# Harriet Miers? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2005, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556 "2005-10-03T12:14:06Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 12:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/1 "2005-10-03T12:14:06Z")
Who is she? (I’m asking much more in the GD than the GQ sense. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/2 "2005-10-03T12:15:26Z")
Link to [USA Today blurb](http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-10-03-Bush-Miers_x.htm) on her nomination to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. ---
**Author:** ![Jonathan\_Chance](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jonathan_chance/32/701_2.png) [@Jonathan\_Chance](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jonathan_Chance)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/3 "2005-10-03T12:31:17Z")
Tough to say. She certainly seems to have some serious legal chops but her judicial chops are, to be generous, scanty to non-existent. Sounds like a Bush loyalty pick to me. And with no track record she’s a blank slate for the committee. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 12:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/4 "2005-10-03T12:36:26Z")
> [@Jonathan Chance](#): > > Tough to say. She certainly seems to have some serious legal chops but her judicial chops are, to be generous, scanty to non-existent. > > Sounds like a Bush loyalty pick to me. And with no track record she’s a blank slate for the committee. Yah, more cronyism. To be fair, she has a tad more qualifications for the Supreme Court than Michael Brown had for FEMA, but I think the Senate would be well advised to carefully examine her qualifications. Though the Pubbies will prolly roll over for her like they roll over for anything else Bush does. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 12:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/5 "2005-10-03T12:39:56Z")
Surprise, surprise. One of the inner circle gets the nod. Without a day of judicial experience, how very nice. The Democrats will examine her record and vote based on her merits. The Republicans will vote 100% as they are told, then accuse the Dems of being partisan. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 12:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/6 "2005-10-03T12:48:03Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Surprise, surprise. One of the inner circle gets the nod. Without a day of judicial experience, how very nice. The Democrats will examine her record and vote based on her merits. The Republicans will vote 100% as they are told, then accuse the Dems of being partisan. Actually, you ARE surprised, and so are the Senate Democrats, who are going nuts right around now. Because the Democrats had extensive files of dirt on all the people they THOUGHT were candidates for the job (Edith Jones would have been ambushed big time), but probably have NOTHING on her. So, as they did with the equally unexpected John Roberts, the Dems will now start insisting on seeing every memo Miers has ever written, hoping to find a good reason to reject her. The Chuck Schumer philosophy has long been “We hate your nominees and will reject them, as soon as we figure out a plausible reason.” The REAL problem with Miers, of course, is on the Republican side. Far too often, Republican presidents have picked judges with no track record who then turn out to be far more liberal than expected. Miers has never been a judge before. If her only qualification for the job is that Bush knows and likes her and thinks she’ll be confirmed… well, we could have a female Souter on our hands. So, your suggestion that Republicans will just roll over and vote as they’re told is laughable. Conservatives in the Senate will want to see some sign that Miers, a blank slate, actually has some conservative principles, and isn’t eager to “grow” (a la Blackmun and Kennedy )in her new position. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 12:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/7 "2005-10-03T12:53:21Z")
I’m not at all convinced that judicial nominations ought to go solely to judges. That hasn’t been the rule for much of our history. A recent complaint about the federal judiciary has been that it is quite insular. I’m sympathetic to this argument, made well by Stuart Taylor Jr. in the _Atlantic_ > [@](#): > > Now that Sandra Day O’Connor has announced her retirement, how many remaining justices have ever held elected office? How many have previously served at the highest levels of the executive branch of government? How many have argued big-time commercial lawsuits within the past thirty-five years? How many have ever been either criminal defense lawyers or trial prosecutors? How many have presided over even a single criminal or civil trial? The answers are zero, zero, zero, one, and one, respectively. (David Souter was a New Hampshire prosecutor once upon a time, and later served as a trial judge.) > > The answers would have been starkly different fifty years ago. Five of the nine justices who decided Brown v. Board of Education, in 1954, had once worked as trial prosecutors, and several had substantial hands-on experience in commercial litigation. More famously, that Court included a former governor, three former senators, two former attorneys general, two former solicitors general, and a former SEC chairman. > > That Court, in other words, was intimately familiar with the everyday workings of the political and judicial systems, and with the beliefs and concerns of everyday Americans. Not so the Court that recessed in June, eight of whose members (in addition to their long tenure in the splendid isolation of the Supreme Court’s marble palace) have been drawn from judgeships on appellate courts, and sometimes from academic law before that—places already far removed from the hurly-burly of our judicial and political systems. The current justices are smart and dedicated. But they’re not like you and me. Harriet Miers, though, is a former elected official (Dallas city council), and thus an interesting replacement for the only other former elected official on the bench, Justice O’Connor. And for those who fret about a lack of judicial experience, a quick question: What bench experience did Chief Justice Earl Warren have before his appointment? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/8 "2005-10-03T13:01:50Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > So, your suggestion that Republicans will just roll over and vote as they’re told is laughable. Conservatives in the Senate will want to see some sign that Miers, a blank slate, actually has some conservative principles, and isn’t eager to “grow” (a la Blackmun and Kennedy )in her new position. Tell you what- I’ll give you a nickel for every Republican who votes no if you give me a nickel for every Democrat who votes yes (yes, I’m a big-time gambler). The Pubbies will vote as they are told, as they always do. ---
**Author:** ![Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e36b37/32.png) [@Airman\_Doors\_USAF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Airman_Doors_USAF)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/9 "2005-10-03T13:02:53Z")
Hey, the Democrats should love her. The _National Review_ is saying that she [isn’t conservative enough](http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/10032005.asp#078263): > [@](#): > > I worked with Harriet Miers. She’s a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated … I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left. > > I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant. Fine with me. If the _National Review_ isn’t happy and the Democrats aren’t happy she’s my kind of pick. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/10 "2005-10-03T13:03:51Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Actually, you ARE surprised, and so are the Senate Democrats, who are going nuts right around now. Because the Democrats had extensive files of dirt on all the people they THOUGHT were candidates for the job (Edith Jones would have been ambushed big time), but probably have NOTHING on her. Oh, I don’t think Dems are all that suprised. I heard Miers’ name as a potential Supreme Court nominee last week – picking your own legal counsel is an old practice … I think Rehnquist came from Nixon’s White House legal staff. ‘Course, there may be a general lack of info about Miers’ beliefs, etc. As for the Pubbies, I’m sure Bush is prepared to give them whatever private assurances he gave that had them all smiling and happy over Roberts. The Secret Sign as it were. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/11 "2005-10-03T13:06:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Tell you what- I’ll give you a nickel for every Republican who votes no if you give me a nickel for every Democrat who votes yes (yes, I’m a big-time gambler). The Pubbies will vote as they are told, as they always do. Could you find for me, please, the Democratic senators that voted against the Breyer and Ginsburg nominations? ---
**Author:** ![esquimalt](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/4af34b/32.png) [@esquimalt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/esquimalt)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/12 "2005-10-03T13:06:41Z")
She was recommended by Harry Reid Senate Minority leader ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/13 "2005-10-03T13:08:20Z")
If Roberts and Miers do turn out to be closet moderates (the new Bad Word for conservatives, I guess) it would go far to confirm my suspicion that the Pubbie leadership feels that overturning Roe v. Wade would shift the balance of political power to the Dems. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/14 "2005-10-03T13:10:38Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Could you find for me, please, the Democratic senators that voted against the Breyer and Ginsburg nominations? To be fair, nobody much of either party voted against Breyer and Ginsburg because Clinton had a policy of vetting his candidates to the leadership in the Senate before nominating them. So any objections could be worked out in private, beforehand. Made for a very easy confirmation process, as opposed to the current stupid way of doing things. ---
**Author:** ![beagledave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/6de8d8/32.png) [@beagledave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/beagledave)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/15 "2005-10-03T13:12:55Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Surprise, surprise. One of the inner circle gets the nod. Without a day of judicial experience, how very nice. The Democrats will examine her record and vote based on her merits. The Republicans will vote 100% as they are told, then accuse the Dems of being partisan. Love your track record on SCOTUS [predictions](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6384141&postcount=133), BTW. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/16 "2005-10-03T13:15:05Z")
A side, bonus question: It’s my understanding, from discussions that followed Roberts’ nomination, that because he’s worked with the SC for years, argued cases there and worked as legal counsel for the White House, that it’s not a tough transition for him, even though he had very limited experience as a judge. How difficult would the transition be for someone like Miers, who was also a counsel and is a lawyer, but has not really worked in a trial sort of setting (AFAIK), at least recently. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/17 "2005-10-03T13:16:44Z")
Here’s the current (new?) Wikipedia link to [Harriet Miers](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers). ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/18 "2005-10-03T13:16:46Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Tell you what- I’ll give you a nickel for every Republican who votes no if you give me a nickel for every Democrat who votes yes (yes, I’m a big-time gambler). The Pubbies will vote as they are told, as they always do. Yeah- I mean, look how many Pubbies voted against Breyer and Ginsburg. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/19 "2005-10-03T13:18:12Z")
> [@Evil Captor](#): > > lack of info about Miers’ beliefs, etc. > > As for the Pubbies, I’m sure Bush is prepared to give them whatever private assurances he gave that had them all smiling and happy over Roberts. The Secret Sign as it were. You mean the same secret sign Papa Bush gave on Souter? The secret sign Reagan gave on Kennedy? Nice try, though. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 3, 2005, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/20 "2005-10-03T13:28:55Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Yeah- I mean, look how many Pubbies voted against Breyer and Ginsburg. You mean, vetted-in-advance-by-Orrin-Hatch Breyer and Ginsburg? If Bush wants to get his picks approved by Teddy Kennedy before nominating them, I guarantee you any confirmation problems won’t come from the Dem side. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=2)