Wednesday, October 05, 2005

The Verdict On Miers

OK. After considering the facts and the expert testimony and the non- expert, yet informed opinions, I have, as promised, made a decision as to whether I will back Harriet Miers for Associate Supreme Court Justice.

The facts are:

From the U.S. government official web site: Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February, 2005. Prior to that, she served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Miers was also Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP. Previously, she was President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, where she worked from 1972 until 1999. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Miers became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council. Miers received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University. My addition: She is an evangelical Christian, and has demonstrated a pro choice and pro family stance in the past. She is a Conservative. She is 60 years old, never married, with no children.

Non expert opinions:

I count political bloggers (including myself) and callers to talk radio shows among this group. This is not to say that many of them don't have remarkable insight into matters like these, as so many of them obviously do. They are pretty much divided on this nomination. Some speak of cronyism, and wonder if Miss Miers has much, if any qualifications for the job. Some say this is a shrewd move by the President, in that he has found someone the Democrats cannot find fault with. The big knock against her, say these non experts, is that no one really knows how she would rule as a justice on the bench. In other words, they aren't so much against her as they are against the nomination of someone who doesn't have much of a "paper trail". Essentially she represents an unknown quantity.

Expert opinions:

These are Senators, Congressmen, and White House staffers, along with political pundits such as Professional talk radio hosts, and political authors. This is interesting. It seems the ones who don't know her personally, or have only met her a time or two are mostly of the opinion that it would be a mistake to put Miss Miers on the court because they suspect she will turn out to be another Souter.

The ones who do know her personally, and have worked closely with her over the years are all overwhelmingly of the opinion that she is a perfect choice for a conservative Justice who will most certainly not legislate from the bench.

My conclusion:

Barring the possiblilty that her "friends" may be biased in her favor simply because of their friendship, I am going to go along with them. They know her. President Bush knows her. If anyone can possibly know, for a fact, how she will rule as a Supreme Court Justice, and whether she will be a strict constructionist, it is them. I don't really have much of a vote, and my opinions don't matter any more than the average person on the street, most of whom probably don't even know there is an opening on the SCOTUS, but I am going to endorse her at this time, with the reservation of the right to change my mind if information emerges that disturbs me about her.


Harriet Miers. God bless her.

10 comments:

Poison Pero said...

Good on ya, Mark!

I knew this was where you were heading, and I'm right there with you.

Bush's judicial appointments at all levels have been superb! I can't see him making a mistake here......Especially knowing his dad's worst mark is Souter.

RebelAngel said...

The more I hear about her the more I think I like her. Hopefully, all will go smoothly for her.

Francis Lynn said...

I don't doubt she will be a conservative jurist. However, my problem with her selection is that there were so many more conservatives out there who have greater experience as judges or as lawyers appearing before the Supreme Court. There are many that are truly deeply intellectual & have a greater philosophical understanding of the court. These are cutting edge conservative intellectuals with an insight into the court that Miers lacks.

Bush should have went with one of these. I think Bush took the expedient path & chose Miers more for her lack of a paper trail & thus less of a lightning rod for Dems.

Erudite Redneck said...

I saw where my favorite conservative colum,nist, Geo. Will, slammed Miers AND the president today.

--ER

tugboatcapn said...

One thing that occured to me while reading this post, and the subsequent comments...

How would you like to be Justice Souter, and hear yourself being talked about the way we are doing right now?

Examples:

"Especially knowing his dad's worst mark is Souter."

"It seems the ones who don't know her personally, or have only met her a time or two are mostly of the opinion that it would be a mistake to put Miss Miers on the court because they suspect she will turn out to be another Souter."

Don't get me wrong. I think that Justice Souter is an activist judge, and I believe that he was a bad choice, although not the worst on the SCOTUS by a long shot, but he is kinda being held up as an example of who NOT to pick, should you ever find yourself faced with the task of selecting Supreme Court Justices...

As to Miers, I don't think anyone has yet fully realized exactly what the President has done by choosing her.
Any paper trail that anyone may be able to dig up on her can be withheld from scrutiny under Executive Privelege.
She was the lawyer for the President of the United States after all.

Her former writings cannot be warped, mischaracterized, taken out of context, or picked apart for signs of Conservatism, because NOBODY WILL EVER SEE THEM.

Because of this, the only thing that anyone really CAN say about her is that nobody knows anything about her.
Her confirmation will have to rest upon her performance during her Confirmation Hearings.

By the way, Do you think she's gay?
Does anybody care?
(I don't...)

Mark said...

the reason why they are all referring to souter is because unlike the other activist judges he was the one chosen by Bush 41. he was supposed to be conservative and he isn't.

Erudite Redneck said...

I don't thinkl she's gay. I think she's just a "career" woman. But she is supposed to have dated a current Texas Supreme Court justice, too, the one on TV tonight whose name escapes me. Hecht or something.

tugboatcapn said...

Well, As I said, it's alright with me if she is, or is not, as long as she reads and applies the Constitution as written, without activism.
I don't care either way, as long as she does the job, and does it right.

And I know why everybody cites Souter in this discussion, I just wonder how he feels about it...

Mike's America said...

Bush pulled off a brilliant ploy with the pick of Harriet Miers.

Dems thought they would split Conservatives by supporting her. But now we learn she is an evangelical Christian who taught SUNDAY SCHOOL!

Ooops! Too late now for Harry Reid and fellow Dems to start opposing her.

Imagine how someone with a literal interpretation of the Bible will interpret the Constitution!

I suspect that Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh have been in on this rope a dope from the start...

Go TEAM!

Mark said...

Mike, that is an interesting take. I don't know if Rush and Coulter are in on this or not, but I know that you have seen first hand the way politics works so I think you may have a good point.

Mike I haven't been ignoring your place, it's just that there is something wrong with my computer and everytime i go to your site, my screen freezes up and I have to exit the internet to clear it, so I can't view your site.