Miers was Bush's personal lawyer in Texas and took on the tough job of cleaning up the Texas Lottery when he was governor. She followed him to Washington, first serving as White House staff secretary and then deputy chief of staff before being named to replace Alberto Gonzales, who was named U.S. attorney general, as counsel to the president.Never married? Interesting. Is anyone going to say anything about that? Thinks Bush is the most brilliant man she had ever met? Well, that's just weird. Or, really, sycophantic.
Born and raised in Dallas, Miers, 60, earned an undergraduate degree in mathematics and a law degree from Southern Methodist University. In addition to her legal career, she served one term on the Dallas City Council.
The White House and Miers' supporters praise her as a trailblazer and a pioneer in the legal field. The first woman hired by the prestigious Dallas law firm Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, she also was the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association and the first female president of the Texas Bar Association.
Miers met Bush in the 1980s, according to published reports, and was counsel for his 1994 campaign for governor. He appointed her chair of the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995. Miers then was president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell and co-managing partner of Locke Liddell & Sapp before she joined the White House in 2001....
Miers, who has never been married and does not have any children, is known for putting in long hours without complaint. She has revealed little about her own emotions or ideology, but has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration on a broad number of initiatives including tax cuts, Social Security reforms, restrictions on federal spending on embryonic stem-cell research, national security, education reforms and fighting terrorism.
According to a blog by former White House speechwriter David Frum, Miers has been known for her loyalty and will not make headlines as a Supreme Court associate justice.
"In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met," Frum's blog said. "She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions — or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect."
Let's check out that Frum blog:
The Miers nomination ... is an unforced error. Unlike the Roberts's nomination, which confirmed the previous balance on the Court, the O'Connor resignation offered an opportunity to change the balance. This is the moment for which the conservative legal movement has been waiting for two decades--two decades in which a generation of conservative legal intellects of the highest ability have moved to the most distinguished heights in the legal profession. On the nation's appellate courts, in legal academia, in private practice, there are dozens and dozens of principled conservative jurists in their 40s and 50s unassailably qualified for the nation's highest Court. Yes, Democrats might have complained. But if Democrats had gone to war against a Michael Luttig or a Sam Alito or a Michael McConnell, they would have had to fight without weapons: the personal and intellectual excellence of these candidates would have made it obvious that the Democrats' only real principle was a kind of legal Brezhnev doctrine: that the Court's balance must remain forever what it was in the days when Democrats had a majority of the votes in the U.S. Senate--in other words, what we have, we hold. Not a very attractive doctrine, and not very winnable either....So the conservatives are unhappy. Will this make the Democrats back off? Or will this encourage them to take the opportunity to win one?
I worked with Harriet Miers. She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But nobody would describe her as one of the outstanding lawyers in the United States. And there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or--and more importantly--that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left.
I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things.
Posts
14 comments:
"intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... "
Gosh, I think I'd settle for those qualities in a Supreme.
I don't think the Democrats have any reason to back off on this nomination. With no judicial record to examine, we can expect demands for every memo Miers has written as counsel to the president.
One thing that I like abotu Miers is that she is not from the conervative or liberal elite - For example, she is not a graduate of Harvard or Yale or Stanford or some other elitist institution. Her roots and education are Texas - she is truly from outside the beltway. As such she could be the first "commoner" appointed to the Supreme Court since maybe Warren Burger and may end up have more commoner opinions on everything from cultural matters to matters of National Security.
This commoner view is the core of the grassroots conservative movement. (Whereas the core of liberalism is the elite University). Maybe we should give Miers a look.
Maybe I am just rationalizing.
But it's not about finding the most qualified candidate -- it's about finding the most politically acceptable candidate.
It's about how many boxes can be checked off and how few members of Congress will find the candidate objectionable.
I am just glad he found a woman. I would have been upset if we went back to an all male court.
Sounds like she sucks up to Bush pretty well. It will be interesting to see what impact she will have say in 10 years when the Bushes aren't still in the White House (I don't think Jeb could make it)
"I am just glad he found a woman. I would have been upset if we went back to an all male court."
That would be offensive if not for being inane. He needed to pick the best candidate possible -- not an unknown quantity. Tokenism has no place -- whether sexual, racial or the buddy system which is what seems to fit this situation. She might make John Marshall look like a blithering idiot - who knows? But she might also make Abe Fortas look like John Marshall.
The only thing more insulting than cravenly picking a woman (or a man for that matter) out of some political tokenism is picking a "buddy" and saying "trust me". Sorry Mr. Bush -- you lost my abject trust (if I ever had it) at the border and at spending trough.
Never married? Interesting. Is anyone going to say anything about that?
Do you suspect a blog "Is she a lesbian?!?!?" tom-tom at work already?
You know, I don't care if she is straight. I just care if she will vote straight -- and for a Conservative, that can only mean one thing.
Anyway, Plaidgate is so passé.
Thinks Bush is the most brilliant man she had ever met? Well, that's just weird. Or, really, sycophantic.
Bush is a visionary. And the sad thing is that most people are conditioned to believe that because he stumbles in his words, than his thoughts or actions falter too.
They don't.
Cheers,
Victoria
Someone in the blogosphere is spreading the rumor that she is a lesbian, and that her "partner" attended meetings for her at the Dallas Bar Association to cast proxy votes.
Must be the same person who tried to spread a similar rumour about John Roberts -- before Ann here erased the post, since she's a responsible blogger, not a Wonkette.
Rumours like that are there for two purposes:
1- The joy of spreading rumours, plain and simple.
2- Throwing up stuff to see what sticks.
3- To make people react negatively, the better to show up "homophobes" for what they are.
Fortunately, most people are aware of that, and often react to rumours in a way not expected by rumour-mongers.
Cheers,
Victoria
Condoleesa:
There's always Ruth Bader Ginsburg. No matter who Bush selected, it wouldn't have become an "all male court".
andrew:
Never married! With Rice, we may have a pattern. Bush seems to exert some sort of sway over these single and chaste(I presume)women.
9:02 AM and Victoria (11:06)
First, if she is sixty and chaste, I'd be worried. That would be just weird.
Second, it is interesting that the whole issue of sexual orientation isn't brought up with Republican women who remain single, but I live in a state with a successful single female governor, and those on the right are always trying to suggest it must mean she is gay (despite absolutely no evidence either that it is true, or that most voters would give a rat's behind if it were).
As for Miers, I'm really not unhappy, as a liberal-- I was expecting a lot worse.
I think we have here Bush finding a woman who sucks up to the president far more than Clinton ever did, given the leading quote.
That's the shining sickness of the Bush administration, cronyism.
Unfortunately, it works - for good (Kennedys) or bad (GWB).
Will someone tell me what the "qualificiations" are for nominatin to the Supreme Court? For another thing, not only why does one have to be a judge, why does one have to be a lawyer? Anyway, I think Reid suggested her name to Bush because the Dems will be able to find that in her practice she defended corporations that did things that sound terrible as sound bites. If they find any hint that she might be pro-life it will be a battle royal of trial lawyers, the plaintiff bar versus the corporate bar.
OH MY GOD! A lesbian in the Supreme Court! 8-O
> why does one have to be a judge, why does one have to be a lawyer?
The same reason one has to know how to hit a baseball to play for the Yankees. It's the job. Historically, SCOTUS appointees weren't always judges - they were very often political appointments. But even so, they were usually given to influential pols (like former president Taft), not personal friends of the sitting president. Hell, he may as well have appointed Laura. Or Barney.
Post a Comment