News & Politics - Bush Nominates Harriet Miers for O'Connor Seat

In Fair Verona · 10-03-2005, 01:16 PM

Article from CNN.com

Quote:

Bush picks White House counsel for Supreme Court
If confirmed, Harriet Miers would succeed O'Connor

Monday, October 3, 2005; Posted: 1:31 p.m. EDT (17:31 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers on Monday to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Miers, 60, was the first woman to head the State Bar of Texas. She has never been a judge.

An outspoken supporter of the Bush administration, she was a leader of its search for potential candidates to fill Supreme Court posts. A White House official said that at the same time, Bush considered her as a nominee without her knowledge.

In a televised announcement from the White House, Bush called Miers "exceptionally well-suited" for the high court. Miers has "devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," he said.

He called on the Senate to "review her qualifications thoroughly and fairly and to vote on her nomination promptly."

Miers said she was grateful and humbled by the nomination. (Watch: Miers has no judicial experience -- 2:30)

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society," she 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." (Watch Bush nominate Miers to the Supreme Court -- 9:09)

If the Senate confirms Miers, she would join Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second sitting female justice on the bench. O'Connor became the court's first female justice in 1981.
Dinner offer

Bush offered her the job Sunday night over dinner in the White House residence, White House sources said.

During the summer, a vetting process for Miers took place once the president began considering her.

Bush took seriously suggestions by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, and ranking Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, that the president consider candidates from outside the appellate courts, the sources said.

Miers was the first woman to serve as president of the State Bar of Texas and Dallas Bar Association. She also was a member of the Dallas City Council. (Profile)
Reacting with caution

Initial reaction to Miers' nomination was cautious. (Watch senators react to Miers' nomination -- 3:49)

"Harriet Miers is an intelligent lawyer who shares the president's judicial philosophy," said Leonard Leo of the conservative Federalist Society.

"She has demonstrated that in her capacity as White House counsel and a senior administration official as well as an active member of the organized bar."

Quietly, some conservatives involved in the White House's nominee selection consultation process said they are concerned with Bush's pick.

"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer," said conservative activist Manuel Miranda of the Third Branch Conference, referring to President Lyndon B. Johnson's pick to the high court in 1965.

"The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it. However, the president deserves the benefit of a doubt, the nominee deserves the benefit of hearings, and every nominee deserves an up-or-down vote."

The Concerned Women for America, another conservative group, also took a wait-and-see approach on Miers.

"We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution," said Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the group. "Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process."

One Republican official said that many had expectations that Bush's pick would be a "known conservative," adding that he was surprised by the president's choice.

"Republicans were hoping for a clear conservative," the official said. "It's going to be heavy lifting for us and the White House."

Another conservative source who was involved in the selection consultation process said Miers was "not a big surprise" and that she had always been someone under serious consideration.

"She's a good conservative," the source said. "She does share the president's views about law and public policy. But she is not well-known, which is going to be part of the challenge."
Democrats also cautious

Democrats on the the Senate Judiciary Committee reacted cautiously to Miers' nomination, but they did not immediately oppose it.

The Democratic National Committee (DNC) issued a statement saying, "There are a lot of obvious concerns; her lack of experience, cronyism, and of course her views on our basic freedoms." But the group also called the nomination a sign that Bush was "unable to pick a nominee that would appeal to his extreme right-wing base."

In a written statement Leahy said, "It is too early to reach any firm judgment about such an important nomination," noting Miers long ties to President Bush. "It is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers isues of interest to this Administration."

"My first reaction is a simple one: It could have been a lot worst," Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, one of the Demcrats on the committee, said. "... The president has not sent us a nominee that we've rejected already."

Schumer continued, "There's hope that Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee. ... Given the fact that the extreme wing of the president's party was demanding someone of fealty to their views, this is a good first day in the process that begins to fill the seat of Sandra Day O'Connor."

Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, another Democratic committee member and its only woman, said she was happy that a woman was nominated to replace the outgoing O'Connor but wanted to know more about Miers' views on privacy and other issues.

"This new justice will be critical in the balance with respect to rulings on congressional authority, as well as a woman's right to privacy, environmental protections, and many other aspects of constitutional law in the United States," Feinstein said.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, was complimentary of Miers.

"I like Harriet Miers," Reid said in a statement. "As White House counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association."
Pivotal replacement

The choice to replace O'Connor, a key swing vote, could be pivotal. (Full story)

The announcement came shortly before justices were to begin a new term with new Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, who is the youngest member of the high court.

The court's new term includes a docket with cases involving abortion, assisted suicide, the death penalty, and other controversial topics. (Case list)

In 2004, when she was deputy White House chief of staff for policy, Miers hosted several "Ask the White House" session on the White House's Web site. In that role she expressed her own opinions on certain issues, praising the president's policies on the economy, education, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

CNN senior legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said Miers "has a very blank slate as far as a record," and "by the standards that we usually apply to Supreme Court justice nominees she does not appear very distinguished."

There have been Supreme Court appointees with no judicial experience, but "they tend to be senators, governors, people who have had jobs that required confirmation by the Senate," he said. Miers "has had none of those."

It is unclear how soon the Senate may hold hearings on Miers.

O'Connor announced her retirement in July. Bush initially chose Roberts for her seat, but the September 3 death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist changed the White House's strategy.

O'Connor has said she will stay on until she is replaced, making her role in the upcoming term unclear. Under court rules, a justice's vote does not count until a ruling is issued, a process that can take weeks or months.

Many legal scholars question whether O'Connor would want to continue hearing cases if her replacement takes over before rulings are issued, thereby negating her vote.

