Skip to comments.Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court
Posted on 10/03/2005 7:10:27 AM PDT by NormsRevenge
WASHINGTON - President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for another pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.
"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said as his first Supreme Court pick, Chief Justice John Roberts, took the bench for the first time just a few blocks from the White House. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."
If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.
Miers, whom Bush called a trailblazer for women in the legal profession, said she was humbled by the nod.
"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," she said.
Democratic and Republican special interests groups had been braced for a political brawl over the pick, but they may not get it. Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress.
Miers has no judicial record, which may complicate any Democratic attempts to block her nomination. It is impossible to predict whether Miers and Roberts will shift the court to the right. She would replace O'Connor, a critical swing vote on the court who helped uphold the right to abortion and affirmative action. Rehnquist, the late chief justice being replaced by Roberts, was a consistent conservative vote.
"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 Mier's judicial philosophy and legal background before any vote for confirmation," said Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said: "With this selection, the president has chosen another outstanding nominee to sit on our nations 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."
Bush, his approval rating falling in recent months, had been under intense pressure to nominate a woman or a minority.
Miers had helped push Roberts' nomination through the Senate, and Bush said that "she will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench." Conservatives apparently agreed.
Initial reaction from conservatives was positive.
"She has been a forceful advocate of conservative legal principles and judicial restraint throughout her career," said Leonard Leo, executive vice president of the Federalist Society.
"Harriet Miers is a top-notch lawyer who understands the limited role that judges play in our society," said Noel Francisco, former assistant White House counsel and deputy assistant attorney general during the Bush administration.
The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.
Rehnquist, whose death paved way for Roberts' nomination, had not served as a judge before President Nixon put him on the Supreme Court. Nineteen other justices previously had never served as judges before getting on the high court.
According to the White House, 10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933, including Rehnquist and the late Justice Byron White, were appointed from positions within the president's administration.
"Having never served as a judge, Ms. Miers has no `paper trail' of judicial opinions, and prospective opponents thus will have a hard time identifying positions to protest or complain about," said Supreme Court historian David Garrow. "What's more, Ms. Miers' professional record as an attorney in Texas is undeniably one of significant achievement and accomplishment, and her proponents will be able to present her as a female trail blazer whose life-record is at least arguably comparable to that of Justice O'Connor."
Known for thoroughness and her low-profile, Miers is one of the first staff members to arrive at the White House in the morning and among the last to leave.
When Bush named her White House counsel in November 2004, the president described Miers as a lawyer with keen judgment and discerning intellect "a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice."
He also joked of Miers, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul."
With no record, liberals say the White House should be prepared for Miers to be peppered with questions during her Senate confirmation.
"Choosing somebody who is not a judge would put that much more of a premium on straight answers to questions because there would be that much less for senators and the public to go on when looking at such a nominee's judicial philosophy," says Elliot Mincberg, counsel with the liberal People for the American Way.
Formerly Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, Miers came with the president to the White House as his staff secretary, the person in charge of all the paperwork that crosses the Oval Office desk. Miers was promoted to deputy chief of staff in June 2003.
As an attorney in Dallas, Miers became president in 1996 of Locke Purnell, Rain & Harrell a firm with more than 200 lawyers where she worked starting in 1972. After it merged a few years later, she became co-manager of Locke Liddell & Sapp.
When Bush was governor of Texas, she represented him in a case involving a fishing house. In 1995, he appointed her to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission. She also served as a member-at-large on the Dallas City Council and in 1992 became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar.
He selected her, geeesshh...
In this photo released by the White House, Harriet Miers is shown in an official portrait. President Bush has chosen Miers, White House counsel and a loyal member of the president's inner circle, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, a senior administration official said Monday, Oct. 3, 2005. (AP Photo/White House, Eric Draper)
uh oh, just heard on kabc radio 790 that Harry Reid suggested to Bush to pick Miers.
The author certainly hasn't been here at FR. ;o)
President Bush announces his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers, left, to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington Monday, Oct. 3, 2005. (AP Photo/Ron Edmonds)
This woman is, at best, a political hack, at worst, a Democrat operative.
This is terrible news.
Stabbed in the back, again.
Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Miers, according to several officials familiar with Bush's consultations with Congress.
Hmmm. Never good when poor Dingy Harry is not unhappy...
Well, a caller on NPR was very disturbed at the nomination. She didn't like the fact that the President said that Miers had a strong sense of right and wrong. Too much morality, she said. These people are nuts.
Tammy Bruce on FOX news just said that she's afraid that Bush has morphed into a "Jimmy Carter". Ouch!
U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts (L) poses with Associate Justice John Paul Stevens on the steps of the Supreme Court after Robert's investiture ceremony, in Washington, October 3, 2005. REUTERS/Larry Downing
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, left, bends down to give his son Jack Roberts a hug, in front of the U.S. Supreme Court, Monday, Oct 3, 2005, in Washington. Roberts took the Supreme Court bench for the first time Monday, as smiling justices stood and greeted their new leader. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)
W could nominate Noam Chomsky and the left would still find something to b*tch about.
What does he base this on?
If she's confirmed, then
will all good Republicans
get winning numbers?!
That is complete nonsense. The Federalist Society (which knows more of these matters than you) is supportive.
You can bet he has more substantial reasons than the Chronic Antis here who just pull their opinions outta their A$$es when it is not one of their favorites.
Supposedly, she was instrumental in choosing people for Bush to nominate to the various courts, including Owen, Brown, Roberts, etc. If this is the case, she's made good solid picks and may be a good solid pick herself. We'll see.
I'll only be convinced when I see her answers at the hearings, as I was with Roberts.
Nice comment, very helpful...
