PDA

View Full Version : Bush names his lawyer...


spokenword73
Oct 3rd, 2005, 12:24 PM
as the next Supreme Court justice. Her name is Harriet Miers. She not a judge, no experience. Typical of Bush. :rolleyes:

SelesFan70
Oct 3rd, 2005, 12:29 PM
:( I wanted Rogers-Brown. Doesn't matter who he picked, the Democrats are going to be obstructionists.

Sam L
Oct 3rd, 2005, 12:30 PM
Ugh! I just heard. Sad days. :sad:

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 01:00 PM
Explain to me, please, why we should have someone with no experience on the Supreme Court?! This is absolutely astonishing. The Supreme Court is supposed to be for experiences judges with a LIFETIME of wisdom. Bush has made a mockery of it, just like he has with the rest of the government and everything he's touched.

spokenword73
Oct 3rd, 2005, 01:10 PM
Explain to me, please, why we should have someone with no experience on the Supreme Court?! This is absolutely astonishing. The Supreme Court is supposed to be for experiences judges with a LIFETIME of wisdom. Bush has made a mockery of it, just like he has with the rest of the government and everything he's touched.

I think they call it cronyism. Now there's gonna be a big fight about her...what happened to being a "uniter not a divider"?:tape:

Lord Nelson
Oct 3rd, 2005, 01:29 PM
as the next Supreme Court justice. Her name is Harriet Miers. She not a judge, no experience. Typical of Bush. :rolleyes:
If you had done your history you would realize that most judges on Supreme Court had no past experiences as judges. A lot of them were Senators, Governors even Presidents such as Taft.

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 01:35 PM
If you had done your history you would realize that most judges on Supreme Court had no past experiences as judges. A lot of them were Senators, Governors even Presidents such as Taft.

Yep, because in this country we believe in politics over reason/truth/justice and all those other things that we supposedly stand for.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 3rd, 2005, 01:36 PM
Well, what else do we know about her? Is she a top trial attorney or a famous professor of constitutional law or something (both appropriate backgrounds IMO) ... or is she some sort of party hack? Does she have any especially outrageous doctrinal views, or is she middle of the road? The fact that she is not a judge isn't all that relevant in itself.

kiwifan
Oct 3rd, 2005, 01:56 PM
Seems to me (from what I've read) this isn't that bad a pick. :shrug:

She paid her dues in TX (not a hotbed of great legal theory but there's a huge East Coast bias when it comes to "great legal theory").

She's Bush's girl, no doubt about it - but she doesn't appear to be a right wing religious kook.

As for the bitching about this selection, everyone is going to bitch no matter who he chooses - that's just partisan politics as usual. :yawn:

That said, looks like she can be attacked on whatever work she did for Bush in TX when he was the Gov. So her legal rep is only as good as Bush's legal track record.

Zealous pursuit of the death penalty is the only thing that stands out in Bush's time as
Gov and it didn't keep him from getting elected. :shrug:

VRULES
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:16 PM
It was my understanding that the recently deceased Judge Rehnquist had no experience as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court as well? He was a lawyer but not a judge. Just thought I would throw that out their!

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:18 PM
It was my understanding that the recently deceased Judge Rehnquist had no experience as a judge before being appointed to the Supreme Court as well? He was a lawyer but not a judge. Just thought I would throw that out their!

Well for me personally, comparing someone to Rehnquist is not likely to garner my respect, as he was a racist ass who blackened the country with his bullshit.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:19 PM
It's common for top trial attorneys/barristers/whatever to go straight to the bench of a country's highest court. That isn't the issue, at least not in my opinion. But I still don't know what this woman actually was (or, rather, is). Kiwi, can you tell us more or do we all have to go googling?

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:20 PM
As for the bitching about this selection, everyone is going to bitch no matter who he chooses - that's just partisan politics as usual. :yawn:

Even though you are a Republican, I refuse to believe that you don't see the problem with Bush appointing a friend of his who has no judicial experience to the Supreme Court of the United States... the last group to defend our rights and liberties.

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:21 PM
It's common for top trial attorneys/barristers/whatever to go straight to the bench of a country's highest court. That isn't the issue, at least not in my opinion. But I still don't know what this woman actually was (or, rather, is). Kiwi, can you tell us more or do we all have to go googling?

Well she used to be chair of the Texas Lottery Commission :shrug:

I'm sure that more than qualifies her to rule over life and death.

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:25 PM
:( I wanted Rogers-Brown. Doesn't matter who he picked, the Democrats are going to be obstructionists.

