Archive: Reaction to Harriet Miers Appointment
Miers Speeches
For a lively discussion on the speeches of Harriet Miers (as described by Jo Becker in today's Post), see the Volokh Conspiracy. Also see MSNBC: The mystery over what Supreme Court Harriet Miers believes deepened Wednesday as conservative Republican senators grappled with phrases from a 1993 speech in which she endorsed "self determination" in matters such as abortion. ...
By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 04:39 PM ET | Comments (2)
Feingold: HEM for District Court ... Yes?
Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, is quoted in Green Bay Press-Gazette:"I continue to think if she were a nominee for district court, I would probably vote for her," he noted. "Whether I would vote for her for the court of appeals or certainly for the Supreme Court remains an open question with regard to her qualifications."...
By Fred Barbash | October 26, 2005; 08:18 AM ET | Comments (4)
Group Announces Withdrawal Campaign
Press Release: A coalition of conservative groups including the Center for a Just Society, Fidelis, Eagle Forum, and ConservativeHQ launched WithdrawMiers.org, a multi-pronged campaign to urge the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. Ken Connor, former president of the Family Research Council who now serves as chairman of the board for the Center for a Just Society stated: "The President promised to nominate jurists in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. To date, there is no objective evidence confirming that Ms. Miers holds a judicial philosophy consistent with those two Justices."...
By Fred Barbash | October 24, 2005; 12:43 PM ET | Comments (11)
George Will
George Will's column asks, among other things, "Can Miers's confirmation be blocked? It is easy to get a senatorial majority to take a stand in defense of this or that concrete interest, but it is surpassingly difficult to get a majority anywhere to rise in defense of mere excellence." Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders....
By Fred Barbash | October 22, 2005; 08:16 AM ET | Comments (11)
Judiciary Committee Message
This week in the life of the Harriet Miers nomination is worth some comment. It is apparent now that members of the Senate Judiciary Committee are trying to tell the White House that Miers, as one member put it, is going to have a "tough" time in the hearings. While such language is not explicitly a recommendation for withdrawal of a nominee, it comes close, considering the fact that committee members are traditionally circumspect in their pre-hearing comments, generally adopting some variation of "wait and see." The two ranking members, Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) were clearly appalled by Miers's questionnaire submission, to the point that they demanded a do-over. Others report at best awkward private meetings with Miers, which left them confused about what she was telling them. More important, some came right out and said so, a striking contrast to the conventional "we had a...
By Fred Barbash | October 21, 2005; 05:43 AM ET | Comments (35)
Hard to Believe
Charles Babington writes in The Washington Post:Two months after engineering a nearly flawless confirmation process for Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Bush administration's bid to add Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court has been so riddled with errors, stumbles and embarrassing revelations that some lawmakers and other observers find it hard to believe it emanates from the same White House....
By Fred Barbash | October 21, 2005; 03:54 AM ET | Comments (13)
Krauthammer: Exit Strategy for HEM
Charles Krauthammer in this morning's Washington Post: Excerpt:We need an exit strategy from this debacle. I have it. Sen. Lindsey Graham has been a staunch and public supporter of this nominee. Yet on Wednesday he joined Brownback in demanding privileged documents from Miers's White House tenure. Finally, a way out: irreconcilable differences over documents....
By Fred Barbash | October 21, 2005; 03:47 AM ET | Comments (35)
Salazar Sees Trouble
The Denver Post reports this morning: Despite meeting with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers for nearly an hour Thursday, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar [D] said he lacked a sense of who she is and predicted the Senate will have difficulty deciding on her confirmation....
By Fred Barbash | October 21, 2005; 03:37 AM ET | Comments (3)
WSJ: 'Blunder of the First Order'
Excerpts from Wall Street Journal editorial: Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that Presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear -- even well before her Senate hearings -- that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order.... Regarding Ms. Miers's qualifications, we aren't among those who think an Ivy League pedigree or judgeship is a prerequisite for a Supreme Court seat. But the process of getting to know Ms. Miers has been the opposite of reassuring. Her courtesy calls on Senators have gone so poorly that the White House may stop them altogether. Perhaps Ms. Miers will prove to be such a sterling Senate witness that she can still win confirmation. But so far the lesson we draw from this nomination is this: Bad things...
