a good business lawyer. I agree. That's what she's done all her life: work for the big guys in the establishment. Her last job has been to work hard and loyally for the Biggest Guy of all.

I have no quarrel with that, but it doesn't in the least show that she would be reliable on the other issues. At best it suggests that she would be a first-rate country club conservative.

[tet68]

At best it suggests that she would be a first-rate country club conservative.

Well, better that than a country club liberal.

All this bruhaha and she hasn't even appeared yet.

I love hearing all these folks who don't like corporations,
(not you.)
don't they realize that corporations are just small businesses that grew up?

All we can and must do, is wait and see what kind of
hearing she gets. GB is not the kind of man to bail
on a subordinate who he has put up for a higher position,
and I wouldn't respect him if he did.

[meema]

We already have a very good Justice who should be quite good on these type of problems.
Lets not forget the "hapless toad". When I heard from soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts, that sold me.
Does anyone in their wildest dreams think that Ms. Miers can even think in those terms, much less write like that????

[Cicero]

I like Roberts. I would have preferred to see Thomas or Scalia as Chief Justice, but I can understand that two senate reviews are better than three. Roberts will stand up for business, certainly, but I believe he also will prove to be a social conservative and strict constructionist. I only hope that his concern for the text of the constitution will outweigh his respect for stare decisis, because there are a lot of standing SCOTUS decisions that must be overturned before we can return to strict construction.

[Cicero]

No, I don't think Bush will bail. I would far prefer it if Miers gracefully withdrew. But I think the chances of that are exceedingly slim, because she is nothing if not ambitious. Maybe some of Bush's friends can find a way to persuade her, if the heat is sufficient.

[AndyJackson]

There are a number of sitting appeals court judges who have come out far more strongly in favor of litigation reform than Ms Miers ever has. In fact, her claim to fame was her appeal to George Bush to take the regulation of attorneys fees out of the hands of the legislature and leave it with the courts.

This woman is no legal reformer. She has never foregone a retainer to pursue a bad case.

[AndyJackson]

That's what she's done all her life: work for the big guys in the establishment.

While working for one of the big guys. Her record does not give me confidence that she is serious about litigation reform, not reform that will limit the reach of attorneys into the pockets of the rest of us.

[Sam Cree]

Lorraine seems to be taking this issue by issue, she's looking at the trees instead of the forest. 'Course, that's the way liberals do things.

[KMAJ2]

[[Businesses already have a disproportionate influence over the legislature and the executive. Why hand them another branch of government at the expense of citizens?]]

Are you claiming to be a closet socialist ? Big, bad business, you sound like a left winger. I am a free market capitalist, along with being a conservative. I am all for a judiciary that will limit government regulation of commerce and business.

[thoughtomator]

In addition to being a free market capitalist and a conservative, I am also an American who understands that the role of the judiciary is not to make law!

[KMAJ2]

[[In addition to being a free market capitalist and a conservative, I am also an American who understands that the role of the judiciary is not to make law!]]

Who said anything about making law ? The judiciary's role is also to prevent the Congress or President from passing unconstitutional laws, that is their check in the balance of powers. That checking power can be abused (i.e. the judges who have blocked partial birth abortion laws), but to remove that power would give the Congress unlimited power over the people. If you notice, I said 'limit', not remove, only an anarchist would believe that no regulation is ever necessary. But the power to regulate is a power that is easily abused, as the democrats have so well demonstrated with their frequent socialist mantra of 'for the common good'.

[thoughtomator]

So you honestly believe that a corporate advocate is the right background for someone to limit government? Undue corporate influence in government is highly responsible for things like the byzantine tax structure and illegal immigration. I don't want someone who will support those things and I don't have any confidence that Miers will be the type of person to roll back the usurpations of government. We expected that from the person who nominated her, and got the opposite.

[KMAJ2]

The entrenched ideologues will try to diminish and demean what you highlighted from the article. They are unwilling to give Miers any credit, fearing to do so will weaken their argument against her. They prove they are really no different or better than the ideological left in thier close-mindedness.

I think that instead of excerpting just those lines, sperately out of context, if you take the full section, it provides a much more powerful case about her capabilities and reveals the fraud of her detractors calling her a lightweight:

---

Miers has a blue-chip résumé that would wow Wall Street. Her record on constitutional issues is thin, but Miers's top-flight credentials in corporate law are attractive to the CEO-in-chief, who holds an MBA and was himself a businessman before being elected governor in Texas.

Her decades as a high-powered corporate litigator are just the beginning. She also has served on the corporate boards of a securities fund and a mortgage company. She's tackled the entire spectrum of commercial issues firsthand, defending Texas car dealers against price-fixing charges, challenging claims that Microsoft sold defective software, protecting Walt Disney's trademarks, and taking on consumers who sued mortgage companies for violating debt collection laws.

But, for the boardroom set, it's her work outside the courtroom that sets her apart. For years, Miers was a driving force in Texas for reforms that would protect industry from lawsuits. She helped elect reform-minded judges to the state bench, including longtime friend Nathan Hecht, a Texas supreme court justice who is derided by trial lawyers as the father of Texas tort reform. Until 2001, Miers was a director of the Committee for a Qualified Judiciary, a Texas political action committee devoted to electing conservative judges. In 1995, the pro-business Texas Civil Justice League hired her to press for caps on punitive damage awards and curbs on medical malpractice claims. It was a short-lived gig; Miers felt uneasy lobbying her former client, George W. Bush, who had just been elected governor. So she withdrew.

Still, that same year she urged Bush to veto legislation that would ban the state Supreme Court from limiting attorneys' fees, calling the bill "an assault" on a court that was in Republican hands for the first time. Bush took her advice. "She'll be a very strong judge for business interests," says Texas trial lawyer Fred Baron.

---

That makes a very powerful case for her being qualified. And this article does not say anything about her lead role in the Bush/Cheney 2000, 12th Amendment case.

I have learned one thing here, do not expect entrenched ideological zealots to give an inch.