At 8 AM EDT, President Bush is expected to announce his nominee for Supreme Court Justice to replace the retiring Sandra Day O’Connor. His choice? Harriet Miers, White House counsel - according to a "senior administration official." We’ll know for sure in less than an hour.
Update: It’s official.
Harriet Ellan Miers is White House counsel and was formerly President Bush’s personal lawyer in Texas. She first served in the White House as staff secretary and was deputy chief of staff before she was named counsel upon Alberto Gonzales’ transition to attorney general.
[…]
Born and raised in Dallas, Miers earned her undergraduate degree in mathematics and her law degree from Southern Methodist University. In addition to her legal career, she served one term on the Dallas City Council.
Miers, 60, broke barriers for women throughout her career. She reportedly was the first woman hired by the prestigious Dallas law firm Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, where she became a successful commercial litigator. She also became the first female president of the Dallas Bar Association in 1985 and was the first woman elected president of the Texas Bar Association in 1992.
Miers met Bush in the 1980s, according to published reports, and she was counsel for his 1994 campaign for governor. He appointed her chair of the Texas Lottery Commission in 1995.
Miers then was president of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell and co-managing partner of Locke Liddell & Sapp before she joined the White House in 2001.
In addition, Miers was named one of the Top 50 Most Influential Lawyers by the National Law Journal in 1998, and she received numerous other awards from groups including the Dallas Women Lawyers Association, the Anti-Defamation League and the Dallas Association of Young Lawyers.
Blogger reax: John Hawkins: "This is undoubtedly the worst decision of Bush’s entire presidency so far."
(I should also note that in response to a blogger poll John took last week on blogger choices for the next USSC nominee, I responded that I didn’t want to see the President pick Alberto Gonzales or Harriet Miers. Oh well 
)
Jack Kelly is disappointed in the President’s pick.
Confirm Them says "Mr. President, you’ve got some explaining to do."
Jay at Stop the ACLU has a list of conservative blogger reactions and the consensus seems to be that almost everyone is disappointed.
Michelle Malkin: "Utterly Underwhelmed." She also has a link roundup of blogger reax.
| Email This Post | Print This |
I’m not thrilled. I wanted Bush to pick Janice Rogers Brown.
Is there any thought that Bush could be playing “Rope-a-Dope” with the Democrats with this nomination? Let the Democrats rail, wail, rant and filibuster in order to set them up for defeat for the mid-terms?
Comment by PCD @ 10/3/2005 - 9:35 am
But, let’s remember the immediate reaction after Roberts was nominated…a lot of ambivelance from the conservative side…
She’s not my first choice, and I really, really expected a fight. I still hope there is one, beacuse there is NO way the Dems come out looking good there. I’m just surprised about the age, to be honest. I expected him to go younger.
Comment by ArizonaTeach @ 10/3/2005 - 10:25 am
I campaigned for Barry Goldwater in Brooklyn NY! Said we should WIN the war in Nam. Endured Nixon’s failures and that nincompoop Carter. Reveled in Ronald Reagan! Voted for that little gnome Perot over GHWB in pure frustration. Now this! Just when we have a real senate majority and can smash a conservative right down Boxer’s and Schumer’s throats and humiliate them, he goes and nominates this ‘moderate’.
The clue was when ‘W’ invited that scumbag Kennedy to the White House to watch movies.
We lose! Republicans just don’t have the testicular fortitude to win.
Comment by Shooter @ 10/3/2005 - 10:33 am
Oh BTW did I mention the 8 years of rage when that slug Clinton was in the White House? Looks to me like he’ll be going back.
Comment by Shooter @ 10/3/2005 - 10:37 am
Well, my reaction was a Howard Dean-like scream! Got a form email from the RNC an hour ago — I’m not a member, but I got on some mailing list somewhere — asking for me to tell newspaper editors, radio talk-show hosts and everybody else why I support Harriet Meirs. I wrote back:
If I don’t know why I should support her myself, how can I tell them why I do? I don’t know Harriet Miers. She’s the dictionary definition of a “stealth nominee.” As far as we know, she’s Souter in drag. Give us her Conservative credentials before asking for our support. And this is coming from a staunch Conservative who has strongly supported the President and given him the benefit of the doubt on every issue.
Comment by CavalierX @ 10/3/2005 - 1:34 pm
the Republicans need to tell their own to get in line. If what is being speculated at Powerline is true, then I still will not be sending the RNC any more donations like I used to. Its bozos like Arlen Spector and John McCain that will minimize this party. They seem to be unconfortable with being the majority party and are only interested in showing people that they are “moderates” instead of having some back bone and telling the left and the MSM (redundant, I know) to pound sand.
In my estimation its time to have a smaller tent. If the “moderates” don’t like it, tough.
Posted first here
Comment by mlgsac @ 10/3/2005 - 3:56 pm
Like many others, I know nothing of Harriet Miers. But I believe I know the character of George W Bush. This ’stealth’ candidate was not recently introduced to the President, she is someone who has worked closely with him for a number of years. While I don’t know her judicial philosophy, I am confident that George Bush does.
Those who wanted a divisive confirmation fight in the Senate had hoped for some well known ideologue and are disappointed in this choice. Since the goal is to seat jurists who follow the Constitution and do not legislate from the bench, Ms Miers may be an excellent candidate. Should the Senate confirm her without a fight, there are many well-financed special interest groups poised to abandon those Senators who had promised a litmus test. That fight promises to be more entertaining.
Comment by Ray Manus @ 10/3/2005 - 8:25 pm
I’m hoping and praying that Ms. Miers is the bluff and bump before the check in this ongoing game of Political Five Card Texas Hold ‘Em.
Though I’ve been around the game long enough to not hold my breath.
I really wanted to see the Dems have conniptions over Priscilla Owens or Janice Rogers Brown!
Jack.
Comment by Jack Deth @ 10/4/2005 - 12:04 am
>Ms Miers may be an excellent candidate
“may be” is the problem. I don’t like ambiguities. But I’ve decided to let the Liberals do the work on this one. Let them dig into her background to find reasons to hate her… which, for me, will be reasons to support her.
Comment by CavalierX @ 10/4/2005 - 6:52 am
Standby for heavy rolls.
Harriet is a former Catholic AND an evangelical!
Lord help her!
See the Anglican blog Titus 1:9 (http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net/)
Tom
(a schmo in a choir)
Comment by Thomas C. Wyld @ 10/4/2005 - 1:16 pm
Uh oh, Tom - let’s hope Chuck Schumer doesn’t find out
Cav: that is a great point! Let the libs do the digging and what they find will likely make us support her and them villify her.
Comment by Sister Toldjah @ 10/4/2005 - 8:36 pm