By Fred Barbash | October 21, 2005; 03:30 AM ET | Comments (11)
Senate Meetings Leave 'Poor Impression'
From Elisabeth Bumiller's NYT article this morning on HEM's prepping:Ms. Miers, whose confirmation hearings before the Senate Judiciary Committee are scheduled to begin Nov. 7, has so far practiced in three mock hearings of three to five hours each, most recently on Tuesday. A White House official said Ms. Miers and her team planned at least a dozen more, about the same number that Chief Justice Roberts had. Some conservative lawyers and Republican aides said Thursday that Ms. Miers needed further preparation and that her meetings with senators were leaving such a poor impression that they should be ended for more murder board time, said three people who listened to a conference call organized by Leonard A. Leo, a lawyer working with the White House to organize support for judicial nominees. Mr. Leo said the call was an ordinary discussion about "process," and the White House said it was sticking...
By Fred Barbash | October 21, 2005; 03:22 AM ET | Comments (1)
Friends of WH: Nomination No Longer Viable
John Dickerson reports in Slate:Friends and allies of the White House are now saying the Harriet Miers nomination has come to the same pass that the president's plan for overhauling Social Security reached last spring. The nomination is no longer viable; all that remains is for Bush to accept this....
By Fred Barbash | October 20, 2005; 05:37 PM ET | Comments (4)
Miers Handlers Demoralized, Pessimistic
Byron York reports in the National Review Online:Strategists working with the White House in support of the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet Miers are becoming increasingly demoralized and pessimistic about the nomination's prospects on Capitol Hill in the wake of Miers's meetings with several Republican and Democratic senators. On a conference call held this morning, they even discussed whether Miers should simply stop visiting with lawmakers, lest any further damage be done -- and so that time spent in such get-acquainted sessions will not cut into Miers's intensive preparation for her confirmation hearing. "... Obviously the smart thing to do [said one unnamed strategist helping the White House] would be to withdraw the nomination and have a do-over as soon as possible. But the White House is so irrational that who knows? As of this morning, there is a sort of pig-headed resolve to press forward, cancel the meetings with...
By Fred Barbash | October 20, 2005; 05:34 PM ET | Comments (6)
Ga. Senators Support HEM
From the Marietta (Ga.) Daily Journal Unlike some of their Republican counterparts, Georgia's two U.S. Senators say they support President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, even though they haven't decided for sure whether or not they will vote for her confirmation....
By Fred Barbash | October 20, 2005; 03:40 PM ET | Comments (8)
More on Specter-Leahy
The morning coverage is dominated by the the story of Sens. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) seeking a do-over from HEM on her take-home exam. Bloggers and others continue searching out inadequacies in her questionnaire, including her discussion of venue and equal protection (see below) as well as in her prose, reputation for meticulousness and her tardiness in submitting the document. In her favor, meanwhile, is a WSJ Op-ed (subscription) co-written by Ken Starr and Ronald A. Cass, picking up the theme that Miers's experience in corporate law is something the SCOTUS could use. "... We value her significant experience in business law," they write. Charles Babington and Michael A. Fletcher report in The Washington Post: The top two members of the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday complained about the written responses they received from Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers this week, and warned her to expect tough questions...
By Fred Barbash | October 20, 2005; 03:09 AM ET | Comments (18)
Feinstein on Miers
The following statement was issued late yesterday by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.):"Today, I received a copy of the April 11, 1989, questionnaire submitted by Texans United For Life to Harriet Miers during her campaign for the Dallas City Council and her responses to these questions. The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade. This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard. It will be my intention to question her very carefully about these issues."...
By Fred Barbash | October 19, 2005; 03:08 AM ET | Comments (135)
The Day After
Miers Once Vowed to Support Ban on Abortion, But Conservatives Still Question Nominee's Views, by Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington in The Washington Post. Nominee Backed Ban on Abortion in 1989 Campaign, by David D. Kirkpatrick in the NYT. Miers could be key anti-abortion vote, in Dallas Morning News. Republicans Warming Up to Miers, More Democrats find cause for concern. The turning point for both parties seems to be her answers about abortion in a 1989 survey, by Maura Reynolds in the L.A. Times. Miers was vetted by few in administration, by Joan Biskupic and Toni Locy in USA Today. Miers Disclosures Could Boost Conservative Support, In 1989, Supreme Court Pick Backed Ban on Abortions; Generous Tithing to Church, by Deborah Solomon, Jeanne Cummings and Jess Bravin in the WSJ. (subscription.)...
