Bush nominates Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice
Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation’s highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Here we go.

[Harborwolf]

You didn’t post this in the pit? Silly man. We’ll see how long this lasts here in MPSIMS.

Well, she looks like a chicken lady. Not sure how that will weigh on the confirmaiton process, but there it is. The only question that I have is her lack of experience. It’s been covered that justices don’t need it in the Roberts threads, so no need to rehash. I’m just thinking that Bush went for someone with no experience on purpose so her record wouldn’t be a concern. This also carries the faintest whiff of possible cronyism.

Overall, I give this nom a :dubious: . I’m not outraged. I’ll wait until I get more details.

[Baldwin]

This also carries the faintest whiff of possible cronyism.

Well, her current job is White House counsel. Bush seems to like to stick to his inner circle of friends and acquaintances whenever possible; some people think this is one of many signs of his being an untreated drug addict. In any case, cronyism has been SOP in his administration all along, and Bush has a history of making truly awful choices. Maybe this will be an exception.

[lieu]

Here’s an article that ShibbOleth found that provides a little more information about just who she is.

While she certainly sounds like a fine woman with a good mind and apparently has the support of at least some Democratic Senators, this causes me a bit of concern:

Miers reveals little of her own emotions or ideological persuasions, but has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration on a broad of initiatives including tax cuts, Social Security reforms, restrictions on federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, national security, education reforms and fighting terrorism.

[Otto]

Well…at least she’s old so she won’t have as long to fuck up the country as some of the other people he could have picked.

[China_Guy]

Why are my alarm bells going off like the London blitz? Bush’s record of cronyism does nothing to give me faith he’s picking someone really good that happens to be a crony.

Second thing is that he’s the first one to pick a non-lawyer with a legal precident record in how many years? Like I’m supposed to think that’s a good thing? Somehow I’m suspicious that just maybe he’s found a female that will pander to the religious right like flies on shit. Odds what 100:1, 1,000:1 a gazillion:1???

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

@China Guy

Why are my alarm bells going off like the London blitz? Bush’s record of cronyism does nothing to give me faith he’s picking someone really good that happens to be a crony.

Second thing is that he’s the first one to pick a non-lawyer with a legal precident record in how many years? Like I’m supposed to think that’s a good thing? Somehow I’m suspicious that just maybe he’s found a female that will pander to the religious right like flies on shit. Odds what 100:1, 1,000:1 a gazillion:1???

A non-lawyer? She was the President of the Texas Bar Association. I’d think that she is a pretty good lawyer.

[Frank]

@Airman Doors

A non-lawyer? She was the President of the Texas Bar Association. I’d think that she is a pretty good lawyer.

At least a good politician.

I don’t know enough about her to know whether I should be pleased, outraged, or (as with Roberts) somewhere in between. We’ll see. I do find it interesting that she headed the committee to come up with a name: “Me! I’m the best choice!”

[lieu]

She’s never been a judge before. I’m guessin’ that’s what China Guy might have meant but misspoke?

[zuma]

[QUOTE=Harborwolf]
You didn’t post this in the pit? Silly man. We’ll see how long this lasts here in MPSIMS.

[QUOTE]

Where was he supposed to post it? Sheesh.

[China_Guy]

@lieu

She’s never been a judge before. I’m guessin’ that’s what China Guy might have meant but misspoke?

Doh! yep, what he said. Judge.

[Neurotik]

Career highlights from the LA Times:

1. She was Bush’s personal lawyer in Texas.

2. Bush appointee to chair the Texas Lottery Commission from 1995-2000.

3. Staff Secretary for Pres. Bush from 2001-2003.

4. In 2003, became Deputy Chief of Staff.

5. In November 2004, became White House Counsel after Gonzales became AG.

6. Co-managing partner at Locke, Liddell & Sapp and President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell.

7. President of Dallas Bar Assoc. in 1985, then rose to the head of the Texas State Bar in 1992.

This woman has no place on the Supreme Court. At least Roberts had some judicial experience and was an extremely seasoned solicitor when it comes to the Supreme Court. This woman is nothing but a Bush crony. She needs to be rejected.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

After Katrina you would have thought the Bush had learned something about appointing unqualified cronies to important jobs. I guess not.

She’s patently unqualified. That makes this an “extraordinary circumstance.” Time to filbuster.

[Mr.Moto]

Indications are that this nomination was consulted upon by Sen. Harry Reid, the minority leader.

If that is true, who is going to be doing the opposing and rejecting? I don’t think for one second the Democrats are unanimous here, but wouldn’t Reid be able to convince enough Democrats to avoid filibuster and ensure confirmation?

[Revtim]

@This Year's Model

I do find it interesting that she headed the committee to come up with a name: “Me! I’m the best choice!”

Isn’t that how Cheney got his job, too?

[Mahaloth]

@lieu

She’s never been a judge before. I’m guessin’ that’s what China Guy might have meant but misspoke?

Had Rhenquist been a judge?

[Frank]

@Mr. Moto

If that is true, who is going to be doing the opposing and rejecting? I don’t think for one second the Democrats are unanimous here, but wouldn’t Reid be able to convince enough Democrats to avoid filibuster and ensure confirmation?

I should think so. One of my Senators (Salazar) is a member of the Gang of Fourteen, but I’ve not seen any reaction from him yet.

@Diogenes the Cynic

She’s patently unqualified. That makes this an “extraordinary circumstance.” Time to filbuster.

There may turn out to be plenty of reasons for me to oppose the nomination, but lack of judicial experience is not one of them. What else makes you call her unqualified?

[ratatoskK]

The NY Times says:

Among others who were reportedly considered by the White House were Judge Edith Brown Clement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales; Larry D. Thompson, a former deputy attorney general and now general counsel of Pepsico in Purchase, N.Y.; and Judge Karen J. Williams of Orangeburg, S.C., who sits on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

Does anyone know anything about these people (other than Gonzales)?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@This Year's Model

There may turn out to be plenty of reasons for me to oppose the nomination, but lack of judicial experience is not one of them. What else makes you call her unqualified?

She’s never been a judge. Lack of judicial experience may seem like a trivial thing to you in a Supreme Court nominee but I think it’s sort of relevant. Would you appoint a head surgeon who’s never done surgery.

[Frank]

@Diogenes the Cynic

She’s never been a judge. Lack of judicial experience may seem like a trivial thing to you in a Supreme Court nominee but I think it’s sort of relevant. Would you appoint a head surgeon who’s never done surgery.

But there have been plenty of Supreme Court justices who were never judges. Almost everybody must think that either Warren or Rehnquist was good, and neither of them had been a judge.