Bush nominates Harriet Miers to Supreme Court

gldstwmn · #1 10-03-2005, 09:34 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/...ers/index.html

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

Bush announced his choice in a televised Oval Office event saying, "For the past five years Harriet Miers has served in critical roles in our nation's government."

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.

"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."

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

Bush offered her the job Sunday night over dinner in the White House residence, White House sources told CNN's Dana Bash.

During the summer, a separate, private vetting process for Miers took place once the president started seriously considering her.

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

Miers, 60, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association. She also served on the Dallas City Council.

More recently, Miers helped lead the administration's 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.

The choice to replace O'Connor could be pivotal. O'Connor has been a key swing vote and has, for example, voted to strike down abortion laws that failed to contain health exceptions.

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 term is expected to include rulings on several controversial cases, said Edward Lazarus, a Supreme Court legal analyst.

"This is a situation where, from the very moment the justices start back up in October, they're going to be very divided," said Lazarus, who also authored "Closed Chambers," a book on the justices. "It's going to be a lot of friction inside the building."

Roberts was sworn in Thursday, less than four hours after the Senate voted 78-22 to confirm him. He got to work quickly, putting in a full day at the court on Friday.

The new chief has a lot of catching up to do, and fast: the court formally begins its work Monday, when oral arguments will be heard for the new term.

O'Connor announced her pending retirement last July. Bush initially chose Roberts for her seat, but the death of Chief Justice William Rehnquist on September 3 changed the White House's strategy and prolonged the confirmation process.

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 than can take weeks or months. Officials have not said whether O'Connor will be on the bench Monday.

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.

DavidMn · #2 10-03-2005, 09:49 AM

A very interesting choice. I was watching Bill Kristol on Fox this morning and he thinks that conservatives might not be too happy about this choice. I was very surprised when he picked Miers. I'm not really sure what to think about her lack of judicial experience, maybe Bush is just trying to pick someone that the Democrats will have a tougher time opposing. Who knows, but this confirmation process will be fun to watch for sure.

SuzeQuze · #3 10-03-2005, 10:16 AM

It seems rediculous to me to nominate someone who has never been a judge. That makes no sense.

DavidMn · #4 10-03-2005, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

It seems rediculous to me to nominate someone who has never been a judge. That makes no sense.

Well, werent most of the other top women mentioned known as being VERY conservative?

gldstwmn · #5 10-03-2005, 10:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

It seems rediculous to me to nominate someone who has never been a judge. That makes no sense.

It seems ridiculous to me to nominate your own attorney.

If that isn't cronyism, what the hell is?

As I heard someone else say, she looks like the kind of woman who would put a cigarette out in your eye.

DavidMn · #6 10-03-2005, 10:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

It seems ridiculous to me to nominate your own attorney.

If that isn't cronyism, what the hell is?

Just the good old boys, never meanin no harm.............

SuzeQuze · #7 10-03-2005, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DavidMn

Just the good old boys, never meanin no harm.............

Someday the mount lion'll get him but the law never will! Anyone got a mountain lion?

I just think the easiest point to go after is the complete lack of experience. You just don't hire someone that has not experience for what is arguably the most important job in this country. Common sense? They don't have it.

DavidMn · #8 10-03-2005, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Someday the mount lion'll get him but the law never will! Anyone got a mountain lion?

I just think the easiest point to go after is the complete lack of experience. You just don't hire someone that has not experience for what is arguably the most important job in this country. Common sense? They don't have it.

No, but I got me a Catamount...

dissention · #9 10-03-2005, 11:59 AM

When her name was being bandied about, I didn't think for an instant that she'd actually be nominated. It's ludicrous. The woman has had no judicial experience.

This administration doesn't seem to give two squirts of duck **** about the charges of cronyism, which is quite shocking after the Katrina debacle.

strandinthewind · #10 10-03-2005, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

It seems rediculous to me to nominate someone who has never been a judge. That makes no sense.

Historically, it is very common.

Nixxxed · #11 10-03-2005, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

It seems ridiculous to me to nominate your own attorney.

If that isn't cronyism, what the hell is?

As I heard someone else say, she looks like the kind of woman who would put a cigarette out in your eye.

Her eyeliner is so bad, it looks like someone has put out cigarettes in *her* eyes.

dissention · #12 10-03-2005, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixxxed

Her eyeliner is so bad, it looks like someone has put out cigarettes in *her* eyes.

She kinda looks like the Corpse Bride.

I see the campaign to make her look like a moderate is now in full-swing, too.

dissention · #13 10-03-2005, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuzeQuze

Someday the mount lion'll get him but the law never will! Anyone got a mountain lion?

I just think the easiest point to go after is the complete lack of experience. You just don't hire someone that has not experience for what is arguably the most important job in this country. Common sense? They don't have it.

Think about why he picked her for a minute. He had all the fundies and wingnuts available to him to choose from, yet he went with a relative unknown for the nomination. He opted to nominate someone that we haven't heard much about at all, someone who has been scratching his back since his Texas days, instead of choosing a known nutbag like Priscilla Owen. It was a suave move to choose an unknown nutbag.

If anyone thought that the Roberts hearings didn't yield any information about the man, just wait until the Miers hearings. I guarantee the most that we'll learn is that her first name is Harriet and that her last name is Miers.

Nixxxed · #14 10-03-2005, 08:14 PM

Just a quick heads-up: I will DIE laughing the day this happens. In which case, I really enjoyed my time here with y'all.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/3/175751/941

From the American Spectator blog, via Bull Moose:

Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers . . . There is now talk among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination . . .

dissention · #15 10-03-2005, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nixxxed

Just a quick heads-up: I will DIE laughing the day this happens. In which case, I really enjoyed my time here with y'all.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/10/3/175751/941

From the American Spectator blog, via Bull Moose:

Just spoke with a staffer for a conservative member of the Judiciary Committee whose boss is extremely unhappy about the nomination of Harriet Miers . . . There is now talk among some conservatives about a filibuster of the Miers nomination . . .

It won't happen. It's all bluster on their part to make her look like a moderate when she isn't.