I agree with the majority of Democrats in the article. It could have been a lot worse, and he did go with a woman, which is good. While qualification should also be a key factor, I honestly do not think that O'Connor's seat should be given to another white man. There should definitely be a woman on that seat. Naturally, this doesn't give Bush a lot of choices so this may be the best we could get. Better than Priscilla Owens anyhow.

The Democrats don't seem to opposing, I mean even Reid likes her, however the problem is that nobody knows her stance on certain controversial issues because she's never been a judge before. Nobody can study her ruling.

***Jerry D*** · 10-03-2005, 02:42 PM

I find it unbelievable that Bush would nominate someone who's never served as a judge as a Supreme Court Justice, but as always, it seems like Bush values loyalty to him far above any legitimate qualifications for any position that he's seeking to fill.

Ms Carolyn · 10-03-2005, 07:50 PM

Yeah, I have a problem with the fact that she has NO judicial experience. Plus she's one of Dubya's bestest buds, which pretty much destroys her credibility as far as I'm concerned.

In Fair Verona · 10-04-2005, 07:18 PM

Rehnquist had never held a judicial position before when he was appointed to supreme court either. Though he was a strong conservative, he also did his job and did it well.

I'm not necessarily saying that Miers is a great choice. I would have obviously gone with a more liberal-moderate woman but nonetheless, this is the best that we will probably get from George Bush.

A ton of conservatives don't like her but the moderates are crazy about her. Which might not be such a bad thing. The position she is filling is to be a moderate swing voter. I wouldn't want to nominate an outright liberal because it would teeter the balance of the supreme court, leaving only one swing voter left on the court whom everybody would cater to. So until there is any evidence that she is an uber conservative, I'm not that worried. As long as she fills the moderate O'Connor seat.

However, it has been said that she is not pro-choice. Again, the people's fear of Roe V. Wade being overturned is reawakened.

**Avatar** · 10-05-2005, 12:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by In Fair Verona

However, it has been said that she is not pro-choice. Again, the people's fear of Roe V. Wade being overturned is reawakened.

Which is an unfounded fear. There's still five justices that supports Roe v. Wade, so even if Roberts and Miers go against a pretty clear precedent, which is difficult enough, Roe isn't in danger of being overturned by this appointment.

summerbug · 10-05-2005, 07:11 AM

Ms Carolyn - you covered my thoughts EXACTLY.

I would have disapproved of Rehnquist being on the court without any experience had I known or existed at the time

And many would say that he was not a fabulous justice as some had raised questions (including fairly recently) about him not recusing himself from cases where he had good friends with clear sides on the case. Anyone remember the duck hunting incident raising questions? It doesn't matter if people are above siding with their friends...the appearance is harmful to the process.

Ms Carolyn · 10-06-2005, 05:49 AM

Let's just remember his last "buddy in the news", Mike Brown, and think about whether or not this President can be trusted to select a competent dog catcher, much less a Supreme Court Justice.

sick little jag · 10-06-2005, 12:56 PM

I think that this is definitely not the worst nominee he could have put forward, but certainly not the best. The thing to be said for her is that while she may be a friend of Bush and therefore loyal to him, she's also had affiliations with Democrats and gave her support to them as well as to Bush. I thought I read she actually wasn't pro-life, so I'm not sure if I read correctly but I think that was a reason certain fundies were upset because she wasn't clearly against abortion.

I think she'll get appointed...but I don't know. I think Ms Carolyn has a point about Bush appointing his personal friends to high government office, but while Mike Brown had no pertinent experience to his position, Harriet Miers is a lawyer and does indeed know the law.

Ms Carolyn · 10-06-2005, 07:21 PM

She attended a less-than-prestigious law school and while experienced, I think the only reason she's risen so far is that Dubya likes her. Which is not a job qualification. I'm not saying she's not a good lawyer -- Dubya's not in jail yet, after all! But I don't think she's qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

Sparrowhawk · 10-07-2005, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ms Carolyn

She attended a less-than-prestigious law school and while experienced, I think the only reason she's risen so far is that Dubya likes her. Which is not a job qualification. I'm not saying she's not a good lawyer -- Dubya's not in jail yet, after all! But I don't think she's qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice.

What is twisting me all up in a knot is that while supposedly Bush knows her so well, he just doesn't appear to know how she stands on the issues!

Everything to do with Bush disgusts me.

TokyoNiGHTS · 10-07-2005, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jerry D

I find it unbelievable that Bush would nominate someone who's never served as a judge as a Supreme Court Justice, but as always, it seems like Bush values loyalty to him far above any legitimate qualifications for any position that he's seeking to fill.

Bush had a great quote about nominating this woman.

Quote:

"I actually listen to senators when they bring forth ideas," Bush said. "And one of the most interesting ideas I heard was, 'Why don't you pick somebody who hasn't been a judge? Why don't you reach outside?'

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...home-headlines

Isn't that why Katrina was so messed up? Because he appointed someone that had no experience in that field?

In Fair Verona · 10-08-2005, 12:14 PM

I agree, Roe v. Wade isn't in danger of being overturned. For some reason though, the die-hard Republicans are really set on this. Many won't even vote in favor of Miers unless she practically says she'll do her in part in the effort to overturn it. :eyeroll:

Another (one of the few) things we know about her is that she supports gay civil rights... and yet voted for an anti-sodomy law in Texas. Hmm.

It's really unclear for me to call if she will be good or not until we actually know something. Just because she is Bush's "buddy" does not immediately make her a bad choice. The fact that he chose her on those stands alone is questionable, but still... I don't think anybody knows enough to judge.

Ha. Judge.


Fan Forum > General Discussion > News & Politics > Bush Nominates Harriet Miers for O'Connor Seat