The Next Supreme Court Nominee

[QueEx]

<font size="6"><center>The Next Nominee</font size></center>

Washington Post
Monday, September 26, 2005; Page A22

WITH JUDGE JOHN G. Roberts Jr. all but certain to be confirmed as chief justice of the United States, attention shifts to the question of who will replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. In terms of the left-right balance of the court, this matters more than President Bush's replacement of one conservative chief justice with another. But in making his second nomination, Mr. Bush faces an additional complication: diversity. The president has never made a secret of his desire to put the first Hispanic on the high court, while another male nominee would leave only one woman among the nine justices. The White House's concerns are legitimate: The court is not a representative institution, but it shouldn't be parade of white men either. Finding a nominee who adds diversity to the court while at the same time satisfying Mr. Bush's base and maximizing support from across the political spectrum is tricky.

Garnering broad support remains a critical goal. The five Democrats who opposed Judge Roberts in last week's Judiciary Committee vote raised doubt about whether they would support any conservative. Mr. Bush can't change that. He can, however, and should send to the Senate another nominee who offers no grounds for reasonable opposition.

The first criterion on which he must insist is the highest caliber of professional qualification. Particularly following the Roberts nomination, it would be a glaring mistake to choose the second nominee for narrowly ideological reasons or personal political loyalty.

A second important factor is temperament. One reason Judge Roberts seems so different from conservative justices such as Antonin Scalia is that he does not project a desire to use the bench to wage a war for the future of American society. Rather, he portrays the court as a place to resolve disputes between parties that cannot do so on their own. Mr. Bush should once again avoid a nominee who displays a grandiose vision of the judicial function. Similarly, nominees who display a commitment to precedent are far less threatening to those who disagree with them than ones who appear eager to overturn decisions with which they disagree. Justice Clarence Thomas is the court's most radical justice precisely because of his blithe willingness to revisit holdings that are decades old.

Mr. Bush has often said that he seeks judges who will interpret the Constitution strictly. Fidelity to the Constitution as written can be an honorable position or another guise for mandating one's own preferences from the bench. A nominee with a history of bending an articulated judicial philosophy for claims he or she finds politically congenial will raise suspicions; a nominee who has been a straight shooter on the law should be easier for a wide swath of American society to accept.

There is no lack of strongly qualified nominees who would add diversity to the court while honoring President Bush's oft-repeated insistence on justices who will not legislate from the bench. Such nominees are also the likeliest to win confirmation without a bitter fight. At first glance, D.C. appellate lawyer Maureen E. Mahoney, former deputy attorney general Larry D. Thompson and appeals court judge José Cabranes, for example, all appear worthy of serious consideration. Judging from some of the candidates reportedly being considered, however, the White House appears tempted to sacrifice both quality and breadth of potential support in order to push the court to the right. That would be an unfortunate move.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5092501100.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

 

[Brown Pride]

Bout time to add a Latino to this crew,so we can have a lilttle more flavor and somebody who thinks like us.

 

[QueEx]

Bout time to add a Latino to this crew,so we can have a lilttle more flavor and somebody who thinks like us.

The issue, however, is the: "who thinks like us" part. Don't you think, or does it matter ???

QueEx

 

[Brown Pride]

The issue, however, is the: "who thinks like us" part. Don't you think, or does it matter ???

QueEx

We've had a Black,woman,now it's time for a Latino.And when I say"think like us",I mean us people of color.For to many years this country has been run by the White man.Don't ya think?

 

[QueEx]

We've had a Black,woman,now it's time for a Latino.And when I say"think like us",I mean us people of color.For to many years this country has been run by the White man.Don't ya think?

I think you missed my point. "Think like us" implies a lot of things, some of which may not be what one expects. A lot of people would argue that Clarence Thomas doesn't think like us. In other words, having a Latino on the court, I believe, would be great. However, if that Latino doesn't think like us (whoever that US is) might not mean ... shit. Sabe ???

QueEx

 

[Brown Pride]

I think you missed my point. "Think like us" implies a lot of things, some of which may not be what one expects. A lot of people would argue that Clarence Thomas doesn't think like us. In other words, having a Latino on the court, I believe, would be great. However, if that Latino doesn't think like us (whoever that US is) might not mean ... shit. Sabe ???

QueEx

Yo sabe,quimo.'Us', is the workin people of color,not the republican elite,mientiendez,mendez.Somebody who wont try and set us back,by repealing certain amendments to the contistutaion.

 

[QueEx]

.

Brown Pride,

What about Alberto Gonzales as the next nominee ???


QueEx

.

 

[QueEx]

.

Brown Pride,

What about Alberto Gonzales as the next nominee ???


QueEx

.

Bumping this one -- to catch BP's attention.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

From the Magazine | Interview

<font size="6"><center>10 Questions for Alberto Gonzales</font size></center>

By VIVECA NOVAK
Posted Sunday, Oct. 02, 2005

George W. Bush doesn't like having Alberto Gonzales too far from his side. In 2001, Bush tapped the Texas judge for White House counsel and in 2004 for Attorney General--both leading roles in the war on terror. Gonzales, who declined to discuss who he thinks should succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, spoke last week with TIME's Viveca Novak and others in the Washington bureau about detainee abuse, DNA testing and being attacked by fellow conservatives.

