View Full Version : Miers Nominated for Supreme Court

October 3rd, 2005, 08:44 AM
Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court

The Associated Press
Monday, October 3, 2005; 8:21 AM


WASHINGTON -- President Bush on Monday nominated White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, reaching into his loyal inner circle for a pick that could reshape the nation's judiciary for years to come.

"She has devoted her life to the rule of law and the cause of justice," Bush said, announcing his choice from the Oval Office with Miers at his side. "She will be an outstanding addition to the Supreme Court of the United States."

If confirmed by the Republican-controlled Senate, Miers, 60, would join Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg as the second woman on the nation's highest court and the third to serve there. Miers, who has never been a judge, was the first woman to serve as president of the Texas State Bar and the Dallas Bar Association.

Miers, who Bush called a trailblazer for women in the legal profession, said she was humbled by the nod.

"If confirmed, I recognize I will have a tremendous responsibility to keep our judicial system strong and to help insure the court meets their obligations to strictly apply the laws and Constitution," she said.

Democratic and Republican special interests groups were braced for a political brawl over the pick, Bush's second. But the lack of a judicial record may make it difficult for Democrats to find ground upon which to fight her nomination.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., had urged the administration to consider Miers, two congressional officials said. There was a long list of staunchly conservative judges that Democrats were poised to fight, Miers not among them.
Bush, his approval rating falling in recent months, had been under intense pressure to nominate a woman or a minority.

Miers' pick came shortly before Chief Justice John Roberts was set to take his seat on the court for the first time Monday after breezing to nomination. Miers helped push his nomination through the Senate.

"She will strictly interpret our Constitution and laws. She will not legislate from the bench," Bush said. Conservatives apparently agreed.

"There's every indication that she's very similar to Judge Roberts _ judicial restraint, limited role of the court, basically a judicial conservative," said Republican consultant Greg Mueller, who works for several conservative advocacy leaders.
The president offered the job to Miers Sunday night over dinner in the residence. He met with Miers on four occasions during the past couple weeks, officials said.

© 2005 The Associated Press

October 3rd, 2005, 09:34 AM
Googled "Harriet Miers"; not a lot of info.

Here's some:


Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff Harriet Miers


Most recently, Harriet Miers served as Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary. Prior to that, she was Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP. Previously, she was President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, where she worked from 1972 until 1999. From 1995 until 2000, she was chair of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1992, Harriet became the first woman president of the Texas State Bar, and in 1985 she became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association. She also served as a Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council. Harriet received both her undergraduate and law degrees from Southern Methodist University.

Another page from the above whitehouse.gov site (except this one almost reads like a parody). Go to the link for Q&A:

Welcome to "Ask the White House" -- an online interactive forum where you can submit questions to Administration officials and friends of the White House. Visit the "Ask the White House" archives (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/) to read other discussions with White House officials.

October 29, 2004

Harriet Miers

Hello, this is Harriet Miers. I am Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy at the White House, and I am delighted to be here to answer your questions this Friday afternoon. This is always a great weekend because we will all get an extra hour of sleep Saturday night. And given all that is going on, I have to say, we here at the White House are looking forward to that extra hour!




I believe I was the first to float (http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/07042005.asp) the name of Harriet Miers, White House counsel, as a possible Supreme Court. Today her name is all over the news (http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=miers&btnG=Search+News). I have to confess that at the time, I was mostly joking. Harriet Miers is a capable lawyer, a hard worker, and a kind and generous person. She would be an reasonable choice for a generalist attorney, which is indeed how George W. Bush first met her. She would make an excellent trial judge: She is a careful and fair-minded listener. But US Supreme Court?

In the White House that hero worshipped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal: She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met. She served Bush well, but she is not the person to lead the court in new directions - or to stand up under the criticism that a conservative justice must expect.

The harsh truth is, at this 5 year mark in the administration's life, that its domestic achievements are very few. The most important, the tax cut, will likely prove temporary, undermined by the administration's overspending. The education bill, the faith-based initiative, and the rest do not amount to much. Social Security reform will not happen; work on tax reform has not even begun; the immigration proposals are disasters that will never become law.

Civil justice reform should be credited to Congress, not the White House. After that, what is there other than the Patriot Act and of course judicial nominations? But even on judicial nominations, thus far the president has only preserved the old balance on the court. If he is actually to advance his principles, he will need a real conservative leader: a Luttig, for example, a Michael McConnell - or perhaps Senator Mitch McConnell if the president is concerned about confirmability. The Senate will always confirm a fellow-senator, and McConnell is one of the body's outstanding conservative intellects. This is no time for the president to indulge his loyalty to his friends. All this year, the president has been testing the limits of his support. Well we are at the limit now, and anything less than a superb choice for the O'Connor vacancy will overstep it.

For Miers' Political Contributions go here:


A recent article (pre-nomination); go to link for full article:


Quiet but Ambitious White House Counsel Makes Life of Law

By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, June 21, 2005; Page A19

Ask White House counsel Harriet Miers when she first met George W. Bush, and she is less than specific. "I met him on a variety of occasions over the course of time," she replied recently, explaining their long-ago encounters in the social and power corridors of Texas. "But not in a memorable way."

Ask her what it was like to be the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association, and she invokes not gender, but the geographic rivalry that frequently underlies bar elections in the state. "It was a very vigorous campaign against a lawyer from Houston," said Miers, who is from Dallas.

October 3rd, 2005, 10:11 AM
Conservative Group Opposes 'Bush Packing' Appointment of Miers

Mon. Oct 03 2005 09:52:34 ET


To National Desk

Contact: Jesse Binnall of the Public Advocate

FALLS CHURCH, Va., Oct. 3 /Christian Wire Service/ -- Public Advocate President Eugene Delgaudio has issued the following statement following the appointment of Harriet Miers to serve on the Supreme Court.

"The President's nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given 'stealth nominees,' who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President's father.

"When there are so many proven judges in the mix, it is unacceptable this President has appointed a political crony with no conservative credentials. This attempt at 'Bush Packing' the Supreme Court must not be allowed to pass the Senate and we will forcefully oppose this nomination."


October 3rd, 2005, 11:29 AM

For Immediate Release:

Monday, Oct. 3, 2005


'There’s very little information about Harriet Miers and we hope that the confirmation process will provide more insight into her views,’ said Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese.

WASHINGTON — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese made the following statement about President Bush’s nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

“There’s very little information about Harriet Miers and we hope that the confirmation process will provide more insight into her views,” said Solmonese. “Justice O’Connor’s replacement could maintain or tip balance on the court on equality.

“With little known about Ms. Miers’ views, it’s critical that the Senate thoroughly examines her nomination and that she provide complete and candid answers,” added Solmonese. “It’s important that Ms. Miers demonstrate she’s a worthy successor to Justice O’Connor, a consensus builder in a closely divided court. With a lifetime appointment, the Senate should be sure that a Justice Miers would safeguard the rights of all Americans.”


Harriet Miers was born in 1945 in Dallas and is one of five children. Miers graduated from Southern Methodist University with a degree in mathematics and, again, in 1970, when she obtained her law degree. Upon graduation from law school, Miers clerked for U.S. District Judge Joe Estes. In 1972, she joined a Texas law firm, Locke, Purnell, Boren, Laney & Neely, where she was their first female attorney. She remained at the firm and its successor firm for almost 30 years, working as a commercial litigator.

In 1985, Miers became the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association, and in 1992, she was elected as the first woman president of the Texas State Bar. In 1993, Miers reportedly was hired as Bush’s personal attorney, providing legal counsel on a real estate matter and also for Bush’s gubernatorial campaign.

In 1995, then-Gov. Bush appointed her as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission. In 1996, Miers was elected president of her law firm, Locke, Purnell, and, thus, became the first woman to lead a major Texas law firm. While at Locke, Purnell, she presided over its merger with Lindell, Sapp, Ziveley, Hill & LaBoon in 1998, and later became co-managing partner of the new firm, Locke, Liddell & Sapp. Miers resigned from the Texas Lottery Commission in 2000.

After winning the White House, President Bush selected Miers in 2001 to serve as his staff secretary. She later served as deputy chief of staff for policy in 2003 and as White House counsel in 2004.


During the announcement, President Bush referenced Miers’ affiliation with Exodus Ministry (http://www.exodusministriesinc.com/). This is not the so called “ex-gay” group, but is “a non-denominational Christian organization established to assist ex-offenders and their families become productive members of society by meeting both their spiritual and physical needs.”

October 3rd, 2005, 01:34 PM
I hope she gives up the heavy mascara. It is a huge issue we didn't have to deal with during the Roberts hearings.

October 3rd, 2005, 01:42 PM
Again with you and criticizing women's appearances?

TLOZ Link5
October 3rd, 2005, 01:55 PM
During the announcement, President Bush referenced Miers’ affiliation with Exodus Ministry (http://www.exodusministriesinc.com/). This is not the so called “ex-gay” group, but is “a non-denominational Christian organization established to assist ex-offenders and their families become productive members of society by meeting both their spiritual and physical needs.”[/LEFT]

What exactly do they mean by "ex-offenders"?

TLOZ Link5
October 3rd, 2005, 01:56 PM
Bush pick for high court outrages conservatives
Mon Oct 3, 2005 12:56 PM ET

By Steve Holland

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush on Monday nominated White House insider Harriet Miers for a Supreme Court vacancy, triggering outrage from conservatives who questioned whether she would uphold their political views.

Bush chose Miers, a lawyer but not a judge whose opinions on key issues likely to come before the high court are largely unknown, to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.

Conservatives who formed the bedrock foundation of Bush's re-election last November immediately protested the nomination as a betrayal of his campaign promise to pick conservative judges, pointing to her past campaign donations to Democrats.

Miers, 60, a longtime ally of Bush's going back to his days as Texas governor and currently White House counsel, would be the third woman ever to serve on the Supreme Court if confirmed by the U.S. Senate. O'Connor was the first and Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been there since 1993.

"I believe that senators of both parties will find that Harriet Miers' talent, experience and judicial philosophy make her a superb choice to safeguard the constitutional liberties and equality of all Americans," Bush said in a hastily arranged Oval Office ceremony with Miers.

O'Connor, a moderate conservative, was the key swing vote on a number of 5-4 decisions on the closely divided Supreme Court. Democrats said much was unknown about Miers and that she would undergo intense scrutiny by the Senate.

The White House noted some Democrats had urged Bush to consider the Dallas-born Miers but would give no names. One of those, however, was Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Nevada Democrat.

"I like Harriet Miers," said Reid, who had voted against John Roberts as U.S. chief justice in Roberts' confirmation vote last week. "In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer."

But some conservatives expressed concern that Bush had missed a historic opportunity to shift the balance of the court in a clear way by picking someone in the same mold as conservative justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president," said William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard magazine.

