# 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:** 7
**Author:** ![minty\_green](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f6c823/32.png) [@minty\_green](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/minty_green)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/121 "2005-10-04T23:18:29Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It only makes sense for them to reject her if they think they’ll be able to get Bush to nominate someone better (from their perspecitve). Bingo. Any call for her nomination to be rejected is the functional equivalent a call for the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or any other of a large number of candidates with better resumes and far, far scarier convictions. ---
**Author:** ![ShibbOleth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/848f3c/32.png) [@ShibbOleth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ShibbOleth)\ **Post date:** [October 4, 2005, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/122 "2005-10-04T23:19:28Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think it’s favored by about two-thirds of the people. So if we say that 30% of people are against it, I’d say there are much less popular opinions that still have the support of major national figures. The cites I can find put support for the Death Penalty at under 2/3rds but much higher than half. But if an alternative is given of “Life in prison with NO possibilty of parole” it becomes a coin flip. Anybody have better recent data? ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 12:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/123 "2005-10-05T00:26:02Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > In other words, she did the bulk of the work of what litigators actually do. > > And I challenge this assertion anyway: Meier practiced law for a long, long time before her public service jobs, and rose high and fast in that profession. I find it hard to believe that she never once tried a case in all that time. > > And even if she hadn’t – so what? Trial work is very, very different from appellate advocacy. > She was the first woman ever hired at Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell (now Locke, Liddell & Sapp). She became their first woman partner. She was the first woman to hold the chairmanship of that firm. And that’s one of the largest law firms in the state. How is she’s a “follower” again? > > (Those of you suggesting she’d be pulled around by the nose apparently don’t realize how much strength of character it would take to be a female Dallas lawyer in a large firm in the 1970s.) > She may not be an oil and gas lawyer, but she’s hardly “run of the mill” anything. Some of the older lawyers in my office know Ms. Meier personally, and have had occasion to see her at work. She apparently cuts an imposing figure. > > Which isn’t to say she’d be a great justice. It only means she’s apparently a great lawyer, and that people trying to pooh-pooh her credentials in that regard are sadly misinformed. Don’t agree. I know several lawyers like her who are competent but not particularly good. Above all have got where they have because they are _consumate political operators_. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/124 "2005-10-05T00:27:03Z")
Sorry. “Above all they have got where they have because they… etc” ---
**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 5, 2005, 12:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/125 "2005-10-05T00:59:20Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > I think it’s favored by about two-thirds of the people. So if we say that 30% of people are against it, I’d say there are much less popular opinions that still have the support of major national figures. So, who’s a “national figure” then? Ted Kennedy opposes the death penalty. Is he not a “national figure”? Kerry did until recently, and he only favors it for acts of terrorism (an obvious political dodge). I certainly agree that anyone who advocates abolition of the death penalty would impose that penalty on his presidential candidacy, but that can be said about many things: like removing “under God” from the pledge or advocating SSM. I just don’t see why that should be “frightening”, to use **Bricker** ’s words. Frightening? I’m interesting in further understanding that point. ---
**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 5, 2005, 1:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/126 "2005-10-05T01:01:25Z")
> [@minty green](#): > > Bingo. Any call for her nomination to be rejected is the functional equivalent a call for the nomination of Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, or any other of a large number of candidates with better resumes and far, far scarier convictions. It will be interesting to see if any of the Senators who voted “no” on Roberts will vote “yes” on Miers. Not a big deal in the long run, but it’ll just be interesting. ---
**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 5, 2005, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/127 "2005-10-05T01:15:22Z")
> [@Princhester](#): > > Don’t agree. I know several lawyers like her who are competent but not particularly good. Above all have got where they have because they are _consumate political operators_. “Like her” means what, exactly? ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 1:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/128 "2005-10-05T01:21:43Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > It only makes sense for them to reject her if they think they’ll be able to get Bush to nominate someone better (from their perspecitve). Seeing as how some Democrats actually seem to like her and some conservatives don’t, I think that’s very unlikely. Call me weird, but even with a Supreme Court majority hanging in the balance, I’d rather see the Dems ditch this worthless, barely-qualified hack, and hope that Bush nominates a prinicipled conservative, even if said conservative is pretty damned conservative. If they took a stand against hackery but not against straighforward conservatism, they might actually look, y’know, _principled_. (Gasp!) > [@Bricker](#): > > Do you realize there is not one serious nationwide political figure that opposes the death penalty? I find that frightening. Me too. What was that latest case that the Supremes declined to hear - that Virginia case? Something about the DNA evidence getting tossed pretty damned quickly, with no safeguards - just one clerk got to make the call. The death penalty system in most of this country looks like it was designed and executed (so to speak) by Michael Brown of FEMA. You’d think there’d be at least _one_ politician of national repute who’d be willing to stand against that. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/129 "2005-10-05T02:06:07Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > 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. Although it is the highest court in the land, the Supreme Court functions very differently than the inferior courts. I don’t know that one needs experience as a judge to be a justice. I’d be concerned if the person had NO legal experience or none of the justices had been judges, but I don’t think having a couple of non-judges is a bad thing - in fact, it may offer different viewpoints that make for a better court. ---
