Lounge of Tomorrow - Harriet Miers

Lounge of Tomorrow (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/index.php)

- Daily Grind (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/forumdisplay.php?f=18)

- - Harriet Miers (http://74.208.121.111/LoT/showthread.php?t=2161)

Quote:

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for another pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.
"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."

Bush went on to say, "Yeah, she's never been a judge before but we'll learn her."
:D

Conservatives are not so pleased-

Link

I don't know enough yet to have any opinion-

Well, having zero bench history to base my opinion on, I'm going to have to make a purely superficial assessment of her...

Okay, I'm frightened.

Is that a Tribble on her forhead?

She is a bit on the scary side.

I am concerned about this selection, and have some difficulty understanding it.

First of all, if everyone thought there was little to no paper trail for Roberts and therefore he could not be judged properly in committee or the Senate, just wait until she gets to the hearings. AS legal counsel to the President, is it priviledged? Or is she legal counsel to the office, making her accountable to the people, not Bush as an individual? I seem to recall some case related to this during the Clinton administration, but don't recall.

I would suppose her legal history in Texas may shed some light on her, but considering she contributed to Clinton/Gore, I would suspect she has had some changes in her outlook since she is one of - if not the most - inner of Bushes inner circle of advisors.

So this brings me to my concern. I don't have much in common with Harry Reid (senate minority leader), so I wonder why he asked the President to consider her. I would figure that Bush must know her very well, but why nominate someone with no judicial experience whatsoever? Two different options come to my mind.

One, Bush wants no big fight. Why? I doubt if it is polling numbers. Has he lost political resolve?

Second, as he knows and trusts her very well, obviously, does he believe she shares his Constitutional philosophy?

I will be interested to learn more about her.

I heard this morning (can't find a cite yet) that she did a lot of pro-bono work for Exodus, the Christian group that believes that they can cure homosexuals. That doesn't sit too well with me. I can't help seeing the same cronyism here either, whether Harry Reid is for her or not. I have heard people say that she has remarked on numerous times that George Bush is one the most brilliant men she has ever met and that she firmly supports him. That concerns me. She apparently is entirely in his corner and I don't think for a minute that this nomination isn't very well calculated. I think that her and Roberts would remove any balance that the court once had.

I think there were many better candidates he could have chosen- once more I am forced to consider that he is wimping out.

*sigh* what I would not give for a clear message from the President- hmmm.....

Again, I don't think balance should ever be a consideration. Ginsberg and Breyer replaced much more conservative Blackmun and White (who was really more libertarian than conservative), and balance was never a concern during their nominations. If I were in a feistier mood right now, I would suggest that is because balance is not a ocnern when moving toward the left - only if there is a possible move to the right.

The issue, as always, is if she has the background and is qualified to make rulings on the Constitution. Before anyone asks me, I really don't know how to make that determination with her, being that she has no record and all her current work may be priviledged.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

I heard this morning (can't find a cite yet) that she did a lot of pro-bono work for Exodus, the Christian group that believes that they can cure homosexuals. That doesn't sit too well with me.

I've been fielding this issue all morning. :)
I have no opinion on her yet but:

Quote:

NOTE ON EXODUS

During the announcement, President Bush referenced Miers’ affiliation with Exodus Ministry. This is not the so called “ex-gay” group, but is “a non-denominational Christian organization established to assist ex-offenders and their families become productive members of society by meeting both their spiritual and physical needs.”

This is from the Human Rights Campaign's website.
Source
Her Exodus Ministry is not the homophobic 'change you to straight' camp that's out there.

IT'S ANOTHER CRONIE!!!.... WILL BUSHIE EVER LEARN????

Quote:

Whatever her credentials for the high court, Miers' loyalty to Bush — who once called her a pit bull in size 6 shoes — is above question. When he first decided to run for governor in the early 1990s, he hired Miers to comb his background for anything derogatory that opponents might try to use to defeat him.

Miers also introduced Bush to Alberto Gonzales, who served as Bush's counsel in Austin and later in Washington, before being named U.S. attorney general.

During Bush's first term as governor, Gonzales used information turned up by Miers to persuade a local judge to excuse Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. The incident was not divulged until the waning days of Bush's 2000 campaign for the White House.

Cronyism is everywhere in our country.
I think it's one of the big things weakening it.

Miers may be a crony. But after her lifetime appointment, she needn't be any more. Right? Who knows?