Manny Miranda, head of a conservative coalition called The Third Branch Conference, said Miers was "the most unqualified choice" for the high court since Lyndon Johnson tried to make Abe Fortas chief justice in 1968.

"I was hoping that the president would keep his campaign promise. He said he would name someone like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. We thought he meant someone with a clear judicial record on particular issues," Miranda said.

Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn urged conservatives not to jump to conclusions and not to prejudge her.

Records show Miers has given money over the years to both Republicans and Democrats, including $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's presidential campaign in 1988.

In 1987 she gave $1,000 to former Texas Sen. Lloyd Bentsen. Bentsen was the Democratic vice presidential nominee who ran against Bush's father in 1988.

In more recent years, Miers has regularly contributed to Republicans such as Bush.


Democrats were largely measured in their reaction.

New York Democratic Sen. Charles Schumer said Democrats would push for documents on her and would pressure her to answer questions in order to get a sense of her judicial philosophy. "There's hope that Harriet Miers is a mainstream nominee," he said.

Vermont Sen. Patrick Leahy, top Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Miers has been a Bush loyalist and that "it is important to know whether she would enter this key post with the judicial independence necessary when the Supreme Court considers issues of interest to this administration."

Democrats were frustrated when the conservative Roberts, during his confirmation hearings, refused to comment on cases and issues that he might have to rule on.

It was the second time Bush filled a key government position with a person involved in the search process. In 2000 Dick Cheney had led Bush's search for a vice presidential candidate and ended up with the job. Miers had been on the search committee to find a replacement for O'Connor.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan said Bush met with her four times, on September 21, 28 and 29 and on Sunday night, when he offered her the job over dinner in the White House residence.

She was among six women in a group of 12 to 15 candidates considered for the position, said McClellan.

Bush credited Miers with breaking down barriers to women in the Texas legal profession, becoming the first woman to head her Dallas law firm, the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and the first woman elected president of the state bar of Texas.

He called on the Senate to conduct her confirmation hearings with "the same respect and civility" granted Roberts, who was in place on Monday for the opening of the Supreme Court's new term.

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, said he hoped to Senate would vote on her by the Thanksgiving holiday November 24.

Bush said Miers would not legislate from the bench and would strictly interpret the Constitution, his code language for a conservative philosophy.

Miers said if confirmed she would work to help ensure the courts "meet their obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

(Additional reporting by Thomas Ferraro, Tabassum Zakaria and Adam Entous)

© Reuters 2005. All rights reserved.

October 3rd, 2005, 01:58 PM
What exactly do they mean by "ex-offenders"? I think it means ex cons, but I really couldn't tell after trying to read that site for a while.

October 3rd, 2005, 05:47 PM
What exactly do they mean by "ex-offenders"?
Most likely they are people who were convicted, served their time (maybe found Jesus?) and are now back out in the population.

October 4th, 2005, 02:06 AM
BR: This is for the mascara comment ...


Harriet Miers's Extreme Makeover

We took the liberty of redesigning Harriet Miers's, uhm, "look."


In addition to the many other tweaks, we think the glasses add
a "really, I'm just as smart as Roberts" touch.

Now if we can just convince her to submit the idea before
Robin Givhan gets to her...

October 4th, 2005, 02:15 AM
All the inside "SCOTUS SCOOP" :


Underneath Their Robes (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/)

News, gossip, and colorful commentary about the federal judiciary.

October 4th, 2005, 02:20 AM
An example of some of the great in-depth reporting from the UTR website:

Harriet Miers: A Hairstyle Retrospective

SCOTUS nominee Harriet Miers (http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/2005/10/white_house_rel.html) has explored the world of coiffure
in even greater depth than Senatrix Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://clinton.senate.gov/).

Unfortunately, the results of her forays have not always been successful.

If Harriet Miers wins confirmation, maybe Supreme Court justices
should start wearing powdered wigs...

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/harriet_miers_1_1.jpg (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/harriet_miers_1_1.jpg) http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/harriet_miers_2.jpg (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/harriet_miers_2.jpg) http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/harriet_miers_5_1.jpg (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/harriet_miers_5_1.jpg)
http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/harriet_miers_4.jpg (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/harriet_miers_4.jpg)http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/harriet_miers_3.jpg (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/harriet_miers_3.jpg)http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/images/harriet_miers_6.jpg (http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/.shared/image.html?/photos/uncategorized/harriet_miers_6.jpg)

October 4th, 2005, 08:37 AM
What exactly do they mean by "ex-offenders"?

They also may mean "Ex-Gays".

October 4th, 2005, 01:57 PM
Per Ms. Miers: All this talk about "nothing is known about her views"...

What is known is that she came on board the Bush Administration in 2000, when she started serving as the Staff Secretary to Bush.

According to the NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04miers.html):
When Andrew H. Card Jr., the chief of staff, first offered her the job of staff secretary at the beginning of the Bush administration, her friends said, she had to look up the job in a book. She discovered that the office is influential because the person holding it shapes what information flows to the president.

So it seems fair to say that she knew a lot about what Bush did and did not know from 2000 until 2004, when she moved up the ladder to the job of Assistant to Bush. And also what Besh knew / didn't know from 2004 forward until now; in early 2005 she was bumped up to White House Counsel (to replace Gonzalez when he became Attorney General).

It was during the years when Miers worked at the White House that the Bush Administration was using funds buy "covert propoganda" to sell the "No Child Left Behind" education program to the public, something that was just last week ruled to be a violation of the law (NY Times, 10.01.05: http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=67403&postcount=77):
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 - Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush's education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party.

In a blistering report, the investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said the administration had disseminated "covert propaganda" in the United States (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/unitedstates/index.html?inline=nyt-geo), in violation of a statutory ban.

The contract with Mr. Williams and the general contours of the public relations campaign had been known for months. The report Friday provided the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

Lawyers from the accountability office, an independent nonpartisan arm of Congress, found that the administration systematically analyzed news articles to see if they carried the message, "The Bush administration/the G.O.P. is committed to education."

The auditors declared: "We see no use for such information except for partisan political purposes. Engaging in a purely political activity such as this is not a proper use of appropriated funds."

Miers was serving the President during this time, either controlling the information or giving him legal counsel.

What was Miers knowledge of this violation of the law?

Of course she will probably skirt any questions on these matters, claiming attorney / client privilege.

October 4th, 2005, 05:12 PM
A Sampling of the Writings of Harriet Miers

A look at the paper trail of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee

Posted Monday, Oct. 03, 2005

By SONJA STEPTOE/DALLAS (http://javascript<b></b>:void(0))


What kind of Supreme Court justice would Harriet Miers be? For anyone trying to assess her qualifications, analyze her philosophy and predict her behavior, Miers would seem to present a fairly blank slate. She has no judicial resume and hasn't left a long trail of noteworthy memos, briefs, oral argument transcripts or law journal articles.

Gay Rights

An indication of her stance on gay rights comes from this questionaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas (http://www.time.com/time/daily/docs/miersquest.pdf) Miers filled out while running for the Dallas City Council in 1989. In it, she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas. (Source: Quorumreport.com (http://www.quorumreport.com/))

Views on the Law

Elsewhere, a search for indications of her personal views and writing skills turned up two articles penned by Miers for the legal publication Texas Lawyer. They show a concern for the rule of law—and an emphasis on collegiality, compromise and determination:

In 1992, while president of the state bar, Miers wrote in the publication Texas Lawyer about the effect on the criminal justice system of an episode in a Fort Worth courthouse, where in July of that year, a man angry about his divorce went on a shooting spree, killing two lawyers and wounding two judges and a prosecutor before surrendering at a TV station:

"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."

"Punishment of wrongdoers should be swift and sure. Only then can the criminal justice system serve as an effective deterrent. Those who would choose a rule of man rather than the rule of law must not escape fitting penalty. Again, the lack of adequate resources to support an overburdened criminal justice system looms as a reality. Punishment may come swift and sure in the Fort Worth slayings case because of their notoriety. But we cannot forget the other cases crying for justice languishing in courts throughout Texas and the nation."

"We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction."

"We lawyers are trained in problem-solving and we have the leadership and other opportunities available to professionals in our society. The two men who died exemplified individuals devoted to their God, their families, their fellow man, their communities and their profession. Speakers in both memorial services, used the very same words: "Well done, good and faithful servant."

"Our sense of helplessness and inability to understand why tragedies like these have to occur should not cause anyone to attempt to explain the Fort Worth shootings as expressions of frustration with judges, lawyers or the justice system. Plain and simple, they are despicable acts—examples of the worst nature of man. The rest of us are challenged even more to demonstrate the best."

October 4th, 2005, 11:29 PM
What exactly do they mean by "ex-offenders"?
Here is a tid-bit from the "Exodus Ministries" website ( at first I thought it said "Qualifications for PRESIDENCY!! But, thankfully that wasn't the case: http://www.exodusministriesinc.com/qualifications.htm ) ...


have children that will be in your custody and care
be able to maintain full-time employment
be willing to participate in programs three nights a week
be willing to attend church on a weekly basis
have a recommendation from prison chaplains and/or volunteers
have a marked desire to change and succeed

And here is another something from the website that puts it all in a neat little package:



October 5th, 2005, 12:11 AM
Harriet Miers on Bush, Ashcroft, 9/11 and Barney

SALON / Tim Grieve
Oct. 3, 2005


Harriet Miers may not have written a lot of law review articles, Supreme Court briefs or judicial decisions, but that's not to say that she doesn't have a paper trail: As George W. Bush's staff secretary and deputy chief of staff for policy, she has written extensively for the "Ask the White House" feature that appears on the White House Web site.

Amid questions about Barney the First Dog and the kind of clock that sits in the Oval Office, Miers has answered queries about virtually every policy initiative of the Bush administration. Her answers, written and posted in something approaching real time, show Miers to be a reliable if sometimes ineloquent mouthpiece for all the usual Bush administration talking points: We're better off than we were four years ago, we're fighting terrorism and promoting freedom abroad, and we're leaving no child behind at home. Oh, and George W. Bush? He's a really, really, really good president.

Here's a sampling:

Oct. 29, 2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=Miers&submit.x=0&submit.y=0): Miers advocated drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, insisted that the administration is "sowing the seeds of freedom" in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to bring "the goal of peace for all nations ever closer," and dismissed concerns over the lack of funding for the president's "No Child Left Behind" plan as the result of "a great deal of misinformation out there."

Oct. 14, 2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20041014.html): When a writer suggested that Bush's tax cuts and other policies were aimed at helping big business more than "ordinary Americans," Miers said that she hoped the writer would "spend some time learning about what the president really has done for the American people, in tax relief and so many other ways." When another writer asked why Bush is "restricting federal funding on embryonic stem cell research," Miers said: "You should start from the premise that the president supports promising medical research."