WHAT ISSUE HAS PROVIDED THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FOR YOU IN TERMS OF BALANCING COMPETING TENSIONS? Most of the hard decisions relate to the war on terror. We're fighting this new kind of enemy before an American population that has not seen the U.S. really engaged in this kind of fight for a generation. They don't remember that, say, in World War II we captured a lot of people. We didn't provide them lawyers. We didn't read them their rights. We simply held them because under the laws of war, we're entitled to do that.

IS THE DETAINEE-ABUSE PROBLEM BIGGER AND HIGHER UP THAN WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR? There have been about 10 independent outside investigations or reviews of detainee treatment at Abu Ghraib. They found there was some confusion, there was inadequate supervision on certain occasions, no good guidance. They also found, however, with respect to those horrifying pictures, that it resulted from a small group on the night shift. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this conduct doesn't occur in a nice clean conference room like this one. In every war, things like this happen. I'm not making an excuse for it.

WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED FROM THE LONDON TERRORIST BOMBINGS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT? What this tells us is that we have an enemy that's very patient, very diabolical. I think they watch to see what we do and they adjust their conduct accordingly. This is why we're concerned about talking too freely about some of the things we're doing in the war on terror.

HOW CLOSELY IS YOUR DEPARTMENT MONITORING BORDER VIGILANTE GROUPS? My view is that it's a free country. You go wherever you want in most cases, say whatever you want in most cases. But if you engage in criminal conduct, you're going to be prosecuted. We ought to let the experts, the professionals, secure our borders.

HOW DO YOU SQUARE THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS OVER THE YEARS TO LIMIT ENDLESS APPEALS BY DEATH-ROW INMATES WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT DNA TESTING CAN CLEAR SOMEONE'S NAME AT THE 11TH HOUR? No one should be executed who's innocent--bottom line. But if additional delays are possible through DNA testing, that would be something I would worry about. We ought to be able to work out a system where you can take advantage of DNA testing but it wouldn't unduly delay the administration of justice.

THE INVESTIGATION INTO WHO LEAKED THE NAME OF CIA OPERATIVE VALERIE PLAME SEEMS TO BE WRAPPING UP. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW FOR JOURNALISTS? Since 1991, we've gone after, I think, 12 confidential sources. It's not something we do lightly. I don't know if this law is necessary.

WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT YOUR JOB? In the first Cabinet meeting of the second term, the President challenged us, and--you know he uses baseball metaphors--he challenged us not to play little ball but to play big ball. What I want to do is use the majestic power of the Department of Justice to do some good. On the minus side, I'm not big on budget issues or having to deal with the administrative issues that come with managing 112,000 employees. And, quite frankly, I do miss working in the White House. I miss seeing the President.

NOW THAT YOU'RE RUNNING YOUR OWN SHOW, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU SPEND WITH THE PRESIDENT? I don't feel like I'm running my own show sometimes. I get to talk to the President when I need to, which reminds me of Andy Card's old advice to all of us in the White House--that if you need to see the President, you get to see the President. If you want to see the President, you don't get to see the President.

WHEN YOUR NAME HAS BEEN FLOATED AS A POSSIBLE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, WERE YOU SURPRISED AT HOW VEHEMENTLY SOME OF YOUR FELLOW CONSERVATIVES ATTACKED YOU? It's a free country. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as ill informed as it may be.

OF ALL THE JUSTICES WHO HAVE SERVED ON THE COURT, EXCLUDING THE CURRENT ONES, DO YOU HAVE ONE YOU ADMIRE MOST? I'm not going to answer that question.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1112810,00.html

 

[cronik]

From the Magazine | Interview

<font size="6"><center>10 Questions for Alberto Gonzales</font size></center>

By VIVECA NOVAK
Posted Sunday, Oct. 02, 2005

George W. Bush doesn't like having Alberto Gonzales too far from his side. In 2001, Bush tapped the Texas judge for White House counsel and in 2004 for Attorney General--both leading roles in the war on terror. Gonzales, who declined to discuss who he thinks should succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, spoke last week with TIME's Viveca Novak and others in the Washington bureau about detainee abuse, DNA testing and being attacked by fellow conservatives.

WHAT ISSUE HAS PROVIDED THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE FOR YOU IN TERMS OF BALANCING COMPETING TENSIONS? Most of the hard decisions relate to the war on terror. We're fighting this new kind of enemy before an American population that has not seen the U.S. really engaged in this kind of fight for a generation. They don't remember that, say, in World War II we captured a lot of people. We didn't provide them lawyers. We didn't read them their rights. We simply held them because under the laws of war, we're entitled to do that.

IS THE DETAINEE-ABUSE PROBLEM BIGGER AND HIGHER UP THAN WE HAVE SEEN SO FAR? There have been about 10 independent outside investigations or reviews of detainee treatment at Abu Ghraib. They found there was some confusion, there was inadequate supervision on certain occasions, no good guidance. They also found, however, with respect to those horrifying pictures, that it resulted from a small group on the night shift. We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that this conduct doesn't occur in a nice clean conference room like this one. In every war, things like this happen. I'm not making an excuse for it.

WHAT HAVE YOU LEARNED FROM THE LONDON TERRORIST BOMBINGS ABOUT INTELLIGENCE AND LAW ENFORCEMENT? What this tells us is that we have an enemy that's very patient, very diabolical. I think they watch to see what we do and they adjust their conduct accordingly. This is why we're concerned about talking too freely about some of the things we're doing in the war on terror.