By Fred Barbash | October 19, 2005; 02:32 AM ET | Comments (3)
Miers 'Underqualified'
Stuart Taylor Jr., writing in the National Journal:A review of the most important ingredients possessed by a good justice-nominee illustrates both why it is so hard to find consensus choices and why we should be able to agree that Miers seems underqualified -- even assuming the need for some compromise in quality for the sake of political viability and diversity....
By Fred Barbash | October 18, 2005; 06:54 PM ET | Comments (6)
Litmus Test
Michael Stokes Paulsen and John Yoo in an LA Times Op-Ed:The administration's stealth strategy assumes that it is improper for senators to ask, or for a nominee to answer, a question about Roe vs. Wade or any other substantive constitutional question. This has things exactly backward. The Constitution not only permits such questioning, it arguably requires it. Although the Constitution makes judges independent after appointment, it sets up an explicitly political appointment process before a judge is approved. Why on Earth would determining a nominee's approach to interpreting the Constitution be thought to be out of bounds, before giving her a lifetime appointment to do exactly that?...
By Fred Barbash | October 18, 2005; 07:51 AM ET | Comments (9)
Business 'Applauding From the Wings'
Lorraine Woellert, writing in Sunday's Post Outlook section:Forget Roe and the Framers. Let's Talk BusinessConservative howling over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers echoes unabated since President Bush introduced his friend and confidant to the public on Oct. 3. If anything, the clamor has intensified, with some in the conservative chattering class now hounding Miers to withdraw. But while Bush dodges the brickbats, another critical element of the Republican political base is applauding from the wings. That would be big business. For the first time in more than three decades, corporate America could find itself with not one, but two, Supreme Court allies with in-the-trenches industry experience -- Miers and newly minted Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Don't be fooled by the low-key personas they have projected thus far; both are legal wonks who have packed a powerful punch in the corporate world. Together, they could be a CEO's dream team....
By Fred Barbash | October 17, 2005; 11:09 AM ET | Comments (3)
A Good Bowler
By Todd S. Purdum in the Sunday NYT:Ask any of Harriet E. Miers's typically press-shy White House colleagues what she has been like in her years as a top Bush administration staff member, and the praise pours out. She is intelligent. Meticulous. Selfless. Insightful. But when it comes down to cases, they have a harder time. "You know, she's a very gracious and funny person," said Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the Office of Management and Budget whom Ms. Miers succeeded as deputy White House chief of staff in 2003. "I was racking my brain trying to think of something specific." In the next breath, Mr. Bolten recalled relaxing with her at Camp David. "She is a very good bowler," he said. "For someone her size, she actually gets a lot of action out of the pins."...
By Fred Barbash | October 15, 2005; 07:54 PM ET | Comments (4)
What are the Dems Doing?
In Sunday's Washington Post, Charles Babington writes: Conservative Split Could Give Democrats Key to Miers Vote The conservatives' noisy split over the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination has largely obscured the fact that Senate Democrats could control her fate in a way that was never possible in the confirmation battle over Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr....
By Fred Barbash | October 15, 2005; 06:56 PM ET | Comments (5)
More Santorum on Miers
Sen. Rick Santorum had more to say today on the Harriet Miers nomination. Click here for the story from Knight-Ridder. "It is what I term the president's second faith-based initiative, which is `trust me,'" Santorum said. "I think, candidly, we deserve better than that."...
By Fred Barbash | October 14, 2005; 09:38 PM ET | Comments (4)
Santorum on Miers: 'Concerned'
Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) quoted in Chambersburg "Public Opinion": When asked his opinion about federal Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Santorum said he had not yet made up his mind. "I don't know yet," Santorum said. "But I am concerned President Bush nominated someone who is a blank slate. I'm disappointed he wanted to nominate someone like that instead of someone with a record."...
By Fred Barbash | October 14, 2005; 11:02 AM ET | Comments (11)
Boxer on Miers
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) in San Francisco Chronicle article by Carolyn Lochhead, headlined "Calls for Miers to Withdraw Get Louder":"Here's what I know about Harriet Miers," Boxer said. "I know that she's a crony of the president. I know she thinks he's the most brilliant man she's ever met. I know that she was head of the search committee and wound up being the nominee, and I know that she is personally anti-choice. Those are things I know."...