Sept. 10, 2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040910.html): Miers defended the administration's efforts to draw links between Iraq and 9/11, said she appreciates "the president's calm, strong leadership" and declared that it would be a "great idea" to turn Sept. 11 into a national holiday. Miers said she was with Bush on 9/11, helping him prepare the remarks he would deliver from Barksdale Air Force Base in Louisiana, and she remembers that Bush praised her by saying, "Good hustle." "He made me feel good that I was contributing," she said. When a writer said that the United States is in "a struggle for civilization and the survival of the free world against anarchism and barbarism" and a "fight to preserve our way of life against extremists who would return us to the Dark Ages," Miers thanked him for expressing himself "so wonderfully." "I certainly agree with you," she said. "As I said before, we will persevere and we will not relent."

Aug. 11, 2004 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/ask/20040811.html): Asked about her job at the White House, Miers said her principal responsibility is to "coordinate policy development for the administration." She praised Bush's staff and singled out Andy Card for leading it in a "remarkable" way. "You may have seen him on TV," Miers wrote. "He is from Boston. He does not have a Texas accent like me." She said that then Attorney General John Ashcroft was doing "an outstanding job." And she explained that metal horseshoes are "too heavy for Barney to lift, so he doesn't carry them around. Instead he moves them around with his nose."

October 5th, 2005, 12:44 AM
Miers Briefed Bush on Bin Laden PDB, But Papers Handle Photo From That Day Quite Differently

By E&P Staff
October 04, 2005



NEW YORK On its front page Tuesday, The New York Times published a photo of new U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers going over a briefing paper with President George W. Bush at his Crawford ranch “in August 2001,” the caption reads.

USA Today and the Boston Globe carried the photo labeled simply “2001,” but many other newspapers ran the picture in print or on the Web with a more precise date: Aug. 6, 2001.

Does that date sound familiar? Indeed, that was the date, a little over a month before 9/11, that President Bush was briefed on the now-famous “PDB” that declared that Osama Bin Laden was “determined” to attack the U.S. homeland, perhaps with hijacked planes. But does that mean that Miers had anything to do with that briefing?

As it turns out, yes, according to Tuesday's Los Angeles Times. An article by Richard A. Serrano and Scott Gold observes that early in the Bush presidency “Miers assumed such an insider role that in 2001 it was she who handed Bush the crucial 'presidential daily briefing' hinting at terrorist plots against America just a month before the Sept. 11 attacks.”

So the Aug. 6 photo may show this historic moment, though quite possibly not. In any case, some newspapers failed to include the exact date with the widely used Miers photo today. A New York Times spokesman told E&P: "The wording of the caption occurred in the course of routine editing and has no broader significance."

The photo that ran in so many papers and on their Web sites originally came from the White House but was moved by the Associated Press, clearly marked as an “Aug. 6, 2001” file photo. It shows Miers with a document or documents in her right hand, as her left hand points to something in another paper balanced on the president's right leg. Two others in the background are Deputy Chief of Staff Joe Hagin and Steve Biegun of the national security staff.

The PDB was headed “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in U.S.,” and notes, among other things, FBI information indicating “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks.”

© 2005 VNU eMedia Inc (http://www.vnuemedia.com/)

October 5th, 2005, 09:36 AM
Bush's Guard service may affect Miers nomination

A former Texas Lottery official said he wants to talk to senators about the Supreme Court nominee's role in covering up Bush's record

By Ken Herman
Tuesday, October 4, 2005


WASHINGTON -- A former Texas lottery official, who claimed that then-Gov. George W. Bush's desire to cover up his National Guard record helped steer decisions about a key lottery contract, said he wants to talk to senators about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' possible role in that effort.

"If I were to be subpoenaed to come to the thing, I would come," said Lawrence Littwin, who filed a lawsuit after he was fired as the lottery's executive director in 1997. "I would say the committee, I think, would be interested."

Littwin claimed in a federal lawsuit that lottery operator GTECH held sway over the Texas Lottery Commission because former GTECH lobbyist Ben Barnes was involved in helping get Bush into the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

GTECH, which settled the suit in 1999 and paid Littwin $300,000 without admitting wrongdoing, said in court filings that Littwin's Guard-related claims were "preposterous."

A Bush appointee, Miers served as chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission when it was mired in controversy. President Bush cited that record Monday in announcing his nomination of his longtime friend and adviser to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Littwin was hired in 1997 to replace Nora Linares, who had been fired after it was revealed that her boyfriend was working as a consultant for GTECH, the Rhode Island-based firm that has run the Texas Lottery since it began in 1992.

Littwin was fired after five months on the job. He said he was let go because of the aggressive approach that he advocated in scrutinizing GTECH's performance, including investigating whether the company made illegal contributions to public officials.

Littwin sued the company, seeking $2.6 million and claiming that it had arranged his firing. The lawsuit cited GTECH lobbyist Ben Barnes' claims that as Texas House speaker he had helped get Bush into the Guard. Littwin's suit said GTECH had been given preferential treatment by the commission, which controlled the contract.

Under pressure from the lottery commission, GTECH had severed ties with Barnes before Littwin was hired as executive director. GTECH paid Barnes and partner Ricky Knox $23 million to end their consulting contract.

Barnes, who for years had remained silent about his role in getting Bush into the Guard, was forced to discuss it during a September 1999 deposition in the Littwin lawsuit. Barnes' lawyers issued a statement saying that when he was House speaker, Barnes called the head of the Texas Air National Guard to put in a good word for Bush at the request of Bush family friends.

In the statement, Barnes' lawyer said no one from the Bush family had contacted him about the Guard slot.

Littwin, citing confidentiality provisions in the settlement with GTECH, has declined to discuss Miers' role. A federal judge, ruling against GTECH, said Miers did not have to give a deposition in the case.

Before the settlement, Littwin had questioned Miers' performance at the commission, charging that she ignored state law requiring annual audits of GTECH.

Under terms of the settlement, Littwin would have to forfeit $50,000 if he violates the confidentiality agreement. He said Monday that his lawyer told him he could testify if subpoenaed by the Senate.

In the agreement, Littwin said that he had "no personal knowledge of any of the criminal activity alleged in support of his claims against GTECH."

When the case was settled, GTECH said a "business decision" caused it to opt for the settlement instead of taking the case to trial.

October 5th, 2005, 12:33 PM
It's such a lousy pick - he nominated his lawyer for chrissake.

October 5th, 2005, 04:37 PM
Bush says that he has "no recollection" of talking to Miers on the subject of abortion.

Maybe he got the "word" from someone else ...

Dobson: Waiting for A Signal from God

by Armando (http://armando.dailykos.com/)
Wed Oct 5th, 2005 at 12:37:16 PDT


Amazingly, James Dobson apparently has people who pressure him. Seemingly backing off statements of unconditioned and irrevocable support for the nomination of Harriet Miers, Dobson is now "waiting for a sign from God."

Matt Stoller e-mails this recounting of Dobson's radio show from a friend of his:

Dobson dedicated his entire half-hour radio show to the Miers nomination today. Below is my short write-up of what he had to say:

Dobson is clearly conflicted about this, at times literally begging the Lord for guidance. Dobson said this has been "One of the more difficult weeks that I can remember" and that he needs to "speak [his] heart" because of the "unprecedented significance" of this nomination.

Dobson cited the Bible when he talks about the split among the right-wing over the nomination, saying "There have been many disagreements in the Scripture between men of faith who were seeking the mind of God and I think that is what's going on here."

He went on the claim that "I'm getting calls from members of Congress saying 'tell us your take on this, we're not sure what we think of Harriet Miers.'" He then admitted "It was leaked to the media that I've had conversations with Karl Rove and the White House, which is true."

He said "There is so much in the balance [with this nominee], there is no way to put it into words . . . Because of that, Dobson is begging the Lord: "If this is not the person you want on that Supreme Court, all you have to do is tell me so, and do it through any means you want to."

He finally then discussed why he is supporting Miers, saying "I can't reveal it all, because I do know things that I'm privy to that I can't describe, because of confidentiality." He then states that Miers "is a deeply committed Christian" and that people who know her have all told him that "she will not be a disappointment."

"I believe in trusting this president and this time because of the stand that he has taken and the way he has implemented it consistently for four and a half years. When you put that with all the other information that I have been able to gather - and you'll have to trust me on this one - when you know some of the things that I know, that I probably shouldn't know, that take me in this direction, you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, why I have said why I believe that Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

He then states that "if I have made a mistake here ... the blood of those babies that will die will be on my hands, to some degree. And that's why it has weighed so heavily on me" before telling the right wing to let the confirmation process play out and not undermine Miers before the hearings.

What a fascinating statement. First, he continues to claim to know more than he can not reveal about Miers. Well, I think he needs to be subpoenaed myself then. Confidentiality ain't no defense to a subpoena.

Second, he gives himself an out - God can "speak" to him and tell him he should change his position.

Third, he seems to signal that Wingnuts will get some reassurance in the hearings. Well, that means sharing her views on the legal issues.

And I am all for that. I must say though, that this nomination seems more imperiled today than it did yesterday. And I am not sure James Dobson could hold back the fire on this one.

Fascinating stuff.

October 6th, 2005, 12:16 AM
The Federalist No. 76

The Appointing Power of the Executive

New York Packet
Tuesday, April 1, 1788
[Alexander Hamilton]

To the People of the State of New York:

THE President is "to nominate, and, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States whose appointments are not otherwise provided for in the Constitution. But the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers as they think proper, in the President alone, or in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments. The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies which may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session."

It has been observed in a former paper, that "the true test of a good government is its aptitude and tendency to produce a good administration." If the justness of this observation be admitted, the mode of appointing the officers of the United States contained in the foregoing clauses, must, when examined, be allowed to be entitled to particular commendation. It is not easy to conceive a plan better calculated than this to promote a judicious choice of men for filling the offices of the Union; and it will not need proof, that on this point must essentially depend the character of its administration.

It will be agreed on all hands, that the power of appointment, in ordinary cases, ought to be modified in one of three ways. It ought either to be vested in a single man, or in a select assembly of a moderate number; or in a single man, with the concurrence of such an assembly. The exercise of it by the people at large will be readily admitted to be impracticable; as waiving every other consideration, it would leave them little time to do anything else. When, therefore, mention is made in the subsequent reasonings of an assembly or body of men, what is said must be understood to relate to a select body or assembly, of the description already given. The people collectively, from their number and from their dispersed situation, cannot be regulated in their movements by that systematic spirit of cabal and intrigue, which will be urged as the chief objections to reposing the power in question in a body of men.

Those who have themselves reflected upon the subject, or who have attended to the observations made in other parts of these papers, in relation to the appointment of the President, will, I presume, agree to the position, that there would always be great probability of having the place supplied by a man of abilities, at least respectable. Premising this, I proceed to lay it down as a rule, that one man of discernment is better fitted to analyze and estimate the peculiar qualities adapted to particular offices, than a body of men of equal or perhaps even of superior discernment.

