Judges Asked to Calm Furor Over Miers Nod

[steven]

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Two former Texas Supreme Court chief justices are the White House's latest weapon in the fight to calm the conservative uproar over Harriet Miers' nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court.

John Hill and Thomas Phillips are due in Washington on Monday, bringing testimonials about Miers' qualifications based on their dealings with her in Texas.

Despite his longtime support for George W. Bush, Hill is a Democrat whose word may not be the right salve for those among the Republican right most nervous about Miers' judicial philosophy.

Also, it was unclear whether either Hill or Phillips ever heard Miers argue the kind of cases that might rebut criticism that she lacks knowledge of constitutional issues.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/B/BUSH_MIERS?SITE=NYBUE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-10-15-18-34-43

[steven]

Newsview: Strategy on Miers Backfiring

By TOM RAUM
Associated Press Writer





WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House is trying to have it both ways in marketing Harriet Miers to disgruntled Republicans.

To conservatives, the president's aides talk up a 1989 document showing she held clear anti-abortion views. Then they pivot and tell everyone else those were just the personal views of a candidate for the Dallas City Council and not a sign of how she might vote on the Supreme Court.

Bush emphasized last week that "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion." Almost immediately, White House spokesman Scott McClellan complained that too much was being made of her membership in an evangelical Christian church.

Bush said he knows her heart and that she won't change. Except she has. She was a Catholic when she was young. And she was a Democrat who turned Republican.

So far, the strategy seems to have made neither side happy. Social conservatives remain skeptical of her credentials and judicial philosophy, and Democrats are finding more reason to oppose her.

"They try to reassure conservatives that she's pro-life. Then two hours later McClellan gets out and says this doesn't say anything about how she would rule. I don't think that was very effective," said William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard magazine.

"If anything, it makes you stop and think, Wait a second," said Kristol. "The case for this woman depends on a one-page, yes-or-no questionnaire from 1989? Isn't this kind of a ridiculous basis on which to make a judgment on someone for the Supreme Court?"
Democrats were saying much the same thing but from the other side of the political spectrum. "We know less about this nominee than we knew about any previous nominee and her questionnaire shines no light on what would be the most illuminating experience - her service in the White House," Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Wednesday.

The panel will begin confirmation hearings on Nov. 7. Democrats said internal documents related to Miers' service as White House counsel were needed first.
Newsview: Strategy on Miers Backfiring

Republican Sens. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Sam Brownback of Kansas broke with GOP colleagues and joined in the call for such documents.

To win, Bush needs to hold on to mainstream Republicans without losing too many social conservatives - while hopefully picking up the support of some Democrats. So far, no Republican senator has come out publicly against the nomination, although some like Brownback, a Judiciary Committee member, have expressed serious reservations.

Republicans hold 55 of the 100 Senate seats, so the arithmetic seems to favor the president. Yet the situation could change rapidly - either for better or worse for the White House - once Miers testifies.

"The hearings are really the place where they will get into more detailed questions about that judicial philosophy and about her record," presidential spokesman McClellan said Wednesday. "She is someone who has a distinguished career and a long record of accomplishment."

After John Roberts' nomination as chief justice sailed through the Senate, the president encountered unexpected headwinds on his selection of Miers to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor. The sharpest criticism of the former corporate lawyer who was once Bush's personal attorney came from the political right - Bush's political base.

"The major message that came out of the hearings on Roberts was `Don't send us an ideologue.' And Laura Bush and Sandra Day O'Connor were both pushing for a woman. And Bush seemed to pick up on all that," said presidential historian Thomas E. Cronin of Colorado College. "But Bush underestimated the reaction of the conservative elites, who are now ganging up on him."

"The whole thing looks clumsy," Cronin added.

In the past, Bush could count on the support of conservatives, even when his actions didn't live up to his rhetoric on issues such as pushing for constitutional bans on anti-abortion and school prayer amendments and for a ban on gay marriage. No longer.

