Jackson Free Press

Molly says Harriet is sure to vote against Roe. Molly this week:

Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn't take much to read the tea leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it's Bunker Time at the White House. Miers' chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Aside from that bothersome little matter, the Miers appointment is like that of John Roberts—could've been worse. Not as bad as Edith Jones, not as bad as Priscilla Owen—and you should see some of our boy judges from Texas.

According to Miers' friends, she was pro-choice when a young woman, but later changed her mind as a result of a Christian experience of some kind. Those who spoke of this did not know her well enough to say whether it had been a born-again experience or simply a different understanding of theology.

_____

I'm really starting to think the path of Roe v. Wade is going to follow Bush's road to Iraq. We're going to have to allow a bunch of zealots to decide what to do — and then spend years trying to make up for the severe societal problems that result.

These justices are there for life, people. At least Bush was only voted in, stupidly, for four more years. Think about it.

Previous Commentsshow

I will repeat Bill Maher in saying, "Doesn't Bush know MORE than, like, FIVE people?" I will also add that I have major issues to someone being appointed to the highest court in the land having NEVER been a judge before.

Lori G

Oct 5 2005

Cronyism, at its, er, finest.

ladd

Oct 5 2005

Quote of the day: MATTHEWS: Do you believe that the president can claim executive privilege? DEAN: Well, certainly the president can claim executive privilege. But in the this case, I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, >hide the salami, or whatever it's called. *wince* Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 5 2005

Ali-- I will also add that I have major issues to someone being appointed to the highest court in the land having NEVER been a judge before. Ladd-- Cronyism, at its, er, finest. You mean like Earl Warren?

Rex

Oct 7 2005

I know there have been great justices who have served with no prior experience as a judge. I don't dispute that point. This doesn't mean that I don't get to have "issues" with it, if I so choose.;) This article does give me a little hope. Or rather, confuses the ever lovin' bejesus out of me. Is it just me or is everyone sitting around going, "Now....What?"

Lori G

Oct 7 2005

Rex, I have never understood, or respected, the argument that because something was done poorly in the past that it justifies doing it again. Reminds me of the Nixon era when his apologists went around saying, "well, that's what they all do. He just got caught." (A) What he did is not what they all do. (B) Two or more wrongs don't make a right.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

That's my point. Miers is a blank cypher. no one knows what she'll do becuase her background is such a mixed bag. Warren was thought to be a known entity but turned on Eisenhower's and fellow conservatives' ideology after the put him in for "helping win" California in the election. Miers might be Falwell and Robertson's best friend or worst nightmare. No one really knows.

Rex

Oct 7 2005

Not saying a bad precedent makes the current action "ok." I'm saying no one knows what Miers is going to be like. Warren fooled 'em. Miers might.

Rex

Oct 7 2005

But if you're going to say there are issues about her because she's never served as a judge, then you should also say that Warren should not have been appointed. Personally, I liked Warren as judge (not as governor). And Who knows whether I'll like Miers or not.

Rex

Oct 7 2005

Actually, I don't have to. I can comment on her on her merits. However, you just said it, and that's cool. Why not just add rather than scold me for not saying it? Yeah, I don't know whether I'll like Miers, either. She could be another Souter, which would be great. But it is ridiculous to send up someone with no judicial experience whatsoever, even if it has worked in the past. Just because you got lucky before with a crony doesn't mean you'll get lucky again.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

Actually, Rex, I get to say whatever the hell I WANT to say. If you haven't figured that out about me now, you haven't been reading enough of my sometimes ranting, sometimes eloquent reponses. I don't serve an ideology...nor do I choose to align my beliefs based upon what you believe I "should also say." There have been judges who have ended up doing great jobs with no prior experience. There have been judges, such as Warren, who have "surprised" everybody. Does this mean I should let Miers by and hope and pray that she proves to be one of those? Hell, no. It means I get to say "I don't like it". It means that I get to say "I do not believe a seat in the highest court in the land should be filled because 'Hey, you never know, she might turn out to NOT suck".

