# 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:** 21
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 18, 2005, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/401 "2005-10-18T23:30:46Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Barring a statement by Miers herself, however - and we know how likely that is - it’s the strongest evidence they’re going to get. Even with the political considerations, we’re talking about people who know her very well. I think the Democrats probably _have_ to vote against her now. I strongly suspect that she would like to see \*Roe \*overturned, but you really never know what she’ll do once she gets on the court and really digs into the idea of _stare decisis_, and is under the direct influence of other justices. I don’t expect that Roberts would overturn _Roe_, and he’d certainly have a significant influence on her. Not all the Democratic senators have a litmus test like Feinstein. Some who are up for re-election in “red” states need to be careful about that. As long as she doesn’t come out and say she’d overturn \*Roe \*(which she absolutely won’t do), those Senators will have the cover they need to justify a “yes” vote. Still, I don’t expect her to get many Democratic votes. A handful probably, but not many. Remember that if they reject Miers, Bush is just going to throw someone more hardline at them. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 12:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/402 "2005-10-19T00:14:59Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Here’s why I believe that’s an unwise approach to judicial interpretation. > > It puts into an unelected, lifetime tenured judge’s hands the power to decide almost anything, simply based on his personal ideals of justice and democracy. You may revel in the triumph of justice when a judge finds, say, an individual right to adult private consenting sexual behavior. But that precise rationale could be used to find that minimum wage laws are unconstitutional. After all, if two adults have the right to private determine which body parts they may rub against each other, they certainly have the right to determine what one will pay the other to paint a fence. The state, which has no justification to prohibit Ben and Steve from literally assfucking each other, by the same reasoning has no power to prevent Ben from figuratively assfucking Steve by paying him a tiny wage, as long as Ben and Steve are both consenting adults. > > As long as you and the judges agree on what “just” and “democratic” mean, then it’s no problem. You have simply selected a wise and beneficient set of rulers for the country. But when you and the judges no longer agree on “just” and “democratic,” we have a slight problem… one that will last the lifetime of the judges in question. :dubious: I like my odds that 5 out of 9 justices won’t be this far out of whack with the will of the people. If by some bizzare circumstance that this does happen its likely that it won’t be more than 5-10 years before one of them dies and a Justice that will bring the court back to something resembling the will of the people. Even if that doesn’t happen Congress can impeach some of the Justices or an amendment can be passed enlarging the court. I realize that Justices are only impeachable for bad behavior but at the end of the day bad behavior is whatever congress and the people say. > [@Bricker](#): > > On the other hand, when you restrict judges to the METHOD of interpreting only the words that are written, you keep the power in the hands of the folks writing the words. Now, of course, they too can decide that minimum wage isn’t a good idea. The difference is that you can get rid of them in a couple of years. Perhaps but as far as I am aware none of the founding fathers wrote extensively about whether wiretaps constituted searches or any of the countless other instances like that. In cases like that how do you propose that the Court interpet the words that are written? If we want to bar what is currently understood as cruel and unusual punishment do we have to pass a new amendment every few years to keep the definition up to date? How specific does each amendment need to be? Do we need a thousand page document defining speech or unreasonable search and seizure? > [@Bricker](#): > > I want the power to rule placed in the hands of guys that I can kick out if I don’t like what they’re doing. Your approach puts too much power in the hands of guys that are, like kings, on the throne for life. You can kick out a Judge at anytime you want although I will grant you its harder than voting an elected official out of office. Just pass an amendment saying Justice Renegade may be removed from the Court and he is as good as gone. Unsuprisingly we haven’t gotten anywhere close to this point becuase Justice’s are appointed by elected officials and vetted thoughorly by an elected body. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 12:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/403 "2005-10-19T00:22:42Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I strongly suspect that she would like to see \*Roe \*overturned, but you really never know what she’ll do once she gets on the court and really digs into the idea of _stare decisis_, and is under the direct influence of other justices. I don’t expect that Roberts would overturn _Roe_, and he’d certainly have a significant influence on her. True, and I agree about Roberts. You’re not wrong about the litmus test either. But given the other questions around the nomination - her qualifications, lack of a record - I think there was already justification for some no votes. Even pro-life Dems like Reid will have to weigh some things here. It’s not just the question of “would she vote to overturn _Roe_?” but the question of the assurances Dobson and others have been given. That’s an excuse for some Democratic umbrage. > [@](#): > > Remember that if they reject Miers, Bush is just going to throw someone more hardline at them. I said that myself on a number of occasions. But at the moment I’m a little less sure that’s the case. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 19, 2005, 12:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/404 "2005-10-19T00:23:54Z")
> [@treis](#): > > You can kick out a Judge at anytime you want although I will grant you its harder than voting an elected official out of office. Just pass an amendment saying Justice Renegade may be removed from the Court and he is as good as gone. It’s not that involved. You can impeach a Justice just like you can impeach a President. It’s been done a few times. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/405 "2005-10-21T18:32:05Z")