**Author:** ![Princhester](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/3e96dc/32.png) [@Princhester](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Princhester)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/130 "2005-10-05T02:15:29Z")
> [@Dewey Cheatem Undhow](#): > > “Like her” means what, exactly? Meaning as per her accomplishments and experience described by others in this thread. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 2:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/131 "2005-10-05T02:15:42Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Call me weird, but even with a Supreme Court majority hanging in the balance, I’d rather see the Dems ditch this worthless, barely-qualified hack, and hope that Bush nominates a prinicipled conservative, even if said conservative is pretty damned conservative. > > If they took a stand against hackery but not against straighforward conservatism, they might actually look, y’know, _principled_. (Gasp!) Bush has not nominated a hardline, Scalia-type conservative with either of his two picks, and that is what the Democrats have said they wanted over and over. If Democrats contribute to the defeat of Miers, I think Bush would be _forced_ to try someone more conservative, since that will be more likely to get all the Republicans on board. That would be contradicting their stated goals, or what you might call principles. So thus far, it seems to me that voting against her would be a dumb move. ---
**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 5, 2005, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/132 "2005-10-05T02:28:33Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Call me weird, but even with a Supreme Court majority hanging in the balance, I’d rather see the Dems ditch this worthless, barely-qualified hack, and hope that Bush nominates a prinicipled conservative, even if said conservative is pretty damned conservative. > > If they took a stand against hackery but not against straighforward conservatism, they might actually look, y’know, _principled_. Considering that she came with the blessing of the Senate Minority leader, it would seem an odd thing to do. Perhaps you mean Reid shouldn’t have said what he said. I’m withholding a verdict on how “qualified” she is until the hearings. There are 9 justices on the court, so having some with varying backgrounds makes a lot of sense. The SCOTUS does more than just render decisions on constitutional issues. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/133 "2005-10-05T02:30:06Z")
> [@John Mace](#): > > I’m withholding a verdict on how “qualified” she is until the hearings. There are 9 justices on the court, so having some with varying backgrounds makes a lot of sense. Ditto. I’m not overly impressed with what I’ve heard about her background, but if it’s true that the justices think it’s important to have non-judges on the Court (that was mentioned in one thread, I forget if it was this one), then that would partially negate that. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 4:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/134 "2005-10-05T04:13:25Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Not entirely. But I wish the sensible Dems would start flexing some muscle. > > Do you realize there is not one serious nationwide political figure that opposes the death penalty? I find that frightening. So I take it you yearn for a return of someone in the mold of Brennan or Marshal? ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/135 "2005-10-05T04:26:06Z")
Aftre the impressive credentials from Roberts, I find Bush’s new pick dissapointing. I can’t wait until the hearings, but if they don’t pull out some impressive past legal works of hers that havn’t been already touted, I hope she gets a no from the senate. I want a conservative judge in there, but I also want one who has at least a bit more knowedge of the Constitution and the US than your average council. SO far this just sems an obvious attempt by Bush to place cronyism before what’s best for the country. I don’t like it. A SCOTUS slot should be more sacrosanct that just payment to your buddies, and as much as I don’t hate Bush, I am offended. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/136 "2005-10-05T08:48:03Z")
The outright hostility expressed against her by conservative groups leads me to believe that she is probably a moderate. Operation Rescue (a very radical anti-abortion group) hates Harriet Miers. I guess the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so it looks like I’ll be supporting her confirmation. ---
**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 5, 2005, 1:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/137 "2005-10-05T13:45:45Z")
How interesting. [From the Austin American-Statesman](http://www.statesman.com/news/content/auto/epaper/editions/tuesday/news_3424a21495f7521000f4.html) : > [@](#): > > A former Texas lottery official, who claimed that then-Gov. George W. Bush’s desire to cover up his National Guard record helped steer decisions about a key lottery contract, said he wants to talk to senators about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ possible role in that effort.Before the settlement, Littwin had questioned Miers’ performance at the commission, charging that she ignored state law requiring annual audits of GTECH. > [@](#): > > Littwin, citing confidentiality provisions in the settlement with GTECH, has declined to discuss Miers’ role. A federal judge, ruling against GTECH, said Miers did not have to give a deposition in the case. > > Before the settlement, Littwin had questioned Miers’ performance at the commission, charging that she ignored state law requiring annual audits of GTECH. [Dan Rather wants a second go at Bush,](http://www.nypost.com/entertainment/54213.htm) , but was turned down by CBS. > [@](#): > > DAN Rather wants to reopen the investigation into President Bush and the National Guard story that resulted in the Memogate scandal and led to his early departure from the anchor desk. But if Littwin is subpoenaed, he could well verify that the infamous memo was essentially correct, even if not forensically authentic. ---
**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 5, 2005, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/138 "2005-10-05T13:59:49Z")
Ah, “fake but accurate” comes back, huh. Of course, in the news business, fake doesn’t cut it, you know. ---
**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 5, 2005, 2:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/139 "2005-10-05T14:03:29Z")
> [@Mr. Moto](#): > > Ah, “fake but accurate” comes back, huh. > > Of course, in the news business, fake doesn’t cut it, you know. But the significant part of the Austin newspaper article is the role of Miers. This could well lead to her withdrawal. The question is will the Dems find the fortitude to subpoena Littwin? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2005, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556/140 "2005-10-05T14:05:26Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Do you realize there is not one serious nationwide political figure that opposes the death penalty? I find that frightening. As you should know, for the most part the death penalty is a state issue. A self-avowed federalist should be \*happy \* that there’s no nationwide debate over banning it federally. There are federal crimes that call for it, but it’s still rarely applied and even then there are rarely questions about the verdicts’, well, accuracy. [Miers may be the stealth anti-Roe nominee we’ve expected:](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2005/10/05/ex_aide_says_lawyer_was_firmly_vs_abortion/) > [@](#): > > ''She is on the extreme end of the antichoice movement," said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Miers’s first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race [_1989 Dallas City Council_]. > > ''I think Harriet’s belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. ''I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president." Pretty thin gruel, sure, but still the only gruel on the table. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/harriet-miers/324556.md?page=8)