HOW CLOSELY IS YOUR DEPARTMENT MONITORING BORDER VIGILANTE GROUPS? My view is that it's a free country. You go wherever you want in most cases, say whatever you want in most cases. But if you engage in criminal conduct, you're going to be prosecuted. We ought to let the experts, the professionals, secure our borders.

HOW DO YOU SQUARE THE GOVERNMENT'S EFFORTS OVER THE YEARS TO LIMIT ENDLESS APPEALS BY DEATH-ROW INMATES WITH THE POSSIBILITY THAT DNA TESTING CAN CLEAR SOMEONE'S NAME AT THE 11TH HOUR? No one should be executed who's innocent--bottom line. But if additional delays are possible through DNA testing, that would be something I would worry about. We ought to be able to work out a system where you can take advantage of DNA testing but it wouldn't unduly delay the administration of justice.

THE INVESTIGATION INTO WHO LEAKED THE NAME OF CIA OPERATIVE VALERIE PLAME SEEMS TO BE WRAPPING UP. DO YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A FEDERAL SHIELD LAW FOR JOURNALISTS? Since 1991, we've gone after, I think, 12 confidential sources. It's not something we do lightly. I don't know if this law is necessary.

WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT YOUR JOB? In the first Cabinet meeting of the second term, the President challenged us, and--you know he uses baseball metaphors--he challenged us not to play little ball but to play big ball. What I want to do is use the majestic power of the Department of Justice to do some good. On the minus side, I'm not big on budget issues or having to deal with the administrative issues that come with managing 112,000 employees. And, quite frankly, I do miss working in the White House. I miss seeing the President.

NOW THAT YOU'RE RUNNING YOUR OWN SHOW, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU SPEND WITH THE PRESIDENT? I don't feel like I'm running my own show sometimes. I get to talk to the President when I need to, which reminds me of Andy Card's old advice to all of us in the White House--that if you need to see the President, you get to see the President. If you want to see the President, you don't get to see the President.

WHEN YOUR NAME HAS BEEN FLOATED AS A POSSIBLE SUPREME COURT NOMINEE, WERE YOU SURPRISED AT HOW VEHEMENTLY SOME OF YOUR FELLOW CONSERVATIVES ATTACKED YOU? It's a free country. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, as ill informed as it may be.

OF ALL THE JUSTICES WHO HAVE SERVED ON THE COURT, EXCLUDING THE CURRENT ONES, DO YOU HAVE ONE YOU ADMIRE MOST? I'm not going to answer that question.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1112810,00.html

thank Que!

 

[QueEx]

.
<font size="4">
The announcement this morning, October 3, 2005 at 8:01.30 a.m.</font size>

.

 

[QueEx]

<font size="3">The rumor mill has it @ 7:10 a.m. EDT - HARRIET MIERS, Bush;s personal lawyer back in Texas and at present.

[frame]http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/28/scotus.bush.ap/[/frame]

 

[QueEx]

[frame]http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/SupremeCourt/story?id=1170572[/frame]

 

[QueEx]

.
<font size="4">
Reason to be wary of Bush's appointment of Harriet
Miers to the Supreme court -- she once said:

"the president was the <u>most brilliant</u> man she had ever met"</font size>

.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/09292005.asp#077899

 

[fatninja]

You cats may not like what i have to say about this but i would prefer alberto to this crew of drones that the emperor i mean president is putting into office.

and as far as what albert says about torture, i think it's all good. when terrorists attack and then hide behind our laws to protect themselves after killing man,many people. Torture is a favorable resolution for the goverment to use.

 

[QueEx]

You cats may not like what i have to say about this but i would prefer alberto to this crew of drones that the emperor i mean president is putting into office.

What you have to say is as important as what the next guy has to say. Say more of it.

and as far as what albert says about torture, i think it's all good. when terrorists attack and then hide behind our laws to protect themselves after killing man,many people. Torture is a favorable resolution for the goverment to use.

If torture is illegal, what prevents it from being used against you ??? Certainly not the law -- because, as you imply, its okay to put the law aside when someone is <u>accused</u> of killing many, many people. How many people does one have to kill for the rule of law to be set aside ???

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

... i would prefer alberto ... and as far as what albert says about torture, i think it's all good. when terrorists attack and then hide behind our laws to protect themselves after killing man,many people. Torture is a favorable resolution for the goverment to use.

BTW, in my mind the questions about Gonzales and torture really go to whether he has an independent mind or he would be inclined to disregard the law. That is, if when he wrote the memo to Bush did he succumb to some kiind of pressure a bit to give bush a favorable opinion; or whether he was deep down a right-wing nut with disregard for the law when it suited his purpose. This is a very broad generalization, but I find it odd that many Latino's could support torture of the accused -- especially when they have wrongfully suffered so much torture themselves at the hands of right-wingers throughout Latin America. That causes me pause over Alberto.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>Reaction to Bush's High Court Nomination </font size></center>

By The Associated Press

Here are statements Monday about President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court:

___

"I believe the senators of both parties will find that Harriet Miers' talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans. Harriet Miers will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench." — President Bush.

___

"It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts in our society. If confirmed, I recognize that I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and help ensure that the courts meet their obligation to strictly apply the law and the Constitution." — Harriet Miers.

___

"With this selection, the president has chosen another outstanding nominee to sit on our nation's highest court. Ms. Miers is honest and hard working and understands the importance of judicial restraint and the limited role of a judge to interpret the law and not legislate from the bench." — Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn.

__

"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." — Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid of Nevada.

