Some Thoughts on the Miers Nomination

[Laelth]

DU currently has several threads running on the Miers nomination. I've read everything I could find this morning, and I've come to some conclusions I'd like to share.

1. She is a career attorney. This can be good (because she has had to learn to adapt her mind to seeing all sides of an issue). On the other hand, she was an attorney for a large Dallas firm for a number of years. Big, prestigious firms tend to represent big, prestigious clients--i.e., big business, and this means she has almost certainly developed a pro-business mindset. She'd have to do that to represent her clients well.

2. She is anti-choice. For many years the American Bar Association remained neutral on the issue of abortion. It was not until 1988 that the ABA came out in favor of choice. Miers led the group that opposed the ABA resolution to support choice.

3. She favors "law and order" over "privacy." As many of you may know, Roe v. Wade was a privacy case. The Constitution never uses the word "privacy," but it's clear to anyone who isn't completely brainwashed that the framers had a person's right to privacy in mind when they adopted the 4th Amendment which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. In Roe v. Wade the Court reasoned that a woman's reproductive organs are about as private a place as can be imagined. Therefore, the Court concluded, that if the Constitution were going to protect privacy at all, a woman's womb (and what she does with it) must be protected from State power and control. Bush, when he announced Miers' nomination, described her as a law-and-order proponent. In legal circles, this language indicates someone who favors state and police power over individual liberties (freedom of speech, thought, human rights, and privacy).

4. She has been the front-runner all along. When Bush was searching for a VP candidate, Cheney was appointed to head the task force charged with making recommendations. He ended up being the nominee. Similarly, Miers was the leader of the team that was charged with searching for a replacement for Sandra Day O'Connor. I don't think it's a coincidence that she was nominated. This seems to be standard Repuke strategy for nominees with shady track records. Pick your eventual nominee to head the search team, thereby deflecting inquiry into that person's record. While the press is busy speculating and researching all the hypothetical candidates that you might choose, they'll ignore the one leading the search committee. Then, at as late a date as one can manage, spring the real candidate--the one you planned to nominate all along, and watch the opposition scratch it's head, completely unprepared to even discuss the nominee because they've been busy speculating about other people. That's what I think we're seeing now.

Bottom line: This woman is a Bush loyalist who knows nothing about having a family (i.e. she doesn't even begin to understand the concerns of most Americans because she can't relate to them). She is anti-choice, pro-police power, weak on individual liberties, pro-big-business, and is a stealth candidate with no record to scrutinize.

She is our worst nightmare. She must be filibustered.

Let the Pukes go nuclear in the Senate if they wish. But short of that, we can not allow this person to sit on the Supreme Court.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--clarity.

[wtmusic]

1. Not to mention

she was Dubya's personal attorney in Texas and they have a ten-year history of scratching each others' backs.

No way.

[MisterLiberal]

42. EXACTLY!!!

What everyone seems to be ignoring is that she has been with Shrubby for a DECADE!!!! Paper trail or no, he knows where she stands on issues.

She's going to be worse than Roberts! When are my leaders going to act like leaders? Harry Reid what the hell are you thinking?

[still_one]

2. I agree, but also because until Fitzgerald comes back

with a indictment, this administration DOES NOT DESERVE ANYMORE JUDICIAL APPOINTMENTS

let's see the cowardly democrats fight for this in congress

[Lancer]

3. I think she's a trial balloon

Just like Carswell and Haynsworth were for Nixon. They went down in flames before Harry Blackmun took his seat and wrote the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade.

[Laelth]

7. I certainly hope you are right.

I hope our party leaders make it clear that this candidate is unacceptable. I shudder to think what the repercussions will be if they don't.

My purpose in starting this thread was to counter the attitude of many who say, as they did with Roberts, that "it could have been worse." From my research I have become convinced that, short of Ming the Merciless, we can not do worse than Miers.

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

[Armstead]

10. There are Mings out there

I don't know enough about her to take a position eitehr way. Time and further exploration will tell.

In general, I don't like the cut of her jib, as a Bush loyalist, Texas corporate insider with little experience in the "real world" of that law.

But since we're not going to see a Mario Cuomo or anyone even remotely moderate or liberal under the current regime, she may be the best we can get.

I do know -- considering the numbers -- that she is farfrom the worst nightmare. A Janice Rodgers Brown might stir the Denmocrats into an active fight, but at the end of the day, we'd still be stuck with someone who is an avowed opponent of everything we stand for.

So maybe a corporate hack is at least a step or two up the ladder from Ming the Merciless.

