The Seattle Times: Nation & World: Miers’ views on 2 of nation’s hot-button issues — The Supreme court nominee, Harriet Miers, selection is a hoot. Croneyism at its worst. Is this the best we can do? Ask yourself that. Then ask yourself why any Democrat supports this selection at all? And many do. The Dems are such boneheads.
No offense to people who do not have kids BUT…I cringe to think that in these days of family values awareness that a selection of a childless woman would be put at the top of the list. The top! Yeah, she’ll understand family issues. Right.
What’s Bush’s next choice? A professional Dominatrix? Get this guy a drink.
A former campaign manager says Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989.
“She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement,” said Lorlee Bartos, who managed Miers’ first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race. “I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president.”
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said she couldn’t comment on Bartos’ recollection but added that President Bush “does not have a litmus test for his judicial nominees.”
Miers served on the City Council from 1989 to 1991,
Bartos said Miers told her she was “pro-choice in her youth” but underwent “a born-again, profound experience” that caused her to oppose abortion.
found by Mimi Smith who adds:
Typical…once she got to the point in her life where she realized she was tooooo old for having babies, she freaked and went anti-abortion (presumably regret over choices in her “youth”). This is happening a lot lately, the biz-prof women suddenly blame abortion as what kept them from being mothers. No accounting for their choices….play the victim. So trendy these days.
Now trendy?
What? Does Bush have a whole collection of these tight-lipped, unmarried, childless, loyal, bobbing heads? Who else is in that crony closet of his?
After “way to go Brownie” and the Arab Horse Association, what sorts of peculiar perks are on this woman’s bio? Let me guess…some funny stuff with the Texas Lottery, some questionable associations with Enron, and maybe some shenanigans with shady contributors to Bush’s election funds? Hmmm…..clean record my ass.
In DC, they weave tangled webs for a living and always for a purpose.
One would expect that MS Miers might not be W’s first choice. He is aware that whomever he chooses will be opposed forcefully and dramatically. The first candidate may be sacrificial. This would be done so that the true choice would later emerge with the Dem’s injured from the first fight and aware that a second strong opposition would garner less support. Bush has plenty of time left for a two-stage strategy and if Justice O’Connor dies in office, those delaying her retirement by delaying ratification will truly look heartless.
Some things that might support this point are:
1. Ms Miers’ age. She might only serve a decade. Clearly the strategy with Roberts was to get someone who would be on the bench for a long time.
2. The spinster issue. Not many voters would identify with her. Roberts, by contrast, is living the American dream. He is almost like JFK with his feisty, but lovable little boy and idyllic family image. It might even turn out that Ms Miers is gay.
So what if she is, but Bush would know this. If so, the Dems could be walking into an ambush that could cause a segment of their traditional following to flip over to Republican support, just when Hillary needs it most.
3. Her abrasive reputation. This is unlikely to win favor in the selection process. She is very much unlike Roberts and many alternatives in this respect. If she is indeed a ringer, expect a blowup in front of Biden, Kennedy and other certain opponents. If done expertly, they can be made to appear as the villains to the public.
4. Crony is too mild a word. More accurately, she is a long time hyper-loyal staffer. This is a kamikaze mission she could be willing to take for the boss. Then again, she may not know it is a suicide mission at all. Anybody remember Rosemary Woods, Sandy Berger, Donald T. Regan.
5. She is an unknown. This forces opponents to dig deep into her past, where much of what they may find is subjective. With no judicial history to probe, the Dems may be tempted to stoop to inuendo and character assassination – weakening their credibility for the next candidate.
6. When it blows up, Bush will look like he had been appeasing women (including his wife) by attempting to replace a woman with another woman. And it will appear that it was Congress who was unreasonable. If this is the plan, then it is obvious why Laura went public with her wishes – when Hillary was criticized for doing the same.
If this first fight is orchestrated well, then the opposition will be worn down significantly when Bush next proposes someone just to the right of Adolph Hitler.
Wow, just one time I want to see you say something positive about something polictical. You are out for Bush. At least you can respect the man and the office now that we have someone with some character even if you disagree with him politically. –
family issues…she is to understand the constitution. We don’t want them making laws just interpreting the constitution.
My theory on this nominee has nothing to do with cronyism and everything to do with Bush’s faith based approach to problem solving:
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/index.php?p=583
Bush hates facts, researching, analyzing, thinking. He wants instant answers. So what better way to fill a supreme court slot than to pick your own attorney?! In Bush’s mind, it’s the perfect answer.
I have to agree John. And I am a Bush supporter. I can’t see putting someone on the Nations highest bench who has never sat the judges chair.
I don’t think she’s a “confirmed” bachelorette. She could still find love on the court, John. 🙂
Re: Changing mind on Abortion.
Abortion is a difficult issue. If you haven’t flirted with both sides, then I don’t think you understand what is at stake, on both sides. Having a religious awakening could easily tip the balance. A woman has a right to change her mind.