It still amazes me that people would actually want conservatives on the Supreme Court... and it amazes me even more that a gay person would want this.

You do realize that if Rehnquist had his way, it would be legal to shoot gay people on sight? But by all means, if you wish to live being absolutely oppressed, continue to support the Grand Old Party.

decemberlove
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:33 PM
I can't find much about her...

--------------------------------------------
Miers a 'Pit Bull in Size 6 Shoes'
October 3, 2005 9:56 a.m.
Once described by White House chief of staff Andrew Card as "one of the favorite people in the White House," White House counsel Harriet Ellan Miers has been there for President Bush at every turn for more than a decade.

She was Mr. Bush's personal lawyer in Texas, took on the thankless job of cleaning up the Texas Lottery when he was governor, and followed him to Washington to serve as staff secretary, the person who controls every piece of paper that crosses the president's desk.

WALL STREET JOURNAL VIDEO

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/it_cnbc-video09142004171604.gif President Bush nominates (http://online.wsj.com/public/page/0,,8_0000-Zwr4ELXEOe04RkVZdQoe1hqXAASN71zJ-r6TVEMpZSld2dt0gUbjqL3GO5oD39_Jf,00.html?mod=ARTIC LE_VIDEO) Harriet Miers to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Conner. Plus, see the transcript (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB112834368566658416.html?mod=article-outset-box).

In 2004, Mr. Bush appointed her White House counsel, calling her "a talented lawyer whose great integrity, legal scholarship and grace have long marked her as one of America's finest lawyers." He articulated his high regard for her more memorably during a 1996 awards ceremony when he called her "a pit bull in size 6 shoes."

Ms. Miers, 60 years old, has a string of firsts on her resume that track her quiet but steady march to the top echelons of power: first woman hired by her law firm in 1972, first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985, first woman president of the Texas State Bar in 1992, first woman president of her law firm in 1996.

Mr. Card, in a 2003 interview with the publication Texas Lawyer, said Bush's affinity for Miers is clear in the frequent invitations she receives to visit the presidential retreat at Camp David, "a privilege that is not enjoyed by a lot of staff."

"She's a quiet, highly respected force and someone who is seen as not having any agenda other than the president's," he said.

Intensely loyal, Ms. Miers is happy to stay off the radar screen as long as her boss is happy, on the thinking that White House counsels only make news when there's been a mistake.

"Hopefully, there aren't any," she told the Dallas Morning News earlier this year. "So, we stay out of the headlines."

http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/images/Miers_Harriet10032005085932.jpg
Miers


At the same time, however, she showed her readiness to take on difficult questions. "Lawyers by nature are involved in controversy," she said. "We expect difficult issues and are prepared to deal with them."

Mr. Bush underscored her toughness, observing when he was governor, "When it comes to a cross-examination, she can fillet better than Mrs. Paul."

As staff secretary, Ms. Miers was with the president in Florida when the terrorist attacks unfolded on Sept. 11, 2001, and she later remembered the regard she felt for him as she scrambled to help prepare his remarks to the nation that night. "It took some time, and the president saw me hurrying to give them to him," she recalled. "He said, "Good hustle." He made me feel good that I was contributing. Typical."

Ms. Miers is a self-described "Texan through and through." She grew up in Dallas and received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University. She clerked for a federal judge there and then joined Locke Purnell Rain Harrell in 1972, rising to become first woman president of the firm in 1996. When her firm merged with another, she became co-managing partner of the 400-lawyer Locke Liddell & Sapp.

"Harriet is not a person that gets frustrated easily," R. Bruce LaBoon, a former law partner, told Texas Lawyer. "She doesn't lose her temper. She is very cool and calm in a storm."

Ms. Miers, who is single, is known for putting in long hours without complaint. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings, a fellow Texan who earlier served alongside Ms. Miers in the White House, told Texas Lawyer in 2003 that Ms. Miers was "here before dawn and after dusk and on most weekends. No one works harder."

"She never seeks the limelight," Ms. Spellings told Business Week. "She's just extremely devoted to the president."

Ms. Miers reveals little of her own emotions or ideological persuasions, but has been an enthusiastic supporter of the Bush administration on a broad list of initiatives including tax cuts, Social Security reforms, restrictions on federal spending on embryonic stem cell research, national security, education reforms and fighting terrorism.

In hosting an "Ask the White House" interactive forum on the Internet before the 2004 elections, Ms. Miers lavished praise on a litany of Bush administration initiatives, then added, "I could go on and on."

