October 4, 2005
I JUST KNOW THAT EDITH WHOEVER WOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER:
The President's 'Pit Bull': Though said to be shy, the nominee is described as tenacious in her defense of Bush. (Richard A. Serrano and Scott Gold, October 4, 2005, LA Times)
From the beginning of George W. Bush's presidency, his professional life has been so closely intertwined with Harriet Miers' that some White House insiders jokingly refer to her as the president's "work wife." And she was the lawyer whom Bush trusted to handle some of his most sensitive and important tasks, even before he entered the Oval Office.Born and raised in Dallas, educated at Southern Methodist University, a star corporate litigator and deeply involved in her evangelical Christian church, Harriet Ellan Miers is a child of Texas, and her roots there seem to run parallel to those of the president who nominated her to the Supreme Court.
As governor of Texas, Bush chose her to take over a financially troubled state lottery commission. When questions arose in the 2000 presidential campaign about favoritism in the Texas Air National Guard, Bush tapped Miers to assess the dimensions of the problem.
After they left Texas for Washington following the 2000 presidential election, Miers assumed such an insider role that in 2001 it was she who handed Bush the crucial "presidential daily briefing" hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the Sept. 11 attacks.
And this year it was Miers who brought word to the president that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was retiring, it was Miers who interviewed potential successors and told others they were passed over, and Miers who ended up winning the nomination herself.
Bush has called her "a pit bull in size 6 shoes." Presenting her with a legal award, he quipped that "when it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul." During visits to the president's ranch near Crawford, Texas, she has been known to grab a chain saw and help clear brush.
A Deep Dedication to the President, and to Her Work (Michael Grunwald, Jo Becker and Amy Goldstein, October 4, 2005, Washington Post)
As a private citizen in Dallas, Harriet Miers was a devoted parishioner and Sunday-school teacher at a conservative evangelical church, and she donated money to an antiabortion group. As a City Council candidate, she opposed the repeal of a law against gay sex. As president of the Texas bar, she led a fight against an abortion rights plank adopted by the American Bar Association. And as President Bush's White House lawyer, she helped vet deeply conservative judges. [...][T]exas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who first met Miers when she interviewed him for a job in the early 1970s, wields one of the most conservative gavels on the Texas bench. He said he has attended several antiabortion dinners with Miers and noted that she has always tithed to the Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, where antiabortion literature is sometimes distributed and tapes from the conservative group Focus on the Family are sometimes screened. He said her personal beliefs would not guide her jurisprudence, but he scoffed at the skepticism that some conservatives have expressed about Bush's selection of Miers.
"I know what her judicial philosophy will be, and when they find out what this president knows about Harriet, they are going to be happy as clams," Hecht said.
Miers said to be on `extreme end' of pro-life movement (DAVE LEVINTHAL, 10/04/05, The Dallas Morning News)
As political activists rush to mine Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' slender public record, a former campaign manager says she 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 think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president." [...]
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.
It's funny the way critics on the Right are insisting that the President should have put this or that guy, who they've only ever read about, on the Court, because no one else can be trusted to stay conservative. Yet, the President seems to have picked someone he trusts, and actually knows rather well, and they can't fathom it. I know if it were my pick to make the only person I'd trust would be The Wife or The Other Brother, and I'd have some doubts even there.
MORE:
Bush taps Harriet Miers for court (Joseph Curl, 10/04/05, THE WASHINGTON TIMES)
She had a born-again experience and became an evangelical Christian in 1979. She tried to have the American Bar Association repeal its pro-choice platform -- but on the grounds that it was divisive and that the group couldn't speak for the whole legal profession, not because of moral concerns.
Like many Texans at that time, she also donated to the 1980s campaigns of conservative Democrats such as Al Gore and Lloyd Bentsen, and to the Democratic National Committee.
But in choosing a Supreme Court nominee who has never served on the bench, Mr. Bush said he was following a presidential tradition of nominating people "drawn from a wide diversity of professional backgrounds."
Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Mr. Bush said, "came to the Supreme Court without prior experience on the bench, as did more than 35 other men, including Byron White. And I'm proud to nominate an outstanding woman who brings a similar record of achievement in private practice and public service." Justice Rehnquist died last month.