Lori G

Oct 7 2005

HAHAHAHAHA Ladd, I think we might feel the same way about this. ;)

Lori G

Oct 7 2005

Jinx. ;-D

ladd

Oct 7 2005

Ali, sorry to step on toes and yes I have read most of your responses and postings. All I'm saying is you seem to be most concerned about her lack of experience, not her idoelogy or public stands. If you DID base your reservations on ideology or public stands I could see your argument against her (and she makes me very nervous due to public stands and public failure to speak in many cases). But the fact that she has never been a judge should be the least of our worries.

Rex

Oct 7 2005

Disagreed, Rex.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

Well, if her lack of public responses (or rather public failure to speak)can be directly correlated to the fact that she has never been a judge...and therefore has no written "opinions" how can you say that is the least of "our" worries? It seems another way its pretty tied in together.

Lori G

Oct 7 2005

One could draw an analogy between electing a mayor who has never served in the public sector, and has no knowledge, or interest in knowing, about how public openness and accountability works, why it's important, and why it's the law. My immediate concern about Bush attorney Harriet Miers is that she is being put there for one reason: to serve the Bush family interests no matter what they turn out to be. And, frankly, that may include NOT overturning Roe, but it also may include some other problems as well. Honestly, it shows how bad our political game has gotten in this country. The Reagan-Falwell Wingnut Revolution is really starting to come home to roost.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

I think Miers is probably less likely to overturn Roe, or otherwise push a socially conservative agenda, than any substitute candidate Bush would propose if she were not confirmed. My gut tells me that if she had very conservative views, Bush would have made them public by now in order to shore up support among the right wing. John Roberts is probably the closest thing we'll get to a moderate justice from this president. I can't abide cronyism, but I am so thankful that it was not Luttig, or Owen, or Garza, someone with an equally solid right-wing record. But would I be happier if he had appointed someone equally moderate or equally mysterious, with real experience in the judiciary--Alberto Gonzales, perhaps (despite my reservations about his position on torture)? Of course. Still, cronyism gave us Abe Fortas, one of the most progressive justices we've ever had--he even tried to overturn laws against public drunkenness. It's a shame that corruption scandal left him with only got four years on the bench, because if he had been able to serve until his death in 1982--well, let's give him a 1980 retirement so it would be a Carter nominee--I think he would have left a very positive impact on the Court. And the political you-scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours dynamic gave us Earl Warren, the former governor of California rewarded by Eisenhower for...I forget what, but something overtly political. But then Fortas and Warren had actual judiciary experience. One silver lining: If Miers is conservative, then her lack of judicial experience might make her a little more impressionable than other conservatives would be. After all, this is going to be a big, life-transforming thing for her. A totally new role in life. Something she's never done before. And it's not like she wasn't a top-notch private attorney--the first woman to serve as president of the Texas Bar Association, which is not an easy job to get. No question that she knows the law. She just knows it from the other side of the bench. If I sound like a Miers apologist, chalk it all up to the deep sigh of relief I breathed when it turned out not to be Luttig. One other nitpick vis-a-vis the Ivins column: Even if Miers is conservative, she will not be the fifth vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. In the last case to test the Roe standard, Kennedy royally pissed off conservatives when he supported it--so even if she's a reliable right-wing vote, then, assuming there has been no change of heart in the rest of the court, it would be Roberts, Miers, Scalia, and Thomas dissenting from Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens in a 5-4 ruling. That's a little too close to comfort, and when I recite the old Jewish blessing "May he live to be 120" in reference to Justice Stevens, that's not just out of natural concern--but Roe itself is safe. The more likely problems are the peripheral issues we talked about: Partial-birth abortion and parental consent. But we all know those would be threatened by any Bush nominee. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

BTW- The single best thing any of us can do to protect Roe v. Wade, right now, is find a Democrat who can beat Trent Lott next year. Why? Because if something happens to one of the five pro-Roe justices, Bush will get another crack at the Court--and the makeup of the Senate will determine the kind of justice he can appoint. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Taking into account the number of socially moderate Republicans there are in the Senate, the difference between 55-45 and 54-46, or (eek) 55-45 and 56-44, is massive. Anything we can do to turn the Senate blue, even by just a tiny margin, will protect Roe a little bit more. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

Re Roberts: I'm only assuming a conservative vote on Roe v. Wade. I regularly compare him to Anthony Kennedy for a reason: They sound a heck of a lot alike to me. I think there's a serious chance he'll turn out to be much more moderate than we, or his boosters, expect.

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

And note that all of this assumes that Bush really wants to overturn Roe. Not at all sure about that (as discussed here). So if he does want to put a pro-choicer on the Court, how does he do that without destroying his base? A: Appoint an unknown quantity who has never served as a judge before, and ergo has no paper trail. Bush really doesn't have to hide his cards if he wants to appoint a nominal conservative right now; he has a 55-45 majority that is essentially filibuster-proof due to the persistent threat of reviving the nuclear option. If he nominated somebody like Luttig, the guy would actually stand a pretty good chance of serving on the bench. That's why the Miers nomination doesn't upset me more than it does.

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

I tend to agree with you on Roberts. And I'm not convinced that Bush and his corporate cronies really want to overturn Roe; it has served too many of them well (in more than one way). I also lean that way on Miers. But I still think it's all remarkable. Truthfully, though, I think the yin is starting swing back toward the yang, if you know I mean. The wingnuts' biggest problems is that they don't know how not to be wingnuts (witness Bill Bennett's shocker), and that smacks them between the eyes every time. Ultimately, most Americans really do believe in freedom even if we get lazy about what it really means from time to time. The fascist/corporate coalition is being beaten into retreat. It's later than it ought to be, but it usually is. Unfortunately.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

Though I should mention: I'm still against it. I'm still against cronyism. I'm just not as much against it as I would be against Luttig. My secret of surviving Bush with my sanity intact is to maintain extremely low expectations. See also: Barbour, Haley. And, increasingly: Melton, Frank.

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

Understood. Crony v. Wingnut. Hmmm. I suppose a crony beats a crony wingnut. Unless she's a wingnut in disguise. I keep fearing that we're going to discover that the southern strategists starting breeding little wingnuts back in 1980 to grow up, go through college and law school, and then make some decisions in their work lives that make it look like they're slightly progressive so that they will be confirmed for the Supreme Court in, oh, 2040 with a "mixed" record so they get in. Kind of a Stepford Justices approach. Could be a bad novel, I suppose.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

*nod* I think I agree with you on this. In fact, I'd say that if Stevens survives the next six months, Roe v. Wade is probably safe for at least another decade. Bush cannot afford to appoint a conservative, or even a stealth candidate, during the 2006 Senate campaigns--and I'm certain he will lose several prominent social conservatives (most notably Santorum) in next year's elections. So this was really his last, best chance to overturn Roe v. Wade--and with Roberts being ambiguously moderate, and Miers being, well, ambiguously everything, I would be ready to chew nails if I were a conservative. Bush's "moral certainty" means that his base is always at the center of what he does. But the theofascists don't like the anarcho-capitalists, as a rule, and Bush has leaned more in the latter direction than the former. It's like he built on Yazoo clay, and now one side is shifting, and the foundation is breaking. The Republican Party of 2015 is going to look completely different from the Republican Party of today. I don't know if they'll even still have a pro-life plank in their platform.

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

Heh! I can so totally relate to that scenario. But FWIW, I think the culture is going to shift so much in the next 35 years that we won't still be debating abortion or gay marriage in 2040. Starting in the 1970s, we experienced an unprecedented evangelical movement--a kind of third Great Awakening--and the religious right has done so well, I think, only because this movement has coincided more or less with the pro-life movement in response to Roe v. Wade. So I'll make a bet with you that the right wing's days in power are very much numbered. Keep the faith!

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

"Keep the faith" Hell, Tom. I'm hoping the backlash from the religious right AT LEAST gets marijuana legalized. ;) I keep muttering "Hold the Vision. Hold the Vision" The vision being a better, more tolerant, less NUTTY future!

Lori G

Oct 7 2005

No doubt: The GOP is going to have to split to survive. It's been a while coming, and would obviously happen. However, the unfortunate part is that it had to get really bad in order for the moderates to have the balls to make it happen. These bizarro bedfellows are ready to claw each other's eyes out. The Dems ought to take Napoleon's advice and get the hell out of the way. Meantime, they ought to replace the time they have stupidly spend worrying about "What will a Republican say?" and re-focus on basic American values in a substantive kind of way. People are so ready right now to see, and accept, that the Democratic Party isn't about some fringe left, or some lunatic's definition of "communism," but the party needs to rise to the occasion by finding some balls of its own to grab onto. Bottom line: If a wingnut calls you a commie, or anything else, it. doesn't. matter. They're still wingnuts, and the American people are growing sick to death of them, neo- or otherwise.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

Witness also: The Democratic Party got clobbered in the south because the ground shifted on race, and because too many of its electable socially conservative candidates switched to the Republican Party. This represented, in effect, a party schism--the Dixiecrat element finally withered and fell off, leaving only the National Democrats to build a party on. Well, the same thing is happening with the Republicans. The social conservates and the corporate fiscal conservatives are at odds. And this will become a HUGE deal in the 2008 presidential primaries, especially if Giuliani runs. That will most certainly split the party, and whichever "side" it is that ends up losing will probably fade in numbers and influence. If it's the social conservatives, I smell a viable third party with a frightening amount of influence in the South; if it's the fiscal conservatives, I think there's a good chance they make break Democratic, making fiscal issues the acceptable disagreement point in much the same way that social issues were 20 years ago. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

Agreed. In 2008, the Democratic Party must field somebody who owns up to the "liberal" label. And that means no Hillary. I'm pushing for Russ Feingold, but there are other strong possibilities as well.

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

I don't actually know if the "liberal" label is necessary; it's been so bastardized (by the right, but we let 'em); however, the actual values of being a true liberal should be explained and owned again. And we've got to debunk the lies the wingnuts have told for years -- starting with crap like the "welfare state" creating ghettos, "welfare mothers," the "breeding thugs" bigotry, and so on. Truth could dismantle the southern strategy and fast. It probably already is. If I was Barbour and considering running for president, I would be worried about my tried-and-true techniques of courting the bigot vote. That strategy is losing pressure fast.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

But then Fortas and Warren had actual judiciary experience. --Tom Head No, Warren did NOT have judicial experience before being appointed to the Supreme Court. He had been a DA and I think an AG but not a judge.

Rex

Oct 7 2005

In fact, after looking it up, neither Warren or Fortas had any prior experience as a judge before serving on the Supreme Court.

Rex

Oct 7 2005

And had I been blogging then, Rex, I would have raised holy hell.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

Harriet's got a blog! It's pink, to boot. I bet her sponge rollers are, too.

ladd

Oct 7 2005

(I love it!) Rex, good call on Warren and Fortas. I keep getting all those guys confused; I guess it's the matching black robes. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 7 2005

Thought people might be interested in seeing how many Justices of the US Supreme Court served without any prior judicial experience and who appointed them. This list is only for those who served on the Court from 1900 on. To be fair, some had ìparallel serviceî as AG, Deputy AG, or Solicitor General before being given their black robe but they had not served as a judge. Also, some who had ìjudicial experienceî and not on this list served at some very low state and local judgeships (ìjudge of court of reports,î ìpolice court judge,î etc.), but technically were ìjudges.î You may be surprised by some of these. William H. Rehnquist (Nixon [R], Justice; Reagan [R], Chief Justice) Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Nixon [R]) Abe Fortas (LBJohnson [D]) Arthur J. Goldberg (Kennedy [D]) Byron R. White (Kennedy [D]) Earl Warren (Eisenhower [R]) Tom C. Clark (Truman [D]) Harold Burton (Truman [D]) Robert H. Jackson (FDRoosevelt [D]) James F. Byrnes (FDRoosevelt [D]) Harlan Fiske Stone (Coolidge [R], Justice; FDRoosevelt [D], Chief Justice) William O. Douglas (FDRoosevelt [D]) Felix Frankfurter (FDRoosevelt [D]) Stanley Reed (FDRoosevelt [D]) Owen J. Roberts (Hoover [R]) Charles E. Hughes (Taft [R], Justice; Hoover [R], Chief Justice) Pierce Butler (Harding [D]) George Sutherland (Harding [D]) Louis D. Brandeis (Wilson [D]) James C. McReynolds (Wilson [D]) William H. Moody (TRoosevelt [R]) George Shiras, Jr. (Harrison [R]) Melville W. Fuller (Cleveland [D]) Again, the lack of judicial experience for Miers is the least of my worries.

Rex

Oct 10 2005

Thanks, Rex. Now you should check the ones who were White House counsel when they were appointed. Seriously. I think it would be interesting to know.

ladd

Oct 10 2005

"White House Counsel" is a relatively new position. I wonder if "advisor to the president" would be the earlier version? William H. Rehnquist (Nixon [R], Justice; Reagan [R], Chief Justice): Assistant Attorney General, 1969-71 Lewis F. Powell, Jr. (Nixon [R]): private practice Abe Fortas (LBJohnson [D]): Advisor to President Lyndon Johnson Arthur J. Goldberg (Kennedy [D]): Secretary of labor, 1961-62 Byron R. White (Kennedy [D]): deputy U.S. Attorney General Earl Warren (Eisenhower [R]): Governor of California Tom C. Clark (Truman [D]): U.S. Attorney General Harold Burton (Truman [D]): Mayor of Cleveland and U.S.Senator from Ohio Robert H. Jackson (FDRoosevelt [D]): Solicitor General and then Attorney General James F. Byrnes (FDRoosevelt [D]): U.S.Senator from South Carolina Harlan Fiske Stone (Coolidge [R], Justice; FDRoosevelt [D], Chief Justice): U.S. Attorney General William O. Douglas (FDRoosevelt [D]): Advisor to Franklin Roosevelt Felix Frankfurter (FDRoosevelt [D]): Advisor to Franklin Roosevelt Stanley Reed (FDRoosevelt [D]): Solicitor General Owen J. Roberts (Hoover [R]): private practice Charles E. Hughes (Taft [R], Justice; Hoover [R], Chief Justice): Governor of NY Pierce Butler (Harding [D]): private practice George Sutherland (Harding [D]): Congressman and Senator from Utah, confidant of Warren Harding Louis D. Brandeis (Wilson [D]): lawyer and public figure James C. McReynolds (Wilson [D]): U.S. Attorney General William H. Moody (TRoosevelt [R]): U.S. Attorney General George Shiras, Jr. (Harrison [R]): private practice Melville W. Fuller (Cleveland [D]): managed Stephen Douglas's presidential campaign against Lincoln (1860) and later served in the Illinois House of Representatives

Rex

Oct 10 2005

"the Reagan-Falwell Wingnut Revolution is really starting to come home to roost." LOVE IT! I'm just creeping through this thread, belated as usual. it's great. well, maybe a little convoluted, I'll read more. It's strange how the Dem's think she's ok and the conserv's don't. But no one knows! We are going you know where in a you know what. oh, just saw this from Ladd "Understood. Crony v. Wingnut. Hmmm. I suppose a crony beats a crony wingnut. Unless she's a wingnut in disguise. I keep fearing that we're going to discover that the southern strategists starting breeding little wingnuts back in 1980 to grow up, go through college and law school, and then make some decisions in their work lives that make it look like they're slightly progressive so that they will be confirmed for the Supreme Court in, oh, 2040 with a "mixed" record so they get in. Kind of a Stepford Justices approach. Could be a bad novel, I suppose." I need to do italics, I know. But so great. so, has anyone mentioned, she may be a sacrificial lamby? saw that somewhere.. she's just a distraction at the moment away from Roverman, and other , er, problems. that the, er, commander in chief is , um , having no fun with. oh, no. Harriet has a blog! thanks a bunch Ladd. but,,, as I look carefully - do you really think that's her? would she just put herself out there on a common e-blogger site? I think it's a joke. Ok, I hope it is. Because this is not what I want to see from a woman S.Ct. Justice. Did I miss a comment here that's it's a joke? Please tell me. I am especially sad, being, yes, female, that this is the best Mr. Bush could find. There are hundreds, maybe even thousands, of well, even over-qualified women on the bench out there. good grief, Judge Judy would be better. ha.

sunshine

Oct 10 2005

Actually, I had a friend bring up that she was a "throw away" appointment. We'll get tired of screaming about her...take the focus off Rove's impending grand jury indictment (I know, I know...NOT FACTUAL...YET!) and Delay's Jaunt to the White Collar Slammer in the Sky....she'll get thrown out....and someone else will be appointed. I can't say if its true....but I've heard the theory. ;)

Lori G

Oct 10 2005

Here ya go, Rex. I thought you might appreciate this part... Her most direct encounter with the life of a judge came after graduating, when she clerked for two years for District Court Judge Joe Estes -- in part, says a classmate, because she didn't get many good job offers. But at the end of her two years with him, Estes called a big Dallas firm then known as Locke Purnell to say it should hire her. She rose as a corporate litigator representing clients like Disney and Microsoft, and soon there was glass all over the floor wherever she walked: first female president of the firm, president of the Dallas bar, then the Texas state bar. Shy but firm, precise to a fault, "she's unfailingly graceful about the fact that she beats you," as a courtroom opponent put it. Like 41 of the 109 Justices in American history, Miers has never been a judge. And she does not make up for that, critics say, with other valuable experience. She was never a law professor, like William Douglas; her one unremarkable term on the Dallas city council does not match Earl Warren's three terms as Governor of California or the 27 Justices who had served in Congress; she wasn't even a leading appellate lawyer, like noted L.B.J. crony nominee Abe Fortas. "This is one of the slimmest rÈsumÈs in the history of the court," says Jonathan Turley, a constitutional law scholar at George Washington University who puts Miers on a par with infamous Truman cronies Harold Burton and Sherman Minton.

Lori G

Oct 10 2005

Hmmmm... Could be. Makes sense. In other news (great list, BTW, Rex), I can think of one candidate with no judicial experience who I think would have been great on the Supreme Court: Clarence Darrow. That man was something else. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 10 2005

...and that's another point, Ali. All of the previous non-judges were seen as heavy-hitters. The highlight of Miers' resumÈ is that she was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas Bar Association. Not terrible, but she's looking at a definite "not qualified" rating from the ABA. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 10 2005

And if Bush is going to appoint somebody outside of the judiciary, why not Alan Dershowitz?

Tom Head

Oct 10 2005

thanks Greggs, for the "I've heard it." And the Rove indictment , let's hope. Only the beginning. Meanwhile - Ladd - you put words to music (yes, I got that right). Billy Bragg . Let's get him here. And Happy Birthday. hehe

sunshine

Oct 10 2005

ahem, Dershowitz? why? I seem to recall he is a bit controversial, but I do not have time. well, ok, I will look. Just tell me why. ahem.

sunshine

Oct 10 2005

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Dershowitz thought so.

sunshine

Oct 10 2005

I don't agree with Dershowitz on much, but he strikes me as intellectually honest. It'd probably be accurate to call him a libertarian. My biggest axe to grind with Dershowitz is the whole "torture warrants" concept, but in reality he'd be no more likely to support a majority opinion on torture/"torture lite" than Roberts or Gonzales. What I forgot was that he's 67, which pretty much disqualifies him. Cheers, TH

Tom Head

Oct 10 2005