October 18, 2005

BUT SHE'S NEVER HAD AN ESSAY IN THE YALE ALUMNI MAGAZINE:

Miers speeches backed stronger executive branch (Rick Klein, October 18, 2005, Boston Globe)

Earlier this year, Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers used several speeches to push for expanding President Bush's powers to protect the United States against terrorism, arguing that ''a nation at war" needs a stronger executive branch, according to transcripts the White House has provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee.

In her speeches to conservative groups, Miers called for extension of the Patriot Act, which expands law enforcement agencies' power to investigate suspected terrorists.

She defended Vice President Dick Cheney's closed-door energy task force as the best way for the administration to use confidential deliberations to set national policy. And she said her role as White House counsel was generally to ''protect against any attempted infringement on the appropriate role of the executive branch."

''In order to effectively serve the American people, the president's powers must be protected," Miers said in June, in a speech given to the conservative Heritage Foundation. ''We must recognize that we are a nation at war, and that requires a strong presidency to act as commander-in-chief."

Since her promotion to White House counsel this year, Miers has given speeches arguing policies favored by the Bush position, including tort reform limiting the size of class-action awards and a trust fund for asbestos victims.

She also explained that Bush believes judges should strictly interpret laws and not legislate from the bench and had harsh words for a series of Democratic-led filibusters blocking votes on some of the president's judicial nominees.

''Each nominee is entitled to an up-or-down vote," Miers told the conservative Federalist Society in April, a speech in which she called the group ''an important ally" of the White House. ''Recently, as you know all too well, a minority of senators have used the filibuster to deny certain of President Bush's deserving nominees an up-or-down vote, not because of qualifications, but because that minority disagrees with the judicial philosophy of the nominees."


What is it that her opponents think a White House Counsel does, if not deal with major constitutional and legal issues?

Posted by Orrin Judd at October 18, 2005 8:12 AM
Comments

Hardly a compelling argument -- she only got the job earlier this year -- too little time to "deal with" much beyond choosing the office decor, and making a couple of speeches to safe audiences.

Posted by: curt at October 18, 2005 10:00 AM

Where was she previously?

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2005 10:05 AM

You're changing the subject again.

Posted by: curt at October 18, 2005 10:11 AM

The subject is her work at the highest level of the legal profession being excellent preparation for the Court.

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2005 10:19 AM

The subject was whether she had dealt with "major constitutional and legal issues" as WH Counsel, not whether she did fine work while acting as an advocate for the President or someone else earlier in her career.

No one disputes that she is a fine lawyer. The problem is that there is no particular reason to expect that she will be a good Justice, GWB's vague assurances notwithstanding.

Posted by: curt at October 18, 2005 10:47 AM

Earlier in her career is six years ago. She's overqualified by comparison to most of the folks being offered as alternatives, who have nothing like that five years of experience at the top of the Constitutional pecking order.

Posted by: oj at October 18, 2005 11:00 AM

Too bad she didn't give Specter just a blank answer on Griswold.

The hearings do not look promising at this point. Trying to follow the bloated questions from Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin, and even Feinstein will be a challenge. Especially since what many on the right really wanted was someone like Janice Rogers Brown or Mark Levin to stuff all the leftist blather down the liberals' throats. I sometimes think many "intellectuals" on the right don't care about the seat so much as slashing the Democrats on the Committee to ribbons. Oh well, maybe the next nominee can do that.

Posted by: ratbert at October 18, 2005 11:14 AM

Wait, wait, wait. Miers isn't qualified because she was only the White House Counsel for a few months, but Priscilla Owens & JRB are qualified because they've been federal judges for a few months? Sorry, doesn't wash.

Posted by: Timothy at October 18, 2005 1:06 PM
« IT'D HELP IF THESE GUYS UNDERSTOOD THE LIMITATIONS OF THEIR OWN THEORY: | Main | WHAT IS DUJAIL TO THE LEFT?: »