Senate Republicans said they will press for confirmation by Thanksgiving -- a tight timetable by recent standards, allowing less than eight weeks for lawmakers to review her record, hold hearings and vote.
White House Counsel Miers Chosen for Court (Michael A. Fletcher, 10/04/05, Washington Post)
The White House could take reassurance that no Republican senators came out against Miers, and some conservative advocates said they were confident she would be a reliable supporter on the bench. They cited her support of an unsuccessful effort to reverse an American Bar Association endorsement of Roe v. Wade , the Supreme Court decision guaranteeing the right to abortion. "I don't know what her view is on overturning Roe , but she is well regarded by many antiabortion Texans," said Leonard A. Leo of the Federalist Society.In a short statement after Bush announced her nomination and before she made her first round of courtesy calls on Senate leaders, Miers indicated that she has a modest view of the duty of justices. "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the Founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," Miers said. "If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong, and to help ensure that the courts meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."
If confirmed, Miers will become the first Supreme Court justice in more than three decades with no experience as a judge at any level. Among the non-judges appointed in modern history are the late William H. Rehnquist, who was a top Justice Department official in the Nixon administration, and Fortas, an influential Washington lawyer and close adviser to Lyndon B. Johnson, who nominated him to the high court in 1965. The talking points of White House aides said the closest analogy was Lewis F. Powell Jr., who served as head of the Virginia Bar Association and the Richmond school board before being sent to the court by Richard M. Nixon.
Miers Known as a Hard-Working Advocate for the President (TODD S. PURDUM and NEIL A. LEWIS, 10/04/05, NY Times)
Last May, the Texas Center for Legal Ethics and Professionalism gave Harriet E. Miers its second annual Sandra Day O'Connor Award. On Monday, President Bush proposed Ms. Miers for something a little bit bigger: Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court.The parallels to the woman she would replace are apparent. Both were born in Texas. Both graduated at the top of their law school class, and yet had trouble finding jobs. Both served in elective office, Justice O'Connor in the Arizona State Senate and Ms. Miers a single two-year term on the Dallas City Council, but neither had been a federal judge. Both have now made history - beyond their wildest early dreams.
"I really came out of high school believing I wasn't bright enough to be a doctor," Ms. Miers told The Dallas Morning News in 1991. "Career days at high school, you just got no encouragement."
It has been a long time since Ms. Miers lacked encouragement, and for the last 12 years she has had the support of an important patron. [...]
At first, Ms. Miers had trouble finding employment as a lawyer. She had an offer in San Francisco with the trial lawyer Melvin Belli, for whom she had worked one summer. But she wanted to remain in Dallas, so she clerked for a federal judge there for two years and moved on to be the first female lawyer at Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, a venerable Dallas firm to which she soon recruited other women.
At that time, some women who were law firm associates in Dallas sued several of the city's major firms, contending they were denying equal treatment to female lawyers.
"Some of the questions you got asked were pretty offensive," recalled Professor Eads, who interviewed for summer jobs while in law school. "One partner asked me if I was taking birth control pills." She said that while Ms. Miers "doesn't wear her experiences on her sleeve," such treatment "affected her and she has to know from that experience that not all groups are always treated equally."
Once More, Bush Turns To His Inner Circle (Peter Baker, October 4, 2005, Washington Post)
About two weeks ago, White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. told presidential counsel Harriet Miers to add another name to the Supreme Court selection process she was leading. The new candidate: Harriet Miers."What do you mean me?" she asked, according to a colleague.
Miers was hardly the only one surprised, but perhaps neither she nor the rest of Washington should have been. Throughout his career in public life, President Bush has frequently turned to his inner circle for critical appointments, relying on personal judgment and favoring loyalists over the most sterling résumés of better-known outsiders.
In fact, senior administration officials said yesterday, Bush had Miers in mind for the court for two months without telling her. Shortly after nominating John G. Roberts Jr. in July for the first opening on the court, the officials said, Bush and Card began discussing Miers to fill the next vacancy that opened. Card even launched a secret vetting process last summer to investigate Miers -- assigning her own deputy to do the digging behind her back.
The result was a nomination that upended the modern-day conventions of the capital but underscored those of the Bush White House, an institution known for promoting from within, ignoring criticism from without and keeping secrets even from one another. Once he settled in his own mind that Miers would make a good justice, Bush disregarded the likely complaints of cronyism from the left and wails of disappointment from the right in order to install a trusted confidante on the nation's highest court.
Of course, the Right thinks it's a sign of weakness that he didn't do what they told him to do. Posted by Orrin Judd at October 4, 2005 8:15 AM
Also, there is more than a whiff of disdain over Miers from some on the right that smacks of intellectual superiority. After all, only they and the most learned scholars can ever possibly understand the Constitution.
But hey, it wouldn't be a Bush victory without hyperventilating and panty twisting from The Corner and Bill Kristol. I think they have a worse record than those on the left at misunderestimating Bush.
Some on the left have realized that Bush is a radical revolutionary, bent on transforming our country, hence, their "Bush derangement syndrome" is actually understandable. But what is it with these conservatives?
To OJ's point the judge selection process is full of guesswork - even judges with long paper trails are second guessed on how they will do on the SC. This is like the baseball/hockey draft where people are guessing how people will do as pros and can often be wrong.
To Buttercup's point - To my dismay I have learned that conservative pundits and bloggers can be just as hysterical, fact-ignorant, and agenda driven as lefty pundits and bloggers. As I mentioned yesterday the Corner now reads like a bunch of political elitists sitting in a high-rise drinking starbucks complaining that the world doesn't work the way their political models say it should.
Posted by: AWW at October 4, 2005 8:47 AMNorman Minetta. Bush tends to put a premium on personal loyalty that outweighs personal mediocrity.
There have been a number of Supreme Court justices who were close to the President or inexperienced judicially.
Miers, however, appears to be both. Her major qualification seems to be her friendship with Bush. Take that out of the picture and it's hard to imagine her name ever getting even floated as a possiblity.
She seems to have been selected because Bush knew Gonzales wouldn't fly and he wanted a woman.
Besides which, the loss of Rehnquist in particular means the Court has lost good legal minds when it comes to 9th, 10th and 11th Amendment law. This nomination doesn't address that and frankly Dubya could have done a lot better.
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at October 4, 2005 8:48 AMButtercup:
Two important elements there are that she's a woman and an evangelical.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 8:51 AMIt is hard to avoid the impression that some of these conservative critics were looking forward to the same kind of judicial activism they have been criticizing for so many years.
Posted by: Peter B at October 4, 2005 8:58 AMMr. Choudhury: How do you know she hasn't got a fine legal mind? Also, aren't, almost by definition, conservatives wary of all judges because of the power they wield without much check? Therefore, her lack of judicial experience should be a cause for celebration not disdain. And, I'd rather Bush know Miers well and make a decision based on that familiarity than rely on 2nd hand reports that could end up in another Souter.
Posted by: Buttercup at October 4, 2005 9:00 AMOJ:
Ding, ding, ding. You win the free car.
People always act like this stuff is all about the bells and whistles, like the candidate's paper trail and education. But obviously the most important factor is that a judge be pleasing to conservatives, and here the president is relying on solid experience by picking a person he knows very well. Mr. Choudhury acts like there's something wrong with that, but there's not.
Posted by: Matt Murphy at October 4, 2005 9:18 AMAlright, alright. Maybe we were a little jumpy yesterday, but the fact remains that this is a gamble. The primary argument -- "trust the President" -- is hardly an argument at all. Put not your trust in princes.
The root of the problem, of course, is the great power which we have allowed the Court to usurp for itself. Nine robed attorneys have come to govern this nation on all the questions that really vex us -- the questions that press to the heart of who we are as a people: this is profoundly unhealthy, and it presages despotism.
Posted by: Paul Cella at October 4, 2005 9:23 AMPer commenters above, I've had it with Cornerites / Malkins / Redstater's up in arm over Miers.
The Court needs more attorneys like Miers, not more specialists -- that is, not judges who have been grooming themselves for the bench since their first year in law school.
Posted by: Twn at October 4, 2005 9:23 AMTwn:
The funniest piece yesterday was Ann Coulter's that Miers is even worse than Roberts.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 9:30 AMButtercup:
How do I know that she has, particularly in those areas of constitutional law that I posted above?
Being on the Supreme Court means more than just giving the right vote on the matters of the day ; it means being in the prime position of guiding American jurisprudence through the decades. This is something Rehnquist accomplished and Roberts looks very likely to do. Miers just doesn't seem as qualified as the other picks like Luttig, McConnell, Jones and the Ediths.
AFAIK consevatives are wary of judges who regard themselves as lawmakers, not the entire class.
Posted by: Ali at October 4, 2005 9:37 AMAli:
Rehnquist was a party hack when he was hired too. All a justice needs to do is hire good clerks and vote right.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 9:43 AMOJ says: Your argument is put your trust in...?
Well, her past makes it tough to conform to that famous dictum enunciated by Reagan: Trust but verify.
It looks like Bush is running from a fight, which cannot be a good thing. Even if he *isn't*, the perception is out there.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at October 4, 2005 10:43 AMBruce:
Who can W better verify than a close aide? He's likely never met most of the folks others were advocating.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 10:51 AMOnce again, this fight is over abortion. To pretend otherwise is silly. Nobody's up in arms about copyright law. It's all Roe v. Wade, and everybody knows it.
Now, if I had to rate the chances of John Roberts voting to overturn Roe, I'd say they're less than fifty-fifty, maybe much less. He has no history of pro-life activism. Whenever the questions at his hearing wandered close to Roe, he sounded like he'd respect the precedent.
Of course, ya never know. If I did know, I'd be posting from a Vegas penthouse.
But if I had to set the odds on Harriet Miers voting to overturn Roe, I'd say they're at least 80-20, maybe even higher. She *does* have a record of pro-life activism, and we're not talking about just a few newspaper columns.
So why is the right whining about Miers, when they whooped it up over Roberts? Have they all gone pro-choice?
Personal disclaimer: I don't want Roe overturned. But I'm just trying to set the odds without regard to my personal preferences.
Posted by: Casey Abell at October 4, 2005 11:20 AMBush never wins any political points when he plays nice & safe like this, and he won't this time either. Yet, maybe this is the best strategy given the political relaities of this time in his presidency, I don't know. This is, IMO, an underwhelming SC pick. Hopefully, if GWB gets another (or two) chances...well I'll just hope 'cause my trust is a bit low right now.
Posted by: Dave W at October 4, 2005 11:32 AMOh, and another thing, I thought Condi was Bush's "work wife"!
Posted by: Dave W. at October 4, 2005 11:34 AMCasey:
That's why the neocons and libertarians are upset. They don't like pro-life evangelicals, like the president in fact.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 11:49 AMDave:
Yes, this nomination is obviously not about scoring points.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 11:55 AMOne more thing: I don't think this nomination will end up nice and safe at all.
As soon as the NARAL bunch gets wise to Miers' pro-life activism - the NARAL bunch ain't the swiftest, but they'll get there - all hades will break loose. Miers will get drilled with questions about abortion, and all those Dem senators who sounded so nice will turn...not so nice.
What's really funny is that the NARAL crowd will be able to quote right-wingers questioning Miers' qualifications. The Cornerites and the Kritolites will really get skunked.
Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch.
Posted by: Casey Abell at October 4, 2005 11:57 AMThat should have been Kristolites. Sounds like a soft drink or a fifties doo-wop group.
Yes, there really is a soft drink called Crystal Lite. And there was a session band called the Crystalites. Thank you, Google.
Anyway, I have to wonder about the hard-core pro-lifers on the Corner, like K-Lo and Ponnuru. They should have greeted this nomination with joy. Instead they muttered a lot of dark words that NARAL and the pro-choicers will gleefully throw in their faces, once the fight over Miers really gets going.
And they might wind up with a defeated nominee, who would have done what their hearts most desire: vote to overturn Roe.
You can call this poetic justice. Or political idiocy.
Posted by: Casey Abell at October 4, 2005 12:06 PMI like Buttercup's comments and I think Paul Cella's last paragraph unintentionally supports them. The more I read about Miers the better I feel about her nomination. The hearings will be interesting.
Posted by: Genecis at October 4, 2005 12:20 PMCasey: Can you point me to Miers' "pro-life activism"? I've seen stories on her anti-pro-abortion work at the ABA, but that's not at all the same thing...
Posted by: b at October 4, 2005 12:27 PMb:
Read the stories, she even ran for Dallas City Council pro-life:
http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/2005/10/i_just_know_tha.html
Also note that she's the one who's been picking W's judges.
oj: I don't dispute that she is pro-life, but I don't see any evidence at all of "activism" in her past...
Posted by: b at October 4, 2005 12:47 PMBesides running for office on it, her work at the ABA, working for a pro-life Bush, vetting his pro-life judges, etc.? No, I suppose you can name a single person who was considered for the seat who's done more?
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 1:00 PMRunning for office on a pro-life platform and trying to get rid of the leading legal organization's pro-choice stance don't count as "pro-life activism"?
Okay, what does? Wearing an "I'll vote to overturn Roe" t-shirt?
When did John Roberts try to get rid of the ABA's pro-choice stance? When did he run for City Council on a pro-life platform? When has he done anything for pro-lifers beyond writing a memo for his client, if that?
Like I said, it'll be funny if (I'm tempted to say when) Miers gets rejected because of her pro-life sympathies. It'll be even better if (and I'm again tempted to say when) John Roberts votes to uphold Roe. K-Lo and Ponnuru and other right-wing pro-lifers will get the biggest skunking of their pundit lives.
Posted by: Casey Abell at October 4, 2005 1:05 PMIf I recall correctly Justice O'Connor is the only current member ever to have won an election.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 1:09 PMoj & Casey: You both say "running for office on it [abortion]". And yet the article above says that her former campaign manager, who is obviously strongly pro-choice, says "they discussed abortion once during the race." Sounds like it wasn't exactly a hot campaign issue to me...
Casey: "...trying to get rid of the leading legal organization's pro-choice stance don't count as "pro-life activism"?"
Um, no. It counts as recognizing that a large and diverse organization might be best served by not committing all its members to one side of an issue as controversial as abortion.
Call her an "activist" if you like. She's already a cinch to be confirmed, given that it's quite obvious that Reid & Leahy at least suggested her. If they got suckered, so much the better...
Posted by: b at October 4, 2005 1:32 PMWhy does Casey think that quotes from NRO mean anything? The nomination will get 65-70 votes. Zero GOP defections. If she gets into trouble, she is perfect for McCain to lead the
charge for and save.
James Dobson endorsed the nomination. The real base of the party will be on board. The Beltway/NY conservative talking heads can follow or not.
Posted by: Bob at October 4, 2005 1:35 PMPaul-- It's a gamble for us. Not so much for the president, and he's the one making the decision.
Posted by: Timothy at October 4, 2005 2:11 PMb:
It's not a hot issue in city council races--you can run on whatever you believe.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 2:12 PMOJ -
I was hoping we (politically interested citizens) would have the means for verifying GWB's choice, not GWB verifying his own nominee.
There is a cruel but funny email at NRO: Why was Miers chosen? Because Norm Mineta didn't want the job.
She may yet turn out fine, but it gives off peculiar vibes. And of course, an impeccable pre-court c.v. is no guarantee of career-long conservative jurisprudence. The race is not always to the sift, nor the battle to the strong - but that's the way to bet!
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at October 4, 2005 2:18 PMoj: Which is why that doesn't make her an "activist"...
Posted by: b at October 4, 2005 2:41 PMYes, Mr. Cleaver.
Posted by: eddie haskell at October 4, 2005 2:41 PMb:
Yes, she's not an activist. Eric Rudolph was. She's just the most activist of those considered for the Court.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 5:06 PMNo, I know none. But my knowing them is unimportant. Being able to sketch their thoughts on a couple of issues would be nice though, and I cannot say that about her.
Posted by: Bruce Cleaver at October 4, 2005 6:24 PMCan't say it about any of them until they're on the Court and start ruling. That's why they disappoint the presidents who pick them, so often.
Posted by: oj at October 4, 2005 7:32 PMOkay, I give up. If trying to get rid of the ABA's pro-choice position doesn't satisfy the right wing that Miers is a pro-life activist, there's nothing more I can say.
Look, I hope she's not confirmed because she's clearly a pro-lifer who would likely vote to overturn Roe. And I don't want Roe overturned. So, by all means, I hope the right wing opposes her.
They're shooting themselves in the head by trying to stop an anti-Roe vote from getting onto the court. But that's their problem.
Posted by: Casey Abell at October 5, 2005 8:32 AM