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:42 PM
She doesn't actually sound that bad. Probably very conservative, but she's got a wealth of legal experience in court, in government, and in practice management. On the face of it, this appointment could be a lot worse. She's a bit of a party hack but evidently a talented one, and it's not like picking some young ultra-rightwing ideologue who'll be around for forty years. I guess we'll find out more as the media and the pollies scrutinise her record, but it looks like an attempt to make a fairly safe appointment.

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:42 PM
Ms. Miers lavished praise on a litany of Bush administration initiatives, then added, "I could go on and on."

:scared:

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:50 PM
Oh and for the record, I'm not completely partisan. I like John Roberts, I think he's intelligent and well-spoken. He also worked voluntarily giving legal advice to several gay lobby groups.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:52 PM
^Well, that's good to hear. I mean about Roberts being gay friendly.

Scotso
Oct 3rd, 2005, 02:54 PM
I'm not sure if he's really gay friendly, but at least he isn't gay hating.

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 3rd, 2005, 03:01 PM
Well, the interesting thing will be whether the Supreme Court is now better or worse with these two on the bench, as opposed to Rehnquist and O'Connor. Miers sounds a bit like a Republican hack but not a wild ideologue, and she does have a very solid legal background having headed up a large firm, been a good courtroom advocate, etc. Roberts has got to be better ideologically than Rehnquist. Neither looks right now like a young Scalia, which was the fear I had. The overall balance may not have changed hugely either way.

kiwifan
Oct 3rd, 2005, 03:08 PM
It's common for top trial attorneys/barristers/whatever to go straight to the bench of a country's highest court. That isn't the issue, at least not in my opinion. But I still don't know what this woman actually was (or, rather, is). Kiwi, can you tell us more or do we all have to go googling?

Go Googling :p, in laymen's terms - she is Bush's invisible support staff - I think she's his personal 'go to girl' when its time to clean up his messes. She's been wiping up the spills since he was Gov. Bush. Most people were dimly aware of her existence until this announcement. :tape:

I know that she's been setting "TX firsts" as a female lawyer since the early 70s; but that could be merit or, knowing TX, she might be someone's daughter. ;)

Unfortunately a low profile is a bonus these days when trying to get on the court. The less you know the less you can attack. What we do know is, if she's on the court Bush's influence will last for quite a while (but in theory with him appointing 2 people to the court that's inevitable).

From what I've read, he could easily do a lot worse in his appointments than these 2, a whole lot worse. ;)

As far as the Supreme Court in general...

Constitutional Law gives me post traumatic stress disorder - and I've had 13 years to recover.

But seriously, I don't think Judges are especially "better" appointments. I'm biased, but litigators - people who actually have to deal with humans/laymen for a living as well as deal with "all powerful judges" and have to live with the law as an evolving and adversarial implement; have a better perspective.

The Supreme Court doesn't just review cases; their ability to "deny cert."/not review cases is their most scary power. By not making a ruling (which is often the most responsible action) they can often allow questionable legal rulings to mature and take shape - see how they actually affect society and then if things aren't going as expected, declare them unconstitutional.

Often the media and partisan politics prevents our society from doing the right thing; often the correct action isn't the popular action. That's why they give them the job for life - so they can afford to make the unpopular decision. ;)

I'd rather have someone with a little more human contact making those decisions - as you can tell, I'm not a big fan of judges on the whole (sort of like I'm not a big fan of coaches - they both develop a serious "God Complex" - I'd rather have a player's input).

starr
Oct 3rd, 2005, 03:13 PM
Explain to me, please, why we should have someone with no experience on the Supreme Court?! This is absolutely astonishing. The Supreme Court is supposed to be for experiences judges with a LIFETIME of wisdom. Bush has made a mockery of it, just like he has with the rest of the government and everything he's touched.

I would oppose anyone Bush appointed, but nominating a person who has never been a judge is hardly precedent setting.

starr
Oct 3rd, 2005, 03:18 PM
I'd rather have someone with a little more human contact making those decisions - as you can tell, I'm not a big fan of judges on the whole (sort of like I'm not a big fan of coaches - they both develop a serious "God Complex" - I'd rather have a player's input).

I agree with the importance of "human contact" and living in the real world, but I wonder at a woman who reportedly goes to work between 4 and 5 a.m. and leaves work at 10 p.m. That doesn't sound like someone who has experience in the life most humans live. Apparently she has kept this sort of work schedule throughout her career -- leaving very little time for being a "player" as you put it.

I do give her respect for breaking through the Dallas big firm culture to become the first female partner. She must have been a big money maker for the firm.