There is a "huge sense of disappointment" among conservatives, said Grover Norquist, president of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform. "We thought he'd hit a home run, but he hit somewhere between a single and triple."

Fred Greenstein, a political scientist at Princeton University, suggested the need to do damage control over the flawed early response to Hurricane Katrina and to the CIA-leak investigation may have thrown Bush and his advisers off stride.

Miers might be a good choice for the court, but the nomination "needed more in the way of preparation and ground work," Greenstein said. "Sometimes presidents either make bad choices or make defensible choices but don't follow through and defend them."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/M/MARKETING_MIERS?SITE=NYBUE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2005-10-19-23-03-25

[Joe Buff]

Miers got an "incomplete" on her take-home questionnaire from the committee. Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat, chided her for her incomplete responses about her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar.

Their letter also asked her to provide detailed accounts of private reassurances about her views given by the White House or its allies to some conservative supporters who have been anxious about her positions on abortion and other social issues.

Her confirmation hearing is scheduled to start November 7. Specter and Leahy said they wouldn't set any deadline for conclusion. Leahy said, "If the questions are not answered or their answer is incomplete, as they have been, then it's going to be a long hearing indeed."

There may be some surprises during the hearings, but it should come as no surprise if her nomination is endorsed. May God have mercy on our souls!

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Joe Buff
Miers got an "incomplete" on her take-home questionnaire from the committee. Senators Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, the committee chairman, and Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the senior Democrat, chided her for her incomplete responses about her legal career, her work in the White House, her potential conflicts on cases involving the administration and the suspension of her license by the District of Columbia Bar.

Their letter also asked her to provide detailed accounts of private reassurances about her views given by the White House or its allies to some conservative supporters who have been anxious about her positions on abortion and other social issues.

Her confirmation hearing is scheduled to start November 7. Specter and Leahy said they wouldn't set any deadline for conclusion. Leahy said, "If the questions are not answered or their answer is incomplete, as they have been, then it's going to be a long hearing indeed."

There may be some surprises during the hearings, but it should come as no surprise if her nomination is endorsed. May God have mercy on our souls!

I don't actually know what to think about Miers, but I do think there is a strong sexist attitude toward her.

This is from the L.A. Times today:

One senator found her much too quiet. The lawmaker had such a hard time hearing Miers that aides had to tell people outside the meeting room to quiet down.

If she were a man, would it matter? Maybe she'd be called "strong but silent" instead. As it stands, she sounds mousey

"She doesn't have the gravitas in terms of the constitutional issues," said another senator who has been critical of Miers.


It's hard to say how much experience she has with constitutional issues. But the choice of the word "gravitas" gives me pause. It's gender nuetral, but it is also often associated with male bearing, IMO, of course.

The nominee, the senator said, would not answer questions about whether she would recuse herself if issues involving her work with Bush came before the high court.

Again, I'm not supporting her. But why is anyone surprised she won't answer that particular question?

"Generally when you hold these interviews, people want to show you what they know," the senator said. "She did not respond. Nothing came back."

They said the thing about John Roberts but he got away with it.

[Joe Buff]

Some may see a sexist element in the objections to Ms. Miers. And there may in fact be such. What I see is a lawyer whose experience and apparent knowledge comes up far short of what a Supreme Court Justice should have. Roberts is a brilliant man, and is obviously well-versed on constitutional law. He talked circles around the committee. Unfortunately, unless she proves otherwise once the hearings begin, Harriet Miers will be the one who is encircled.

Where I do see evidence of sexism is in the President's emphasis on her being the "first woman" this and the "first woman" that and a "leading woman" who....

It would be wrong to make a judgment against her because she is a woman; it would be equally wrong to award her a seat on the nation's highest court because she is female. The vote to approve or disapprove needs to be made solely on her merit or lack thereof.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Joe Buff
Some may see a sexist element in the objections to Ms. Miers. And there may in fact be such. What I see is a lawyer whose experience and apparent knowledge comes up far short of what a Supreme Court Justice should have. Roberts is a brilliant man, and is obviously well-versed on constitutional law. He talked circles around the committee. Unfortunately, unless she proves otherwise once the hearings begin, Harriet Miers will be the one who is encircled.