Is that you Planned Parenthood? Or are you just aping Nan Aron?
If people aren't happy with the nomination, that's fine... it would be nice if people could express it without sounding like they belong in an insane asylum, though.
This is third world cronyism. The lady has never even been a judge.
He probably knows her.
By the way, Miers has made cash contributions to Lloyd Benson, Al Gore, and the DNC. Maybe you need to spend less time drinking the White House Kool-aid and more time doing research.
Now there's a good reason to oppose someone - she's isn't pretty enough.
New title , same article
Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court
Bush Taps Harriet Miers for High Court
I guess Chuckie Schumer is a conservative now.
This might have slightly nudged the court to the right. If anything, it might be dead center where it was before.
The 3rd pick will be the tie-break.
If this woman is to the right of O'Connor, then the Pres. has played smart politics.
Now we need Stevens to take a dive for the team.
Try the article you are commenting on! You are just making things up as you go along, obviously, knowing nothing about the subject you are commenting on.
I'm starting to change my mind - if the liars and idiots are against her like this she must be a good nominee.
You would be just as likely in having DU sound like a board of freedom and light.
And he could nominate someone to the right of Rush Limbaugh and people on the right would find something to b*tch about. Since political pundits seem to get almost nothing right in either long term predictions or short term analysis, I've long since ignored anything they say. And since loudmouths on the left and the right seem to be only happy when they are competing to see who can describe the darkest doom and gloom, I can happily ignore them too. Frankly, I trust the President. His cabinet indicates his ability to judge character. Men like Rumsfeld and Cheney and women like Rice and Hughes tell me more about his insight than chronic whiners on the T.V. and internet.
Yes, just now logging on, and seeing a lot of anti's. I know practically nothing about this woman, but hoping to read more than just these anti- comments that don't list reasons why they're anti. One suspects there's a bit of bandwagon-ism here.
Stabbed in the back? more like right in the gut.
The handwriting is on the wall.
The Repubican Party leadership no longer reflects the views of its constituency, while the Democrat Pary does.
Conservatives need to leave the Republican Party to people like Chaffee, Snowe, McCain et al and reconstituent themselves as new political force which more clearly represents an anti-liberal, pro-traditional value, pro-strict constructionist and original intent political philosophy.
There was a quotation from a spokesman on another thread.
I am not terribly concerned about contributions almost twenty years ago. Bush I was not a great favorite with many conservatives in any case so not supporting him shouldn't bother you too much.
Since the President knows far more about her than you or Katie Couric I think I will go with him instead of you two.
There is no requirement that a USSC Justice needs to have been a judge.
James Wilson, the first USSC Justice, had no prior judicial experience. There have been many justices who were not judges. It's a good thing in my book, not a bad thing.
I find it more disturbing that we even have to have this debate upon whether we like the candidate. There are plenty of obvious, brilliant, well qualified and EXPERIENCED candidates. Why are we given a stealth candidate, and we get a maybe good=maybe bad. Dissapointing.
"...the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association"
... and then as a chair of TX Lottery....
HEY - works for me !
Rehnquist was never a judge either, as have a number of SCOTUS members.
You know zippo, nada, about this subject, but commenting anyway like you are an expert.
So if this prediction turns out to be true, what will be the rationalization this time? After all, we were told over and over again that that the Roberts nomination was "strategery" to get someone more solid next time and make the Democrats look extremist in their reaction to whoever that might be. So when that fails to happen, then what will be the Ofiicial Party Line?
David Frum worked with Harriet Miers. He says:
She's a lovely person: intelligent, honest, capable, loyal, discreet, dedicated ... I could pile on the praise all morning. But there is no reason at all to believe either that she is a legal conservative or - and more importantly - that she has the spine and steel necessary to resist the pressures that constantly bend the American legal system toward the left.
I am not saying that she is not a legal conservative. I am not saying that she is not steely. I am saying only that there is no good reason to believe either of these things. Not even her closest associates on the job have no good reason to believe either of these things. In other words, we are being asked by this president to take this appointment purely on trust, without any independent reason to support it. And that is not a request conservatives can safely grant.
Not quite sure what you are saying.
But if anyone believed the President was going to deliberately provoke a fight with the RATs over this they have apparently been asleep for the last five years. It is not his style to wade into avoidable fights with RATs.
Our major struggle is against the enemy within, the Treason Media.
Stevens isn't immortal, he's ready to move on,,
This pick may, at best, keep us close to the center.
I agree, look ahead to the 3rd and 4th picks.
The left took years to build a court that could wreak its havoc on this nation, it will take many to undo their damage.
I also have concerns about a number of issues facing this antion and how the President's administration is or refuses to deal with a couple key items, but we are at war.
We are Americans and we can either focus on what needs to get done or run around like a flock of chickens with our heads cut off.
I prefer the former. I see enough of the latter portrayed in and by the MSM and the left.
"Conservatives need to leave the Republican Party to people like Chaffee, Snowe, McCain (You can now add Bush to that list) et al and reconstituent themselves as new political force which more clearly represents an anti-liberal, pro-traditional value, pro-strict constructionist and original intent political philosophy."
No they don't. Conservatives just need to take back the Republican party from these betrayers.
Don't know if I oppose her.
You got references for this?
Since English isn't apparently your first language, I'll give you a pass on this one. A member of the Federalist Society made a comment. By your logic, you are an official White House spokesman and everything you say should be taken as the official position of the White House. Right. Sure. Whatever.
You are just making things up as you go along...
I see. Do you have some evidence of that, or are you just barking?
...if the liars and idiots are against her like this she must be a good nominee.
And if the Bush lemmings are starting to mindlessly support her like this, I am even more doubtful than before.