Harriet's heard of the Federalist Papers. She's fairly certain they were written by Alan Greenspan.
-Dan
Posted on 10/17/2005 10:11:16 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Harriet Miers is ill-equipped to interpret the Constitution's separation of powers, a chief task of the United States Supreme Court. She may be summoned against herself to prove the point. On June 11, 1995, as a former president of the State Bar of Texas, Miss Miers cobbled together an alarmist letter urging then-Gov. George W. Bush to veto a free enterprise bill (H.B. 2987) enacted by the state legislature that allegedly trespassed on the powers of the Texas Supreme Court to regulate attorney's fees. The bill declared: "The [Texas] supreme court may not adopt a rule that interferes with an attorney's ability to contract in the free market to provide legal services for a fee."
-snip-
Separation of powers is undisturbed by either policy. As James Madison explained in the Federalist Papers, it prohibits one branch from exercising dominant influence over the powers of another. Although H.B. 2987 might have been criticized as craven submission to trial lawyers, its free market standard for fees did not affront separation of powers. Fatuously maintaining the opposite, Miss Miers bugled to Mr. Bush: "This proposed law does violence to the balance of power between the legislative and judicial branch of our state's government and constitutes an assault upon the powers of the [Texas] Supreme Court at a time in its history when Justice Priscilla Owen's election to the court placed a majority of the seats in Republican hands for the first time." Miss Miers thus insinuated H.B. 2987 would have been less alarming if Democrats dominated the Texas Supreme Court, a cynical view of the law unworthy of a lawyer.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
ping
ping
"Bruce Fein" jumps the shark!" LOL
-Dan
"Miers cobbled together an alarmist letter urging then-Gov. George W. Bush to veto a free enterprise bill (H.B. 2987) enacted by the state legislature that allegedly trespassed on the powers of the Texas Supreme Court to regulate attorney's fees."
Why would the Texas supreme court have the power to regulate attorney fees in the first place? Is this a Texas constitution thing? If that were the case then I can see the argument that a Texas law should not conflict with the Texas constitution.
Thanks for the data point.
"The passage of this proposed law squarely raises the issue of special interests laws for the benefit of those who have the wealth and power to cause to be passed self-protective legislation. ... Those of us who are knowledgeable about the legal community know that this law is a special-interest bill to protect from legitimate scrutiny and regulation individuals in our state perceived to wield power and influence."
What's the Federalist Papers? :)
Who is Rush Limbaugh?
:) Yeah. Touche!
Huh this seems to be a state issue and a bill passed by a democrat legislature at the time as a gift to one of their biggest supporters, trial lawyers.
Funny how Fein is supporting the slimy trial lawyers and criticizes Miers for her advice to veto it.
This is becoming a circus. Harriet Miers should withdraw herself.
You wont get me to bash Harriet Miers for doing what she could to stick it to trial lawyers. Calling it a "free enterprise" bill doesn't change the fact that it was payola to the trial lawyers. Does Bruce Fein remember who the #1 source of donations to the DNC comes from? You guessed it...big time ambulance chasers. What a dope.
I am confused. I read her statement but it seems to me that she may have been trying to infer that a majority of Republicans had been achieved for the first time in history. This would be less of a cynical view than a naiive view in my opinion, but only because it is or should be totally irrelevant to any issue involving the separation of powers, because justices need to set aside their party affiliation when issuing opinions from the bench to avoid the appearance of prejudice.
And "free enterprise" implies that there is a "free market" for lawyers and legal services, when in fact it is a "closed shop" market, closed to all except lawyers licensed to practice in that state.
It was payola to trial lawyers, big time. A guy like the Joe Jamail, the King of Torts, could effectively sell himself on the free market to take as much as 50%, 75% or more of any recovery, instead of having a check via the Texas Supreme Court and its regulatory branch retaining the power to determine whether that fee was reasonable under existing ethics rules.
If the bill was passed, it would eliminate the rule that keeps fees in check and keeps the trial lawyers from claiming that ethics doesn't matter, only their contract does.
It would definitely shift power by permitting legislation to bar ethics rules governing the reasonableness of fees. It may not be a dominant shift in power, but it would be a substantial one. And it's definitely a point worth arguing.
What is the source for this letter?
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.