{"id":5332,"date":"2005-10-03T17:10:54","date_gmt":"2005-10-04T00:10:54","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=5332"},"modified":"2005-10-03T17:10:54","modified_gmt":"2005-10-04T00:10:54","slug":"some-quick-thoughts-on-harriet-miers","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/?p=5332","title":{"rendered":"“Some Quick Thoughts on Harriet Miers”"},"content":{"rendered":"

From The New Republic’s<\/i> Ryan Lizza<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

This pick reinforces several traits Bush doesn’t want reinforced right now. It’s a pro-business pick. In Texas Miers specialized in “commercial litigation, including antitrust and trade regulations and intellectual property disputes” according to this bio<\/a>. It’s a pro-crony pick. She was Bush’s personal lawyer as far back as the 1980s, and obviously loyalty to Bush trumped intellectual firepower. Finally, the Miers pick cements the idea that Bush is politically weak and scared of a major fight with Democrats. As Bill Kristol just pointed out on Fox, this choice will be depressing to conservatives at exactly the moment when they were looking to be bucked up by the president.\n<\/p>\n

\nFor instance economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council. And Miers’s long affiliation with the ABA will serve up lots of interesting tidbits that are unlikely to please social and legal conservatives. For instance, she apparently submitted <\/a>the following report<\/a> to the ABA’s House of Delegates. Here are two of the report’s recommendations:\n<\/p>\n

\nSupports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...\n<\/p>\n

\nRecommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court<\/b>.<\/tt><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

[My emphasis]<\/p>\n

\nWell, that bit about surrendering sovereignty cements it for me.*<\/a> If this is true and if she’s not blocked in committee as a result, Republican leadership is moribund.  In fact, I wouldn’t be surprised if she ends up withdrawing, so intense is the conservative pressure<\/a> likely to become.\n<\/p>\n

\nWrites Talk Left’s<\/a> Jeralyn Merritt:<\/p>\n

\n

Don’t expect the Senate Democrats to put up a fight on Miers. On a blogger conference call last week with Sen. Harry Reid (I wrote about it here<\/a>), he told us he asked the President to consider Harriet Miers.\n<\/p>\n

\nMy initial reaction to her nomination: Relief. I served with Ms. Miers on the Martindale Hubbell-Lexis Nexis Legal Advisory Board for a few years. She resigned in 2000.\n<\/p>\n

\n[…]\n<\/p>\n

\nI didn’t get to know her well, but we sat next to each other for several hours at the last meeting she attended and I liked her. We only talked law, not politics, but she won me over – and I was pre-disposed not to like her, that being the year that Bush was running for President and knowing she was his personal lawyer.\n<\/p>\n

\nThe other members of that Board at that time, at least four of whom are former ABA Presidents (including Martha Barnett who is quite progressive on women’s and social issues) know Ms. Miers from her ABA work and spoke very highly of her.\n<\/p>\n

\nMy opinion could change should additional information surface that she is a Thomas or Scalia, but I don’t think that will be the case. Compared to some of those under consideration he might have chosen, like the ultra-conservative 4th Circuit judges or Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown, Ms. Miers is a far better choice.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nAnd here’s Daily Kos<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Several Democrats, including Reid, have already come out praising Miers, which ultimately will only fuel the right-wing meltdown on the decision.\n<\/p>\n

\nI reserve the right to change my mind, but Miers’ biggest sin, at this early juncture, is her allegiance to Bush. That her appointment is an act of cronyism is without a doubt, but if that’s the price of admission to another Souter or moderate justice, I’m willing to pay it.\n<\/p>\n

\nMore immediately, this is the sort of pick that can have real-world repercussions in 2006, with a demoralized Republican Right refusing to do the heavy lifting needed to stem big losses. That Bush went this route rather than throwing his base the red meat they craved is nothing less than a sign of weakness. For whatever reason, Rove and Co. decided they weren’t in position to wage a filibuster fight with Democrats on a Supreme Court justice and instead sold out their base.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nSold out the base? Sounds to me like he sold out the country<\/i>, if this ICC thing is true.  Of course, there’s the chance she disagreed with the committee’s recommendations, but I’ll need reassurances.  Here’s Harry Reid:<\/p>\n

\n

\u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cI like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cIn my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court. \u00c3\u00a2\u00e2\u201a\u00ac\u00c5\u201cI look forward to the Judiciary Committee process which will help the American people learn more about Harriet Miers, and help the Senate determine whether she deserves a lifetime seat on the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

\nAnd therein lies the problem:  we don’t need<\/i>—nor should we desire<\/i>— somebody to “bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.” What we need and desire is somebody who looks at the Constitution and applies and interprets the law.  The only perspective required for the job is a commitment to keeping personal perspective out of the equation altogether. <\/i>\n<\/p>\n

\nSadly, the “diversity” argument—insofar as it advocates worth based on an appeal to “fresh perspectives”—has spread to the SCOTUS nomination process.  To be clear, I don’t care that Bush appointed a woman; but had he appointed, say, Janice Rogers Brown, I doubt we be hearing such happy talk from Reid about “fresh perspectives.”\n<\/p>\n

\n(h\/t <\/a>John Cole)\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate<\/i><\/b>:  Appendix \/ clarification:  The postitions we’re taking here depend on how much we trust Bush’s judicial judgment vs how much political calculation we believe is involved in his selection (witness the White House’s unprincipled decision to distance itself from Bill Bennett last week). Earlier today, you’ll note, I was ready to give Miers the benefit of the doubt—at least in terms of her conservative bona fides; but I’d feel a lot better if I knew she didn’t support the ICC.\n<\/p>\n

\nI think most conservative outrage stems from the fact that we haven’t been given a distinguished thinker—at least, comparatively—and that there were so many truly fine legal thinkers available.  Miers, on the other hand, is a blank slate—and not one who shares Roberts’ reputation as a brilliant legal scholar. \n<\/p>\n

\nSo we’ll see.\n<\/p>\n

\n****
\n
\nupdate 2<\/i><\/b>:  More<\/a>, from the University of Chicago Law Blog.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

From The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza: This pick reinforces several traits Bush doesn’t want reinforced right now. It’s a pro-business pick. In Texas Miers specialized in “commercial litigation, including antitrust and trade regulations and intellectual property disputes” according to this bio. It’s a pro-crony pick. She was Bush’s personal lawyer as far back as the 1980s, and obviously loyalty to Bush trumped intellectual firepower. Finally, the Miers pick cements the<\/p>\n

Read More<\/a><\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":9196393,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/9196393"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/proteinwisdom.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}