Take a look at [http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/HEM%20Questionnaire%20final.pdf#page=54](http://www.nationalreview.com/pdf/HEM%20Questionnaire%20final.pdf#page=54) Ms. Miers offers up a mini-eassy on “judicial activism.” If that were submitted by a high-school student, I’d probably grade it “A-” or “A”. If it were submitted by a second- or third-year law student, I’d probably give a “C+” or “B-”. I cannot fathom this level of writing coming from a Supreme Court Justice. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/406 "2005-10-21T21:10:59Z")
There was a news piece yesterday on NPR, where they talked about how Meirs’ responses on a survey from the Judicial committee had answers that were often incomplete and / or very poorly done. IIRC this was coming from both sides of the aisle. But I didn’t find anything to back this up in the online press. Has anyone seen more on this? ---
**Author:** ![squeegee](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/squeegee/32/14537_2.png) [@squeegee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/squeegee)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/407 "2005-10-21T21:24:03Z")
> [@ShibbOleth](#): > > There was a news piece yesterday on NPR, where they talked about how Meirs’ responses on a survey from the Judicial committee had answers that were often incomplete and / or very poorly done. IIRC this was coming from both sides of the aisle. But I didn’t find anything to back this up in the online press. Has anyone seen more on this? [Here](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902402.html): > [@](#): > > **Senators Assail Miers’s Replies, Ask for Details** > … > Barely concealing their irritation during a 35-minute news conference at the Capitol, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and ranking Democrat Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.) called the lobbying on Miers’s behalf “chaotic,” and said the answers she provided Monday to a lengthy questionnaire were inadequate. “The comments I have heard range from incomplete to insulting,” Leahy said. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/408 "2005-10-21T21:35:04Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I cannot fathom this level of writing coming from a Supreme Court Justice. Can you clarify and be more specific? I read it, and didn’t see anything obviously lacking, but then I’m not in the business… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/409 "2005-10-21T23:20:52Z")
[The Free Market Speaks:](http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/006807.php) > [@](#): > > “The Miers confirmation contract was trading at 92, meaning a 92% probability of confirmation last week. Early this week the contract slid to 64 then this morning with no warning dropped to 20 in heavy trading”, says Mike Knesevitch Communication Director at Intrade. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/410 "2005-10-22T00:04:33Z")
Aside from invading Iraq, nominating her seems to be the stupidest thing Bush has done during his administration… ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 2:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/411 "2005-10-22T02:12:42Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Aside from invading Iraq, nominating her seems to be the stupidest thing Bush has done during his administration… I agree with this statement 100%. Nominating your own personal attorney to the highest court in the land is the height of hubris. If Harriet Miers was not a worshipper of GWB, she would not be on the edges of his radar. ---
**Author:** ![treis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bc79bd/32.png) [@treis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/treis)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/412 "2005-10-22T02:28:06Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Can you clarify and be more specific? I read it, and didn’t see anything obviously lacking, but then I’m not in the business… It smacks of an essay in which someone went “Oh Shit, whats Judicial Activism” and just started talking about a lot of crap that they think is something close. In three pages of writing I’d say she wrote maybe a half a page about her opinion of judicial activism. Look at the meat of her essay. It consists of her talking about making sure plantiffs have proper standing and jursidiction, respect for stare decisis and when its proper to overturn precident, about her time as a legislature and about not worrying about reaction to a ruling. None of which is really relevent to the question about judicial activism. For example look at this statement: > [@](#): > > We (Dallas City Council) understood our role, and we expected the c ourts to understand thiers- part of which was to respect the policy-making prerogatives of the City Council. There was a vast difference between our vote as a policy matter to prevent the desecration of the American flag, and the job of the courts (including the Supreme Court) to rule whether such an ordinance was constitutional Do you have any idea what she means by this statement? It sounds to me that she is saying the courts overstepped their bounds in this case. But I have no clue becuase she didn’t explain at all what she meant. For a potential Supreme Court Justice that is just an unacceptable lack of detail in an answer. Shoot, I think as just an arm-chair legal beagle I could have written a better answer than her. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 11:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/413 "2005-10-22T23:41:48Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > Aside from invading Iraq, nominating her seems to be the stupidest thing Bush has done during his administration… No, not at all - this is even stupider! Invading Iraq may well have gotten Bush elected to his second term; what’s so stupid about that? (You may not like his priorities - I sure don’t - but that’s different.) But nominating Miers doesn’t do a blessed thing for him, but it does a great job of getting assorted GOP constituencies feuding with each other, which is going to make everything else a bit harder for him. ---
**Author:** ![you\_with\_the\_face](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/ecccb3/32.png) [@you\_with\_the\_face](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/you_with_the_face)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 1:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/414 "2005-10-23T01:54:00Z")
> [@treis](#): > > It smacks of an essay in which someone went “Oh Shit, whats Judicial Activism” and just started talking about a lot of crap that they think is something close. In three pages of writing I’d say she wrote maybe a half a page about her opinion of judicial activism. I think you’re right. Her essay would have been more impressive if she could have cited several court cases that are (at least in her mind) text book examples of judicial activism and then supported her beliefs with persuasive legal arguments. But she did none of that. All she did was define judicial activism, stated that it was wrong and bad, and then pointed to times in her life where she learned to appreciate the wrongness and badness of judicial activism. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 5:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/415 "2005-10-23T05:26:55Z")