Where I do see evidence of sexism is in the President's emphasis on her being the "first woman" this and the "first woman" that and a "leading woman" who....

It would be wrong to make a judgment against her because she is a woman; it would be equally wrong to award her a seat on the nation's highest court because she is female. The vote to approve or disapprove needs to be made solely on her merit or lack thereof.

I agree. She does seem to totally lacking in qualifications. I still don't know why Bush nominated her. Do you have a theory? I mean, if he really felt it necessary to pick a woman or minority, he could have picked any number of obviously more experienced candidates.

[Joe Buff]

My theory is that Bush is really losing it. The rumors of his drinking may be true. The pressures of everything seeming to go to pieces all at once are taking their toll. Exactly why he picked Miers? She seemed "harmless" and would easily pass muster from right, left, and center. He misread all three. Laura apparently likes Miers, and Dubya didn't follow his wife's suggestion when he picked Roberts: she wanted him to pick a woman then. So for some odd and convoluted reason, Harriet Miers seemed like the "obvious choice." I really hope someone convinces her to withdraw. If she makes it all the way through, it can only harm the Court and put more egg on the face of the United States than we already have. Everyone is trying hard to ignore the elephant in the room: we have blown it terribly on the world stage. This move will add ammunition to those who have been saying all along, "What fools these Americans be!"

I hope I am wrong. I fear I am understating the problem.

[atotaltotalfan2001]

Originally posted by Joe Buff
My theory is that Bush is really losing it. The rumors of his drinking may be true. The pressures of everything seeming to go to pieces all at once are taking their toll. Exactly why he picked Miers? She seemed "harmless" and would easily pass muster from right, left, and center. He misread all three. Laura apparently likes Miers, and Dubya didn't follow his wife's suggestion when he picked Roberts: she wanted him to pick a woman then. So for some odd and convoluted reason, Harriet Miers seemed like the "obvious choice." I really hope someone convinces her to withdraw. If she makes it all the way through, it can only harm the Court and put more egg on the face of the United States than we already have. Everyone is trying hard to ignore the elephant in the room: we have blown it terribly on the world stage. This move will add ammunition to those who have been saying all along, "What fools these Americans be!"

I hope I am wrong. I fear I am understating the problem.

I don't know if he's drinking again, but the rest of your theory sounds plausible to me. Maybe he has become too isolated -- I can see how that would happen this far into his tenure. I don't know how influential Laura is, but seems like someone wasn't reading the tea leaves correctly.

[steven]

I was really shocked that Roberts had never served as a judge, I guess this one hasnt either.

Besides being a judge what other "qualifications" should one look for?
:confused:

[Joe Buff]

Originally posted by steven
I was really shocked that Roberts had never served as a judge, I guess this one hasnt either.

Besides being a judge what other "qualifications" should one look for?
:confused:
Being a judge previously isn't all that important. Several Supreme Court Justices have served very well without that particular item in their resumes.

The apparent fact that most of Ms. Miers legal expertise is confined to corporate law and to being G.W. Bush's legal guru in residence, without any notable writing or teaching under her belt, is not what I would look for in a candidate for the Supreme Court. In my opinion, since you asked (and no one involved in the decision-making process is likely to ask me), she would be a better candidate if she had a solid and documented foundation in constitutional law. That's all. The Supreme Court is usually called upon to decide cases on the basis of constitutional law. If Miers gets appointed, it will be a learn-as-you-go experience. And if she's not a good learner, we're stuck with her as long as she lives (unless she opts for early retirement). That she's a nice person, a good friend of the Bushes, thinks he's the most brilliant person she has ever known, and (in his view) not likely to ever change in the future don't cut it. In fact, some of those things might even make her undesirable as a Supreme Court Justice.