Nicjac
Oct 3rd, 2005, 04:03 PM
In Spiegel Online (German News Mag) they titled 'Pitbull with shoesize 36' ...

griffin
Oct 3rd, 2005, 04:30 PM
I agree with the importance of "human contact" and living in the real world, but I wonder at a woman who reportedly goes to work between 4 and 5 a.m. and leaves work at 10 p.m. That doesn't sound like someone who has experience in the life most humans live. Apparently she has kept this sort of work schedule throughout her career -- leaving very little time for being a "player" as you put it.


Agreed - and my hunch is that Bush was less interested in someone with "human contact" experience or an alternative perpective (both valid reasons for picking someone besides a judge as a nominee), than a nominee without a judicial history to examine: a lawyer can argue that their work/positions were dictated by their clients needs, but a judge leaves a solid trail of legal decisions behind them. And you can bet that no matter what party owns the White House next, we're going to seem more of the same so long as acrimony and distrust pervade the atmosphere on Capitol Hill.

starr
Oct 3rd, 2005, 04:36 PM
In Spiegel Online (German News Mag) they titled 'Pitbull with shoesize 36' ...

That's something they picked up from the wire services here -- only our headlines say "size six shoe" :lol:

Nicjac
Oct 3rd, 2005, 04:48 PM
That's something they picked up from the wire services here -- only our headlines say "size six shoe" :lol:

Really? :lol:

Copycats even with the number one news journals. Well, journalists have a tough life, I'll give them that much credit.

And I do believe that we have to keep in mind the pit bull credit more than her shoe size.

Wigglytuff
Oct 3rd, 2005, 05:05 PM
as the next Supreme Court justice. Her name is Harriet Miers. She not a judge, no experience. Typical of Bush. :rolleyes:
wait his PERSONAL lawyer?

wow thats bold even for bush.

SelesFan70
Oct 3rd, 2005, 05:31 PM
I'm really surprised he didn't go more conservative...or at least go with someone who has a proven conservative record. The Democrats are going to :sobbing: no matter who he chooses...any party out of power HAS to do that. I wanted a knock down drag out fight... :banana: Maybe the next opening he'll choose Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown. Some conservative groups are vowing to fight her nomination... :unsure:

Wigglytuff
Oct 3rd, 2005, 05:43 PM
If you had done your history you would realize that most judges on Supreme Court had no past experiences as judges. A lot of them were Senators, Governors even Presidents such as Taft.
when you go to the prestigious internet to do your "research" make sure you read the ENTIRE article, not just the first few words.

1- it was no "presidents" it was only one.
2- many senators left jobs on the bench to become senators
3- it was not most, but some.
4- the practice of having non-judges serve on the highest court in the land, was in theory abandoned, and something that is really for a bygone era, mostly because the cases that are being decided today are for more complex and very different, as is the role of the court, than it was in the days before the marshall court and even the previous century.

kiwifan
Oct 3rd, 2005, 05:45 PM
I agree with the importance of "human contact" and living in the real world, but I wonder at a woman who reportedly goes to work between 4 and 5 a.m. and leaves work at 10 p.m. That doesn't sound like someone who has experience in the life most humans live. Apparently she has kept this sort of work schedule throughout her career -- leaving very little time for being a "player" as you put it.

I do give her respect for breaking through the Dallas big firm culture to become the first female partner. She must have been a big money maker for the firm.

Oh trust me, she's not my first choice or even on my list.

I just believe that since she's someone who has had to endure being a first, several times along the way and at a time when people were more open about being opposed to women and minorities doing, well pretty much anything involving intellect...

...that of the most likely people that a Bush Administration is going to back (a subset that no doubt has its share of dubious racial and religious kooks)...

...she seems like a good choice, from what little I know of her.

Most attorneys who stay on the partnership track put in 12 hour days - if they're lucky (meaning they actually bring in money for the firm) they get out of the office a lot to network.

Call me cynical but if she's a Bush crony, I'm sure she "checks in" at 4 or 5am and "checks out" at 10pm but she finds time to enjoy life and socialize plenty. :tape: :tape: :tape:

I'll have to talk to my "DC insiders" to get a better grip on this...:bolt:

Wigglytuff
Oct 3rd, 2005, 05:47 PM
:( I wanted Rogers-Brown. Doesn't matter who he picked, the Democrats are going to be obstructionists.

yeah checks and balances the founding fathers were a bunch of idiots who ever heard of such a thing... checks and balances what a stupid idea
:rolleyes: :smash:

spokenword73
Oct 3rd, 2005, 05:53 PM
wait his PERSONAL lawyer?

wow thats bold even for bush.
That fool believes that appointments are what friends are for...maybe he was drunk when he chose her :lol: I read in the National Enquirer, that beacon of truth, that GWB is drinking and Laura is sick about it. :wazzup:

A4
Oct 3rd, 2005, 05:54 PM
Well, she seemed to have donated to one of Al Gore's campaigns a while past and to other democrats (I stand corrected), so she doesn't seem to sound like a raving right-wing idealogue. I may be mistaken though........