By Fred Barbash | October 14, 2005; 06:24 AM ET | Comments (6)
SCOTUS Work Not 'Rocket Surgery'
Vikram David Amar writes in FindLaw:... As sophisticated and nuanced as Supreme Court doctrine is, Supreme Court decisions are not - to quote Joey Tribbiani of Friends - "rocket surgery." Ms. Miers is obviously a smart and able lawyer - she did very well in law school, she clerked for a federal court judge, had success as a litigator and bar leader, and has vetted a lot of federal judicial candidates for the President in the past few years. ... To be an effective and outcome-influential Justice, one need not take the intellectual lead on the Court. To reach a result, you need five votes for one theory or approach - not five interesting and impressive theories or approaches. There are many successful Justices who were part of important outcome-determinative coalitions on the Court who didn't themselves author a huge number of pathbreaking, or even noteworthy, decisions. Justices Thurgood Marshall...
By Fred Barbash | October 14, 2005; 03:52 AM ET | Comments (4)
NBC-WSJ Poll on Miers
MSNBC reports: An NBC-Wall Street Journal poll finds that 29 percent say Miers is qualified to serve on the Supreme Court, while 24 percent think she's unqualified. Forty-six percent say they don't know enough about her....
By Fred Barbash | October 12, 2005; 08:24 PM ET | Comments (3)
Lowry: 'An Unholy Mess'
Rich Lowry in the National Review: The nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court is foundering, but President Bush is confident that she will be confirmed. Bush thus displays a touching faith in the power of hypocrisy, double standards, and contradictions to see his nominee through. The case for Miers is an unholy mess, an opportunistic collection of whatever rhetorical flotsam happens to be at hand. The White House and its allies have long argued that it is wrong to bring a judicial nominee's faith into the discussion about his merits, and any attempt to do so amounts to religious bigotry. When it was suggested that John Roberts's Catholic faith might be an area for inquiry in his confirmation, White House allies recoiled in horror....
By Fred Barbash | October 12, 2005; 10:45 AM ET | Comments (14)
Biz Warming to Miers
By Gail Russell Chaddock in the Christian Science Monitor: Too close to the White House. Too few credentials. Not a bona fide conservative. By now, the right's criticisms of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers are well-known.But nearly lost in the tide of comment is the Washington business community's developing interest in Ms. Miers. With on-the-ground experience in corporate law, she has a background that they say has been missing on the high court in recent years....
By Fred Barbash | October 11, 2005; 06:02 PM ET | Comments (4)
Mirengoff: 'Imprudent' to Blow Up Bush Presidency
Paul Mirengoff in the Weekly Standard: As the confirmation process unfolds...the issue for conservatives no longer will be whether we are disappointed, but rather whether Miers should be confirmed. The question is more than academic--for it is possible that without the support of conservative Senators the nomination will fail.....Thus, a coalition of Democrats and conservative Republicans could possibly sink this nomination in what could be the oddest confirmation battle in memory. On the currently available information, conservative Republican Senators shouldn't go there...... It seems imprudent to blow up the confirmation process---and possibly the Bush presidency and the Republican party--to block her nomination....
By Fred Barbash | October 10, 2005; 03:34 PM ET | Comments (9)
WashTimes: Half of GOP Senators unconvinced...
Charles Hurt reports in the Washington Times that: Nearly half of Senate Republicans say they remain unconvinced that Harriet Miers is worthy of being confirmed to the Supreme Court, according to a survey conducted by The Washington Times. As with the nomination of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the vast majority of senators say they will not announce their final decisions about the nomination until after Senate Judiciary Committee hearings, which are expected sometime next month. What's troubling for President Bush, however, is that 27 Republican senators -- almost half of his party's members in the chamber -- have publicly expressed specific doubts about Miss Miers or said they must withhold any support whatsoever for her nomination until after the hearings....
By Fred Barbash | October 10, 2005; 03:33 AM ET | Comments (7)
Kristol's Latest on Miers
William Kristol in the October 17 edition of The Weekly Standard: ....The reaction of conservatives to this deeply disheartening move by a president they otherwise support and admire has been impressive. There has been an extraordinarily energetic and vigorous debate among conservatives as to what stance to take towards the Miers nomination, a debate that does the conservative movement proud. The stern critics of the nomination have, in my admittedly biased judgment, pretty much routed the half-hearted defenders. In the vigor of their arguments, and in their willingness to speak uncomfortable truths, conservatives have shown that they remain a morally serious and intellectually credible force in American politics....