[Laelth]

12. Hmm ...

I hear ya. But I suspect that Miers' positions on choice, the death penalty, and police power are just vicious as those of Janice Rodgers Brown. In addition, Miers is probably pro-big-business. In substance, then, Miers is as bad as Brown if not worse. Miers was chosen for exactly the reason you mention. She's not expected to be as controversial as Brown, and is more likely to get confirmed. My fear is that the net result will be the same. Miers is merely Ming the Merciless dressed up as Ronald McDonald.

-Laelth

[Yupster]

4. Very helpful, thanks

Only part I don't get is the "knows nothing about having a family."

Certainly single people shouldn't be disqualified from offices for their lack of spouse.

[Laelth]

5. Agreed.

Marriage and children are not, nor should they be, requirements for a seat on the Supreme Court. But people tend to believe (rightly or wrongly) that women are more empathetic than men, that they are less likely to be extremists because they are more capable of "feeling" the pain of others. I simply mean to suggest that Miers lacks the background (family and children) that create the empathetic-woman stereotype, and that she may be more inclined than many women to be an extremist.

I admit that this assumption is completely speculative in the current context.

-Laelth

[readmoreoften]

35. Hmmm. I always wondered why I was an extremist.

Must be the childless lesbian in me.

[Laelth]

37. No offense intended.

I would have been better off simply saying that it's unwise to assume she's not an extremist just because she's a woman. Strong beliefs and extreme positions are not exclusive to one gender.

-Laelth

[peacetalksforall]

6. Wow, I just checked in and yours was the first thread I started. I think

I picked a good one. Thanks for your summary. I can start from it, but I have the feeling you have probably got it about right knowing the regime.

Law and order. We people are cooked if someone doesn't come to save us.

The world should not believe a word that comes out of this country about the Cheney-Bush regime version of democracy. It doesn't exist here. The Saudi and Turkish ladies know.

[Laelth]

16. Thanks!

Glad you found the analysis useful. :)

I simply fear that we're being hoodwinked again. We're being invited to believe that Miers is "not that bad" when, in fact, it seems she is worse than bad.

-Laelth

[peacetalksforall]

8. This regime will get a big foot in the door if we allow them to use

a domestic military force for disasters. They are despicable liars and distorters of reality. They will call any little threat TO THEM a disasster.

[npincus]

9. wondering WHY Reid would have endorsed her (according to CNN)

????????????

[onenote]

11. The reason Chimpy picked Miers

Pretty simple. He's taking a beating because of the war and the hurricane fiasco and gas prices and the economy in general. They wanted to find someone who wouldn't seem controversial -- no torture memo to defend -- no crazy views on the Constitution expressed in opinions.

The idea was to avoid a big fight that, even though they'd probably win -- would present weeks of news stories raising issues about whether the appointee was out of the mainstream, thus further frightening moderates who are finally abandoning chimpy in droves and are turning more towards the Dems as we approach the 2006 elections.

They simply wanted to stop the bleeding.

onenote

[Mz Pip]

14. That analysis works for me

I have always felt that Bush is first and foremost a corporate appeaser. I really don't think he personally gives a rat's ass about the social issues. He uses them to rally his base, but I don't think he personally cares. The whole constitutional amendment opposing gay marriage sort of disappeared after the 2004 election. He used it to rally the base then left it at that.

Bush has picked someone who shares his big business views and is a friend. I don't think he cares how she feels about Roe v. Wade. He wanted someone who could support his business agenda and not be controversial. He certainly doesn't care about the controversy regarding cronyism but she does have more experience in the law than Brownie did in disaster management.

It's interesting how the RW is reacting to this nomination. Maybe Bush is abandoning the fundy base on this. His priorities are in the business end of things. That's what he cares about preserving. Anything else is just gravy.

Mz Pip
:dem:

[Zen Democrat]

13. Looks like the Thomas/Scalia crowd may oppose her.

Democrats may not need to filibuster this one.

Jonathan Turley on NBC called her "unqualified."

[cally]

15. She's his nominee to protect him if he gets indicted

I agree with your analysis except I think the main reason she was picked is to help * hide from the crimes he committed while in office. The torture policy, putting citizens in jail w/o due process, and the Plame/wmd indictments. * needs a loyalists on the SC to protect him if these cases end up in the SC.

[flying_wahini]

36. absolutely

i think that is exactly what she is there for..... to have a close and personal friend on the high court, think of the next elections..... big business, no paper trail for her, no paper trail for diebold,

[Sheri]

17. I agree.

Miers is the proverbial wolf in sheep's clothing. Not only that, she's a traitor to women. :spank:

[Mutley]

18. This should be considered.

Interesting.

http://dailykos.com/story/2005/10/3/115019/566

[m_welby]

19. first of all, we already lost this (just like roberts)

..or it was stolen if you prefer, in the last election. Bush was going to nominate anyone he wanted and this is who he wants.

Certainly seems unqualified, but that won't stop her from approval. I can't understand how anyone in the senate (and on the judiciary commitee) can in good concience vote for any nominee (no matter who is president) if they won't answer any questions. That should instantly disqualify them. No one should be allowed on the court in those circumstances.

As for her positions, I expect GW doesn't care about her moral positions (pro-choice, church-state). all he cares about is whether she will cover his ass if he gets indicted and whether she'll shill the corporatist line.


For all I know she may be acceptable on the values/litmus test issues, but I can bet that she isn't going to be very friendly to the people. If she were asked whether corporations have the same rights as individials what would her response be? I can guess.

[Nederland]

20. She is unmarried without children

Isn't there a "family values" case to be made that a person with no children should not be on the Supreme Court?

Just thinking about arguments that might appeal across the aisle...

[progressoid]

21. True - I wonder how the Pat Robertson crowd will spin a career woman

even a RW one.

[Laelth]

22. She's anti-choice.

The fundinazis will love her.

:mad:

-Laelth

[nvliberal]

23. I've read otherwise.

[Laelth]

24. Interesting.

I haven't run across any indication that Miers is pro-choice. I'm not trying to be combative, here, honestly. If you have evidence of any kind that she's pro-choice, I'd like to see it.

Thanks in advance.

-Laelth

[PittLib]

25. As if that mattered ...

look at Ann Coulter and Melissa Hart. They don't care if they walk the walk as long as they won't shut up with the talk.

And how could I forget dear Condi ...

[progressoid]

30. True - maybe god told her this was her path in life - So it's OK then.

[Dr Fate]

26. But what about dry powder? Is this the one where we get our powder wet?

???

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

27. I think the fundies have been duped AGAIN

Why didn't he nominate a real wingnut to the SC? If he really wanted to overturn Roe, like the efungelicals want/believe, he could have easily nominated a KNOWN bat-shit crazy from his short list. So what if the Dems filibuster, we all know they will just change the rules to get the nominee through. The Repubs are in the majority.

So why didn't Bushie just DO IT? Because, IMHO, the efungelical Rapturist Right has been USED again. They bought it all hook-line-and-sinker.
.:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: :rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl: .:rofl:

[Laelth]

28. That's entirely possible.

But he has to know that the Dems. will fight tooth and nail if he nominates an obvious wingnut. This way * gets to have his cake and eat it too. He gets the nazi party platform, and he avoids the fight because Miers is, supposedly, an unknown quantity.

Fortunately, there's enough info out there to make an informed decision about Miers. She's pro-big-business, anti-choice, pro-state-power, and a rigid ideologue. Most tragically for us Dems, she's charming, intelligent, and has no judicial record to scrutinize.

She's worse than bad.

-Laelth

[mestup]

29. How would she rule for poor Playmate Anna Nicole?

If the Supremes are going to start hearing cases that would be better solved by Judge Judy or Jerry Springer, does it really matter what qualifications Miers has?

[lynne]

31. Don't forget that she's an Evangelical Christian -

- an active member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas.
http://www.vvcc.org/home.asp

[Laelth]

32. It didn't take long for all this to come out.

But will she be forced to actually answer questions by the Senate, or will she pull a Roberts?

Thanks for the link, btw.

-Laelth

[mvd]

33. I suspect she'll be no better than Thomas

And that's sad, because twice now Repukes have sent a bad message through their minority and female nominations. At least Roberts might think for himself. I am very, very concerned about this nomination.

[Laelth]

34. What's sad ...

... is that I think she's worse than Thomas. In fact, Thomas and Scalia have, of late, been rendering some pro-civil-liberties rulings that have shocked me, at least in the area of criminal law. In Aprendi, and the cases that follow it, Thomas and Scalia teamed up with Ginsberg, Souter, and Stevens to overturn mandatory sentencing guidelines for criminals on the basis that they denied the accused of due process. I've been amazed, shocked, and pleased that those two ideologues seem to be coming around to more rational positions as their tenure on the court lengthens. Miers, on the other hand, is a fresh, unadulterated nazi ideologue, and Bush touts her as a proponent of "law and order," i.e. someone who puts those values above civil rights.

I'll say it again. Short of Ming the Merciless, I don't think we could find a candidate worse than Miers.

-Laelth

[mvd]

40. Yeah, they have had some good rulings lately

If she's another Scalia follower, that might be a minor positive. But she'll be bad any way you look at it IMO. She'll be on the bad end of a lot of rulings, and we have to hope for Roberts coming through. Anything but a sure thing.

[Kazak]

38. *

:scared:

[Laelth]

41. Me too.

:scared:

-Laelth

[populistdriven]

39. Agreed, Filibuster this glorified anti-choice corporatist secretary

It is pathetic that people are trying to determine the "legal philosophy" of this woman. She has no "legal philosophy".