Harriet Meiers Law 101, Prof. Mather Essay Question: Judicial Activism. Judicial activism is an issue that has vexed legal scholars for some time. Judicial (from the Latin _judy_:judge) activity is, of course, the primary concern of legal scholars, but judicial _activism_ is another matter altogether. And so we are given to ponder: what is judicial activism? And what relevence does it have for the complex legal issues of our time? (Good start! Another 730 words, and I’m outa here, doin’ lines with Georgie, skeet shooting Willy Nelson records!..) ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 5:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/416 "2005-10-23T05:35:26Z")
But, seriously, folks…this just in… **Report: Texas Overpaid Miers in Land Sale** > [@](#): > > …Texas officials paid Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ family more than $100,000 for a small piece of land in 2000 \_ 10 times the land’s worth \_ despite the state’s objections to the way the price was determined, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported Saturday… [http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/22/D8DDE2QG0.html](http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/22/D8DDE2QG0.html) Ms. Meiers will fold. She will blindfold herself, tie her arms behind her and attach a cannonball to her ankle, and prod herself with a cutlass until she reaches the end of the plank. She will do so bravely, like the spunky little trooper she is. She won’t even hint about the brutal and vicious smear campaign waged upon her by the cruel and vindictive liberal cabal. Squeels of porcine rage will emanate from Hannity, O’Reilly _et. al._ GeeDubya will then nominate someone just to the left of Torquemada. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/417 "2005-10-23T14:34:58Z")
> [@you with the face](#): > > Her essay would have been more impressive if she could have cited several court cases that are (at least in her mind) text book examples of judicial activism and then supported her beliefs with persuasive legal arguments. But she did none of that. She did provide one example: _Brown_. But then she proclaimed that she \*approved \* of it. But don’t be too hard on her - the finest legal minds the SDMB has to offer have not been able to provide any clear examples of this mythical creature, either. But, like Potter Stewart and pornography, somehow they know it when they see it. As for Miers, this questionnaire is a political statement intended for a political audience for the political purpose of gaining confirmation. She has to meet the RW litmus test of being against judicial activism, this document satisfies that requirement (in a political way by using political litmus-test definitions, of course), and there is simply no political necessity on anyone’s part to ponder the matter further. I do agree she’s doomed, not because of the level of her abilities, but because the dirty laundry from Texas is starting to pile up and Rove isn’t able to give the problem adequate attention just now. The next nominee, if another RW/loyalist, is similarly doomed unless the ship somehow rights itself. ---
**Author:** ![Frostillicus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9bcb4/32.png) [@Frostillicus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frostillicus)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2005, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/418 "2005-10-23T23:02:37Z")
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is probably not the most unbiased source out there, but he claimed today that Ms. Meirs right now would be lucky to get more than a couple of yes votes from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am sure that the White House will attempt to play hardball with those Republicans who are considering going off the reservation, but this nomination is looking more and more like a dog that won’t hunt. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 6:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/419 "2005-10-24T06:24:30Z")
My question is - doesn’t this woman have any self respect? I’d guess most candidates would have withdrawn themselves by now. Or does she just not get that she’s disqualified? Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me this week started off by comparing her nomination to the dream about taking a test you never studied for. It seems an apt comparison. I agree that this is the stupidest thing Bush has done. It gives Democrats cover to vote against her without using ideology as a reason. A no vote due to lack of qualifications is hardly indefensible. ---
**Author:** ![Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/13edae/32.png) [@Dewey\_Cheatem\_Undhow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dewey_Cheatem_Undhow)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2005, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/420 "2005-10-24T20:56:15Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > But don’t be too hard on her - the finest legal minds the SDMB has to offer have not been able to provide any clear examples of this mythical creature, either. Uh, beg your pardon? Have you nodded off to sleep in virtually every discussion of judicial activism on these boards? Cases that embody judicial activism have, in fact, been cited on the SDMB, in copious quantity. Tell you what, I won’t even reach for controversial modern examples like _Griswold_ or _Roe_ or _Lawrence_. Let’s keep things as dispassionate as possible: I’ll stick with an old reliable standby: _Lochner v. New York_. Behold, activism from the pen of Mr. Justice Peckham. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=22)