Monday, October 03, 2005

Bush Nominates Meirs for SCOTUS


President Bush named White House Counsel Harriet Miers, 60, to be associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court today.

Miers, who was Bush's personal attorney in Texas, was the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association and was a partner at the Texas law firm of Locke Liddell & Sapp before coming to Washington to work in the Bush administration.

If confirmed, she would be a rare appointee 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 Abe Fortas, an influential Washington attorney and close adviser to Lyndon B. Johnson, who nominated him to the high court in 1965.


GOI: I am please that he has announced the nomination of another woman but I am nervous that she does not have any experience on the judicial bench. Another thing that worries me is that she is a Bush loyalist and I worry that this could cloud her judgement but right now I willing to give her the benefit of the doubt. I am also pleased that she is getting a good review from (D) Sen. Harry Reid whom i greatly respect. I am breathing a sigh of relief though that we did not see a judge Brown or Owens.

---End of Transmission---

13 comments:

Jessica said...

I'm grateful but cautious.

1. She is a Bush loyalist, which has proven NEVER to be a good thing. She got to where she is because of her loyalty.

2. NO judicial experience.

crimnos said...

Yeah, all in all, it could be worse, but I'm waiting until we learn more. I don't like the lack of judicial experience, either.

Chris said...

I'm with you right now on this. I too am skeptical just because it's Bush. We'll have to wait and see, but on the surface I will say that I am relatively pleased with Miers.

Amadeus said...

More cronyism anyone? During the nomination address, I was waiting for Bush to say, "Harri your doing a hella va job!"

~Amadeus

andi said...

crony.
crony.
crony.
crony.

also she looks kind of like a crone, doncha think? now in a lot of instances i would think this is a good thing - i think the SCOTUS could use a big ol dose of good Crone energy - some wisdom and heart together with a realistic view of life and death might be... helpful?

anyway if she were a real Crone she wouldn't waste her time with makeup. pttttpth.

sorry, any reference to her appearance is likely sexist. sue me.

Jessica said...

Her generous amount of eyeliner is already on my nerves

james said...

Jessica:

I too am worried at how close she is to the President. I am concerned that she can not remain independent. She is the President's PERSONAL LAWYER!!! That's bothing me BIG TIME.

Crimnos:

Yeah, we'll see. She seems like a stealth candidate because (once again) there isn't much of a paper trail. I was willing to let Roberts go with a little paper trail but TWICE??? FREAKY ME OUT!!

MJ:

Yep, a Bush loyalist. Not very independent. She said that Bush is one of the most brilliant people she knows. Know, I don't exactly think he is STUPID but well, let's just say he doesn't seem to be curious enough.

Amadeus:

Yeah, you'd think with all the cronyism in the Bush administration right now that he would try to avoid that with this nominee but hell, they don't seem to care.

Andi:

Yeah, the more I think about this the more I'm REALLY worried about this woman.

Chris said...

Yeah, you're right. As the day has progressed I have been having second thoughts on this lady.

Zen Unbound said...

I'm bothered by the fact that Harriet thinks Bush is a "brilliant man."

But considering the alternatives, I think we did OK, again, by getting someone that isn't a wingnut ideologue.

I don't think it matters that Miers hasn't been a judge. She'll know what to do and she's very smart. Also, I am encouraged that she believes in and has done a lot of pro bono work.

james said...

I am also concerned that she is considered a "corporate lawyer" and worried that she will fight for Big Business over individuals.

james said...

Anyone catch the news conference this morning? I was very disturbed by it. Especially how he strongly stated that he picked someone who will push his philosophy on the court!! And what philosophy is THAT?? Why, cronyism and corporatism. She was after all a corporate lawyer. I thought that a justice was supposed to push the Constitution (yeah, remember that document?) and the rule of law instead of the agenda of one man.

Oh yeah and I was super pissed that no reporter asked A question about Tom DeLay. At least if they did I missed it.

Chris said...

I think he needs to define what his philosophy is.

james said...

MJ:

You and me both.