The Left Coaster: Comment on What Does The Public Think Of Bush's Selections?

Comments: What Does The Public Think Of Bush's Selections?

I would hope that your discourse is based on more than a completely unscientific AOL poll. To most Americans today, with modern views of politics, it is nothing but a loaded question to ask if prior judicial experience is important.

I reckon that your website is liberal but I would hope that you would base your (often well-founded) displeasure on real, solid facts and not try to just conjure up partisan amphigory.

Posted by Alexander Damato at October 3, 2005 06:15 PM

buzz off Damato. Your views represent, at best, 40% of our country.
Bush's appointment of his own mouthpiece makes me think he's got some heavy legal hauling coming down the pike.. gotta get his ducks in a row...Atty General, a couple Supremes...head of CIA. Talk about hedging your legal bets.....

Posted by T2 at October 3, 2005 06:22 PM

I wonder what will happen to AOL when Google starts offering free WiFi in major cities?

Heck, phone companies, too. And cable companies.

I don't know about AOL polls. I mean, consider the brain waves of folks who need the internet with training wheels.

Posted by muckdog at October 3, 2005 06:34 PM

I don't know about AOL polls. I mean, consider the brain waves of folks who need the internet with training wheels.

Ooooh, low blow! ...even if it's true =P

Yeah, AOL polls are pretty unscientific. But I'm willing to bet that the public generally does not view Miers as an excellent pick, though, even if it doesn't match lockstep with this poll.

Posted by DukeRevolution at October 3, 2005 06:48 PM

Here's a little more information on Miss Harriet:

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/10/ana05030.html

Posted by Judith at October 3, 2005 07:02 PM

mucktroll graces us with more economic wisdom: when something is free, those who charge for the same service will lose business. Thanks, muck.

Posted by T2 at October 3, 2005 07:04 PM

Sandra Day O'Connor looks like she's got more life left in her than Miers. Why's she retiring? She could kick this old bag a bones' ass from D.C. to Texas.

Posted by snark at October 3, 2005 07:14 PM

This morning, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court. Miers is a long-time political appointee, campaign counsel, personal lawyer and Bush loyalist who has never served as a judge.

Ex-FEMA Director Michael Brown taught us that vital national positions must be filled with qualified candidates, not political friends with limited experience. With such a thin public record, how can Americans know Harriet Miers' approach to critical issues like corporate power, privacy and civil rights?

Right now we urgently need more information, and we need your help to get it. In the next few hours the Internet will fill with facts, anecdotes and rumors about Harriet Miers. We need your help to sort through it all, select the relevant and important details, and let us know what you find—decentralized, grassroots research.

We've set up a simple web form where you can post facts and sources that will fill out the picture on what kind of Supreme Court justice Miers would be. We'll get your research to the media, the Senate and our partner groups. This info will also be crucial in setting MoveOn's course for this nomination. Even if you just have a few minutes to spare, it could help a lot at this crucial time.

You can post facts right now at:

http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-3876511-vw7imNPaoiCns1buWlaDUw&t=3

Here is a quick chronology of Harriet Miers' career, courtesy of the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, to help jump start your research.

1970—Graduated from Southern Methodist University Law School
1970-1972—Clerked for U.S. District Court Judge Joe Estes
1972-2001—Joined Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell
1985—Elected president of the Dallas Bar Association
1986-1989—Member of the State Bar board of directors
1989-1991—Elected and served one term on the Dallas City Council
1992—Elected president of the Texas State Bar
1993-1994—Worked as counsel for Bush's gubernatorial campaign
1995-2000—Appointed chairwoman of Texas Lottery Commission by Gov. George Bush
1996—Became president of Locke, Purnell, and the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm
1998—Presided over the merger of Locke, Purnell with another big Texas firm, Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, and became co-managing partner of the resulting megafirm, Locke Liddell & Sapp
2000—Represented Bush and Cheney in a lawsuit stemming from their dual residency in Texas while running in the Presidential primary
2001—Selected as staff secretary for President Bush
2003—Promoted to Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy
2004—Selected as White House Counsel

There are many important questions that need to be addressed, including:

What policies did she advocate for on the Dallas City Council?
What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission?
What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for?
What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the "commerce clause" or equal protection.

As White House councel Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening America's stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role? Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush?

It's important that we move quickly in answering these questions. The Bush spin machine has been prepared for this nomination for some time and is already cranking at full speed. The strategy is to move Miers through as an enigma. We need to make sure the facts about her views are known.

This kind of decentralized research may never have been tried before at this scale. But a Supreme Court nominee with a record only the president really knows is a new national challenge. If we act quickly, we can meet that challenge together.

Please pitch in by taking some time to research today, and post what you find at:

http://www.political.moveon.org/judgefacts?id=6078-3876511-vw7imNPaoiCns1buWlaDUw&t=4

Posted by Judith at October 3, 2005 07:20 PM

Several years ago when I had AOL, I found the results of their polls indicated a high percentage of conservatives, so these results are interesting, however unscientific.

Today, I was secretly waiting for cnn.com to change their poll to, "Do you think Harriet Miers is gay?"

Posted by ann at October 3, 2005 07:42 PM

mucktroll graces us with more economic wisdom: when something is free, those who charge for the same service will lose business. Thanks, muck.Posted by T2
Mucktroll has been studying

Posted by Mike at October 3, 2005 10:08 PM

ann -- I read through the other loooong thread late this evening and wished I could have chimed in on the point you had made early on in that thread. Being single, never married, female and not gay is not so very unusual for Texas families. Of course, this is anecdotal, but for whatever reason -- trust me I live in a multigenerational family like this -- it just happens. The typical Texas family typically has a spinster. I'm not exactly saying that it is a Texas-thing, but I know way too many people whose families have been here for a very long time and just happen to have at least one spinster.

The whole gay angle is just so much silliness -- I think you called it that earlier in the other thread.

Posted by dorita at October 3, 2005 10:15 PM

Mike, you have lots of pages in that book dog-earred for your reference when making comments here and at angrybear?

Posted by muckdog at October 4, 2005 10:56 AM