___

"She has a reputation for being loyal to this president, whom she has a long history of serving as a close adviser and in working to advance his objectives. In an administration intent on accumulating executive power, Ms. Miers' views on and role in these issues will be important for the Senate to examine." — Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., top Democrat on the Judiciary Committee.

___

"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts and because this is the critical swing seat on the Court, Americans will need to know a lot more about Miers' judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation." — Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y.

___

"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice." — Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas.

__

"She has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career." — Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.

___

"We are concerned about the nomination of Harriet Miers and we demand she answer questions regarding her views of fundamental reproductive and privacy rights. We expect Miers to make clear her views on reproductive rights during the hearing process, and the Senate should not confirm a nominee who is not willing to do so." — Karen Pearl, interim president of Planned Parenthood.

___

"The president's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. ... When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this president has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials." — Eugene Delgaudio, president of the conservative group Public Advocate.

___

"Harriet Miers has had a trailblazing career as one of the top lawyers in the country and is extraordinarily well qualified to serve on the Supreme Court." — Ken Mehlman, chairman, Republican National Committee.

___

"With no past judicial experience for the senators to consider, the burden will be on Miers to be forthright with the Senate and the American people. She must outline her judicial philosophy and provide direct answers to questions about how and whether she will uphold fundamental rights, liberties and legal protections on which Americans rely. ... There must be no rush to judgment." — Ralph G. Neas, president of People for the American Way, a liberal public advocacy group.

___

"We owe it to the American people to take our time to be sure the nominee will uphold their most basic and fundamental rights. The public demands this from the process, and deserve no less." Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md.

___

"From what I have seen thus far, I believe Ms. Miers to be an outstanding woman, exemplifying the very best in leadership, integrity and the utmost character to serve on our nation's highest court. She has had a distinguished career, and I look forward to a great set of confirmation hearings and a timely up or down vote in the Senate for Harriet Miers." — Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont.

___

"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas who had been the president's lawyer. The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisers that the White House gathered around it. However, the president deserves the benefit of a doubt, the nominee deserves the benefit of hearings, and every nominee deserves an up or down vote." — Manuel Miranda, chairman of the conservative Third Branch Conference.

___

"I have worked with her for many years and have seen firsthand her legal acumen and know that she will be a credit to the court and this nation. She has risen to the very top of the legal profession, earning the respect of all who know her. Ms. Miers would bring to the Court her brilliance, dedication, and her commitment to the rule of law and equal access to justice for all." — Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales.

__

"We give Harriet Miers the benefit of the doubt because thus far, President Bush has selected nominees to the federal courts who are committed to the written Constitution. Whether we can support her will depend on what we learn from her record and the hearing process." — Jan LaRue, chief counsel of the conservative Concerned Women for America.

___

"The burden is on the Bush administration and Harriet Miers to prove to the American people that she will respect and protect our fundamental freedoms, including a woman's right to choose. Miers does not appear to have a public record to assure America's pro-choice majority that she is a moderate in the tradition of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was the critical swing vote that protected women's reproductive health and freedom." — Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

___

"This is a smart move. You try to pick a nominee that Democrats won't be able to criticize as much because they are a woman or minority. This is a classic Clarence Thomas strategy." Artemus Ward, Northern Illinois University political science professor.

___

"While I am pleased the president has named a woman to succeed Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, it remains critically important that the Senate Judiciary Committee, and, indeed, the American people learn more about her positions on some of the most important issues facing our nation." — Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the only woman on the Judiciary Committee.

___

"The fact that she will bring diversity to the court, in that she's not a sitting judge, is a good thing. Most of the members on the court today have pretty much the same background. It's better to have someone with a different path, a different background." — Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, Judiciary Committee member.

___

"The president has selected a loyal political ally without a judicial record to sit on the highest court in the land." — Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.


___

October 3, 2005 - 10:46 a.m. CDT

.http://www.ajc.com/hp/content/share...te_House_Advisers/Scotus_Miers_Quote_Box.html

 

[Negmarron]

thought I might add something of note to this discussion: According to the Daily Show, she has NEVER BEEN A JUDGE BEFORE in her life. Ever. Now shes up for the highest court in the land

 

[ActivationWizard]

You don't have to be a judge to be a supreme court justice, you don't even have to be a lawyer.

 

[Fuckallyall]

You don't have to be a judge to be a supreme court justice, you don't even have to be a lawyer.

You are correct, but if you were hiring selecting someone to be on your board of directors, who would you prefer, an experienced business person (preferably with experience in your line of work), or, your longtime assistant ?

This is exactly what Bush has. There are many women (if that is what he wants to Appoint) in various federal and state courts with judicial records to review.

 

[Fuckallyall]

From The Wall Street Journal.

THE NEXT JUSTICE
Cronyism
Alexander Hamilton wouldn't approve of Justice Harriet Miers.

BY RANDY E. BARNETT
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 12:01 a.m.

During the Clinton impeachment imbroglio, Alexander Hamilton's definition of "impeachable offense" from Federalist No. 65 was plastered from one end of the media to the other. With the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, get ready for another passage from Hamilton to get similar play--this one from Federalist No. 76:

"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure." (The italics are mine.)

Harriet Miers is not just the close confidante of the president in her capacity as his staff secretary and then as White House counsel. She also was George W. Bush's personal lawyer. Apart from nominating his brother or former business partner, it is hard to see how the president could have selected someone who fit Hamilton's description any more closely. Imagine the reaction of Republicans if President Clinton had nominated Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills, who had ably represented him during his impeachment proceedings, to the Supreme Court. How about Bernie Nussbaum?

