Talk of the Town

By Bush 1

October 3, 2005 08:24 AM | Link to this

60 years old???? Come on Bush….no crony for the court….get somebody 10 years younger with a reputation for brilliance…. Maybe this lady is the sacrifical lamb for the Dems….then we get the real pick….

By edge

October 3, 2005 08:26 AM | Link to this

Too old. No supreme court justice nominees should be under the age of 40 and over the age of 50. She might be around 10 to 15 years.

By cd

October 3, 2005 08:29 AM | Link to this

What’s with the head of the selection committee ending up with the job? First, Cheney and now, Miers.

By Ron Palmer

October 3, 2005 08:31 AM | Link to this

Mires appoinment is no surprise. Her confirmation will remove the blindfold and balancing scales from Jurist Prudence. It will take three decades to return them to their rightful place.

By rob stiles

October 3, 2005 08:51 AM | Link to this

Why am I not surprised that she’s from the Bush inner circle? When will this President learn not to constantly pick his friends and associates to fill in positions? Remember FEMA?

By THarris

October 3, 2005 09:08 AM | Link to this

This is utterly ridiculous. First Roberts, whose credibility is shaky, now some old attorney. Okay, is it just me or is something very wrong with this pick. Just last week, the media showed two different women who were both judges that would be possible picks. Where did this woman come from? Why in the world would you nominate someone with absoulutly no judicial exprience to sit on the most power court in the world. It’s insane. Bush has just proved to us once again that he’s unstoppable. He has done everything possible to destroy the “common folk.” He doesn’t care about anyone outside of his circle. If you’re not rich, then you are of no interest to him. Okay middle class Repubs, how much more face slapping are you going to take or do really just don’t care that the man you put into this position is making you poor?

By RWH

October 3, 2005 09:10 AM | Link to this

We are living and dealing in uncertain times. Those selected to serve by President Bush hopefully will serve this country and its people with the highest and most honorable degree. Taking the helm of the ship will not be that easy; there are those who agree and those who will not agree. To many things are happening to these United States, we need have those who can calm the rough seas, calm the strong winds and be accountable!

By ts

October 3, 2005 09:17 AM | Link to this

Good job Mr. president - The Dems can’t even decide if they are against the war. They will never be able to pull together opposition to a female Supreme Court justice. Rove will run circles around the Democrats who try! Mark my words – she will be confirmed by Thanksgiving will a similar – spanking like – margin as Roberts received. This is going to be fun to watch – if your on Bush’s side!

By Debbie

October 3, 2005 09:20 AM | Link to this

Let’s see …BUSH’S personal attorney in TEXAS; appointed to a 6 yr. term on the State Lottery Commission in TEXAS by BUSH; President of the Bar in TEXAS; Went to the White House with BUSH as Staff Secretary; Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff in 2003 by BUSH; named White House Council by BUSH in 2004… NO FAVORITISM HERE!!

By Terry

October 3, 2005 09:43 AM | Link to this

Why can’t we stop taking cheap shots and look at some facts?

Ms. Harriet Miers was the 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.

Even Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the president to consider Ms. Miers.

By Chip

October 3, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

This is ridiculous. She has never been a judge, how can there be enough information to vote yes? This is like making a 21-year-old college graduate head of a company. With no experience, you have no clue what will happen, you just know there is going to be trouble.

The balance has shifted away from personal rights to big business. If you are middle class, enjoy it while you can, your days are numbered.

By Terry

October 3, 2005 09:55 AM | Link to this

To Debbie - what’s your point?

President Bush has one of the sharpest legal minds in the country on his staff. Why shouldn’t he promote her to whatever positions he can?

The President can pick whom ever he wants for the Supreme Court - he won the last election. If Democrats want a more liberal Justice, that’s easy - win an election!

Also, Republicans continue to win seats in the House and Senate. That’s a pretty good indication of what the country wants - a conservative government and a conservative judicial.

By Linden

October 3, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

Well one thing is certain; there is no pretense with this nominee, except in her own mind. She plans to interpret the Constitution according to the intent of the framers, does she? If that’s true, she has to reject the nomination and go back to Texas. The framers didn’t want women to vote, much less hold high public office.

Linden

By Terry

October 3, 2005 09:59 AM | Link to this

To THarris - Justice Rehnquist had no previous judicial experience.

I’ll ingore the rest of your rant as it is totally unsubstantiated and way off point.

By tom

October 3, 2005 10:08 AM | Link to this

Umm… last time I checked, the Constitution grants the right for the President to appoint whomever he so chooses. I’m not so sure that appointing someone with no judicial experience is the way to go, but, that’s the job of the Senate, to confirm that the appointee is qualified. Not if they meet the full Senate’s ideologies. Would some of you actually think that a President would appoint someone whose ideologies didn’t didn’t align with his? Get real. Read the Constitution and quit whining.

By tamekia

October 3, 2005 10:28 AM | Link to this

what is going on here? she has no experience of the court system. what type of decisions will she make for me?

By terrence howard

October 3, 2005 10:35 AM | Link to this

this is the kind of “good ole boy networking” that america does not need at the highest level of justice!!!!!

By ts

October 3, 2005 11:09 AM | Link to this

I love al this talk about having no experience! When Bill Clinton was elected President of the United States, he has NO experience in foreign affairs – literally NONE! But, I bet all you Democrats would agree that he did a fine job dealing with the international community. There are lots of lawyers who could run circles around any judge when it comes to procedure and knowledge of case law – but, they remain lawyers because there is A LOT more money to be made on that side of the bench. Those of you complaining about her not wearing a robe before this simply do not know how the world works – enjoy your cubicle until you Union mandated break – then think up your reply to this!

By NA

October 3, 2005 11:12 AM | Link to this

BOLD To Reps & Dems

Terry - You may have proved her point by mentioning Justice Rehnquist. As a young, conservative african american female, I am not impressed with the national leadership of either party. This latest appointment by our current president is just another indicator of the ethical climate of our nation. I really am not impressed with all of her “Firsts”. I would be impressed if she provided a list of the men and women she has mentored and brought up with her. As an American, The Texas judicial system is more of an embarrassment to me - than anything else. The Supreme Court has made some horrible decisions (ie Imminent Domain) under this administration. It’s hard to believe, they aren’t influenced by politics. I agree with President Carter, Bush did not legally or morally win either election. However, I believe the Dems shot themselves in the foot by trying to be too inclusive. The margin was too narrow for a clear majority in both of the past two elections. We need a new party (not even considering the Libertarians - sorry) that is for fiscal responsibility, ethical government, modified capitalism and international peace. I think personal responsibility is too much to ask for. I’m tired of hearing what politicians are AGAINST. I want to know what they stand for. Besides being a BIG fan of a pretty unimpressive president, what else motivates her?

By Walter

October 3, 2005 11:19 AM | Link to this

Great pick. A strong and intelligent woman who worked her way up. Some Democrats even suggested that Bush consider her. I do not want to know how she will vote on any issue. I want to know that she will be fair to all. I expect her to be sworn in by December 1st.

By C Ham

October 3, 2005 11:25 AM | Link to this

Great move. The politicians will unite to support her.

By JRSearcy

October 3, 2005 11:29 AM | Link to this

Hmmmm…..it seems we the citizens are getting more locked out of governmental decisions. The nation’s highest offices are being clogged with George Bush’s friends from Texas and now we’re learning through recent tragedies (Mike Brown and FEMA as one example) that experience is NOT required. What are we going to do when all of this fully blow up in our face?

By ALong

October 3, 2005 12:22 PM | Link to this

This administration promised us that judges would be appointed who would not legislate from the bench, and now the president has nominated his former Senior Policy Advisor? Sounds a little hypocritical to me…

By EB

October 3, 2005 12:47 PM | Link to this

While I agree that a women or a person of color needs to nominated to the Supreme Court to reflect the diverse population of this nation, I think that Bush could have and should have picked a more qualified applicant-one who has been a judge. She has does have lots of legal experience but there is distinct difference between a lawyer and a judge.

By SDavis

October 3, 2005 12:49 PM | Link to this

I just fail to understand how can you be a Supreme Court Justice and never actually held the position of a judge? Where else can you get the top executive job with zero hands-on experience but also get lifetime job security?

By bm

October 3, 2005 12:57 PM | Link to this

ISN’T IT TIME FOR A BLACK WOMAN TO TAKE A SEAT ON THE SUPREME COURT. LET’S SEE SOME DIVERSITY HERE.

By R. Moore

October 3, 2005 01:06 PM | Link to this

I am OK with the President’s choice. She has good credentials and will bring diversity to the Court. Why do some of the shrill Democrats think that Bush should pick somebody THEY like??

By C Flournoy

October 3, 2005 01:10 PM | Link to this

Who is Harriet Miers? A proven conservative judge? No. A judge in the mold of Scalia or Thomas? No. Bush has betrayed his conservative base. He passed over scores of judges with solid conservative credentials (Edith Jones, Janice Brown, Priscilla Owens, Sam Alito). This is the main reason I voted for Bush - nominating conservative supreme court justices in the mold of Scalia or Thomas. I have always disagreed with Bush’s spendaholic ways and his position on illegal immigration. I was 50-50 with the war in Iraq and the economy. Now, I have no more reason to support Bush. It is a sad day.

By Sylvia

October 3, 2005 01:45 PM | Link to this

Here we go again the Bush Administration appointing his “friends”. Another friend that will recieve on the job training. (FEMA-Mr. Brown). Now his personal attorney…. of course she states that he (Bush) is the most intelligent man that she has met….clearly she doesn’t get out much.

By Saul

October 3, 2005 01:52 PM | Link to this

This sounds troubling. A woman with no judicial experience. Mind you, Rhrenquist didn’t have it either, but we’re in a new day and age when experience is necessary (Brown and FEMA!!!) You know, Bush is a war president, and thinks war - not peace. I think its necessary to find a justice who has no political agenda. A person who has experience, who’s HAS excellent credintials, and someone who is respected by other judges. Has anyone ever asked the Federal Court of Appeal Circuits who THEY would nominate? I think it would be interesting to see who the 11th Circuit would nominate.

Whatever…we will have to see what the Judicial Senate Committee uncovers - but I don’t think they’re going to confirm her.

By Lorretta Gasper

October 3, 2005 02:32 PM | Link to this

She has no judicial experience and lacks the stellar credentials of the current members of the Supreme Court. This clearly looks like a partisan appointment. Her objectivity will be questioned throughout her tenure on the court if she is approved. It’s a very weak appointment There are many women or minority judicial candidates who have far more impressive credentials! This shows Bush’s lack of respect for the Highest Court by appointing someone with such lightweight judicial expertise.

By Kirk

October 3, 2005 02:36 PM | Link to this

Another Brownie

Great justices usually

1) are educated well - Attended a top law school

2) are trained well - worked for top judges or are fast risers on the judge track or clerked for a top judge

3) and have distunguised records that have stood the test of time - So people can assess what kind of thinkers when they are when put in lifetime appointment roles

She has none of these - She’s just a friend

By Hollie

October 3, 2005 02:37 PM | Link to this

Oh Lord please…I am not impressed by her firsts, the fact that she is a woman, or if race is a factor. I just wish that the person appointed was not a “favored friend”. It clearly appears that “all” applicants were not considered. I do, however, have a problem with the age. I believe we need someone more in tune with our current generation. We all know this person is part of Bush’s click, and as long as he is in office he will pick and choose anyone he pleases…forget hte american people.

By Cheryl S. Ross

October 3, 2005 02:42 PM | Link to this

In the legal profession, you must pay your dues. The only dues this woman has paid are her bar dues. She had not tried any constitutional cases. What is her judicial temperament? She is not qualified. One cannot simply jump to the front of the line in the legal profession as you can in politics without first showing you deserve a chance. Being in the inner circle of the President does not qualify you for such a high profile job. You must learn judicial prudence in order to properly decide cases. This woman does not have that. She is simply a “crony” of Bush. Talk about nepotism, cronyism, and preferential treatment—-like the FEMA person. This woman does not stand a chance. She should not be confirmed.

By t

October 3, 2005 03:29 PM | Link to this

Can we get an African American Woman. Condelleza is not enough!!!

By BPJ

October 3, 2005 03:41 PM | Link to this

We’ll know more after the hearings, but my initial reaction is (guardedly) positive. I’m a Democrat, and anyone this president appoints would not be my preference. The key question for me is whether a nominee is “another Scalia or Thomas,” or closer to O’Connor or Kennedy (that’s Anthony Kennedy, appointed by Reagan, a moderate conservative who has been a swing vote almost as often as O’Connor). Several of the names floated for this nomination were “hard-right” types. Miers probably isn’t, and I don’t think Roberts is. Two points need to be kept in mind: First, there is a long tradition of having a justice (or two) on the court who was not previously a judge. There are several respected justices whose prior experience was as lawyers, law professors, and politicians. While the majority of justices should continue to be chosen from the ranks of federal appellate court judges, one or two justices with a different range of experiences benefits us all. Second, appointing Supreme Court Justices is notoriously unpredictable. The Republican presidents who appointed Earl Warren, John Paul Stevens, and David Souter could attest to this. A lifetime appointment, the influence of colleages, the odd facts of a particular case,and the sense of great responsibility that most justices feel - all these things account for justices sometimes taking a surprising path over time.

By James

October 3, 2005 03:44 PM | Link to this

People, like it or not elections come with consequences and one of the consequences of being elected President of the United Sates,is that you get to appoint a person of your choosing to the Supreme Court, once an vacancy becomes present. Whomever his choice is will surely make some happy and some mad. It’s too early to say what type of judge either justices will make, given that she is confrimed. Sit back, relax and give her a fair shake. The system in place today has worked far longer than any reader of this BLOG has lived. A balance of opinions on the court make for a fair and represented court. If you think she has gotten to where she is today by just being a friend of the Bush family,or a woman, perhaps you should refrain from allowing the entire reading population of Atlanta know how short-sighted and uninformed you are on matters such as this. And to the person who says a justice should be required to go to a top law school, get back to work and stop wasting your employers dime.

By Terry

October 3, 2005 04:02 PM | Link to this

I find it amazing how quickly people can find fault with everything President Bush does. Truth is this is about the only nomination he could make!

If he had nominated anyone with a strong judicial background, he or she would never get confirmed. The Democrats were already taking fillabuster even before anybody was named.

The President’s only hope for getting anybody confirmed is to nominate someone with good solid legal credentials and no judicial background for people to pre-judge.

Our politically devisive country has created an environment where Ms. Miers was the only choice President Bush could name.

Maybe we should make Supreme Court nominations a ‘reality TV’ contest, then people might look at her background before taking unsubstantiated cheap shots.

By John Radney

October 3, 2005 04:35 PM | Link to this

I trust the president. Hope the two new ones halts abortions.

By GC

October 3, 2005 04:51 PM | Link to this

No one who has never been a judge belongs on the Supreme Court. No one without strong experience with the court belongs there either. No idealogue or mouthpeice for any President, political party, industry, or business belongs there. It’s obvious that she’s being put in as a rubber-stamp vote for Bush’s policies. Find someone else.

By mcbird

October 3, 2005 05:06 PM | Link to this

She’s an excellent choice. I hear she used to show poodles.

By ALong

October 3, 2005 05:19 PM | Link to this

Let’s get some historical perspective: The current court is predominantly filled with incredibly experienced prior judges (the lone exception being Rehnquist - although he clerked for Justice Jackson, and his education and work experience were impeccable - compare to Mier’s degree from SMU - Rank 52nd in the nation - all other justices went to Harvard, Yale, Stanford or Northwestern (for Stephens)). Nixon and Reagan picked experienced judges IN REACTION TO the political appointments of the 30s, 40s and 50s (e.g. Douglas, Jackson, Vinson, Clark, Burton, etc. - all political allies). Nixon and Reagan wanted judges, not politicians, because they wanted people who would interpret the law, not make it.

DO NOT FORGET the last time a republican president appointed a political friend to the bench… President Eisenhower appointed California’s Republican Governor Earl Warren to succeed Chief Justice Vinson - remember how well that turned out Bush supporters???

If you want a Scalia/Thomas clone - you should be afraid, very afraid.

By NA

October 3, 2005 05:29 PM | Link to this

BPJ - excellent comments. Some right-wing Reps are upset (again) with their party.

John -I think you mean “legal” abortions. You may want to do a little research regarding abortions before Roe vs Wade. I would never advocate abortion. However, I do a LOT of community volunteering to help prevent people from getting into that desperate frame of mind. Most anti-abortionist don’t do ANYTHING to help improve society or provide support. I am against taking the easy way out of life (divorce, bankruptcy, abortion, etc…). However, these are very personal MORAL decisions - not political platforms.

By myra

October 3, 2005 06:14 PM | Link to this

Did anyone notice that when Bush nominated Roberts, he consistently referred to him as “Judge Roberts.” When he nominated Miers, he kept calling her “Harriet.” Just one more indication of his use of his close friends in major positions.

By Pat

October 3, 2005 06:23 PM | Link to this

It does not take a genius to comprehend that this is the lowest form of control there is allowable.

By Eric S

October 3, 2005 06:28 PM | Link to this

Should anybody be surprised that Bush named a loyal Bushie to the Supreme Court. It’s no secret that loyalty is the ONLY prerequisite he looks for in an appointee. God, I cannot wait for the Bush family to be out of American politics!

By bill

October 3, 2005 07:05 PM | Link to this

Miers isn’t as bad a nominee as the reactionary judges Bush was considering, but there must have been an acceptable nominee with better credentials. We’ll see at the hearings if she, like Gonzales and Brown, out of her league.

By L Carriedo

October 3, 2005 09:19 PM | Link to this

Fact: Harriet Miers has not served as a judge in any court. She is too old to serve. We need some one with more creditials serving our country.

By Phil

October 4, 2005 12:28 AM | Link to this

I’ll be frank, who is this woman?

I could agree with Roberts, his creditials were impressive.

But I do agree this is a great way for Bush to snub his conservative, Christian right supporters. It’s about time he recognized there are more than just them lunatics running around.

By Tina

October 4, 2005 06:41 AM | Link to this

I think the decision is like putting a friend in charge of FEMA, it would probably be better to nominate someone that actually knows what they are doing.

By Bubba

October 4, 2005 08:03 AM | Link to this

It is almost like he woke up and realized that he is the president of a country where at least half of the population didn’t vote for him. I’m sure that she is going to lean conservative, she’s been with W for a long time and the right is upset because he didn’t nominate a radical idealogue even though half the country isn’t in the red camp??? Could it be he finally understands that he is the leader of an entire country and not just the radical right?? That he is not the President of the Red States of America but of the United States of America?

By Albert J. Bolet

October 4, 2005 08:13 AM | Link to this

President Bush has selected a highly qualified and patriotic american to serve in the supreme court. I watched an interview Ms. Miers gave in April of this year broadcast on CSPAN recently and was very favorably impressed with her knowledge, integrity and grasp of issues facing this country. I hope she will be confirmed and that she will serve the people of this country to the best of her ability.

By Dave

October 4, 2005 08:19 AM | Link to this

Her choice is totally understandable she said “Bush is the smartest person she knows”. She is truly wise. Being a yes man is always the right thing and is usually rewarded.

By Jim

October 4, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

I think that the tenor of the comments in this BLOG are the clearest indication that the Supreme Court has improperly asserted its power in the last 30-40 years.

Think if people put this much effort into choosing local legislators or representatives and senators. It’s a shame that the only forum in which we meaningfully debate these social issues is in discussing an unelected judiciary. We need to stop looking to the Court to supply our moral compass and put more faith in local legislation.

And there’s nothing wrong with someone who went to SMU. That’s not a real criticism.

By W. Trapnell

October 4, 2005 08:30 AM | Link to this

By Terry

October 4, 2005 08:56 AM | Link to this

First for those of you that rant that Ms. Miers is too old - discrimination based on age is illegal! (I guess that’s unless you’re a Liberal.)

Second for those of you that keep bring up Mr. Brown as an example of inexperience - Under Secretary Brown led Homeland Security’s response to more than 164 presidentially declared disasters and emergencies, including the Columbia Shuttle disaster and the California wildfires in 2003; and FEMA’s response to the triple hurricane disasters in 2004. (The real hidden agenda of this finger pointing is a desire for new Federal Laws to further curtail State Soventry and strengthen Federal Government control - a clearly Democratic goal.)

So far I’ve heard nothing that would make me think Ms. Miers is not qualified and capable. But a reasonable person would wait for more facts before solidifying any opinion concerning this nomination. (And I do think of myself as a reasonable person!)

By MSS

October 4, 2005 09:18 AM | Link to this

There is a lot to be said for having a judge on the highest court of our land having an education from an ivy league school. However, it is not necessary for the job. There are many fine schools in the US that turn out scholars all of the time who would make fine judges. Yes, Ms Miers, is 60 years old. So what? Who makes the rules that after 50 no one can make sound decisions? If that were the case we would have to replace the entire Supreme Court! I say give the woman a chance. We need someone who will go by the constitution as it was originally intended before it became so convoluted. What is the greatest fear the Dems have with this nominee? Afraid she’s not liberal enough? What about the Reps, are you afraid that she is not conservative enough? I repeat, give this nominee a chance!!

By Betty

October 4, 2005 09:50 AM | Link to this

The lady is a fine choice. She will do well, and I applaud President Bush on this decision.

By Elwood

October 4, 2005 09:53 AM | Link to this

I’m a Democrat, and I couldn’t be happier with this nomination. We have NO idea which way she’ll fall on issues — she has no record on any of the hot button topics like abortion, affirmative action, etc.

She’s NOT a hard line conservative like the GOP wanted. There’s a reason the GOP is unhappy and the Democrats are happy with this pick. Remember Souton? Haha!

By jerry

October 4, 2005 10:10 AM | Link to this

This is another poor decision made by an incompetent president. Should we expect more? One deals with the unknown through known, and this country is well aware of the known.

By George

October 4, 2005 10:15 AM | Link to this

“Brownie…you are doing a great job…” And he was promptly and rightfully sent home for it. She on the other hand will be parked on the bench for life…To remind us for quite some time to come who the real DubbaU is.

By Chuck D

October 4, 2005 10:52 AM | Link to this

I am pretty sure that the is competent about doing the job… However, being the Presidents personal attorney troubles me.

By Margaret

October 4, 2005 11:02 AM | Link to this

I think this Bush nominee for the Supreme Court should be questioned very thoroughly and carefully. There is no indication that she is qualified to be a Supreme Court Justice. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above the President and Congress as a final resort in deciding serious national cases and, therefore, a Justice should be impartial - not a “close friend” of the President or any member of Congress. Or of large corporations! We, the American people, are steadily losing our rights and freedoms under this Administration and the appointment of “rubber stamp” Justices to the Supreme Court will only hasten that process.

By Patrick

October 4, 2005 11:59 AM | Link to this

How absurd that Americans are even entertaining the idea of allowing this “less than popular” president to appoint yet another personal friend and personal vendetta keeper. This time for LIFE to the highest court in the land. This man must be stopped.

By Jerry Kotyuk

October 4, 2005 12:31 PM | Link to this

Although as a conservative I would have preferred someone with a conservative, originalist, judicial track record, I trust the President’s judgment. Many conservatives were skeptical about Judge Roberts at this same point in the process, but the more we found out about him, the more comfortable we felt. The President has nominated many qualified judges to the District and Appeals Courts who are already having a positive effect on returning the judiciary to interpreting law rather than making it. I’m withholding judgement until we learn more, but am optimistic that we will be pleasantly surprised with her judicial philosophy. Since President Bush has known and worked closely with Ms Miers for 10 years, he probably knows more about her philosophy and beliefs than anyone. To appoint someone you know well and trust over someone you barely know is not cronyism - it’s smart management!

By Norman M.

October 4, 2005 01:53 PM | Link to this

Ms Miers certainly seems to be a qualified attorney. The truth is we cannot predict how any person appointed to the Supreme Court will perform. Being a life long appointment would seem to “free up” a person to more clearly make decisions based on facts and what is best for our nation. I find it interesting that most of the negative comments seem to being coming from the most conservative factions of our nation. Wow! I knew there was a lot of ageism out there but the comments so far sure bear it out. Wisdom and experience seem to be worth little in our twenty-first century culture. I am certainly not a fan of President Bush and admit that this may just be a case of his appointing someone in his inner circle but the coming hearings will hopefully shed enough light on Ms Miers for the senate to make an informed decision.