By Fred Barbash | October 9, 2005; 09:02 AM ET | Comments (5)
TWP Editorial: Snap Judgments
Editorial in Sunday's Washington Post:.....It is no more legitimate for conservatives than for liberals to demand satisfaction on the "key issues of the day," as Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) put it. Mr. Bush is not obligated to nominate a jurist with a stated philosophy that can be relied on to produce predictable votes on contested questions. The president promised during his campaigns to nominate justices who would interpret the law strictly and not legislate from the bench. He believes Ms. Miers would be such a justice and is willing to put his prestige behind the proposition, and that fact entitles the nominee to reasonable consideration....
By Fred Barbash | October 8, 2005; 08:53 PM ET | Comments (2)
AP: Montana Sen. Burns leaning toward support.
From the Associated Press: Montana Sen. Conrad Burns says he hasn't decided yet whether he will support Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers after meeting with her in Washington Friday.Burns, a Republican, said the meeting was ''extremely positive'' but he wants to wait for Senate Judiciary Committee hearings before he makes a final decision on her nomination. He is leaning toward supporting her, he said. ''Let's get this through the wringer,'' he said after the meeting in his Washington office....
By Fred Barbash | October 8, 2005; 01:13 PM ET | Comments (2)
Sen. Sessions: Miers "could be in trouble...."
Republican Jeff Sessions of Alabama is a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. From the AP:Bush got some good news and some bad news from Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala. In an interview, Sessions said he gives "a presumption to the president" as he decides whether to vote for Miers. But Sessions did so only after saying her lack of "firsthand understanding of Supreme Court juris prudence" leads to an unfavorable comparison with Bush's previous nominee, Chief Justice John Roberts. Sessions also said Miers "could be in trouble with the Republican senators" who worry that she could end up disappointing the right much like Justice David Souter, a little-known judge nominated for the court by the first President Bush who later turned out to be a liberal on the Supreme Court. Those concerns stem from the 60-year-old Miers' career, which encompassed 28 years as a corporate attorney in Texas, stints as...
By Fred Barbash | October 7, 2005; 06:12 PM ET | Comments (10)
Feingold on Miers
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports:Wisconsin Democrat Russ Feingold, who supported the nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, voiced serious questions Thursday about the qualifications and independence of President Bush's latest nominee, White House counsel Harriet Miers. (Senators making negative or equivocal statements about Miers now include Feingold, Lott, Brownback, Thune and Santorum.)...
By Fred Barbash | October 7, 2005; 09:14 AM ET | Comments (4)
Krauthammer: 'Withdraw This Nominee'
Charles Krauthammer on The Washington Post Op-ed page: It is particularly dismaying that this act should have been perpetrated by the conservative party. For half a century, liberals have corrupted the courts by turning them into an instrument of radical social change on questions -- school prayer, abortion, busing, the death penalty -- that properly belong to the elected branches of government. Conservatives have opposed this arrogation of the legislative role and called for restoration of the purely interpretive role of the court. To nominate someone whose adult life reveals no record of even participation in debates about constitutional interpretation is an insult to the institution and to that vision of the institution.There are 1,084,504 lawyers in the United States. What distinguishes Harriet Miers from any of them, other than her connection with the president? To have selected her, when conservative jurisprudence has J. Harvie Wilkinson, Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell...
By Fred Barbash | October 7, 2005; 02:39 AM ET | Comments (7)
Lungren and Doolittle Express Concerns
See article in Sacramento Bee for comments by Reps. Dan Lungren and John Doolittle, Republicans from California....
By Fred Barbash | October 6, 2005; 08:46 PM ET | Comments (4)
Brownback's Concerns About Miers
On NPR's "All Things Considered," Senate Judiciary Committee member Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) expresses some reservations and some disappointment. "Clearly, we don't know her viewpoint" on most of the issues. And "it seems as if we can't know" under the confirmation process today. "She did not articulate positions on any issue" during his conversation with her, including Griswold v. Connecticut, which established a right to privacy and underpins Roe v. Wade. "She said these are live issues coming before the court and would not express a position." "Justice Roberts in legal terminology is a rock star," said Brownback. "This is going to be a very tough act to follow.... I don't know that I could put her in that category." He's a hard act to follow, like "following the Beatles on Ed Sullivan.... I need to know more of what he (Bush) knows about her."...
By Fred Barbash | October 6, 2005; 07:22 PM ET | Comments (2)
Peggy Noonan on Harriet Miers
Peggy Noonan in the (subscription only) Wall Street Journal says, among other things: .....It all depends on the hearings. Barring a withdrawal of her nomination, it's going to come down to Harriet Miers's ability to argue her own case before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If the American people decide she seems like a good person--sympathetic, wise, even-keeled, knowledgeable--she'll be in; and if not, not. .....So the administration can turn this around. Or rather Ms. Miers can. In her favor: America has never met her, she'll get to make a first impression. Working against her: But they'll already be skeptical. By the time of the hearings she'll have been painted as Church Lady. There's a great old American tradition of not really liking Church Lady. ..... That having been said, the Miers pick was another administration misstep. The president misread the field, the players, their mood and attitude. He called the...
By Fred Barbash | October 6, 2005; 12:21 PM ET | Comments (15)
Churchgoers v. Whiny Intellectuals
John Dickerson in Slate:In this battle, the White House has clearly sided with the churchgoing masses against the Republican Party's own whiny Beltway intellectuals. The Bushies have always mistrusted their own bow-tied secularists, but the rift has never before been so public. "This is classic elitism," says a senior administration official of the GOP opposition to the Miers nomination. "We often blame the left for it, but we have it in our own ranks. Just because she wasn't on a shortlist of conservatives who prepared their whole life for this moment doesn't make her any less conservative ... and just because she hasn't penned op-eds for the Wall Street Journal doesn't mean she hasn't formed a judicial philosophy."...
By Fred Barbash | October 6, 2005; 04:17 AM ET | Comments (16)
Broder on Miers; WH Meetings With Conservatives
David Broder in The Post op-ed page: "It's too soon to judge this nomination. But my guess is that in the end it is the liberals who will have the most misgivings about Miers." Peter Baker and Dan Balz in The Post: The conservative uprising against President Bush escalated yesterday as Republican activists angry over his nomination of White House counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court confronted the president's envoys during a pair of tense closed-door meetings. A day after Bush publicly beseeched skeptical supporters to trust his judgment on Miers, a succession of prominent conservative leaders told his representatives that they did not. Over the course of several hours of sometimes testy exchanges, the dissenters complained that Miers was an unknown quantity with a thin résumé and that her selection -- Bush called her "the best person I could find" -- was a betrayal of years of struggle...
By Fred Barbash | October 6, 2005; 03:45 AM ET | Comments (6)
Dobson Questions His Support for Miers
By M.E. Sprengelmeyer in the Rocky Mountain News:An anguished James Dobson prayed Wednesday for a sign from God, telling his Christian radio listeners he was questioning his early endorsement of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Dobson, founder of Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family, is one of the most prominent religious conservatives to back Miers, citing his trust in President Bush and a confidential briefing he received about her from the White House. But in his regular radio broadcast Wednesday, Dobson prayed he was not making a mistake....
By Fred Barbash | October 6, 2005; 03:40 AM ET | Comments (7)
Kay Bailey Hutchison Comments
Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-Tex.) answered questions about the Miers appointment after a closed Republican policy meeting today. Here's a transcript: HUTCHISON: Yes, I have to say that I'm surprised at some of the reaction that has been expressed about Harriet Miers because I do know her and I know what an outstanding reputation she has where she practiced law, and that is the state of Texas. HUTCHISON: She was a trailblazer. She was the first woman hired in Texas by a major law firm and became president of that law firm. Locke Purnell is one of our venerable old Texas firms. She broke the barrier, became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and then the State Bar of Texas. So she's been a leader. I think it is very important that we have someone who has her qualifications, a real practicing lawyer. She's not cut in...