As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of "cronies," which Merriam-Webster defines as "a close friend especially of long standing." Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent--especially during the remaining term of her former boss.

By characterizing this appointment as cronyism, I mean to cast no aspersions on Ms. Miers. I imagine she is an intelligent and able lawyer. To hold down the spot of White House counsel she must be that and more. She must also be personally loyal to the president and an effective bureaucratic infighter, two attributes that are not on the top of the list of qualifications for the Supreme Court.

To be qualified, a Supreme Court justice must have more than credentials; she must have a well-considered "judicial philosophy," by which is meant an internalized view of the Constitution and the role of a justice that will guide her through the constitutional minefield that the Supreme Court must navigate. Nothing in Harriet Miers's professional background called upon her to develop considered views on the extent of congressional powers, the separation of powers, the role of judicial precedent, the importance of states in the federal system, or the need for judges to protect both the enumerated and unenumerated rights retained by the people. It is not enough simply to have private opinions on these complex matters; a prospective justice needs to have wrestled with them in all their complexity before attaining the sort of judgment that decision-making at the Supreme Court level requires, especially in the face of executive or congressional disagreement.

Even a star quarterback with years of high school and college football under his belt takes years of experience and hard knocks to develop the knowledge and instincts needed to survive in the NFL. The Supreme Court is the big league of the legal profession, and Ms. Miers has never even played the judicial equivalent of high school ball, much less won a Heisman Trophy.

Ms. Miers would be well qualified for a seat on a court of appeals, where she could develop a grasp of all these important issues. She would then have to decide what role text and original meaning should play in constitutional interpretation in the context of close cases and very difficult decisions. The Supreme Court is no place to confront these issues for the very first time.

Given her lack of experience, does anyone doubt that Ms. Miers's only qualification to be a Supreme Court justice is her close connection to the president? Would the president have ever picked her if she had not been his lawyer, his close confidante, and his adviser? Of course, Hamilton also thought that the existence of Senate confirmation would deter the nomination of cronies:

"The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other."

While the Senate once successfully resisted President Lyndon Johnson's attempt to nominate his own highly able crony, Abe Fortas, to be chief justice, perhaps the performance of senators during the Roberts nomination reduced the deterrent effect of "advise and consent." Judiciary Committee Democrats spent half their time making speeches rather than questioning. What questions they did ask were not carefully designed to ferret out the nominee's judicial philosophy, favoring instead to inquire about his feelings, or whether he would stand up for the "little guy," or bemoaning his refusal to telegraph how he would rule on particular cases likely to come before the court.

For their part, Senate Republicans were content to parrot the empty line that a judge "should follow the law and not legislate from the bench." Sit tight and vote seemed to be their approach. By refusing to demand a nominee with a judicial philosophy of adherence to the text of the Constitution--the whole text, including the parts that limit federal and state powers--Republicans did nothing to induce the White House to send up a nominee who was at least as committed to limits on federal power as Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Sandra Day O'Connor had been.

Times like these demand a justice with a firm grasp on constitutional text, history and principles. Someone who can resist the severe pressure brought by Congress, by the executive branch, by state and local governments, and also by fellow justices to exceed the Constitution's limits on government power. Does anything in her record suggest that Harriet Miers will be that sort of justice? We do not need to wait for Senate hearings to answer this question. What hearings will tell us, however, is whether the Senate, too, will succumb, in Hamilton's words, to "a spirit of favoritism."

Mr. Barnett is the Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Law at Boston University and the author of "Restoring the Lost Constitution: The Presumption of Liberty" (Princeton, 2004).

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[QueEx]

Excellent article.

QueEx

 

[Temujin]

Great article. I was wondering myself how someone who has never been a judge could be nominated for the supreme court. I am wondering how many times she even argued before the Supreme court.

 

[QueEx]

Analysis

<font size="6"><center>Right Sees Miers as Threat to a Dream</font size></center>

Washington Post
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 7, 2005; Page A01

If there has been a unifying cause in American conservatism over the past three decades, it has been a passionate desire to change the Supreme Court. When there were arguments over tax cuts and deficits, when libertarians clashed with religious conservatives, when disputes over foreign policy erupted, reshaping the judiciary bound the movement together.

Until Monday, that is. Now conservatives are in a roiling fight with the White House over President Bush's nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the high court. They fear that the president may have jeopardized their dream of fundamentally shifting the court by nominating someone with no known experience in constitutional issues rather than any one of a number of better-known jurists with unquestioned records.

The dismay among conservatives stems partly from the fact that so little is known about Miers, a well-regarded corporate lawyer, member of the Texas legal establishment, evangelical Christian and confidante of the president. But in a deeper way, it reflects the smoldering resentment about other administration policies -- from big-spending domestic programs to fragmentation over Iraq -- and enormous frustration that a president who prides himself on governing in primary colors has adopted a stealth strategy on something as fundamental to conservatives as the Supreme Court.

"No one has anything against her," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and one of the first conservatives to register his disappointment. "But the idea that one is supposed to sacrifice both intellectual distinction and philosophical clarity at the same time is just ridiculous."

For more than two decades, conservatives have been developing a team of potential justices for the high court in preparation for a moment such as this. They point to jurists such as Judge J. Michael Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, Judge Michael W. McConnell of the 10th Circuit and Judge Priscilla R. Owen, newly sworn in on the 5th Circuit, as examples of people who have not just paid their dues but also weathered intellectual battles in preparation for reshaping the Supreme Court.