The sole and undivided responsibility of one man will naturally beget a livelier sense of duty and a more exact regard to reputation. He will, on this account, feel himself under stronger obligations, and more interested to investigate with care the qualities requisite to the stations to be filled, and to prefer with impartiality the persons who may have the fairest pretensions to them. He will have fewer personal attachments to gratify, than a body of men who may each be supposed to have an equal number; and will be so much the less liable to be misled by the sentiments of friendship and of affection. A single well-directed man, by a single understanding, cannot be distracted and warped by that diversity of views, feelings, and interests, which frequently distract and warp the resolutions of a collective body. There is nothing so apt to agitate the passions of mankind as personal considerations whether they relate to ourselves or to others, who are to be the objects of our choice or preference. Hence, in every exercise of the power of appointing to offices, by an assembly of men, we must expect to see a full display of all the private and party likings and dislikes, partialities and antipathies, attachments and animosities, which are felt by those who compose the assembly. The choice which may at any time happen to be made under such circumstances, will of course be the result either of a victory gained by one party over the other, or of a compromise between the parties. In either case, the intrinsic merit of the candidate will be too often out of sight. In the first, the qualifications best adapted to uniting the suffrages of the party, will be more considered than those which fit the person for the station. In the last, the coalition will commonly turn upon some interested equivalent: "Give us the man we wish for this office, and you shall have the one you wish for that." This will be the usual condition of the bargain. And it will rarely happen that the advancement of the public service will be the primary object either of party victories or of party negotiations.

The truth of the principles here advanced seems to have been felt by the most intelligent of those who have found fault with the provision made, in this respect, by the convention. They contend that the President ought solely to have been authorized to make the appointments under the federal government. But it is easy to show, that every advantage to be expected from such an arrangement would, in substance, be derived from the power of nomination, which is proposed to be conferred upon him; while several disadvantages which might attend the absolute power of appointment in the hands of that officer would be avoided. In the act of nomination, his judgment alone would be exercised; and as it would be his sole duty to point out the man who, with the approbation of the Senate, should fill an office, his responsibility would be as complete as if he were to make the final appointment. There can, in this view, be no difference between nominating and appointing. The same motives which would influence a proper discharge of his duty in one case, would exist in the other. And as no man could be appointed but on his previous nomination, every man who might be appointed would be, in fact, his choice.

But might not his nomination be overruled? I grant it might, yet this could only be to make place for another nomination by himself. The person ultimately appointed must be the object of his preference, though perhaps not in the first degree. It is also not very probable that his nomination would often be overruled. The Senate could not be tempted, by the preference they might feel to another, to reject the one proposed; because they could not assure themselves, that the person they might wish would be brought forward by a second or by any subsequent nomination. They could not even be certain, that a future nomination would present a candidate in any degree more acceptable to them; and as their dissent might cast a kind of stigma upon the individual rejected, and might have the appearance of a reflection upon the judgment of the chief magistrate, it is not likely that their sanction would often be refused, where there were not special and strong reasons for the refusal.

To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.

It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.

To this reasoning it has been objected that the President, by the influence of the power of nomination, may secure the complaisance of the Senate to his views. This supposition of universal venalty in human nature is little less an error in political reasoning, than the supposition of universal rectitude. The institution of delegated power implies, that there is a portion of virtue and honor among mankind, which may be a reasonable foundation of confidence; and experience justifies the theory. It has been found to exist in the most corrupt periods of the most corrupt governments. The venalty of the British House of Commons has been long a topic of accusation against that body, in the country to which they belong as well as in this; and it cannot be doubted that the charge is, to a considerable extent, well founded. But it is as little to be doubted, that there is always a large proportion of the body, which consists of independent and public-spirited men, who have an influential weight in the councils of the nation. Hence it is (the present reign not excepted) that the sense of that body is often seen to control the inclinations of the monarch, both with regard to men and to measures. Though it might therefore be allowable to suppose that the Executive might occasionally influence some individuals in the Senate, yet the supposition, that he could in general purchase the integrity of the whole body, would be forced and improbable. A man disposed to view human nature as it is, without either flattering its virtues or exaggerating its vices, will see sufficient ground of confidence in the probity of the Senate, to rest satisfied, not only that it will be impracticable to the Executive to corrupt or seduce a majority of its members, but that the necessity of its co-operation, in the business of appointments, will be a considerable and salutary restraint upon the conduct of that magistrate. Nor is the integrity of the Senate the only reliance. The Constitution has provided some important guards against the danger of executive influence upon the legislative body: it declares that "No senator or representative shall during the time for which he was elected, be appointed to any civil office under the United States, which shall have been created, or the emoluments whereof shall have been increased, during such time; and no person, holding any office under the United States, shall be a member of either house during his continuance in office."


October 6th, 2005, 10:02 PM

Statement by the President
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning. I'm pleased to announce that I'm nominating my personal lawyer, former secretary, and favorite step-and-fetch wet nurse – who I never ask why she ain't hitched and she never tells – Harriet Mier as my nominee to the stupid Supreme Court. OK? Are we done? Is this over?


What more do you want? Alright. Harriet, or "Dirty Harry" as I call her, is going to be the best darn judge ever and just believe me, because I'm really not in the mood to be questioned about anything. I won re-election didn't I? So why the hell is everyone all up in my mug about stuff that's totally out of my control? Stuff like hurricanes, and the budget, and corruption in the Congressional GOP leadership? I mean, I don't even KNOW those DeLay and Doctor Feelgood dudes who've been rubberstamping my policies for the past five years. And like, Iraq is my fault? As if! And listen, if you can't afford to fill your gas tank, then get another job, lardass! I have to pay for a whole gas-guzzling Presidential motorcade. And by "I", I mean "you". So back the **** off.

Anyway, Harry here is the man for the job, and I know, I know, I know... maybe YOU don't think she's qualified. But I gotta tell you: it just feels so right. It's exactly like when I asked Dick Cheney to find me a running mate. I asked Harry to find me someone too, but then I was like, "Hey, you know this stuff works, right?" And she (and Dick) said "Sorta." And I was like, "Then I'll just pick you – and save myself the trouble of reading all those boring resumes that cut into my naptime."

So trust me – she's a real good lawyer who has gotten me out of all kinds of trouble that has been classified "TOP SECRET" for forever. And while she's never been a judge, and never really written anything substantive about law and government, or proved herself to be anything even near a post-grad level expert on the Constitution, I'd like to remind you that the same goes for me – and I got elected to the President's chair like ONE AND A HALF TIMES! (Double Thumbs Up.)

And I'm talking not just to you press faggots, but also to people who I won't mention like DAVID FRUM, WILLIAM KRISTOL, AND BOB NOVAK.

Most importantly though, I trust Harry. She's a real loyal guy, and there's nothing I hold more sacred than loyalty. Just like Andy or Karl or Karen, Harry tells me how I'm right, when I'm right, and why I'm right every single minute of every single day. Because sometimes there's a little voice inside me that says "Hey George, despite your grotesque sense of absolute entitlement, you're just an Ivy League ****-up who's no more special than the po'folk left floating in New Orleans. The only difference being they never grew up diving off the backs of yachts in New England." And when that annoying little voice pipes up, people like Harry are there to tell me that I am the prettiest princess at the ball.

If that alone doesn't qualify her, I don't know what does. And anyways: I just got Chief Justice RoboJudge on the Supreme Court. And that bug-eyed poindexter has enough brains for him AND her.

And let me also tell you people, conservatives and whatever else there is alike, that just because Harry is 60 years old and still single and childless, does not mean she's a lesbianiac. I think most of us here will agree, that just because you bobbed for knob a couple times in Boy Scouts or in the country club sauna, or because the frat told you to doesn't mean you're a homo. You know what makes a homo? Some antique dealer liberal who thinks AIDS is this big squibbity-doo, believes in balanced budgets, and doesn't want big government in their bedroom. Or something like that. In short, I want to assure everyone that this scrappy little bull-dyke loves her some cock. Cock, cock, cock!

In closing: Democrats are still the minority party. They can bitch and moan and weep for the cameras all they want, but Harry is in and that's that.

And to all the faithful who have been straying from my flock, let me just remind them that in the coming years, this damn court is going to be hearing cases about whether the Executive Branch, and by association the Executive Office of the United States Congress, can withhold from the public certain stuff they did in the name of the people who think their votes count. And if the bench is full of liberals and/or people of conscience, they might decide to end the party, dig?

Are we done? I'm tired and I don't feel like fighting today – and it's not even nine in the morning.

So God Bless America blah blah blah thank you and over and out.


October 7th, 2005, 12:59 AM


Our President has recently announced Harriet Miers as his nominee to fill a vacancy on the Supreme Court of the United States. In making this nomination, president Bush has stated: (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/judicialnominees/)

"In selecting a nominee, I've sought to find an American of grace, judgment and unwavering devotion to the Constitution and laws of our country. Harriet Miers is just such a person. I've known Harriet for more than a decade. I know her heart, I know her character. I know that Harriet's mother is proud of her today, and I know her father would be proud of her, too. I'm confident that Harriet Miers will add to the wisdom and character of our judiciary when she is confirmed as the 110th Justice of the Supreme Court."

--President George W. Bush
October 3, 2005

It is sad to report that our politically controlled big media, in its extensive coverage of our President’s nomination, has neglected to expound to the public the most fundamental duty which Harriet Miers would have, if appointed to the SCOTUS.

Our media, and especially our “talking heads” on TV, appear to be quite comfortable in speculating as to this nominee’s political ideology, unearthing her past and predicting how she may rule in certain cases. Of course, this type of reporting creates a wonderful distraction from a productive and informative discussion as to just what is the most fundamental duty which Harriet Miers would have, if appointed to the SCOTUS, and, is she aware of what that duty is?

So, let us explore just what is the most fundamental duty of those appointed to the SCOTUS.

Thomas Jefferson informs us that:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Indeed, this is the most fundamental rule of constitutional law___ carrying out the intent of those who framed and ratified the Constitution. Even Congress is aware of this rule although Congress ignores it on a regular basis:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967).

Although there is over three hundred years of American history documenting the most fundamental principle of constitutional law requires an adherence to the “intent of the framers and ratifiers” of a constitution, it is quite fashionable these days for law students, political pundits, and especially the subjugators of our Constitutional system, to question this rule and even attack it on a number of inapplicable and/or thoughtless grounds. For example, one may question:

“Which framer's intent, and at what time? The framers had tons of different views on the law and the Constitution. They were far from being in agreement, so there is no clearly defined "intent of the framers and those who ratified our Constitution."

As a matter of fact, the above misconceptions are merely a reflection of what law professors have been indoctrinating their students with for many years. Whether it is done out of sheer ignorance, or as part of a conspiracy to intentional undermine the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system in order to subjugate the protections afforded the American People under it, is insignificant at this time. What is import, however, is to rely upon historical facts, documentation, and always use the rules of common sense in arriving at one’s conclusions, especially when determining what our written constitution was intended to accomplish.

We do know the constitution did not suddenly appear out of thin air; there is a history behind it and a wealth of recorded evidence documenting its day-to-day framing See Madison’s Notes (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm) on the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1787; see the Federalists (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm) and Anti Federalist Papers (http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm), recording public debate of the proposed constitution in a series of newspaper articles; and also see Elliot’s Debates (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html), the actual ratification proceedings of several states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state ratification, and, in many instances, it is elaborated upon by the very delegates who attended the constitutional convention!

Together, the above sources do in fact record a preponderance of evidence___ a general consensus___ establishing the intent of the framers and ratifiers and the beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to by We the People.

Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"

So, two of the most important question to be answered with regard to Harriet Miers are: Does she understand the most fundamental rule of constitutional law? And, will she support every one of her decisions, if appointed to the SCOTUS, with documentation from the words of those who framed and ratified our Constitution, showing their intent of any article, section or clause of the Constitution which has been asked to be reviewed by the Court?

In closing, another glib remark made by the subjugators of our constitutional system is: “It is stupid for us to be ruled by the dead hand of our founding fathers.” But this comment merely shows an intentional misapplication of our Constitutional system to support an allowance for judges to make law to accommodate changing times. But the wise framers of our Constitution provided the amendment process allowing future generations to make changes to their Constitution to accommodate changing times, and not be subjected to open ended judge made law “to accommodate changing times“. And, it is this amendment process, in which the reason and choice of the people is intended to prevail, rather than those who would re-write our Constitution via judicial opinions, which the subjugators of our Constitution hate with a passion, and wish to overrule with judge made law.

Let us put an end to this subjugation and demand the intent of our Constitution, as contemplated by those who framed and ratified it, and is found in the historical records, be made the cornerstone of every decision handed down by the SCOTUS!


October 7th, 2005, 09:21 PM
Lofter: There was something on CNN today and it was about one of these important topics ... on the Department of Justice website...

I'll check that out.

Meanwhile, over at Wonkette.com they're keeping me laughing:


Someone Sexied My Justice Up!



We assumed that the Bush administration would see Harriet Miers's much-needed makeover as just another ugly situation to put a happy face on (that electric blue suit screamed "last throes"), but looking at pictures from her tour of the Hill yesterday we were impressed: Harriet has a new look, and it doesn't remind anyone of a Star Wars villain.

Clearly, Katrina isn't the only disaster that the White House will take responsibility for.

She might, however, cut her own bangs.

October 7th, 2005, 09:38 PM
I'm so glad I took the time to go to the DOJ website...

I spent a few minutes looking through the "Sex Offenders Registry" (how come New York isn't in that game?) where I found multiple listings for offenders in middle income areas (Tom's River, NJ) but surprisingly not one listing for NJ's wealthier enclaves of Princeton or Summit!! (Maybe the locals run the pervs out of town before they can set up camp.)

Most assuring was finding the following next to a picture of a Friend of Harriet's, Alberto Gonzalez (now I can sleep well tonight):


http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/images/spacer_003366.gifhttp://www.lifeandliberty.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.lifeandliberty.gov/images/spacer_003366.gifhttp://www.lifeandliberty.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.lifeandliberty.gov/images/spacer.gifhttp://www.lifeandliberty.gov/images/spacer.gifFor decades, terrorists have waged war against U.S. interests. Now America is waging war against terrorists. As President Bush has said, "Free people will set the course of history." We have promoted freedom over the past two years while protecting civil liberties and protecting people here and around the world from further terrorist attacks.

The United States of America is winning the war on terrorism with unrelenting focus and unprecedented cooperation. Prevention of terrorist attacks is one of our highest priorities. With the President's lead, information sharing and cooperation has vastly increased. Today, we are better able to "connect the dots."
The Department of Justice has acted thoughtfully, carefully, and within the framework of the Constitution of the United States. Survival and success in this long war on terrorism demands that the Department continuously adapt and improve its capabilities to protect Americans from a fanatical, ruthless enemy, even as terrorists adapt their tactics to attack us.

October 7th, 2005, 09:52 PM
The DOJ site scared me too much, so I didn't stay very long.

October 7th, 2005, 11:42 PM
I can brave it. My computer is probaly already being traced since the 90s when I was in elementary school.
I wasn't scared of DOJ tracking me. It was the lies and BS that scared me.

October 8th, 2005, 06:06 PM
SHE'S A BLOGGER : http://harrietmiers.blogspot.com/ (http://harrietmiers.blogspot.com/)

Harriet Miers's Blog!!!

The blog of the #1 smartest President ever's #1 pick to be the next Associate Justice of the Supreme Court!

http://www2.martindale.com/Icons/miers.jpg (http://www.blogger.com/profile/13737013)


October 9th, 2005, 08:16 PM
Dobson: Waiting for A Signal from God
...He finally then discussed why he is supporting Miers, saying "I can't reveal it all, because I do know things that I'm privy to that I can't describe, because of confidentiality."

...What a fascinating statement. First, he continues to claim to know more than he can not reveal about Miers. Well, I think he needs to be subpoenaed myself then. Confidentiality ain't no defense to a subpoena.


Specter to Ask Whether Rove Gave Assurances on Miers (Update1)

Demian McLean
October 9, 2005 14:44 EDT


Oct. 9 (Bloomberg) -- Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter said he wants to know whether presidential adviser Karl Rove privately assured a conservative activist about how Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers would rule from the bench.

Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said he will would look into a statement by James Dobson, president of the Colorado Springs, Colorado-based advocacy group Focus on the Family, that Dobson has had ``conversations'' with Rove about the woman nominated to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor and knows things about Miers ``that I probably shouldn't know.''

``The Senate Judiciary Committee is entitled to know whatever the White House knew,'' Specter, a Pennsylvania Republican, said on ABC's ``This Week'' program. ``If Dr. Dobson knows something that he shouldn't know or something that I ought to know, I'm going to find out.'' He stopped short of saying he would subpoena Dobson or Rove to appear.

President George W. Bush's judicial pick has exposed fissures in his base of support and forced him to spend time unifying his own party. Republican senators such as George Allen of Virginia and Sam Brownback of Kansas have questioned Miers's qualifications, and conservative activists are divided in their support.


Bush used his weekly radio address yesterday to defend his choice of Miers, his White House counsel and longtime legal adviser, to serve on the Supreme Court. ``She knows that judges should have a restrained and modest role in our constitutional democracy,'' he said.

Senator Patrick Leahy, the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Miers had told him she'd made no promises as to how she'd vote on any issue that might come before the court, including Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that held women have the right to seek abortions.

Any such guarantee from a nominee should be enough to scuttle the nomination, said Leahy, a Vermont Democrat.

``If assurances were given of how any nominee, whether this nominee or anybody else, and somebody gives assurances how they're going to vote in an upcoming case, I would vote against that person,'' Leahy told ABC.

Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the Judiciary panel, said on CBS's ``Face the Nation'' program that Dobson, who made the statement on his syndicated radio show Oct. 5, should be called as a witness during hearings on Miers's nomination, which are set to begin next month.

Focus on the Family is a Christian activist group that opposes abortion rights and same-sex marriage and advocates what it calls traditional values. Calls to Dobson's spokesman weren't immediately returned.

Doubt on Promises

Leahy and Specter said they doubted Miers gave anyone promises of how she would vote. They said they planned to make initial inquiries before deciding whether to subpoena Rove or Dobson to testify before the Senate panel.

While Dobson endorsed Bush's choice of Miers, other activists remained skeptical.

``She sounds to me like another swing vote, which is the last thing conservatives want,'' Gary Bauer, head of American Values, an Arlington, Virginia-based group that opposes abortion and same- sex marriage, told ``Fox News Sunday.''

Miers could emerge as another David Souter, a Supreme Court justice picked by Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, who has proven to be a moderate, said Bauer.

Brownback, speaking on the CBS program, said conservatives wanted Bush to select a nominee with a clear record that shows a judicial philosophy in tune with their agenda.

``Harriet Miers doesn't have that track record, and doesn't seem to be well formed in her judicial philosophy, having never been on the bench,'' Brownback said.

Miers's supporters urged doubters to trust Bush.

``He picked a person he's known for 15 years, and I believe he picked her because he knows her that well, and he knows that she will vote the way he would want her to vote,'' Richard Land, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, told NBC's ``Meet the Press.''

While Land said Rove had called him one week ago, he said the adviser had given no signal as to how Miers views Roe v. Wade. Land's group, the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S., claims 16 million members.

Schumer said the White House should say publicly what it has been telling supporters in private.

``Karl Rove ought to let the public know what kind of assurances he gave James Dobson,'' Schumer said.

©2005 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved.

October 11th, 2005, 02:45 PM
Dobson to clarify info

Focus on the Family founder will talk on radio about Miers

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News
October 11, 2005


WASHINGTON - Focus on the Family founder James Dobson will take to the airwaves Wednesday and Thursday to clarify what information he got from the White House or other sources about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Dobson has faced a barrage of media attention in recent days because he has tentatively endorsed Miers just as other conservatives or evangelical Christian leaders have expressed doubts about her qualifications and concern about the lack of a paper trail outlining her views.

Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they might call Dobson to testify at Miers' upcoming confirmation hearings because of his statements implying he has confidential information about the nominee.

Last week, Dobson told listeners to his Christian-oriented radio program: "When you know some of the things I know - that I probably shouldn't know - that take me in this direction, you'll know why I've said with fear and trepidation (that) I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

Dobson said he spoke to President Bush's lead political adviser, Karl Rove, before the Miers nomination, although he has not said what they discussed. That has raised concern among some U.S. senators, including Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who say the White House should tell lawmakers whatever Dobson was told.

Focus on the Family spokesman Paul Hetrick said Monday that Dobson plans to address the Miers nomination again in a two-part broadcast scheduled to air Wednesday and Thursday.

"What he knows about her so far he likes, and enough to endorse her," Hetrick said. "Like all of us, he'd like to know more."

He said Dobson is looking forward to hearing Miers testify at the upcoming hearings, but that the committee has not asked him to appear.

On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the ABC network's This Week broadcast that if there are "backroom assurances" or "backroom deals" about how a nominee is going to vote, "I think that's a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American people."

Questions over what Dobson knows prompted the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to ask Miers last week whether she had told anyone how she would vote on any specific cases. She reportedly told Leahy: "I will be my own person. I will be independent. Nobody has the authority or right or ability to tell how I'm going to vote."

Dobson is a longtime opponent of abortion and has said he hopes the Supreme Court soon will reverse its landmark 1973 decision that cemented abortion rights. He said he believes Miers is against abortion, but in last week's broadcast added that "if I have made a mistake here, I will never forget it. The blood of those babies who will die will be on my hands to a degree."

Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family is one of the most prominent Christian media empires in the world, with Dobson's regular radio commentaries aired on 3,500 outlets in the United States.

Hetrick said Dobson has received more than 100 media interview requests since he offered a tentative endorsement of Miers while other conservatives expressed skepticism.

"He feels that enough time has passed and enough has been said in the media that he feels he can make some additional comments to any who are interested, especially to our constituents," Hetrick said.

"Our constituents, just as everyone else in the country, are consumers of news. He would want them to have perhaps a more complete understanding of what they may be reading in the news."

Hear it live
• Focus on the Family broadcast information can be found at www.family.org/fmedia/radiolog/index.cfm (http://www.family.org/fmedia/radiolog/index.cfm)

October 12th, 2005, 08:54 PM
Harriet Miers Out, Britney Spears In for Supreme Court Justice
By Ion Zwitter, Avant News Editor
Washington, D.C., January 4, 2006

Britney Spears will be the new Bush nominee for Supreme Court Justice, replacing Harriet Miers, whose nomination was recently withdrawn in the face of overwhelming bipartisan public sniggering. Close observers of the Miers fracas have pointed out that Bush's withdrawal of Miers' nomination was actually little more than a technicality, given that the Senate, in a rare moment of bipartisanship, had already voted 93-7 against confirmation last November.

The new nomination was announced by President Bush during a short hiatus in this morning's press flapdoodle with Scott McClellan on Air Force One. President Bush said that Spears, who is an expert in rhythmic "dancercise" and has achieved notable success marketing recorded entertainment to the under-14 WASP demographic, will make "a real good judge". While the choice of Washington outsider Britney Spears is clearly intended to help deflect growing accusations of cronyism and insideropeia within the Bush administration, pundits on both sides of the isle nevertheless predict an uphill confirmation climb for the youthful entertainer.

Britney Spears, who joined the nomination announcement via video uplink, said she was "totally excited" about the opportunity. "This is like so cool," said Ms. Spears. "I mean, like, the Superior Court and everything. It's like a dream come true. I mean for somebody, I guess."

Britney Spears has long been recognized as one of President Bush's most reliably sycophantic entertainers. The young superstar is a frequent visitor to both the White House and President Bush's Crawford estate, and says she "really looks forward to meeting Laura someday". Her number one single, "Oops! … I did it again" was reportedly a reflection on her state of mind after casting her vote for President Bush's reelection in 2004. She has frequently expressed her fervent admiration for President Bush, whom she regards as "dope".

A synthetic bio-product of the Disney Corporation's groundbreaking "Klon-Pop" Factory, the home-schooled Ms. Spears was already a smash sensation on the Disney Channel's Mickey Mouse Club, where she was adored by fans for her bounciness and squeakiness, by the age of 11. Her pop singing career exploded in 1999 with the release of debut album "Baby One More End Rhyme", killing six and injuring fourteen. Ms. Spears has also lent her name to a popular adult fragrance, Phantazy, and recently gave birth to a human child, Sean Preston Mantis Walker Spears.

"The Walker's for Walker, Texas Ranger, not for the president, even though I like totally worship both of them," Ms. Spears explained at the press conference announcing the child's addition to the Spears entourage last fall.

Despite her unquestionably impressive resume, many pundits and lawmakers are worried that President Bush may have succumbed to yet another lapse in judgment with the nomination of Ms. Spears. White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan, however, was quick to launch a preemptive attack against any potential criticism that the nominee may be underqualified for the prestigious post.

"The president has the utmost confidence in Ms. Spears' ability to serve as the ninth member of the Supreme Court," Mr. McClellan said during the press flapdoodle. "The president knows her intimately, and describes her as possessing a lilting contralto. The nominee also has a great deal of experience in matters of law, having spent years negotiating recording contracts with some of the hardest-boiled eggs in the business, and if that's not a trial by fire, then I don't know what is."

In response to follow-up questioning, Mr. McClellan admitted that many of Britney Spears' recording contracts were in fact negotiated with the aide of lawyers.

The Senate Judicial Committee plans to commence deliberations on the Spears nomination by early February, in the event that a vacant slot can be located in Spears' tour schedule. President Bush said he hopes for "a real quick confirming for this smart lady".

October 13th, 2005, 08:48 AM
Latest news is twofold:

That a lot of potential appointees removed their names from the list AND that Miers is actually an evangelical Christian....

Morning news soundbite......

October 13th, 2005, 01:36 PM
From the files ( http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers1.html (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers1.html) ) of the "When Harriet Met George" Mutual Admiration Society:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/1012055miers1.gif (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers2.html)

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/graphics/art3/1012055miers2.gif (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1012055miers3.html)

October 13th, 2005, 02:13 PM
Well, it is so apparent that they aren't Catholic. Look at that penmanship.

TLOZ Link5
October 13th, 2005, 02:23 PM
Harriet Miers Out, Britney Spears In for Supreme Court Justice

Good news for Sara Ramirez, who plays the Lady of the Lake in Spamlot! and laments being constantly replaced by Britney.

October 13th, 2005, 04:21 PM
October 13, 2005
U.S.: Miers Won't Withdraw Top Court Nod
Filed at 3:31 p.m. ET

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The White House on Thursday dismissed the possibility that Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers might withdraw if she encounters heavy fire in her Senate confirmation and suggested her nomination was becoming embroiled in ''side issues like religion.''

Asked if there were any circumstances under which she would ask that her name be withdrawn, presidential spokesman Scott McClellan told reporters: ''No one that knows her would make such a suggestion.''

''And no one that knows her record and her qualifications would make such a suggestion,'' McClellan said.

Conservative critics have complained that Miers lacks a clear judicial philosophy and have questioned whether she is the best-qualified nominee, given that she has never been a judge and has little public record.

President Bush and White House officials have sought to reassure conservatives by emphasizing Miers' evangelical faith. ''Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion,'' Bush said on Wednesday.

Yet in a combative exchange with reporters, McClellan on Thursday said: ''You all want to focus on side issues like religion.''

''We've always talked about her record and her qualifications,'' McClellan said.

''And I think that we are doing a disservice for the American people when we focus on other issues and not her record and qualifications and experience, because that's what matters when you're on the nation's highest court,'' McClellan added.

Miers, 60, currently serves as White House counsel. She is a former Dallas corporate lawyer and was once Bush's personal lawyer.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press

October 17th, 2005, 09:07 AM
Judgment Call

Did Christian conservatives receive assurances that Miers would oppose Roe v. Wade?

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m.


Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: "When you know some of the things that I know--that I probably shouldn't know--you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. "I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade," Mr. Dobson said last week. "But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion."

It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.

The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.


Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson's in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades.

Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: "That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls." (When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was "very possible" he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.)

Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter. Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can't recollect who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that Ms. Miers was "pro-life," a characterization he has repeated in public. But he says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he answered, "I don't know." He doesn't recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe.

The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.

The conference call will no doubt prove controversial on Capitol Hill, always a tinderbox for rumors that any judicial nominee has taken a stand on Roe v. Wade. Ms. Miers meets today with Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York, both stalwart Roe supporters, who surely will be interested to learn more about her views. After Mr. Dobson's initial comments about "things . . . that I probably shouldn't know," Sen. Arlen Specter, the pro-Roe Judiciary Committee chairman, said, "If there are backroom assurances and if there are backroom deals and if there is something that bears on a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known." He and ranking Democrat Pat Leahy of Vermont threatened to subpoena Mr. Dobson as a witness.

Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers's hearings. "If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it," a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. "Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions," one participant told me.

Should hearings begin on Nov. 7 as is now tentatively planned, they would likely turn into a spectacle. Mr. Specter has said he plans to press Ms. Miers "very hard" on whether Roe v. Wade is settled law. "She will have hearings like no nominee has ever had to sit through," Chuck Todd, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline, told radio host John Batchelor. "One slipup on camera and she is toast."

Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. "The nomination is in real trouble," one GOP senator told me. "Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her." Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it's possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright.

There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.

President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a "superstealth" nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.

Copyright © 2005 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

October 20th, 2005, 12:08 AM
Now, she supports discrimination based on how one is "perceived". Charming lady. A good heart. Good Christian.

From The Washington Blade

Miers opposed AIDS non-discrimination laws
Supreme Court nominee's 1989 questionnaires in conflict
By CHRIS CRAIN | Oct 18, 1:51 PM

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told a conservative Dallas group that she opposed legislation prohibiting discrimination in the workplace and accommodations for people with AIDS or "perceived to have AIDS," according to a newly released questionnaire she completed in her 1989 run for City Council there.

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told a conservative Dallas group that she would not support an ordinance forcing businesses to hire persons with AIDS and those perceived to have AIDS. "Would you support an ordinance that would force businesses to hire persons with AIDS and those perceived to have AIDS?":eek: the survey asks, and Miers checked "no."

She also indicated her opposition to any ordinance requiring "individual property owners and businesses to provide accommodations" to PWAs or "those perceived to have AIDS.":eek:

The questionnaire, responding to the Dallas Eagle Forum, is among documents submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee and was included on the Washington Post Web site today. The Post has not reported on her answers to the AIDS-related questions.

Miers' answers to the Dallas group, which is a chapter of the Eagle Forum founded anti-gay conservative Phyllis Schafly, are in contrast to more positive comments she made in response to similar questions from a Dallas gay group during that same 1989 Council campaign.

The Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas asked Miers if she supported "a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on AIDS/HIV status" and a second ordinance that bans workplace discrimination based on "AIDS/HIV status" among other categories.

In response to both questions, Miers wrote, "I prefer a legislative solution to the issues raised by these questions. I do not have all the facts on the significance of these ordinances; however, I am willing to discuss the need and make an appropriate decision when fully advised."

In that same gay rights quesionnaire, Miers said she agreed that "gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women," but she also opposed repealing the Texas sodomy law, which applied only to gay sex. Her responses to those questions elicited criticism from social conservatives and gay rights groups alike.

The Americans with Disabilities Act, passed in 1990, one year after the Miers questionnaires, banned many types of discrimination against people with certain disabilities. In 1998, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the case of Bragdon vs. Abbott that persons with HIV, even if they show no symptoms of full-blown AIDS, are protected by the ADA. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who Miers has been nominated to replace, dissented from the decision in a close 5-4 vote.

October 21st, 2005, 06:15 PM
An illuminating take on Presidential Pardons / Impeachment / SCOTUS:



Pardons May Be Voided For Criminal Prosecutions
Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment"

The Constitution Voids Presidential Pardons For Criminal Convictions
Or Indictments Flowing From "Cases of Impeachment" Where
The Senate Has Voted To Convict.

Full Analysis: http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/09/treasongate-new-constitutional.html (http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/09/treasongate-new-constitutional.html)

PROLOGUE: Citizen Spook has timed this report to coincide with John Roberts' confirmation hearings for Chief Justice of The Supreme Court (note: this issue takes on new importance with the nomination of Bush's former attorney, Harriet Miers). Roberts' most important function, as far as the Bush White House is concerned, will be to ensure that presidential pardons, issued by Bush in relation to Treasongate offenses, will be upheld by the highest court in the land.

As Chief Justice, Roberts will have the most power to steer the court and to determine which justice will write the court's opinion on controversial topics. While the entire nation focuses on whether Roberts would overturn Roe v. Wade, much more important to the Bush White House is the role Roberts will play in the impending Constitutional crisis over presidential pardons for the Treasongate offenders.

Many readers of this blog have expressed concern that any indictments returned by Patrick Fitzgerald's grand jury(s) will simply be nullified by presidential pardons. Their concern is certainly justified. Generally, the president's power to pardon is virtually unlimited and not subject to judicial review.

However, in researching the issue, I was pleasantly surprised to discover an obscure Constitutional device which insulates certain convictions/indictments from the broad pardon power granted to the president. This never before tested Constitutional process requires the House of Representatives to Impeach and the Senate to convict "civil Officers of the United States" so that pardons of those Officers pertaining to criminal prosecutions flowing from "Cases of Impeachment" can be voided.

The power to Impeach granted to Congress is essential to our Republican system of checks and balances. For what good are checks and balances if they are not employed to maintain the laws of the nation? If Fitzgerald's investigation properly alleges criminal activity by Government Officers involved with Treasongate offenses, Congress must begin Impeachment proceedings to remove those Officers.

The coming Supreme Court battle has never, in the history of American jurisprudence, been tested before.

The question presented:

Whether "civil Officers of the United States", including the President and Vice President, can be pardoned for criminal convictions (or indictments prior to conviction) which flow from "Cases of Impeachment" where the Senate has voted to convict?

This issue has never been tested in our entire national history. Actually, I couldn't find a single legal discussion directly on point. No civil Officer of the United States has ever been Impeached in the House of Representatives, convicted in the Senate, then removed from office and successfully prosecuted in a criminal court only to be granted a presidential pardon.

According to the Constitution, "civil Officers of the United States" may be Impeached. So, for purposes of this analysis, we shall assume that various United States Officers, from the President and Vice President to Cabinet members and others in the State and Justice Departments, have committed impeachable offenses. We will also assume that the House has impeached these Officers after Patrick Fitzgerald's investigative report is released and that the Senate has voted to convict and thereafter removed them from office and that Grand Jury indictments have been returned following the Senate's conviction. And finally, we will also assume that the "sitting" president has issued sweeping pardons for every Officer indicted in criminal court.

This analysis will be limited to situations where convictions/indictments occur after House Impeachment and Senate conviction. Assuming indictments are returned by Fitzgerald's grand jury(s) prior to Impeachment, the president, despite the intense political fall out which is guaranteed to occur, may pardon those Officers involved, even himself. But Congress would still have a duty to Impeach those Officers. Assuming such Impeachments are followed by Senate convictions, all of the removed Officers will thereafter be subject to indictment, criminal prosecution and punishment.

Thereafter, according to a fair reading of the Constitution, criminal court indictments, convictions and sentences may not be pardoned when they flow from "Cases of Impeachment" where the Senate had voted to convict.

In order to avoid a double jeopardy defense, the Impeachment process should be completed prior to criminal trial prosecution and conviction. However, indictments alone do not trigger double jeopardy defenses.

It's well established that presidential pardons cannot overturn the "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment". Such "judgment" is directly limited, by the Constitution, to removal from office and disqualification from ever serving as an Officer of the United States.

The issue which has never been litigated before is: Whether civil Officers of the United States, removed from office by conviction in "Cases of Impeachment", who are later tried and punished in criminal courts, can thereafter be pardoned by the President?

This report concludes that the Constitution bars any such pardon.

Until now, the White House could take some measure of confidence that, if all else fails, they will fall back on the erroneous public assumption that the broad pardon power granted to the president by the Constitution would shield them from criminal punishment for Treasongate offenses.

But a well educated Congress and citizenry will make their illegal plight exponentially more difficult.

And that is the purpose of this blog.

The presidential pardon power, when aimed at anything but "Cases of Impeachment", is virtually plenary. But the serious problem the Bush White House now faces is that most of the Treasongate perpetrators are "civil Officers of the Government" and are therefore subject to Impeachment.

Should those Officers be convicted in the Senate, following Impeachment in the House, they will nevertheless also be subject to criminal prosecution and punishment in the form of prison sentences or the death penalty. Those convictions, indictments and sentences which flow from "Cases of Impeachment" may not, according to the Constitution, be pardoned.

CitizenSpook has prepared the following analysis to educate the American people for the coming Constitutional crisis regarding the broad sweeping grant of pardons soon to be issued by the Bush White House.


Article 2, Section 3, Clause 1:
"The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
(http://</p><p> </p><p><font color=&quot;#333333&quot;><i>&quot;The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.&quot;</i></p><p> </p><p><b><u>That's the only mention of pardons in the Constitution.</u></b></p><p></font>)

That's the only mention of pardons in the Constitution.

(http://</p><p> </p><p><font color=&quot;#333333&quot;><i>&quot;The President...shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.&quot;</i></p><p> </p><p><b><u>That's the only mention of pardons in the Constitution.</u></b></p><p></font>)

MORE: http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/09/treasongate-new-constitutional.html (http://citizenspook.blogspot.com/2005/09/treasongate-new-constitutional.html)

October 27th, 2005, 10:49 AM

Miers' withdrawal letter
RAW STORY (http://rawstory.com/)
Oct. 17, 2005


Dear Mr. President:

I write to withdraw as a nominee to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I have been greatly honored and humbled by the confidence that you have shown in me, and have appreciated immensely your support and the support of many others.

However, I am concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country.

As you know, members of the Senate have indicted their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue.

As I sated in my acceptance remarks in the Oval Office, the strength and independence of our three branches of government are critical to the continued success of this great Nation. Repeatedly in the course of the process of confirmation for nominees for other positions, I have steadfastly maintained that the independence of the Executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position, especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.

I share your commitment to appointing judges with a conservative judicial philosophy, and I look forward to continuing to support your efforts to provide the American people judges who will interpret the law, not make it. I am most grateful for the opportunity to have served your Administration and this country.

Most respectfully,
Harriet Ellan Miers

October 27th, 2005, 01:46 PM
Darn, I was hoping she would be rejected after a tailspin and inevitable breakdown during questioning by the Senate.

October 27th, 2005, 10:47 PM
The discussion concerning the nomination to the SCOTUS exposes and brings to light we have extremists in our society--- left wing militants and right wing militants, who ought to be viewed as domestic enemies of our constitutional system!

What these militants have in common is their desire to use the SCOTUS to impose their personal whims and fancies as being within the meaning of our Constitution, even though their personal views are, without question, in direct conflict with the intent of the Constitution and the beliefs under which it was agreed to by the people when ratifying it, and can be documented from historical records such as:

Madison’s Notes (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/debates/debcont.htm) on the proceedings and debates of the convention of 1787; The Federalists (http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed.htm) and Anti Federalist Papers (http://www.constitution.org/afp/afp.htm), recording public debate of the proposed constitution in a series of newspaper articles; and Elliot’s Debates (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html), the actual ratification proceedings of several states, during which time the meaning and intent of the various articles sections and clauses of our Constitution is elaborated upon to gain state ratification, and in many instances it is elaborated upon by the very delegates who attended the Constitutional Convention!

Together, the above sources do in fact record a preponderance of evidence___ a general consensus___ establishing the intent of the framers and ratifiers and the beliefs under which the Constitution was agreed to by “We the People.”

Justice Story in his Commentaries informs us that:

"If the Constitution was ratified under the belief, sedulously propagated on all sides, that such protection was afforded, would it not now be a fraud upon the whole people to give a different construction to its powers?"

And Jefferson tells us:

"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."--Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.

But the domestic enemies of our constitutional system want to give new meaning to our Constitution and do so without that meaning being accepted by the people via the Constitution’s amending process. What these scoundrels pretend is that the SCOTUS is not bound to abide by the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted. They eagerly instruct us that the Court is not required to adhere to the intent of the Constitution and support its opinions with supportive references to the historical records mentioned above, because to do so, would bind us to the “dead hand of its framers“.

This thinking disingenuously ignores the amendment process, designed by the framers to allow the people, not renegade judges, make change to accommodate changing times. But there is a reason for their thinking, it cleverly removes the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system [abiding by its documented intent] and sets folks in government free to make the Constitution mean whatever they want it to mean.

The bottom line is, and should be remembered by all freedom loving people, the most fundamental rule of our constitutional system is to carry out the intent and beliefs under which our Constitution was adopted.

“A constitutional provision is to be construed, as statutes are, to the end that the intent of those drafting and voting for it be realized."(Mack v Heuck (App) 14 Ohio L Abs 237)

"No part of the constitution should be so construed as to defeat its purpose or the intent of the people in adopting it."Pfingst v State (3d Dept) 57 App Div 2d 163 .

"the rule being that a written constitution is to be interpreted in the same spirit in which it was produced" Wells v Missouri P.R. Co.,110Mo 286,19SW 530.

"Where language used in a constitution is capable of two constructions, it must be so construed as to carry into effect the purpose of the constitutional convention.” Ratliff v Beal, 74 Miss.247,20 So 865 .

"In construing federal constitutional provisions, the United States Supreme Court has regularly looked for the purpose the framers sought to accomplish.” Everson v Board of Education, 330 US 1, 91 L Ed 711,67 S Ct 504, 168 ALR 1392.

"The primary principle underlying an interpretation of constitutions is that the intent is the vital part and the essence of the law." Rasmussen v Baker, 7 Wyo 117, 50 P 819.

And, see Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 37 U.S. (12Pet.) 657,721(1838), in which the Supreme Court has pointed out that construction of the constitution "...must necessarily depend on the words of the Constitution; the meaning and intention of the conventions which framed and proposed it for adoption and ratification to the Conventions...in the several states...to which this Court has always resorted in construing the Constitution."

Fact is, even Congress understands this fundamental principle of constitutional law, even though they no longer follow it.:

"In construing the Constitution we are compelled to give it such interpretation as will secure the result intended to be accomplished by those who framed it and the people who adopted it...A construction which would give the phrase...a meaning differing from the sense in which it was understood and employed by the people when they adopted the Constitution, would be as unconstitutional as a departure from the plain and express language of the Constitution." Senate Report No. 21, 42nd Cong. 2d Session 2 (1872), reprinted in Alfred Avins, The Reconstruction Amendments’ Debates 571 (1967),

Now, here is an example of the Court pointing to what the Founders intended by referencing the Federalist Papers 18 times in order to find the legislative intent of our Constitution. See:UNITED STATES v. LOPEZ, ___ U.S. ___ (1995)] (http://www.able2know.com/go/?a2kjump=http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=514&page=549) Also see: GREGORY v. ASHCROFT, 501 U.S. 452 (1991) and: Nixon v. United States (91-740), 506 U.S. 224 (1993).

John W K, Founder
American Constitutional Research Service

"In matters of Power, let no more be heard of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution"Thomas Jefferson

October 28th, 2005, 08:02 AM
Well, the right's on-going argument for a simple "up or down vote" on nominees has been totally compromised. They never seem to think anything through or consider consequences.

October 28, 2005

Steady Erosion in Support Undercut Nomination

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 - By Monday, even the staunchest allies of the Bush administration could no longer deny that the nomination of Harriet E. Miers to the Supreme Court was in deep, deep trouble.

The conservative rebellion had not subsided. Her individual courtesy calls to senators had failed to quiet the doubts about her constitutional expertise. Her performance in rehearsals for her confirmation hearings worried some White House officials. And Republican senators were agitating for documents from her work in the White House.

On Tuesday, Senator Jeff Sessions, the Alabama Republican who is a conservative stalwart on the Senate Judiciary Committee, vented his concerns in a conversation with former Senator Daniel R. Coats of Indiana, who was escorting Ms. Miers through her meetings with senators.

"I was uneasy about it, and I just explained my unease," Mr. Sessions said. "I shared with Dan my observations, the good and the bad. I think the American people at this point in time would desire a person who is steeped in constitutional jurisprudence, particularly the people who supported President Bush."

With support slipping on Capitol Hill and the White House preoccupied with an array of problems like Iraq and the C.I.A. leak case, the endgame had begun.

Administration officials said it became clear as more and more Republicans demanded White House documents involving Ms. Miers and more and more sympathetic senators expressed the fear that the nomination had suffered too many setbacks. Officials said they were increasingly worried about the drip of reports about Ms. Miers's past, including her speeches, writings and work as commissioner of the Texas Lottery, which could have made her nomination hearings insurmountably tough.

It was, a Republican official said, "death by a thousand cuts."

"It was senators who are friends calling and saying she has no gravitas," said the official, who insisted on anonymity because the White House requested no public discussion of internal deliberations. "If she had gotten as far as the hearings, she could have been confirmed."

Senator John Cornyn, the Texas Republican who is a friend of Ms. Miers, said, "In the end, it was clear that this has turned into a very tough, very nasty process, and you have got to really want it to be able to submit yourself to all of this."

White House officials would not say whether Mr. Bush and Ms. Miers had spoken about the downward track the nomination was taking as events unfolded this week. They emphasized that the decision was entirely Ms. Miers's and that Mr. Bush had been disappointed by the process.

The exit strategy, in the end, revolved around the documents. On Monday, Mr. Bush drew a "red line" over the documents demanded by the Judiciary Committee.

"People can learn about Harriet Miers through hearings, but we are not going to destroy this business about people being able to walk into the Oval Office and say, 'Mr. President, here's my advice to you,' " Mr. Bush told reporters after a meeting in the cabinet room.

With that, Mr. Bush signaled that an impasse had been reached, one that would ultimately allow Ms. Miers to withdraw gracefully. The events that followed tracked almost perfectly with advice given a few days earlier by Charles Krauthammer, the conservative syndicated columnist. "A way out: irreconcilable differences over documents," Mr. Krauthammer wrote in a column.

Ms. Miers informed Mr. Bush of her withdrawal in a telephone call to the White House residence around 8:30 on Wednesday evening.

Senator Bill Frist, Republican of Tennessee, the Senate majority leader, spoke to Andrew H. Card Jr., the White House chief of staff, around that time, offering what an aide to Mr. Frist described as a "frank assessment" of her confirmation process. Officials said that by the time Mr. Frist weighed in Ms. Miers had spoken to the president.

Looking back, Senator Sam Brownback, Republican of Kansas and another conservative on the Judiciary Committee, said he could understand the rationale behind the nomination.

"I can see the president deciding to make this choice, saying: 'This is a conservative, I am going to be able get this one through without a big fight. It has got some support from Harry Reid. So I might get some Democratic votes. My base will hold with me, because they will know I will pick somebody conservative.' I mean, I can see the calculus."

In the end, Mr. Brownback said, social conservatives were simply not inclined to go on faith that Ms. Miers was a reliable conservative.

"They had been burnt on so many ones before," he said. "They wanted to really know."

There were, in fact, warnings from the start. After years of waiting, hoping and political organizing, all in pursuit of a fundamentally different Supreme Court, conservatives were not in the mood for anything less than what Mr. Bush had promised: a justice in the mold of Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas.

When reports circulated late last month that Ms. Miers was a leading contender, Gary L. Bauer and other prominent social conservatives told their contacts at the White House that her record was too unknown, that the nomination "would be troubling and very hard to sell," Mr. Bauer recalled.

The White House was known for its exquisite antennas among conservatives, but these were difficult days - Hurricane Katrina, Iraq, scandal on Capitol Hill and the investigation of leaks about of a Central Intelligence Agency operative - that embroiled and distracted Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff.

A Republican sympathetic to Mr. Rove argued that the difficulties in Ms. Miers's nomination stemmed in part from the process, which was overseen by Mr. Card. While Mr. Rove was well aware that Ms. Miers was among those under consideration, he said, the vetting process and the final deliberations were so tightly held that Mr. Rove, the White House's main ambassador to social and religious conservatives, did not know that she was the choice until a few days before the announcement.

That timetable left him little time to canvass opinion among conservative groups and assuage their doubts and left the White House off balance in the battle's early stages.

From Day 1, it was an uphill fight.

"The White House sort of pleaded with me, 'Please don't take a position until the hearings,' " said Paul M. Weyrich, a veteran conservative organizer and founder of the Free Congress Foundation.

But the conservative rebellion against the nomination did not diminish. It grew, fed by the "blogocracy," by a powerful set of conservative columnists, by a movement that felt it had "swallowed" enough compromises on Mr. Bush's agenda, as David Keene, head of the American Conservative Union, put it.

"In a sense, this was his, 'Read my lips,' " Mr. Keene said, alluding to the first President Bush's promise that he would never raise taxes, which he broke to the enduring anger of conservatives.

When it came to the Supreme Court, Mr. Keene added: "His people said, 'This is all important, and you can trust him on this.' So when they woke up one morning and saw all this, they said, 'What's going on here?' "

The problems were only compounded on Capitol Hill. Because Ms. Miers lacked a judicial record, her courtesy calls with individual senators were all the more important.

But unlike Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who made similar rounds in the summer, she did not overwhelm the senators with her constitutional mastery. Her most damaging misstep may have occurred on Oct. 17, when she met for a second time with Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Specter, a former prosecutor who prides himself on his legal expertise, came away from the meeting with the understanding that Ms. Miers recognized a right to privacy in the Constitution, a crucial underpinning of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that established abortion rights.

After news agencies reported Mr. Specter's comments, Ms. Miers called him to contradict his account. His office released a statement an hour later saying he accepted her version, without admitting that he had gotten anything wrong. To Ms. Miers's critics, that was another example of her inexperience on constitutional law.

Her responses to a Senate questionnaire - sent back as inadequate - further undermined support, as did the disclosure this week of speeches she gave in 1993 in which she talked about the importance of "self-determination" on issues like abortion and school prayer.

As the days passed, she found herself in an agonizing crossfire between left and right, between those who challenged her qualifications and those who challenged her conservatism - and some who challenged both.

Her friends said the unforgiving process had to take a personal toll.

"She never let on," said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas. "She was very strong."

But when it was over and Ms. Miers called her on Thursday morning, Ms. Hutchison said: "She sounded like she had just come back from a football game. She was happy. She was ready to go. She was going to start working on getting another nominee."

Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company

November 8th, 2005, 09:48 PM
Gettin' in her last licks ...


October 27, 2005

Hi! Just a quick note to say that you looked heavyish last time I saw you, which, come to think of it, was this morning, in the Oval Office, when you accepted my withdrawal (which you had secretly demanded) and ruined my life and dreams and spirit. I hope we can stay friends. And, again, I am sorry for vomiting on your desk. Best to your wife (Laurel??).

Harriet Miers, NOT a Supreme Court nominee


October 27, later on

It dawns on me that I may not have mentioned that you ruined my life. Or did I? Also, do you ever wonder where you’d be if it wasn’t for your father, who, when you think about it, was a really amazing person, who did SOOO much in his life, especially compared with you who have done so little? I read that you were a cheerleader once. Girls do that a lot. Eucalyptus is good for absorbing bad smells (like human vomit). That was a lot of vomit. But then I had a tough few weeks, in which I was humiliated in the national media, and you and your staff (some of whom may be indicted soon??) were not one scintilla of help. Friends forever!


October 27, quite late

Pinot Noirs are nice. This second bottle tastes better than the first, actually. Sometimes I pretend I’m the lead singer of the O’Jays (“People all over the world, join in, start a love train, love train”). Do you think I’m pretty? Once, I staged a mock wedding to you in my home, alone, except for Mr. Pickles, my cat. It was very, very late, like it is now, and I dressed in a fluffy white robe and walked slowly down the pretend aisle and said “I do” and closed my eyes and smooched your skinny, chapped lips because you were, to me, so perfect. I would like to file imaginary divorce proceedings against you now and withhold connubial favors. Let’s see what THAT does for that eye tic. Friends?

Your ex-wife, Harriet Miers


October 28, late

What do I mean by emotional break-down? I guess I mean that the edges of everything seem to be rounded and sound disappears if I look at a thing too long. What is dignity? The phrase “Pass the brownies, please” plays over and over in my head. I was happy once, just a few weeks ago.
I have no idea of the time or date or where I am.
It’s not really a bench, is it? I mean, there are chairs. You said it was going to be like Roberts. Why lie? Want to know a secret? I don’t believe in God.


October 28, the clock moves, as if on its own

I just spoke with Michael Moore. What an inquisitive, interesting man. He said that many of the things I shared with him about being White House counsel were very, very interesting to him. We made plans to meet for coffee soon, so that I can show him some papers. Do you know what phrase has less and less meaning for me with each passing second? “Attorney-client privilege.”


October 29

I have a question: Is Lewis Libby married? Because, if he’s not, he will be, in jail. Bye for now, friend!


by John Kenney

Issue of 2005-11-14
Posted 2005-11-07


TLOZ Link5
November 8th, 2005, 10:00 PM