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 04:43 PM ET | Comments (5)
Gary Bauer: Will 'Sit Out' Miers Fight for Now
The following was released today by American Values and distributed on the U.S. News Wire: Media Note: Former Presidential Candidate Gary Bauer provides a national network of supporters and activists cutting-edge political analysis each day. This memo was sent Tuesday, Oct. 4, to explain some reluctance to embrace the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court and to provide some historical context to the present vacancy. Miers-Day Two The turmoil in conservative ranks continued today over the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to fill the impending vacancy of Sandra Day O'Connor. We received a massive amount of feedback overnight, and it continues to pour in. Nearly 60 percent expressed disappointment with the nomination, 10 percent supported it, and 30 percent wanted to find out more about her. Numerous conservative talk shows and "blogs" are reporting similar feedback from their listeners and readers. Those who are supporting the Miers selection...
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 01:46 PM ET | Comments (13)
'She Was a Mustang'
Editorial in the Southern Methodist University Daily Campus:We may not know much about Harriet Miers' ideological leanings or how she will interpret our nation's most sacred document, but we know she was a Mustang and that is good for democracy....
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 12:21 PM ET | Comments (10)
From the Blogosphere: Bush 'Clueless'
Tom Smith at the Right Coast:I have been a critic of the Yale-Harvard-Supreme Court Clerk- etc. etc. mystique before, and I do think being overly impressed by liberal establishment credentials plays into the hands of the dark side. But really. I can't help but think W's not being a lawyer makes him a bit clueless about what a Supreme Court Justice should be. It's a very demanding job, both intellectually and morally. You put someone not up to the job up there and bad things happen. Bad things happen to prose -- read a Souter opinion (if you dare); bad things happen to philosophy (Kennedy) and bad things happen to law (O'Connor). I fear that a year or two from now, we will be reading treakly pieces in the NYT about how Justice Miers grew in office, and law review articles will begin to appear on "The Emerging Jurisprudence of...
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 11:24 AM ET | Comments (9)
Former ABA President for Miers
The following press release arrived on behalf of Martha Barnett, partner in the firm of Holland & Knight and former president of the American Bar Association."When I was an officer in the American Bar Association, I turned to Harriet Miers time and again to serve in a leadership role. I had complete confidence in her ability to chair the most important committees and commissions in the Bar -- whether it was the Rules Committee of the House of Delegates or Commission on MultiJurisdictional Practice. Harriet has the uncanny ability to understand the big picture of major political and legal issues, while seeing the fine details at the same time. She is the consummate lawyer, full of common sense, good judgment and respect for the rule of law. Combine these with her razor sharp intellect, unquestioned ethics, and humility, and you have the ideal person to serve on the Court....
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 10:39 AM ET | Comments (12)
Bush Should Pull Nomination
Steve Dillard at Southern Appeal: "For the good of the republic, President Bush should pull his nomination of Harriett Miers. She is a nice lady and a good lawyer, but she is simply not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court of the United States."...
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 09:43 AM ET | Comments (6)
Cornyn on WSJ Op-Ed Page
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) says Miers understands the American people.Although the ink is still drying on her nomination, the president's selection Monday of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has already been met with praise from senators on both sides of the aisle. As one would expect, her nomination has also been met with questions by those who do not yet know her. But those of us who do know and have worked with Ms. Miers think very highly of her, and we believe she will make a valuable contribution to the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, some have criticized the president because he did not select an Ivy-League-credentialed federal appeals court judge for the open seat....
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 08:36 AM ET | Comments (6)
Meyerson on Miers and Conservative Intellectuals
Harold Meyerson on The Washington Post Op-Ed:.... just because the conservative intellectuals are itching for a fight over first principles doesn't mean their country is....
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 08:18 AM ET | Comments (2)
Will: 'No evidence' That Miers Is Up to the Job
George Will asks: Can this nomination be justified? Click here to read his column. Senators beginning what ought to be a protracted and exacting scrutiny of Harriet Miers should be guided by three rules. First, it is not important that she be confirmed. Second, it might be very important that she not be. Third, the presumption -- perhaps rebuttable but certainly in need of rebutting -- should be that her nomination is not a defensible exercise of presidential discretion to which senatorial deference is due. It is not important that she be confirmed because there is no evidence that she is among the leading lights of American jurisprudence, or that she possesses talents commensurate with the Supreme Court's tasks. The president's "argument" for her amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several reasons. He has neither the inclination nor the ability to make sophisticated judgments about competing...
By Fred Barbash | October 5, 2005; 08:15 AM ET | Comments (18)
Family Research Council on Miers
Statement of Tony Perkins of Family Research Council: President Bush has long made it clear that his choices for the U.S. Supreme Court would be in the mold of current justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We have no reason to believe he has abandoned that standard. However, our lack of knowledge about Harriet Miers, and the absence of a record on the bench, give us insufficient information from which to assess whether or not she is indeed in that mold....
By Fred Barbash | October 4, 2005; 05:14 PM ET | Comments (3)
Hatch Says Conservatives Need Not Worry
From the Associated Press: One of the Senate's senior conservatives, Republican Orrin Hatch, offered unconditional support Tuesday to Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers amid expressions of anxiety in some Republican quarters over her legal philosophy. The Utah Republican took on criticism that Miers has no experience as a judge and a largely unknown track record -- something that worries some conservatives. "A lot of my fellow conservatives are concerned, but they don't know her as I do," said Hatch, a former Judiciary Committee chairman. "She's going to basically do what the president thinks she should, and that is be a strict constructionist." Hatch said he already has decided to support her confirmation. "I don't need any more. I know her really well. And I intend to support her," he told reporters....
By Lexie Verdon | October 4, 2005; 01:48 PM ET | Comments (8)
College Pride
Miers's nomination today brought cheers from her college, Southern Methodist University in Dallas. "We are extremely proud of alumna Harriet Miers as President Bush's nominee to serve on the Supreme Court of the United States," said SMU President R. Gerald Turner. "As a graduate of both our undergraduate program and our school of law, she brings honor to SMU through this nomination and through her distinguished legal career."...
By Lexie Verdon | October 3, 2005; 05:22 PM ET | Comments (7)
From the Law Blogosphere: Stephen Bainbridge
professorbainbridge.com: Miers will probably be confirmed. If she isn't, it won't be because conservative bloggers opposed her but because there will be things in her record that make it possible for six senators to vote against her on the floor. For all we know, she will be so conservative that she'll make Clarence Thomas look like Kanye West. It's still an unserious nomination, which is what those of us who are objecting to it are objecting to....
By Fred Barbash | October 3, 2005; 04:59 PM ET | Comments (4)
Kristol: Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized
William Kristol in Weeklystandard.com: I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of....
By Fred Barbash | October 3, 2005; 04:54 PM ET | Comments (13)
From the Law Blogosphere: Eugene Volokh
Eugene Volokh, the Volokh Conspiracy:White Meets Powell Meets O'Connor? I know little about Harriet Miers, beyond what I read in the papers (the electrons?) this morning. But I was struck by how her career path -- not necessarily her views, which I don't know -- fits more the paths of Justices White (especially) and Powell than of some more recent Justices....
By Fred Barbash | October 3, 2005; 04:36 PM ET | Comments (2)
Miers Appointment: Kerry Reaction
Statement from Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) "We know next to nothing about the legal philosophy of the person President Bush has selected to replace Justice O'Connor casting the deciding votes on the most difficult issues confronting our nation. America can't afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation." "Given how little we know about this nominee other than her work as the President's lawyer, the White House needs to disclose all documents requested by the Judiciary Committee, and Ms. Miers needs to explain her thoughts on constitutional interpretation. Without a meaningful exchange during the confirmation hearings, there is no way to know how Ms. Miers views the Constitution, whether she's a strict constructionist in the mold of Justices Scalia and Thomas, or whether she will protect fundamental rights and liberties. Questions need to be answered."...
By Fred Barbash | October 3, 2005; 01:20 PM ET | Comments (4)
'Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do.'
Mike Krempasky, founder and director of RedState.org, says: We've got a lot to learn about SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers. To hear the White House tell us, "With her distinguished career and extensive community involvement, Ms. Miers would bring a wealth of personal experience and diversity to the Supreme Court." Diversity. Sure she does. In fact, she gives money to Republicans *and* Democrats. Mr. President, you've got some explaining to do. And please remember - we've been defending you these five years because of this moment....
By Fred Barbash | October 3, 2005; 12:16 PM ET | Comments (10)
Frum: Miers an 'Unforced Error'
David Frum, in National Review Online, says the president has missed an opportunity. "The Miers nomination, though, is an unforced error. Unlike the Roberts's nomination, which confirmed the previous balance on the Court, the O'Connor resignation offered an opportunity to change the balance."...
By Fred Barbash | October 3, 2005; 12:10 PM ET | Comments (3)