Conservatives were deeply offended when presidential emissary Ed Gillespie told a gathering on Wednesday that some criticism of Miers has "a whiff" of sexism and elitism. They said there are any number of female judges who would have drawn an enthusiastic reaction from the right, and one former conservative activist noted that Owen, a hero among conservatives, went to law school at Baylor University, hardly an Ivy League institution.

The reaction to Miers has been in sharp contrast to the reception afforded new Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. when he was nominated. While Roberts did not come to the battle with a reputation as one of the activists in the conservative legal movement, conservatives were reassured by his experience in the Reagan and the George H.W. Bush administrations and dazzled by his brainpower. On that basis, they believed he was well equipped for the intellectual combat on the high court. Miers inspired no such feelings when she was nominated.

Bush's failure to look to conservatives on the appellate courts to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor proved to be a massive case of dashed expectations. "The feeling was after John Roberts that surely the president was going to have to go to the bench where there were all these very excellent people who are serving on the circuit court or scholars who have been grooming for this possibility for years and years," said Paul M. Weyrich, a leading voice in the conservative movement and one who has been openly skeptical of Miers.

Weyrich said he had once been told by Justice Clarence Thomas it was important not just to have conservatives on the court, but also conservatives who have "been through the wars and survived." Having won the White House and captured majorities in Congress, conservatives eagerly anticipated a fight in the Senate over a nominee like that and believed Bush would have the stomach for one.

From the White House vantage point, however, the very fact that Miers had not been through those wars was apparently part of her appeal -- she did not have a long record that Democrats could use as a weapon, as they did with such previous nominees as Robert H. Bork.

The conservative project to reshape the judiciary long predates this presidency. This only heightened the surprise and resentment that the president has asked all those who have been in the vanguard of that movement to sublimate their feelings and now march in lockstep behind someone on his word alone.

Moreover, some conservatives regard it as patronizing for Bush to suggest Miers will continue to share his views on legal philosophy long after he leaves the White Houses.

"With so much at stake, to many of us it seems ill-advised to nominate somebody that we're then told we should have faith in, when there isn't any evidence of intellectual rigor being applied to these contentious issues," said conservative activist Gary Bauer. "There are probably seven to eight names that have been looked to, have written wonderful decisions that are strong intellectually, compelling in their presentation. They are the kind of people you want to look to if you want to try to move the legal culture in America."

The uproar over Miers is particularly striking because it is aimed as much at the president as at his nominee and comes from that part of the party he has assiduously courted from the time he first ran for president. But conservative opinion leaders said he is bearing the brunt of pent-up frustration among conservatives, who watched as terrorism, the Iraq war, and now Hurricane Katrina led to massive growth in government and huge deficits under a president who ostensibly shares their small-government philosophy.

From the prescription drug bill to the failure to veto any spending legislation to what some conservatives regarded as a reincarnation of the Great Society in Bush's approach to reconstruction after Katrina, the president's credibility as a genuine conservative already was in question when he asked his loyalists to trust him on Miers.

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.), who has written an op-ed piece urging conservatives to rally behind Miers, said he nonetheless understands why his ideological allies doubt the president. And he fears the White House may underestimate the reasons: "Do they understand that beyond getting past the unhappiness with this choice, there is a profound sense of discontent within the conservative movement?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...5100602069.html?referrer=email&referrer=email

 

[Greed]

i have a request, can someone with a NY Times registration post this article?

www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/ politics/politicsspecial1/04judge.html

If Approved, a First-Time Judge, Yes, but Hardly the First in Court's History
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM

 

[QueEx]

Server Error


We're sorry, but we are temporarily experiencing a server error. Our systems administrators have been notified and are working to fix the problem. Please wait a few moments, then press Reload or Refresh in your Web browser. If the problem persists, please exit your Web browser and try again. We regret the inconvenience.

 

[Greed]

conspiracy? something they dont want us to know.

 

[gene cisco]

Im still physically and mentally sick from the 2000 and 2004 "elections"

Stupid ass fuckign humanoids didnt know they were electing the side that would shape the supreme court for years to come!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Goodbye to rights and more christian taliban like rulings.

 

[Greed]

stupid?

the elections were stolen remember.

the election doesnt need to be stolen from stupid humanoids. something doesnt add up, unless you're saying african herbsman is wrong.

 

[QueEx]

Judicial Experience
<font size="5"><center>If Approved, a First-Time Judge,
Yes, but Hardly the First in Court's History </font size></center>

The New York Times
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM
Published: October 4, 2005

WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - If Harriet E. Miers takes a seat on the Supreme Court, she will be the lone sitting justice without experience as a federal appeals court judge.

Legal scholars say that could make a difference.

"Judges are once removed from the real world," Lee Epstein, a professor of law and political science at Washington University in St. Louis, said. "People with other experiences have more of an ability to be pragmatic."

In the last 30 years, almost all justices had served on United States Courts of Appeals, presumably because that gave the presidents who appointed them a way to assess how they might decide.

But in the history of the court, drawing on the pool of appeals judges is a relatively recent trend. Of the 109 people who have been on the Supreme Court, 41 had no previous judicial experience, according to the "Guide to the U.S. Supreme Court," published by Congressional Quarterly.

Many of those have been among the most influential justices - John Marshall, Earl Warren, Louis D. Brandeis, Robert H. Jackson, Felix Frankfurter and William H. Rehnquist, to name a few.