How is this like Bork? He was more qualified than Roberts, and perhaps the most qualified ever. The Democrats support it because she’s a woman, with no judicial record, and they think she’s better than all the other ones who they would filibuster.
Coming from a shrewder administration I would suspect this being a political maneuver. I can’t see how offering her as a Senate sacrifice would gain anything. I can’t see how aids vetted this woman, unless he has surrounded himself by yes people.
Mr. Dvorak,
I value your opinion greatly on topics relating to technology. Yet, I do not understand where you qualify to say this is a bad choice for Justice? Ms. Miers has been a long time friend of President Bush and has a long list of accomplishments. Just because she is a childless woman does not mean she is not a role model for young ladies. She has been a trailblazer in the legal field. She was the first woman to head the Texas ABA, she was the first female White House counsel, and she is a prominent female attorney in a legal field that is predominantly male. I think she is a great role model to young ladies. I can not believe you would impugn her character for being childless, all that matters is that she interpret the Constitution the way the framers intended not if she’s barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen.
There is one sound reason why Ms. Miers should be rejected: Bush chose her. I mean c’mon, does ANYONE trust this guy to make a good decision on any important issues anymore?
This appointment reminds me a little of the Clarence Thomas appointment. There was not enough to squash the appointment, and once he got in there, he’s done exactly what he was appointed to do: be a right wing idealogue. Miers will be more of the same.
10 – 15 years from now, we’ll look back on the Bush II presidency as the turning point for America, and not in a good way.
Okay, I am not a Bush supporter, and I do believe this is more cronyism .. That said, she might be a reasonable choice. Some of the best supreme court judges have come out of left field and never been a judge. And, frankly, I am impressed that Bush is staying away from activist judges that have a political affiliation. That does not mean she is the best choice, but I am willing to give her a chance.
Everyone who is dismissing her simply based on the fact that she has never been a judge obviously has not history of the supreme court. You also might want to take a look at her curriculum vitae, which actually has some qualifications in it. You will not find horse work in there.
–Monty
Why is it that so many people are critical of her not having judicial experience? Are these the same people are always complaining about decisions from the current justices? They all had previous experience.
gquaglia: Earl Warren, William Rehnquist, and several other Supreme Court justices never served as judges prior to their appointments to the high court. It’s not typical, but certainly not unique.
Bush may not be the shrewdest tool in the box – but those around him, like Rove and Delay are definitely diabolical – and even the Dems would agree.
And then there’s Souter, who has been on the SC for years, apparently a pretty reclusive single guy in his private life. So, perhaps he’s the male geek of the group, looked on with suspicion by some who think such people are strange and disturbing (although it would seem one would have to have some gregariousness in them to make it that far).
Oh, sure, I guess a woman’s supposed nurturing instincts might be a balance to macho dominance and adventurism in a way, but who can look into someone’s mind and really know what’s going on in there from whether they raised families or not? And yes, I’ve heard it said that the experience of child-rearing can make a person (he/she) more mature, and that’s probably often true… but I must say I’ve known plenty of folks in that situation who still behave very much like errant little kids themselves (sometimes even worse!).
Overheard on the web: “God created homosexuals and geeks so that gifted people wouldn’t have to deal with children.”
Uh… yeah, those weirdos. Quite a few are creative and brilliant, many with perfectly positive morals about them as well. They might be someone’s aunt or uncle or a good friend of the family, joking with the kids and loving them and wanting to see them grow up and be successful people… i.e. that old ‘extended’ family thing.
(able to see through jive better, too)
I agree that putting someone who has never been a judge on our highest court is a bad idea. I do not agree that breeding is a required sign of good judgement in a person. Go visit the foodstamp office in your hometown on the first of the month and have a look at that pool of wisdom.
to Paul Theodoropoulos – If only boxer and pelosi did their screeching from the back of ted kennedy’s car. Independent of their political beliefs, how do these rigid hostile people get along with anyone.
As to why the Dems are supporting her, according to this article
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_scotus
she was recommended by the Senate Democratic leader, what the…?
Then, according to this post
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/04/1346255&tid=123&tid=219
she argued for Microsoft “that people who were sold defective software by Microsoft weren’t ‘injured'”.
As far as I’m concerned, MS was doing its best to make money and harm to its customers be damned (SOP for MS). Anyone who supports this is clearly someone who either A) has not bothered to find out the facts OR B) ignored the facts to make money. Either one of these, in my mind, makes her ineligible for the Supreme Court.
I will confess to voting for Bush, and believing in him early in his term. I continue to think Afghanistan turned out better than expected, but after Iraq, TSA, and FEMA, I don’t trust his judgment any more. This just adds icing to the cake.
It seems that the anti-Bush crowd is out of control — as usual. Here are some facts(?) concerning Miers that were reported in the general media (cable news and The Washing Post).
1. Meirs was a Democrat that contributed $1,000 to Gore’s presidential campaign.
2. Meirs switched parties and joined the Bush White House.
3. Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada, Senate Minority Leader) suggested Bush nominate her for the Supreme Court.
4. Senators from both parties suggested Bush nominate someone that had not served on a court — for balance.
Now I don’t have a clue how “conservative” Meirs will be or her legal acumen. But I have reservations about the motivations of anyone that would donate $1000 to Gore and then switch parties when he lost the election.
This is one butt ugly Woman.
First, I’m a woman, and I was also a “first” in a few categories in the 70’s. Next, I knew many women who were also “firsts” in a lot of jobs. Business back then was under pressure to promote women, just as they were under pressure to promote racial diversity. Not ALWAYS were the choices the best fit for the job. Didn’t matter, a woman is a woman, a black was a black, an asian an asian. Just plug one in the vacancy, and you’ve made quota.
It does NOT mean that she was the best, or brightest, or even the most competent.
Next….most women who moved up quickly were miserable people. The worst boss to have was another woman. They were overly driven, and did everything possible to thwart women with children. They were emulating MEN, not trying to be women in a position of authority. Meanwhile, they were very “devoted” to their mentors and male bosses, and did everything possible to suck up to them.
From all reports, it appears that Ms.Mier is cut from that cloth. She was “born again”…..and all it entails. She changed all her previous perspectives and beliefs to dove-tail to the church she chose.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/05/news/scotus.php
For this reason alone I’m concerned: James Dobson believes in Harriett Miers.
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/10/52005a.asp
I find it odd that the “Evangelicals” are touting that it’s “one of their own”, that she will be faithful to them. As the Conservative Voice put it “Therefore, since Harriet Miers is an evangelical, she believes as an evangelical, she breathes as an evangelical, she lives out the evangelical ethic that is evangelical.” (Their website is overwhelmed or down, or I’d post the link.) This doesn’t say that they feel she’ll use her fine mind and decide on things in any way OTHER than what they want her to say/think. Do we want this?
Personally, I’d RATHER have a woman who can think for herself. Who, at 60, isn’t a frozen maiden…one who only wants to think what men tell her to think. I want a woman who can think for herself, and conduct herself as one of MY SEX, not some quasi-male-want-to-be. I have had enough of those twisted, bitter women in my life, and frankly, I’d rather have a bitter twisted male, because they’re more honest, and easier to deal with.
This is NOT a person we want on the high court bench.
And, Martin, Nicholas it has nothing to do with keeping her in the kitchen, quit being such asses.
It’s the Republicans who would fold during a ‘real’ filiuster, because they’re the ones who have to hold the floor.
Miers donated to Gore in 1988, when he was to cautious to win.
Yes, a woman must have given birth to be able to care about the issues mothers face. Just as only blacks can really care about equal protection and rights under the law.
Whatever. Maybe if more judges made their ruling based on the law instead of their personal beliefs or preferences or feelings of empathy/sympathy, we wouldn’t have to be so worried about these silly
Being a previous judge has nothing to do with being a good decision maker. I’ve seen where judges that were convicted of something said that they would have never been so harsh with some of their sentences if they had any idea what it was like to serve time (ex. marijuana usage). Thus IMO, the best “judges” are people with a lot of variable experiences that don’t just sit with a “holier than thou” stance and make judgements on things that they don’t understand or don’t follow some traditional line of thought.
I find her choice of career over children as a sign of an independent woman who doesn’t fall forcibly to tradition which I respect.
IMO, the fact that Dumbya picked her is already a potential strike against her as he is a religious puppet but it’s too early to say whether this is simply an administration strategic play or intended to be a real nominee as mike cannali pointed out above. I’ll watch the hearings before I form a final opinion but I’m already surprised by the number of religious conservatives that are opposed to her nomination.
Remarkable run of narrow minded/prejudiced comments based on speculation, heresay and spurios logic. Thanks for not including any facts or actual analysis of this persons qualifications or rational assessment of who they are or what they stand for.
I particularly enjoyed this vitriol
“Personally, I’d RATHER have a woman who can think for herself. Who, at 60, isn’t a frozen maiden…one who only wants to think what men tell her to think. I want a woman who can think for herself, and conduct herself as one of MY SEX, not some quasi-male-want-to-be. I have had enough of those twisted, bitter women in my life, and frankly, I’d rather have a bitter twisted male, because they’re more honest, and easier to deal with.
This is NOT a person we want on the high court bench”.
No it does not seem like you are. Not a little frustrated or angry are we. Thank you for placing this woman in box based on your informed personal interaction with her and analysis of her career and performance. Sure give me a bitter twisted male over a bitter twisted woman anytime, as your post proves.
Thanks for the humor and lack of intellectual stimulation and reminding me why my cynicism of American Culture lives.
Didn’t we just get rid of Roberts because he was an unqualified Bush Cronie? So naturally right after that, Bush has to appoint another Crone
Paul, the Democrats have to keep talking, but they can switch back and forth among 45 people. The Republicans have to have 50 of their members at all times to hold a quorum at all times. So during a real filibuster, 50 out of 55 Republicans at all times, with about 2 out of 45 Democrats.