K.U.C.W-R.V
Oct 3rd, 2005, 05:55 PM
Glad Bush chose a female but I don't know much about Mrs Miers and if Harry Reid is a fan then clearly she's not nearly conservative enough.

Never thought I'd say this but I think Bush may be losing his nerve. What next - retreat from Iraq?

Lord Nelson
Oct 3rd, 2005, 06:01 PM
She doesn't actually sound that bad. Probably very conservative, but she's got a wealth of legal experience in court, in government, and in practice management. On the face of it, this appointment could be a lot worse. She's a bit of a party hack but evidently a talented one, and it's not like picking some young ultra-rightwing ideologue who'll be around for forty years. I guess we'll find out more as the media and the pollies scrutinise her record, but it looks like an attempt to make a fairly safe appointment.
leopard I like reading your analysis. It's non-partisan and pretty imformative. :yeah:

On a side note it looks like everytime one is nominated for the Supreme Court his backgeround will be heavily scrutinized. So the Dems will also have to choose moderates.

Lord Nelson
Oct 3rd, 2005, 06:06 PM
when you go to the prestigious internet to do your "research" make sure you read the ENTIRE article, not just the first few words.

1- it was no "presidents" it was only one.
2- many senators left jobs on the bench to become senators
3- it was not most, but some.
4- the practice of having non-judges serve on the highest court in the land, was in theory abandoned, and something that is really for a bygone era, mostly because the cases that are being decided today are for more complex and very different, as is the role of the court, than it was in the days before the marshall court and even the previous century.
Good try but no cigar. Notice that I only mentionned one President, Taft. Sorry, next time I'll be super accurate, happy? ;)
You said it was abandoned in theory. Which means there was no written rule for this. Don't worry, the Dems will do the samething. Anyway I learned abit from you so thanks for the info.

Stamp Paid
Oct 3rd, 2005, 06:07 PM
im sure the dumb, greedy fucks who voted for Bush are lactating at this news

Helen Lawson
Oct 3rd, 2005, 06:21 PM
I think it's better he has someone who has not been on the bench, she's lived in the real world and dealt with Judges and decisions as a real world person, not in fantasy land. I think this will give her a fresh, positive perspective on the bench.

As far as right-wing stooges go, Bush appears to have picked 2 ok people. Don't forget, most of the far right/conservative types like Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, are very vocal (proud) of their views and do not hide them or obsure them. So, this makes me hopeful these last two will be ok.

SelesFan70
Oct 3rd, 2005, 06:25 PM
Oh trust me, she's not my first choice or even on my list.

I just believe that since she's someone who has had to endure being a first, several times along the way and at a time when people were more open about being opposed to women and minorities doing, well pretty much anything involving intellect...

...that of the most likely people that a Bush Administration is going to back (a subset that no doubt has its share of dubious racial and religious kooks)...

...she seems like a good choice, from what little I know of her.

Most attorneys who stay on the partnership track put in 12 hour days - if they're lucky (meaning they actually bring in money for the firm) they get out of the office a lot to network.

Call me cynical but if she's a Bush crony, I'm sure she "checks in" at 4 or 5am and "checks out" at 10pm but she finds time to enjoy life and socialize plenty. :tape: :tape: :tape:

I'll have to talk to my "DC insiders" to get a better grip on this...:bolt:

Tell us the scoop! All my DC insiders hate Bush, so I can't ask them a thing without getting a 30-minute lecture as to why he's the worst president...EVER. :o

Helen Lawson
Oct 3rd, 2005, 06:27 PM
I do have to say, however, I'm a little concerned with her statement that Bush is the most brilliant person she's ever known. I don't buy all this press b.s. that he's a dope and all, but I don't think he's brilliant either.