As recently as the early 1970's, prior judicial experience was not much of a factor in picking Supreme Court candidates. The early Warren court in the 1950's, for instance, included three former senators, two former attorneys general and Chief Justice Warren, a three-term governor of California and the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 1948.

Among those who joined the court from 1962 to 1972, in addition to Justice Rehnquist, who was an assistant attorney general, were Arthur J. Goldberg, a labor lawyer who had been labor secretary; Abe Fortas, a federal official in the New Deal who became a prominent corporate lawyer; Byron R. White, who was deputy attorney general; Lewis F. Powell Jr., a top lawyer who had been president of the American Bar Association and president of the Richmond, Va., School Board; and Thurgood Marshall, who had been an appeals court judge for four years but whose main experience was as a civil rights lawyer and solicitor general.

Since 1972, every justice has come directly from a federal appeals court except Sandra Day O'Connor, who was on the Arizona Court of Appeals.

"What we've done recently," said Lucas A. Powe Jr., a law professor at the University of Texas and an authority on the Warren court, "is to send people off in their 40's to tryout camp, and a few get lucky and move up."

The reason for the trend seems to be predictability, the scholars say.

"Administrations nowadays are more interested than ever in the judicial philosophy and policy positions of the people they appoint, and the best way to tell that is their track record in lower courts," said Sheldon Goldman, a political scientist at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, who has written extensively on judicial appointments.

In addition, said Richard D. Friedman, a law professor at the University of Michigan, many judges have managed to build résumés without having "raised too many hackles."

The professional politicians who were named to the court in the 20th century like Warren, William Howard Taft, Hugo L. Black and Charles Evans Hughes would not be nominated today, Mr. Friedman said, because "there is a premium on picking someone who hasn't stuck his or her neck out on hot-button political issues."

Since Warren went on the court in 1953, no professional politician has been picked.

No one can say for sure how Ms. Miers's background as a lawyer in a large firm, a Dallas city councilwoman and an official in the Bush White House would affect her decisions on the Supreme Court.

Professor Goldman suggested that having been a White House insider might make her more sympathetic toward the administration position in cases involving the detainment of suspected terrorists.

The argument can be made, said Kermit L. Hall, a legal historian who is president of the State University of New York, Albany, that "having heard appeals court arguments and decided cases gives you a better way of sorting through what the meaning of the law is."

"But I think there is something more important than that," Mr. Hall continued. "What America is about is different experiences."

"The life course of a judge makes a difference," Mr. Hall said, but he cautioned that the difference might not always be a good one.

"The six slaveholders who decided the Dred Scott case," he noted, "had some experience in slavery."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04judge.html

 

[QueEx]

Greed,

Check your PMs

 

[QueEx]

Abortion

<font size="5"><center>Miers Was Leader in Effort Within Bar to Rescind Support for Abortion </font size></center>

Supporters of abortion rights
demonstrated Monday in front
of the White House

The New York Times
By ROBIN TONER
Published: October 4, 2005

Correction Appended


WASHINGTON, Oct. 3 - Abortion rights activists were prepared for a climactic struggle over the successor to Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical swing vote on the constitutional right to abortion. But the choice of Harriet E. Miers presented them with a very different challenge - not a clear-cut opponent of abortion, but someone with very little record on the issue at all.

Most of their attention was focused Monday on what public record existed on the issue: Ms. Miers's leadership, as president of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993, in an effort to roll back the American Bar Association's support for abortion rights.

Abortion rights leaders said it was "troubling," as Karen Pearl, interim president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, put it.

But Ms. Pearl added, "We don't know enough yet" on whether Ms. Miers was simply representing her constituents in the Texas bar, or "whether this was really reflective of her thinking."

The American Bar Association struggled repeatedly over its official stand on abortion rights in the early 1990's, when many believed the Supreme Court was moving toward reversing Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision recognizing a constitutional right to abortion. The bar association's policy-making body approved a proposal in 1990 declaring its support for abortion rights.

"We in the women's caucus were just elated," recalled Alice Richmond, a trial lawyer in Boston and the first woman to be president of the Massachusetts Bar Association.

But at the A.B.A.'s annual meeting later that year, there was a backlash over the earlier vote. The assembled delegates reversed field and adopted a neutral stance. Two years later, advocates for abortion rights succeeded in putting the bar association back on record in support of Roe.

But there was a strong, albeit ultimately unsuccessful, effort to return the bar association back to neutrality or, failing that, to require a referendum of the bar association's entire membership on the issue. Ms. Miers was a leader in those efforts.

Darrell Jordan, who also served as president of the Texas bar in that era, said the dispute transcended individuals' personal beliefs on abortion. Many lawyers, in Texas and elsewhere, he said, simply believed it was wrong for the national bar association to take a strong position on a political issue. Mr. Jordan said that even some supporters of abortion rights, including himself, shared the view that it was "inappropriate" to have that be the "official position of the legal profession," adding that many lawyers left the bar association over the issue.

Mr. Jordan said it would be "unfair" to read Ms. Miers's role in this effort as a sign of her opposition to abortion. He said, "I know Harriet as well as anyone could, and I'd have a hard time telling you what her beliefs are on that subject."

Ms. Richmond, who said she had had many conversations with Ms. Miers during the debate over abortion, said she assumed "that Harriet was doing what she needed to do as president of the Texas bar." But Ms. Richmond added that while she could not recall specific conversations on the issue - "and you should be suspicious if I could" - she did not come away with the impression that Ms. Miers was advocating a position she did not believe in.

"I can just tell you that in the ways I've dealt with her over the years, she's very conservative," Ms. Richmond said.

Some allies of the administration, in fact, were touting Ms. Miers' leadership in the bar association fight as they sought to quell anxiety among social conservatives that she was not committed enough to their cause. Leonard Leo, on leave from the conservative Federalist Society to help confirm the Bush administration's judicial nominees, circulated a memorandum on Monday noting that, "She led a campaign to have the American Bar Association end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions."

Conservatives also noted that Ms. Miers gave $150 to an abortion rights group's dinner in Texas in 1989.

In fact, neither side appeared fully confident of where Ms. Miers stood on abortion.

The major abortion-rights groups largely withheld judgment on Monday, in contrast to quick opposition some voiced to John G. Roberts Jr. when he was first selected in July.

"We don't know anything about her," said Nancy Keenan, president of Naral Pro-Choice America. "There isn't a judicial record."

The abortion rights groups said the large gaps in her public record underscored the need for an aggressive Senate confirmation process. Ms. Pearl, at Planned Parenthood, noted that the new Supreme Court would very quickly revisit important elements of abortion law, including the requirement that any abortion restriction include an exception if the procedure is deemed necessary for the health of the woman.

Justice O'Connor "was the justice who time and time again came down in a slim 5-to-4 majority on the side of preserving reproductive rights," Ms. Pearl said, most recently and significantly, she added, on the importance of the health exception.



Correction:

Because of an editing error, an article yesterday about the scarcity of available information on the abortion views of Harriet E. Miers, selected by President Bush for the Supreme Court, misstated the stance of a group to which she contributed $150 in 1989. It was an antiabortion organization, not an abortion-rights one.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04abortion.html

 

[Greed]

thanks for the post, i refuse to register to any site for news.

 

[Greed]

Senate Dems Defend Miers on Top Court Nod

Senate Dems Defend Miers on Top Court Nod
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 52 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Some Senate Democrats are jumping in the middle of a Republican fray to defend Harriet Miers from conservative criticism that she isn't qualified to serve on the Supreme Court.

That doesn't mean Democrats will vote to approve President Bush's longtime confidante for the high court or give her an easy time at a Senate confirmation hearing.

Behind the scenes, a half-dozen aides to Senate Democrats — speaking on condition of anonymity to protect their jobs — admit that they are enjoying watching the GOP's right wing beat up the president. None will say whether their bosses feel the same way — or might be insincere when they heap praise on Miers and call her critics unfair.

"All the trashing is coming from the right wing of the Republican Party," Sen. Tom Harkin (news, bio, voting record), D-Iowa, said in a conference call with reporters. "I really think it's despicable what they're doing."

Sen. Barbara A. Mikulski (news, bio, voting record), D-Md., accused critics of Miers' nomination of being "incredibly sexist."

"They're saying a woman who was one of the first to head up a major law firm with over 400 lawyers doesn't have intellectual heft," Mikulski said. "I find this a double standard."

More unusual is the outright praise from some Democrats for the person who would replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, a critical moderate vote on abortion, affirmative action and other close rulings.

"I like what I hear so far," said Sen. Mark Pryor (news, bio, voting record), D-Ark.

Many conservatives don't. Several columnists have derided Bush's decision, and some groups have called on the president to withdraw her name. Bush insists that Miers is worthy, citing her 35-year legal career and her service in city and state government as well as the White House.

"When she goes before the Senate, I am confident that all Americans will see what I see every day: Harriet Miers is a woman of intelligence, strength and conviction," the president said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "And when she is confirmed by the Senate, I am confident that she will leave a lasting mark on the Supreme Court and will be a justice who makes all Americans proud."

There are 55 Republicans, 44 Democrats and one independent senator, Jim Jeffords of Vermont. If six conservative Republicans vote against Miers, a united Democratic caucus along with Jeffords could defeat her nomination.

Galling to many conservatives is that Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada recommended that Bush nominate Miers and has praised her several times since then without actually promising to vote for her.

The White House enlisted many conservative leaders to testify that Miers would be a reliable vote. Sen. Patrick Leahy (news, bio, voting record), the Senate Judiciary Committee's senior Democrat, tried to counter that assurance when he asserted that Miers pledged to be independent when they discussed her nomination.

"I said, 'Would you disavow people who send out assurances that they know how you're going to vote?' She said, 'Absolutely,'" said Leahy. "She said, 'I will be my own person, I will be independent. Nobody has the authority or right or ability to tell how I'm going to vote.'"

Democrats are preparing to blanket the White House with document requests to help flesh out Miers' judicial philosophy. However, her work there would fall under executive privilege or lawyer-client privilege.

Bush aides have anticipated such requests. While Miers will answer senators' questions, the White House will not provide them with "confidential deliberative documents" relating to work for the president, spokesman Scott McClellan said.

Democrats are keying on demands by conservatives that Miers be forthcoming at her confirmation hearings. Last month, the court's new chief justice, John Roberts, had solid support from conservatives when he declined to answer many questions from Democrats. This time, Democrats hope Miers will feel pressured to be more open.

"The idea that Americans shouldn't know what the judicial philosophy of the nominee to this powerful, powerful position is, is wearing thin with the American people, whether they be liberal, conservative or moderate," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051008...G9I2ocA;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl