WASHINGTON (AP) President Bush has chosen Harriet Miers, a close associate and current White House legal counsel, to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.So...who is she? Well, she's never been a judge which should make Chuck the Schmuck scowl. What else do we know? Here's a summary from the LA Times:
+ Harriet Miers, was born in Texas in August 1945 and studied at Southern Methodist University, where she earned undergraduate and law degrees. She was Bush's personal lawyer in Texas.I'm not all that impressed. Sen. John Cornyn (R) is...(from CNS)
+ In November 2004, Bush named her to succeed Alberto Gonzales, his nominee for Attorney General, to the post of White House Counsel, the chief legal advisor for the Office of the President.
+ Then-Gov. Bush appointed her to chair the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995-2000. She followed Bush to Washington to join the White House staff in 2001 and served as his staff secretary during the first two years of his presidential term. In 2003, she rose to the post of Deputy Chief of Staff
+ Miers had been co-managing partner at the law firm Locke Liddell & Sapp. She worked prior to that as president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell.
+ In 1985, she became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association and in 1992 became the first woman to head the Texas State Bar.
Sen. John Cornyn, a Texas Republican and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called Miers an "outstanding" nominee who has his "strong" support.At least one conservative group doesn't like the choice (same source as the last):
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind," Cornyn said in a statement. "She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice."
Cornyn urged the Senate to consider Miers' nomination in a "thorough and expedient manner," putting aside partisanship to fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent.
"This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people," Cornyn concluded.
"The reaction of many conservatives today will be that the president has made possibly the most unqualified choice since Abe Fortas, who had been the president's lawyer," said the Third Branch Conference, a coalition of 150 organizations that strongly supported John Roberts' nomination.I really don't like the "blank slate" approach...and I really don't understand why you would pick somebody who is going to make the fight be about whether or not they are qualified for the job rather than whether or not the person who may not be what we're after...
"The nomination of a nominee with no judicial record is a significant failure for the advisors that the White House gathered around it," said Third Branch.
"However, the president deserves the benefit of a doubt, the nominee deserves the benefit of hearings, and every nominee deserves an up or down vote," the coalition concluded.
I would have preferred a solid conservative judge with a record we can count on. At least for the fight...this is a debate we really needed to have and sadly won't get.
Here's J-Pod's rather charecteristic Corner response:
AS HE SPEAKS...[John Podhoretz]Not looking good for this pick...maybe Bush sees something that we'll all see in the hearings...I dunno...
...it looks like the president is already angry at the criticism that this nomination is going to generate. This may be the strangest fight he's ever decided to wage, because he's entirely out on his own on this one.