Wigglytuff
Oct 3rd, 2005, 06:54 PM
Good try but no cigar. Notice that I only mentionned one President, Taft. Sorry, next time I'll be super accurate, happy? ;)
You said it was abandoned in theory. Which means there was no written rule for this. Don't worry, the Dems will do the samething. Anyway I learned abit from you so thanks for the info.
you only named one because there was only one; you did say presidents, (because you clearly had no idea what you were saying.)

seriously, just read the entire article on your internet "research". :wavey:

charmedRic
Oct 3rd, 2005, 07:24 PM
Explain to me, please, why we should have someone with no experience on the Supreme Court?! This is absolutely astonishing. The Supreme Court is supposed to be for experiences judges with a LIFETIME of wisdom. Bush has made a mockery of it, just like he has with the rest of the government and everything he's touched.

yep. :cool:

charmedRic
Oct 3rd, 2005, 07:25 PM
Explain to me, please, why we should have someone with no experience on the Supreme Court?! This is absolutely astonishing. The Supreme Court is supposed to be for experiences judges with a LIFETIME of wisdom. Bush has made a mockery of it, just like he has with the rest of the government and everything he's touched.

yep. :wavey:

kiwifan
Oct 3rd, 2005, 07:49 PM
I got nuthin'!!! :shrug:

My Conservatives are investigating, my Liberals are scratching their heads. :shrug:

My people are actually assigning people to find out what's going on. :haha:

The best comment I got was "you can just look at her photo and tell that she's no party chick." :haha:

So she's either a total librarian (could be good) or someone is going to dig up something crazy on this one (much better result, for entertainment purposes only), most likely the former. :cool:

I still have a couple of people I haven't heard from, but my go to guys and gals know nothing.
Usually they'll at least lie and make up something to impress me. :haha:

Wigglytuff
Oct 3rd, 2005, 08:00 PM
I got nuthin'!!! :shrug:

My Conservatives are investigating, my Liberals are scratching their heads. :shrug:

My people are actually assigning people to find out what's going on. :haha:

The best comment I got was "you can just look at her photo and tell that she's no party chick." :haha:

So she's either a total librarian (could be good) or someone is going to dig up something crazy on this one (much better result, for entertainment purposes only), most likely the former. :cool:

I still have a couple of people I haven't heard from, but my go to guys and gals know nothing.
Usually they'll at least lie and make up something to impress me. :haha:

:haha:

Lord Nelson
Oct 3rd, 2005, 09:57 PM
you only named one because there was only one; you did say presidents, (because you clearly had no idea what you were saying.)

seriously, just read the entire article on your internet "research". :wavey:I actually knew that Taft was the only President who was on Supreme Court Either you misunderstood what I said or I was not being clear. But I don't want to be viewed as someone who thinks he is always right which of course is not true. So I will give you credit here. :cool:

kiwifan
Oct 3rd, 2005, 09:57 PM
This is the official Beltway (GOP) "Talking Points":

so don't be shocked if you hear any of this word for word :devil:

Kinda boring (you've been warned) :)

Harriet Miers is Well Qualified to Serve on the United States Supreme Court

Ms. Miersís long and distinguished career as one of the foremost lawyers in the country makes her exceptionally well qualified to serve on the United States Supreme Court. As a Justice on the Supreme Court, she will strictly interpret the Constitution and laws of the United States, not legislate from the bench.

 With her distinguished career and extensive community involvement, Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience and diversity to the Supreme Court.

 Members from both sides of the aisle have recognized her professional achievements and qualifications and recommended her to the President as a nominee.

 Ms. Miers would join a long and distinguished list of jurists named to the Supreme Court without prior judicial experience.

 10 out of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933, including the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and the late Justice Byron White, were appointed from positions within the Presidentís Administration. The late Chief Justice William Rehnquist was appointed in 1971 from his position as Assistant Attorney General. The late Justice Byron White was appointed in 1962 from his position as Deputy Attorney General. Neither had prior judicial experience.

 Ms. Miers has a long and distinguished professional career.

 Ms. Miers received her bachelorís degree in Mathematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University. Upon graduation, she clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972.

 Ms. Miers had a distinguished career as a trial litigator, representing such clients as Microsoft, Walt Disney Co. and SunGard Data Systems Inc. Moreover, when she left her law firm of Locke, Liddell & Sapp, Ms. Miers was serving as Co-Managing Partner of the over-400-lawyer firm.

 Throughout her career, Ms. Miers has been committed to public service. In addition to her extensive involvement in the State Bar of Texas and the American Bar Association, Ms. Miers has been an elected official, a statewide officeholder, and a strong advocate of pro bono work.

 In her time in the Administration, Ms. Miers has addressed numerous legal and policy questions at the highest levels of decision making, most recently serving as the Counsel to the President of the United States.

 Like Justice OíConnor, throughout her career, Ms. Miers has been a female trailblazer.

 In 1972, Ms. Miers became the first woman hired at Dallasís Locke Purnell Rain Harrell. In March 1996, her colleagues elected her the first female President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, at that time a firm of about 200 lawyers. She was the first woman to lead a Texas firm of that size.

 In 1985, Ms. Miers was selected as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.

 In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas. Ms. Miers served as the President of the State Bar of Texas from 1992 to 1993.

 Ms. Miers recent career has been marked by her participation at the highest levels of government.

 She was appointed Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary on January 20, 2001. As Staff Secretary, Ms. Miers acted as ďthe ultimate gatekeeper for what crosses the desk of the nationís commander in chief.Ē In addition to this important role, Ms. Miers supervised more than 60 employees in four departments.

 In 2003, Ms. Miers was named Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff. As part of the Office of the Chief of Staff, she was a top domestic policy advisor to the President.

 Ms. Miers has served as Counsel to the President since February 2005. In this role, she has served as the top lawyer to the President and the White House, and in particular has been the principal advisor judicial nominations.

 Ms. Miersís professional accomplishments have been recognized time and time again.

 Ms. Miers made partner at her law firm in 1978; the next year, she was honored as the Outstanding Young Lawyer of Dallas by the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers.

 On numerous occasions, the National Law Journal named her one of the Nationís 100 most powerful attorneys, and as one of the Nationís top 50 women lawyers.

 She has received countless awards recognizing her distinguished career, including 1997 Woman of the Year, the 1996 Louise Raggio Award, the 1993 Sarah T. Hughes Award, and the 1992 Dallas Bar Associationís Justinian Award for Community Service. In 2005 she received the Sandra Day OíConnor award.

 In 1996 alone, she was honored with the Anti-Defamation Leagueís Jurisprudence Award and the Legal Services of North Texas 1996 Merrill Hartman Award.

 She also has been the recipient of a Women of Excellence Award, sponsored by Dallasís Womenís Enterprise, for her work with the Dallas Bar Association and Dallasís Girls Inc.

 Also like Justice OíConnor, Ms. Miers has been an active participant in our nationís political process.

 In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She chose not to run for re-election when her term expired.

 Ms. Miers served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.

 From 1995 until 2000, Ms. Miers served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. After then-Governor Bush appointed Ms. Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, she served as a driving force behind its cleanup. In an editorial, The Dallas Morning News complimented her distinguished service and her success in ensuring the lotteryís integrity.

 In addition to her trailblazing role in the Dallas Bar and Texas State Bar, Ms. Miers has been a strong voice in the American Bar Association, the leading professional organization for lawyers across the country, and the Texas State Bar.

 She was one of two candidates for the No. 2 position at the ABA, chair of the House of Delegates, before withdrawing her candidacy to move to Washington to serve in the Bush Administration.

 Ms. Miers also served as the chair of the ABAís Commission on Multi-jurisdictional Practice and was a member of the ABA Governance Committee.

 She has also served as the Chair of the Board of Editors of the ABA Bar Journal.

 Similarly, she has served as the chairwoman of the Legal Services to the Poor in Civil Matters Committee of the State Bar of Texas.

 Throughout her career, Ms. Miers has successfully balanced her professional obligations and community involvement.

 For example, while she served as President of the State Bar of Texas, Ms. Miers also logged 125 pro bono hours handling an immigration and naturalization case for Catholic Charities of Dallas.

 In addition to her service to the Bar and her pro bono commitments, Ms. Miers has served on the Executive Board for the Southern Methodist University School of Law and as a Trustee of the Southwestern Legal Foundation.

 Ms. Miers is single and very close to her family: two brothers and her mother live in Dallas, and a third brother lives in Houston.

spokenword73
Oct 3rd, 2005, 11:18 PM
WTF? If it takes that much type(see above) to explain why she is the best candidate, we are big trouble. I hope Dems, :smash: this nom, if for no other reason but to say they still have some balls :spit:

Wigglytuff
Oct 3rd, 2005, 11:30 PM
I actually knew that Taft was the only President who was on Supreme Court
yeah ok, keep telling yourself that. :lol: :bounce:

Wigglytuff
Oct 3rd, 2005, 11:32 PM
yeah out of 6,000 talking points like none of them talk about why she would be qualified to be the one choosen for the highest court in the land.

kiwifan
Oct 3rd, 2005, 11:40 PM
WTF? If it takes that much type(see above) to explain why she is the best candidate, we are big trouble. I hope Dems, :smash: this nom, if for no other reason but to say they still have some balls :spit:

I guarantee you that if the Dems shoot down this candidate, her replacement will be Ultra Right Wing and Ultra Qualified...

...and will make it onto the court. :scared:

I think you should actually want Bush to win this time. ;)

And for anyone who might be confused, those are not my talking points - they are the official talking points that were sent out to certain organizations today in order to answer the #1 question they'll face this week...

...who? :confused:

:lol: :lol: :tape:

spokenword73
Oct 3rd, 2005, 11:42 PM
yeah out of 6,000 talking points like none of them talk about why she would be qualified to be the one choosen for the highest court in the land.

:bigwave:

spokenword73
Oct 3rd, 2005, 11:44 PM
I guarantee you that if the Dems shoot down this candidate, her replacement will be Ultra Right Wing and Ultra Qualified...

...and will make it onto the court. :scared:

I think you should actually want Bush to win this time. ;)

The Democrats should start fighting like hell. I am so sick of them rolling over because of a few right-wing talking points. Use that filibuster if you have to Dems, stop being so scary. The Reps are going down. Tom Delay just got indicted again. www.npr.org (http://www.npr.org). What a bunch of crooks:lol:

Infiniti2001
Oct 4th, 2005, 12:20 AM
From the rude pundit :eek:

Harriet Miers Gets Ready For Her Striptease:
Let's say, and why not, that you're the best man for your buddy's wedding, and you're puttin' together one motherfucker of a bachelor party, the main event of which will be a stripper at the hotel suite you've gotten. Everyone's got their demands on what is necessary in said stripper: she's gotta have big titties, little titties, round ass, flat ass, blonde hair with a dyed landing strip, brunette with a Brazilian. She's gotta be able to really dance, she's gotta be willing to let you touch her on the lap dances, she's gotta be willing to lift a whiskey bottle with her snatch. Some of the partygoers want her to be a full-on hooker, some wanna make sure she'll at least give blow jobs, some of 'em have said their wives and/or girlfriends'll dump 'em if the stripper turns tricks. It's a burden, no doubt.

Now there's approaches you can take to the choice: you can search around, lookin' for the hot-ass stripper who'll please about half of the horny dudes at the soiree, with at least another third goin' along because they're so hard up to see live, naked tits in a small space that they don't give a shit if she's a toothless, stretch-marked, leather-skinned skank who'll take three dicks in her asshole at once 'cause it's the only way she can feel anything anymore. 'Course, the problem for you is: which half are you gonna please?

Then there's the easy choice: you have a favorite stripper. Call her Harriette ('cause Frenchy-lookin' names are sooo sexy). And you have been goin' to Harriette's club for a few years now. You know that Harriette knows exactly what you need - when to whip off that thong in front of you, when to go down on all fours with her pucker and pussy in your face, when to rub her tits on your face. Yeah, Harriette's got it down, man, even to the point that when you go back for the lap dance, she knows how to grind you to the point of spewing, lettin' your hands wander all over her very real breasts. She knows if she holds you there, in that delicious nether region between coming and blue balls, you'll tip her everything in your clip for her to finish the job. Fuck, just thinkin' about Harriette gets you hard.

So, screw it, you think. You're choosin' Harriette for the bachelor party. Good as she's been to you, you think you owe it to her for the major cash money she'll take home from the party. No, you don't know if she'll let Sam from Accounting jack off on her face. You don't know if Tom from Shipping'll be able to ram his favorite horsecock dildo into her ass. But you do know that, away from the club, you'll be able to stare at those tits, those thighs, for a long, long time, and you know she's gonna service you in just the way you like her to service you. So fuck everyone else. Harriette's invited to the party. Let the chips fall where they may.

As the Rude Pundit said about John Roberts, George Bush (and Rove, Cheney, et al) knows exactly who Harriet Miers is in nominating her for the Supreme Court. He knows how she's gonna vote on every fuckin' issue that comes before the court that actually matters to him. Jesus, she was right there for half the cases that she would be asked to decide on, from the torture policy to third-trimester abortions to the Patriot Act to releases of documents to assisted suicide. To not believe that Bush knows is to be played for a fool once again.

She's already sashayed her ass in Bush's face. It's the rest of us that need to be worried about what's under the pasties and g-string.

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

~ The Leopard ~
Oct 4th, 2005, 01:00 AM
I'm most convinced by kiwifan on this one.

PaulieM
Oct 4th, 2005, 02:55 AM
honestly nothing bush does surprises me anymore :shrug:

kiwifan
Oct 4th, 2005, 03:11 AM
I'm most convinced by kiwifan on this one.

Hey you called me out, remember? - I had to respond to the pressure. ;)

and I can't even give you a little green dot yet :(

I'll have to come back later :p

:bolt: