Talk:Harriet Miers/Archive 2005

Is it Harriett or Harriet?

There seems to be dispute over the number of T's in her name. Peripatetic

Just one T NoSeptember 11:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I added the redirects though Mmmbeer 11:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What are her qualifications?!?

Attended SMU and got a undergrad and law degree HARDLY qualifies her for being a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE!!! What made her so special? Or is she just a Bush favorite... which is as it appears to be from her bio.

She is similar to Rehnquist, who was working in the political areas of the White House and Justice Department when he was picked in 1971. The constitution has no requirements for justices, technically, anyone could be picked (even a non-lawyer) NoSeptember 11:59, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Let's limit the discussion here to the content of the article. There are plenty of places on the net appropriate for debate on the merits of the Miers nomination.Circumspect 12:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, but the original poster brings up a good point, though maybe not phrased in the most tactful way. There will probably need to be a "controversy" section at some point, though I think it can wait until the news media has more time to react. I'm sure we'll get some quotes within a couple of days.

Also, does anyone have any idea of what her political beliefs are? --Jacquelyn Marie 12:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed reference to honorary degree from Pepperdine. Honorary degrees are not legitimate qualifications.

So she's been nominated to the highest court in the USA and nobody has a clue about her aside from a snippet biography. --161.38.223.244 13:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• She's never been a judge?! Well, there's nothing like becoming a Supreme Court Justice to "give it a try, and hope it works out". (?!?) That's like trying to fly a Boeing 747 before you learn to drive a car. She was giving money to the Democrats (Al Gore?!) only in '88! No kids. Hmm. Could be a "trojan horse". "The President is the most brilliant man I ever met". Flattery. Clever. ("But I'm still smarter" she may be chuckling to herself.)Perhaps the Republicans have been out-smarted again. Or maybe George Bush cut a deal with the Democrats: "If you let me replace Rehnquist with a Conservative; which will look good to my "conservative base", then I'll replace Sandra Day O'Connor with a closet liberal-somebody who will preserve the status quo on abortion. That way, we can avoid all the fuss on this nomination thing." Maybe the American public has been out-smarted again. Didn't a similar boon-doggle occur under Herbert Walker? Like father... Ooh! She gives me the "willies". (Oct.)

I've tried to unify all the material about her lack of judicial experience under the Qualifications controversy subsection. See what y'all think.Brandon39 15:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• Can we get a nice summary about her qualifications?
  • Historically, how many other judges have had zero experience (as an appellate judge), (as a judge at all), (arguing before the supreme court)?
  • How much she might know about general jurisprudence... she's on the bar, bur anything beyond that?

I don't know. This nomination is kind of unbelievable, most news stories start with "IF she is confirmed", with a big emphasis on the "IF". But there are probably some creative ways we can come up with to gauge her experience anyway, in the meantime. --Interiot 00:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I know that historically, and perhaps in modern times as well, we like seeing Judges appointed to the Supreme Court who have some experience and previous legal rulings that we can use to gauge their positions, but I don't recall from my high school civics class that the US Constitution even sets out the requirement that a supreme court justice be a lawyer. So, constitutionally speaking, she's qualified merely by breathing. --ABQCat 07:49, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Neither Arthur Goldberg, Earl Warren, William Henry Moody, Harlan Fiske Stone, Charles Evans Hughes, James Clark McReynolds, nor Louis Dembitz Brandeis (to name a few I looked up) had prior Judicial experience. Looking back at some earlier 20th century nominations, it seems a lot were elected to a single federal court (such as the sixth circuit court of appeals) before being appointed to the supreme court. So it doesn't actually seem uncommon, unless you limit yourself just to the past 50 years.

As far as I know, nor did former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. -Parallel or Together? 11:05, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it appears his highest prior position was as the US assistant attorney general (I checked sources outside of Wikipedia to be sure). I should note that Authur Goldberg (1962-65) and Earl Warren (1953-69) were given as examples of the most recent appointees by a democratic president who don't have prior judicial experience (according to a U.S. News). Nathan J. Yoder 23:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Warren was appointed by Eisenhower, a Republican. But I see your point. -Parallel or Together? 05:00, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's a list I madeon regarding universities and prior highest law experience with all appointees after 1900 (it was too long so I gave up):

• Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.* - Harvard - Justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
• William Rufus Day - University of Michigan - United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• William Henry Moody - Harvard - U.S. Attorney General
• Horace Harmon Lurton - Cumberland University - Chief Judge of Tennessee Supreme Court/United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
• Charles Evans Hughes - Columbia University - professor of law at Cornell/a New York state legislative committee investigating utility rates
• Willis Van Devanter - University of Cincinnati - Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
• Joseph Rucker Lamar - Washington and Lee University - Georgia Supreme Court
• Mahlon Pitney - College of New Jersey (now Rutgers University) - New Jersey Supreme Court
• James Clark McReynolds - University of Virginia - U.S. Attorney General
• Louis Dembitz Brandeis - Harvard - trial lawyer (legal reform)
• John Hessin Clarke - ??? - U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
• William Howard Taft - Cincinnati Law School - Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals/President

List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Also, this might be interesting: "The administration released material showing that 10 of the 34 justices appointed since 1933 had worked for the president who picked them." -Judicial experience

Nathan J. Yoder 08:08, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Also worth note: John Marshall, the 'Father of the Supreme Court' was never a judge. However, the precedent of judicial review of the constitution was established by him. I'm no fan of Bush, but judges don't alway make the best judges!

Picture

Lets find a bigger and better picture. NoSeptember 11:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. --ThomasK 12:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, ThomasK. — ceejayoz ^★ 12:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't like this picture, it looks nothing like her at the moment. She looks a lot older and has less hair now.

Replaced with a more recent picture. --Androidqueen

The current picture, while public domain, is once again too small. We need to keep searching for a bigger and better picture. NoSeptember 19:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How big is big enough? Personally, I think a more accurate (read: up-to-date) picture is better, regardless of size, but clearly we differ on this. Androidqueen 19:57, 3 October 2005 (UTC)Androidqueen

That picture seems to be a thumbnail. It is also used on this article: Bush Supreme Court candidates, so I would use a pic close in size to the Roberts picture on that page. Just my opinion, of course. (and the pic has already been resized adequately) NoSeptember 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The picture was 140x200, which is rather larger than a thumbnail (and it certainly didn't show up thumbnail-sized in my browser), which is why I ask. Ideally, yes, it would be larger, but so far, that's the biggest fairly usable picture that I've been able to track down. Of course, I just realized that you weren't the one to revert it. Am I on crack? I had thought that pictures from the State Department's website were covered by fair use? Androidqueen 20:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Find one where she doesn't look like Darth Sidious.

Lottery scandal?

What's that link to Texas Lottery Commission Scandal doing there? Looks like it has nothing to do with her. — ceejayoz ^★ 12:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It was added by an anon; probably just trying to attack her character. BTW: ceejayoz from the Relic Forums? --tomf688^{talk} 12:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It appears she was center to some pretty serious scandal, or at least some pretty serious attacks: [1] — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 12:33

NPR just said she was put in charge of cleaning the Commission up and she did a good job at it, they said she was assigned to it fell into corruption. (I'm not a Republican either)--Ceaser 12:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

We can't simply assert, without attribution, that she's "credited with rescuing the commission from the previous corruption scandal." I'm sure some partisan Republican can be found to say such a thing, and that's fine if reported as that person's opinion. If NPR did some kind of investigation and came to that conclusion (as opposed to merely reporting what her boosters were saying), so much the better. I'm removing the plaudits, however, until someone provides a version that meets our NPOV standards (by being attributed to a notable spokesperson). Furthermore, there were at least some corruption issues on her watch. I'll try to write a summary with citations. JamesMLane 07:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Oh. I thought maybe it was referring to the process of selection of a nominee: the President simply resorted to a "lottery, and picked her name out of a hat". I guess not. (Oct.)

FindLaw info

Here is her profile on FindLaw, chock full of information. Everyone should help add this stuff to the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 12:44

Personal details

It would have been nice to have added some personal details here, to get a more complete picture of ms. Miers. Examples could be:

• Is she married?
• Does she have any children?
• Spare-time/recreational activities (sports, charities etc.)

--Fredrik Orderud 12:47, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

CNN says she is single and has no children. I would ask if she was ever married.--Ceaser 12:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added what we know from CNN re: this into the article, but another user had previously done so, and yet another user took it out because they found it extraneous. I hope it stays, this time. That could be a very good indicator of some of her beliefs, actually, just by what she's chosen to do with her life. --Jacquelyn Marie 12:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Aggreed.--Ceaser 12:56, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

If she's never been married, that would be interesting in that she and David Souter would be the only never-married members of this Court. Maybe someone could fix them up. ;-) -- BD2412 ^talk 13:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What does "she has a massive FUPA" mean? Is this a US term? Could somebody change it to something easier to comprehend:

FUPA is a regional young-person USA derogatory slang term for an area of one's body that sometimes carries extra weight. If you really want to know, highlight the area between the |'s with your cursor: ||Fat Upper Pussy Area||. Needless to say, it should not be in the article. --Quasipalm 14:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Certainly not - it's unsourced! -- BD2412 ^talk 03:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Can we drop the single/childless thing to a "Life and History" section, similar to what we have in Sandra Day O'Connor's bio, or the "Family" life section in Rehnquist's? There's a lot of variation in the way personal details are handled for SC justices here (see Souter), but it's difficult to imagine that Miers' single/childless status is one of the more important things we need to know about her. Mediareport 14:13, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• I agree - in Souter's bio, it's basically an afterthought. What isn't there isn't really notable. If she's confirmed, I may add a note pointing out the similarity in both articles, but not before then. -- BD2412 ^talk 14:23, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

What's the point of mentioning her friends?

"She is a close friend of Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, and former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman."

For starters, how is it relevent who her friends are? This doesn't usually appear in bios. This, instead, seems to be a (not so) subtle way to discuss her sexuality. She isn't just friends - she is "close friends."

Political Donations

MIERS, HARRIET E MS DALLAS, TX 75219 LOCKE PURNELL RAIN HARRELL GORE, AL (D) President ALBERT GORE JR FOR PRESIDENT COMMITTEE INC $1,000 primary 02/16/88 Donates (for her firm?) thousands of dollars to Al Gore, Lloyd Bentson, DNC (against Senior George H. W. Bush?). http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

Looks like she switched from donating to democrat causes to republican ones around 1990, 1991 or so. Still, possibly a good indication of a moderate, because anyone too far to one end wouldn't even consider switching! --Jacquelyn Marie 13:06, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Please try to keep the discussion about improving the article. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-10-3 13:09

Hey, any way we can figure out what the heck she stands for gives us a good chance of improving said article. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 22:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I doubt that has anything to do with her personal beliefs, but rather this is because the Republicans were gaining more power in American politics. You gotta donate where the power is to get kick-backs. --Howrealisreal 13:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to disappoint you folks, but this doesn't really indicate much of anything in the way of moderate tendencies on Miers's part. You will note if you look at that page that all of her donations to Dems, including Gore 2000, were for primary elections. All of her donations for general elections were to republicans, including GWB in 2000 and 2004 (both primary and general elections). Obviously she's playing strategy to influence the lineup--not particularly remarkable, nor worth noting in the article. Nothing to see here... NTK 13:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

is there a mistake in this section? 1988 campaign of gore?

Exodus Ministries

Looking at the FindLaw page I practically screamed when I saw that Miers served on the board of Exodus Ministries, Inc. But I quickly did some checking and found that it is this obscure nondenominational Christian Exodus, not this [2] infamous nondenominal Christian Exodus "degayification" group. So if anyone else wonders, it's a Dallas-based Christian ministry to ex-offenders. Certainly still fits in the conservative picture, but with a rather more benevolent & less insane purpose. Didn't see anything else of note in there, or even at all Christian, other than the very nondenominational YWCA. In fact there was a bunch of leadership roles with the Legal Aid Society, that in combination with the ex-offender bit might actually translate into a judge with a bit of compassion. One can only hope. NTK 14:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

How did you find that it was the prison ministry and not the ex-gay group? There are many of us interested in this, including political analyst Andrew Sullivan but I haven't seen any confirmation either way.

Three things. It's based in Dallas, and its name is "Exodus Ministries, Inc." Miers is a Texan who lived in Dallas for years. The de-gay brainwashing camp is called Exodus International, not Exodus Ministries, Inc. And lets face it, despite what the loony-toon branch of the GOP might want, what would make more sense for a SCOTUS-justice-to-be-lawyer to be a director of, a fairly mainstream ministry for ex-felons, or a wingnut ex-gay group? NTK 15:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Since there's no mention of either Exodus in the article, I've removed the link, as it is without context and smells of linkspam. If in fact this is a relevant link, it should be explained in the article. rewinn 04:26, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastor's opinion

Found this posted here [3] [4]:

I talked yesterday with Miers' pastor, Ron Key, who for 33 years (until a few weeks ago) was pastor of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas. “She started coming to church in 1980. She helped out with kids, made coffee, furnished donuts, served on missions committee. She worked out her faith in practical, behind-the-scenes ways. She doesn't draw attention to herself, she's humble, self-effacing." Key has still seen her in recent years because "her mother is 93. Harriet tries to get home as much as she can." When Key and Miers met in 1980, "I don’t know how strong her faith was at that time. She came to a place where she totally committed her life to Jesus. She had gone to church before, but when she came to our church it became more serious to her.... Our church is strong for life, but Harriet and I have not had any conversations on that…. We believe in the biblical approach to marriage."

Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years, where Hecht has been an elder. He calls it a "conservative evangelical church... in the vernacular, fundamentalist, but the media have used that word to tar us." He says she was on the missions committee for ten years, taught children in Sunday School, made coffee, brought donuts: "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her." On abortion, choosing his words carefully for an on-the-record statement, he says "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church."

Obviously I think that since she has such a small public record, the article could draw inferences from her faith -- which is looking to be anti-abortion and anti-gay (both major issues in America right now). Is this fair or would this be extrapolating too much? --Quasipalm 14:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I added this:

Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, Texas was Miers' chuch from 1980 until more recent years. When pastor Ron Key was asked about Miers' views on abortion, he said, "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians... You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church." [5] He also said, "We [Valley View Church] believe in the biblical approach to marriage." [6]

--Quasipalm 15:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable that we would extrapolate her views based on her religeous affiliation. It is outrageous to me as an American we would form opinions on a person's beliefs based solely on someone's faith. She has spoken several places, and more germaine to her qualification is her ABA and State Bar work. Dominick 17:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

We're not extrapolating her views from her religious affiliation -- we're talking about a very specific church. Also, we're quoting someone who knows her well who was asked about her positions. To me this is more acceptable, however, yes, statements made by her directly would be preferable on all accounts. Currently, there seems to be little to go on however. --Quasipalm 19:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed that the section on her Church, her pastor and the thinly veiled inferences about abortion are out of place. Unless someone goes to the Church of Satan, nothing having to do with one's private exercise of religion should matter. Not only is this section POV, it is offensive. --Paul 19:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Why do you single out the Church of Satan for prejudice? I personally would agree that 1) The pastor in question is sending a very strong message that he believes her to be anti-gay and anti-choice and 2) His opinion isn't worth jack. Let the woman speak for herself. Unfortunately she almost certainly will not speak for herself until she's securely on the bench writing opinions, but that seems to be the nature of the game these days. On the one hand it's obvious that she's a conservative given her background and career, and also that she is probably at a minimum personally opposed to abortion (and who knows, possibly what those of that affiliation call the "homosexual lifestyle"). On the other hand, you can't really tell how a SCOTUS justice will turn out ahead of time, especially ones who have a low profile (Souter is of course the canonical example). I would be extremely shocked if Miers turned out to be a Souter, but on the other hand I have no idea how she would practice or interprete law. Keep in mind that Roe v. Wade is good, settled common law. It is entirely possible that she would respect that precedent. It is entirely possible that she would chip away at it. There is a danger that she would overrule it. Which that is, nobody can say at this point, least of all the pastor at her podunk hometown church. NTK 19:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless someone goes to the Church of Satan, nothing having to do with one's private exercise of religion should matter.

Why shouldn't the Church of Satan receive the same rights as any other religion? I don't see how their belief that "every individual can be his or her own god and is responsible for his or her own destiny" is such a dangerous concept worthy of government persecution. — ceejayoz ^★ 20:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I was incorrect in singling out the Church of Satan. It would be inappropriate to represent the views of any church leader as the opinion of the nominee. I maintain the pastor's comments and the policy musings in that section should be removed from the article as inappropriate. --Paul 21:14, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

The article, in its current incarnation, is fine with me in this respect, but that is because there are a lot of carefully-worded caveats. If those go, so does my support of these inferences. --Jacquelyn Marie 03:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

POV?

Can we get a source and attribution for this?

"Given her close association with President Bush, if she is appointed to the Supreme Court, she would have to recuse herself in cases involving the president."

Given Al Gore's close association with Breyer you'd think he would also need to recuse himself from cases involving Gore or the Clinton Admin, yet he did not. Is this a citation of someone else's legal opinion? If so please add the source in front of the statement as in Ron Kuby says, .... Thanks. --Kirby Morgan 15:31, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It was from one legal expert interviewed by NPR, did not catch his name. But isn't this standard legal practice? She has been part of the Administration for a long time, if the Administration has interest in a case, she has to recuse. Nothing POV about it. It's the same for former employer/company etc. Probably just need to reword the statement, change "Bush" to "Administration". --Vsion 15:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Having been a White House Counsel, she would have to recuse herself from cases on which she worked directly, but not anything coming from the Bush Administration. -- BD2412 ^talk 15:46, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

And ALL judges must block out the politics and focus on the law, why put this on Mier's article? Every judge has things that s/he most further dissociate themselves with more than they had previously.Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 15:51, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Recusal is a standard legal practice, if you look at the article of Recusal, BD2412 was refering to the 4th clause (cases previuosly involved), but her association with Administration falls under the 3rd clause (personal association) that still warrant a recusal. Is this relevant? While ... the NPR expert thinks so. --Vsion 16:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

This just seems obvious, and whenever these kinds of obvious facts are pointed out, I suspect POV, and so will the reader, Wiki does not need this.Voice of All ^@|E|Merit 16:08, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Supreme Court Justices are a special case; each justice makes his or her own decision on a case by case basis. Googling on the net, I keep finding references to something called "1993 State of Policy on Recusal", which was signed by Roberts a few days ago, but so far I haven't found an actual copy of the document.

I'm actually neutral about this, just heard it over the radio and transfer the information here. I'm surprise that a factual statement could draw such responses. But really ... I've no interest except to clarify the fact. --Vsion 16:32, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Smoking

Does anybody have any information on her position on smoking? Does she have a position on the Federal Government coming along and aggressively stamping out tobacco? There are a handful of cases on the rights of the states, individually, to regulate trafficking in tobacco, even as it may involve some indian reservations. When it comes to tobacco, is she going to be an advocate of "states' rights" or is she going to be an advocate of Federal Law being the sole means of regulating tobacco?

When she organized a speaking tour for a women's studies program, she brought in Louise B. Raggio. Was Ms. Raggio a smoker?

Are any of the members of her law firm smokers?

The Supreme Court formerly had two smokers, Rehnquist and Scalia, and it is known that Thomas occasionally smoked a cigar. Although the court currently consists mostly of non-smokers, it pays to look behind the scenes and see which of the Justices have friends or acquaintances that are smokers. This colors the way they look at tort law, and whether strict liability - at a Federal level - is ultimately excused as a matter of assumption of risk. This actually says a lot about the scope of an individual's initiative, and whether the individual can appropriate risks in the same way he can appropriate other things, such as those that are newly created, and which have not existed before. On the other hand, it also says a lot about whether the state must protect people from themselves, or whether interference between smokers and non-smokers, for instance, sounds in tort, and is ultimately actionable or not.

Who gives a crap? Positions on smoking are not very important federal subject matter. Smoking laws & tobacco mass torts are a matter of state law anyway. And even if they weren't they would hardly rank as top issues that the court is going to be deciding, considering what is at stake. 24.193.32.228 00:25, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Come on, when it comes to tobacco and tort law, the difference between a matter of private concern and a matter of public concern is often a matter of class action certification. To some of us, yes, it makes a difference which side of the fence she's standing on. And even if it isn't tort law - and the ease with which an action can be certified as a "class action" - it also makes a difference whether tobacco should be stamped out at the federal level, or whether this is something that should be reserved to the states.

Vandalism warning

Just to tell you that I added a warning to vandals to not try anything here, like it was done with other current events articles that appear on the Main Page. Titoxd 17:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

I removed this line from the introduction: On the classic Babe Scale of 1 to 10, Miers is a two. I felt it was vandalism. Alex Klotz

Suffice it to say this note is completely unnecessary. You can post to BJAODN if you feel the need. NTK 19:58, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed this line from the introduction just now: She is single and has two aborted children. Any source for that? I presumed it was vandalism. Rouge8 22:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

It's not pure vandalism because the rumor is floating around on the Web, but I haven't seen anything that would merit inclusion in the article. So far, at least, there's neither good evidence supporting the allegation nor enough serious people advancing it for it to be notable. JamesMLane 07:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

A quick google didn't turn anything up either. Rouge8 21:25, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, for real--she's had two. She carries them around in a 7-11 bag tucked in her pants, and has named them "Cleo" and "Tony". Sheesh...and you thought that was a FUPA? Gullible.

Separate Supreme Court nominations and hearings page

I have copied verbatim everything under "Supreme Court nomination" onto Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and hearings. Perhaps rather than larding this article up with all the details, we could summarize here and go into more depth over there? Brandon39 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Secretary??

Could someone please expand on the role of "Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary"? Because it kind of sounds like he just hired his administrative assistant to be a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE! {rageful-screech} jengod 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Putting aside concerns about Ms. Miers' experience and the potential role of her personal friendship with the President (which I share) and apparent religious rightism (which I also share, see my user page, but such concerns do not need to be in an npov article), she has had a significant career (including heading a law firm of hundreds of lawyers). The title of secretary may be more in the sense of the "UN secretary-general" rather than "someone who types and keeps track of the managers' schedules." "Assistant to the President" is likely just below a cabinet-level post (Rice was formerly "assistant to the president for national security" IIRC). Pakaran 21:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"Assistant to the President" doesn't imply administrative assistant, nor any pejorative connotation you attach to it. Other people with the same title include Andy Card, Karl Rove, and I. Lewis Libby.[7] -Parallel or Together? 11:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Oldest?

The page says she is the oldest nominee since Lewis Powell. What about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She was born in March 1933 and nominated in spring or summer 1993. Isn't that the same age or older than Miers? --JamesB3 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've checked, and you are indeed correct, Ginsburg was ~3 months over 60 when she was nominated, Miers is just 1.5 months over 60. I've made the change. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, Rehnquist was almost 62 when he became CJ. Of course, he was younger when he started on the Court. Pakaran 21:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Abortion

The "Views on Abortion" section seems confusing and possibly POV. Can we change it to make it clearer? 128.135.157.81 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Done. Some people want to talk about abortion in the article. We need to restrict ourselves to talking about Harriet Miers. It's fine to mention that her position on abortion is probably the #1 question mark in most people's minds because changing O'Connor's swing vote could overturn Roe v. Wade, but that is as far as we should go here. Not appropriate to talk about how it has or doesn't have a legislative basis. Tempshill 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, Tempshill. If Wikipedians want to talk about how this nomination could affect abortion law, they should do it in a new sub-head in abortion. Please please please go over there. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

i agree, and the edits have helped. I have made a couple of additional edits to clarify O'Connor's swing vote role on the court (the reason Miers nomination is so important for this issue). TMS63112 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

For the record, thanks to whoever subsequently moved the abortion and qualifications paragraphs over to Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and hearings; that's where they do belong, along with other controversies about her nomination. Tempshill 15:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Personal details

I would like to see more about her as a person, if we are going to be so nosy as to ask her Church.

"She's not a back-slapper. She's very businesslike," says Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who has dated Miers over the years and has known her since he first became a lawyer at Locke Purnell in 1975. [8]

The article is a treasure trove of details, I hope we can paint a good picture of the amazing career of this woman (I can say that and be a little PoV in Talk.) Dominick 22:33, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I created a subsection called personal life and moved the infomation about her family to thtis section. I also restored the information about her involvement in her Church. This still needs clean-up, but I think it is a relevant detail, much the same way that the information about the church John Roberts and his wife attend is included in his bio.TMS63112 01:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Her remarks at the White House this morning [9] seem to imply that she had a sister (Kitty) who passed away. I am adding this information to the "Personal Life" section. Alos, should the two talk sections on "personal details" be merged? TMS63112 01:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

75Janice 19:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)=="Elite school"== First of all, plenty of judges -- and even justices -- have stalked the halls of instituation other than the ivy league. Take, for example, Thurgood Marshall. The elitism is bullshit. That said, Miers was unqualified because she was, well, unqualified. She wasn't an impressive candidate; get over the school issue though.

Northwestern may be great undergrad, but its law school has seen better days. When Stevens attended, it was first-rate. While it is still well-ranked, it is not on par with Yale, Harvard et al; in fact, it is considered by many to be overrated even in its current ranking.

Why do some authors insist upon not reavealing the name of the law degree earned by all law school graduates since 1971? The White House chose to refer to her degeee as a J.D.. Why should we use a generic term for this degree, when we do not do so for other degrees, such as D.D.S., M.B.A., M.D., or Ph.D?

Powell earned his Master of Laws degree from Harvard Law School.

A couple of times this afternoon I've seen someone insert a remark that Miers is the first nominee since Lewis Powell who didn't attend an "elite" school. I just removed an instance of this usage. Whether a school is "elite" is a judgment call; we say very early in the article that she is a graduate of SMU; the reader can follow the wikilink and decide for him or herself what quality education Miers received. (Sorry, forgot to sign my note.) Brandon39 23:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. Clearly, Miers resume is not "typical" of a Supreme Court nominee, and I think its appropriate for the article to note the ways in which she is different (not having been a judge being the most prominent). Her education is another factor. Most current members of the court attended Harvard or Yale; Rhenquist and O'Connor both attended Stanford. Stevens received his law degree from Northwestern. Stanford is of course are not "Ivy League" either and "Ivy Leaguers" have dominated the court. Maybe that's the distinction the article should make. Any other thoughts? (forgot to sign) TMS63112 23:07, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"Ivy League" would certainly be a more specific term, and is much more NPOV -- some people would reguard being a non-Ivy Leaguer as a feature rather than a bug. I'm not sure the reference belongs in the top section in any form, though. We have a section on her education and early life and career; a sentence there might be appropriate. Brandon39 23:10, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I've added an "Ivy League" sentence in the section about experience, comparing her education with other recnt nominees. It seems appropriate there since it deals with controveries about her qualifications. TMS63112 23:25, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

I have reverted changes by an anonymous user who continues making reference to "elite" schools without any objective basis for judging what is and is not an elite school. The most recent edit had redundant information on SMU and removed information about other justices who have not attended Ivy League schools. Having this information allows readers to draw their own conclusions about Meirs education compared to recent justices. Please discuss changes here and help us build consensus before making further changes. TMS63112 02:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What you've done seems like an improvement to me. Thanks. Brandon39 03:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Here's the problem with using "Ivy League" ... Stanford is not an Ivy league school. There has to be some way to convey the notion that Harriet Miers will potentially be the first Supreme Court justice not to have attended Yale, Harvard, Stanford, or the University of Chicago (all these schools are in the top 4 or 5 of the US News rankings ... SMU is 52) (Bork and D. Ginsburg attended UC I believe but neither were confirmed). 24.250.136.236 06:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I can say Miers is the first justice not to have attended a top 5 school (since Powell) in the US News and World Report rankings. 24.250.136.236 06:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

This is better than a vague statement about "elite" schools since it is a verifiable ranking system. Where does Northwestern (Stevens alma matter) rank in the US News and World Reports? We also must be cautious about making judgements using current law school rankings that came out 30+ years after the court members and nominees graduated from law school. TMS63112 13:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree that "elite" should not be used. Nor should "ivy league" because it is too often confused with a quality education (many ivy league programs rate far below other schools). I would like to see her school's ranking at the time she attended. Perhaps then we could say that she did not attend a top-ranked institution.

I don't know. This is a subject of common conversation in the last day. Here's an idea: The general commentary that she didn't attend an "elite school" is not precise commentary, and therefore it would be silly for us to try to shoehorn a precise definition into this imprecise complaint. How about if we instead characterize the conversation rather than the exact definition of the school? 208.57.241.42 16:45, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The current language is "If confirmed, Miers will be the first Supreme Court Justice since Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr. not to have attended a top-four law school in the U.S. News & World Report university rankings (though Powell received a master's degree from Harvard Law School)" However, John Paul Stevens graduated from Northwestern, which is currently ranked 10th by US News and World Reports [10] Therefore, I am changing the reference to a "top 10" school. TMS63112 18:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC) forgot to sign

You know, this paragraph comparing Miers' education to other Justices seems to be getting out of hand. It's got more qualifiers in it now than a cat has hair. Is it possible we could just revert it to the fact that she graduated from SMU, and let people draw their own conclusions? SMU may not rank with Harvard, but it's not a diploma mill, either. Just asking, because people keep changing it around and adding stuff, and I'm not sure how productive it is. Brandon39 23:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree completely with Brandon39's first note of 3 October. The notation of elite is a judgment call. It's best to let the reader decide for him/herself what the status of SMU is and how it compares to law schools attended by other justices. Trying to group by categories like the Ivy Leage and US News Ranking just complicates things. The Ivy League is, at its root, an athletic conference, like the Big 10, Pac-10, etc. As others have noted, it just raises more questions about how schools like Georgetown, Stanford, etc. which are not in the Ivy League are evaluated. Worse, using the US News rankings which are very often the subject of debate, if not derision, seems to cheapen the factual nature of this article. Let the reader decide.24.60.184.196 22:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Great emphasis is placed on the ranking of your law school. Graduates of elite law schools rarely practice in certain areas-including personal injury. I notice a difference between lawyers from the top schools and the lower schools. I am puzzled by the difference because today if you are admitted to any U.S. law school, you are bright! Her credentials are mediocre. Her charities appear bland. She is bright but when compared to the competition from both sides of the Court she does not measure up as Supreme Court material.

Dallas Bar Association and State Bar of Texas

Let's ditch the external links in the intro and write articles on these two notable organizations. -- BD2412 ^talk 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

• One down. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Good job on that first one. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 04:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I've put up a stub for Dallas Bar Association, too. — ceejayoz ^★ 18:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Nicely done! -- BD2412 ^talk 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"near the home of now President Bush"?

An anonymous user added the statement that Miers was born in Dallas "near the home of now President Bush." Which of Goerge W. Bush's homes? Presumably not in Crawford, where he lives now, nor in West Texas where he was raised. Even if true, is this relevant? TMS63112 03:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Removed it. Distance from Dallas to Midland: 330 miles (5 hour drive); Dallas to Crawford: 120 miles (2 hour drive).

4.228.216.10 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It's true if you change it to "a former home." Bush lived in the Preston Hollow area of Dallas for many years before he was governor - his daughters attended Preston Hollow Elementary nearby (I was in their class, which is how I know this - you could probably find a linkable source pretty easily with a google search on Jenna Bush or Bush Twins). Might arguably be relevant in the sense that Dthe White House is sort of an extension of Dallas culture, but I'll leave that discussion to those of you with more experience deciding what's relevant. --BarrettBrown 20:12, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the article makes it clear that Bush and Miers know each other from Texas, starting in the early 1990's, which is the relevant information. I think having a reference to Bush in the section about Miers birth is confusing and irrelevant because it could imply that they knew each other since childhood, which does not appear to be the case. TMS63112 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Miers' law firm paid $22 mill for "Defrauding Investors"

The May 1, 2000 Class Action Reporter notes that Miers' law firm, Locke, Liddel & Sapp paid $22 million dollars for its part in "defrauding investors." While Miers was at the head of the firm, it apparently had failed to warn investors that the currency-trading firm that Locke Liddel was representing was apparently operating a Ponzi scheme.

Since she headed the firm during this scandal, it could lead to charges of Enron-like accounting. Should this information be listed in her bio?--RattBoy 10:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The accusation isn't going to go anywhere. The suit was against particular corporate attorneys that didn't include Miers (who was a litigator), and the firm was vicariously liable. The attorneys responsible aren't with the firm any more. A managing partner like Miers was isn't like a CEO; her role is administrative, and she certainly doesn't supervise the work of attorneys in different departments. -- FRCP11 19:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

References

In an effort to implement the Cite your sources guideline, which seems especially important in a volatile article that covers hot-button topics, I will add a References section using the note&ref citation templates. As time permits today, I will also add source references for any direct quotes I can track down (starting with "a pit bull in size 6 shoes" which I already found in the Washington Post). Assistance is useful. --Kgf0 15:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I removed the template. The template is inflexible, forces a standard by which there is no consensus, and (most importantly) wikifies the name of every writer cited. It's best to use plain text. --Neutrality^talk 18:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Enh, screw it then. I'll leave it to you to fix the links you left behind. --Kgf0 18:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I might add, as I restore the footnote format, that this template provides certain advantages over bare references: consistant formatting; linking to Wiki articles on notable authors and news organizations; and linking within the page for those who want to jump down to the reference, and back up to the point in the article where they left off. --Kgf0 18:10, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You guys could always use Wikipedia:Footnote3 without a reference template. You can get automatic numbering and can jump down and back quite easily.. — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Links

Added a NPoV tag to links, it will take a while to see what is germaine and what is not on topic. A lot of these are not on topic, but are PoV attack on Miss Myers, or PoV praise of Miss Myers. PoV links should be removed or moved to the confirmation page. Dominick 13:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Pit bull

I have now twice removed the "pit bull" quote from the lead of this article, and I'd like to explain why. It admittedly is a colorful comment, but does not seem to me to fit in the tone of the article. It also was almost certainly an off-the-cuff comment by Bush. If a quote from Bush as to her character is wanted in the lead, it would seem more appropriate to draw on a recent one from the official announcement. However, I really think characterizations like this belong further down in the body of the article (if they belong anywhere). The fact that it gets a lot of hits on google doesn't seem to me to be relevant; I could also no doubt get a lot of hits on google (for example) that former President Clinton is a "scumbag", since that was a comment attributed to a prominent member of Congress a few years ago. But I don't think we would want that comment in the lead on President Clinton's article. Brandon39 16:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, for starters I'll agree that perhaps it doesn't belong in the lead (FWIW, I sourced it, but I did not add it initially). I would however make two points: First, it doesn't just get hits on Google, it gets hits on Google that lead to wire and print stories, including the Washington Post, which is a major paper of record in the US. That makes it a bit more significant, and I daresay you wouldn't get a similar set of hits on "Clinton + scumbag". Second, if you are going to remove a link to a footnote, you have to remove the footnote as well, or all the subsequent numbers are off. No no, allow me. :-P In any case, a link to the comment (which I also did not add) remains under External Links, and perhaps that is sufficient. --Kgf0 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Your solution seems like a good compromise; and thank you for filling me in on the footnoting problem. I'll watch that in the future. FYI, a google search on Clinton+scumbag yields 463 hits. The first two are CNN and the Washington Post. Brandon39 17:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what I get for not doing the search first. I guess we've reached consensus, eh? --Kgf0 17:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Seems like. Thanks. Brandon39 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it belongs in the lead section, but it's a notable comment, widely reported, and I'd lean toward including it. JamesMLane 18:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

• Even if she DOES look a lot like a "pit bull". (Oct.)

Pepperdine

Removed sentence (which has been removed before and put back in over the past couple of days):

Miers also recently received an honorary degree from Pepperdine University.

Can anybody find a weblink that verifies this? I can't.

Here is the proof that Miers received an honorary degree from Pepperdine. http://graphic.pepperdine.edu/news/2005/2005-10-06-miers.htm

POV notice external section

Dominick added {{NPOV-section}} to External Links. As the template indicates, if you add this, you should explain why on talk. Otherwise it can't be fixed. Rd232 16:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Mea Culpa, PoV links that are unrelated to her bio should be moves to the confirmation talk page. IMHO. Dominick 00:17, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Younger Harriet Miers

Here's a picture of her in her youth: Underneath Their Robes: "Law Firm Life: It Doesn't Make You Pretty" 144.92.231.155 21:54, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

• Even when she was young, she STILL had bags under her eyes "big enough to be used as 'air-bags'". Could come in handy, if her career were to "crash" in the world of politics. Politics has made a LOT of people look old. Remember Jimmy Carter after his first year? (Oct.)

Well, you can get Doonesbury bags under your eyes from many other things than aging. Smoking and drinking, for instance, can prematurely age you, and make the bags under your eyes sag. Another way of getting bags under your eyes is excessive rubbing, as from the itching you get from allergies to dogs, cats, and various kinds of pollen. (Being allergic to dogs and cats can have an effect on the way you see "man's best friend" - and that increases the likelihood of your taking a hardline view on all of those cases involving dogs that bite, maul, and kill people, which reminds me, does she own any pets?) As for excessive sun, and sunbathing being a cause of Doonesbury bags, that's another question altogether, probably answered in the affirmative. If she were a true outdoorswoman, she might have damaged her skin from hiking too much. But the funny thing is, she looks pretty attractive, and if there are some bags under her eyes, they are more likely from rubbing than from sun damage.

Gay rights

Neutrality deleted changes by an anonymous user stating that Miers supported gay rights and this was contrary to her evangelical beliefs. While I agree that the phrasing and context of those comments were poor. . .there was some basis for them. Several news sources (including NPR) have reported that as a City Council candidate in Dalllas, Miers supported equal rights for gays (e.g. non-discrimination in housing and employment) but opposed efforts to overturn Texas' sodomy law (which was later struck down by the Supreme Court). I think some discussion of this in the article is relevant. TMS63112 03:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• Such content should go in the Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and hearings article, which is discussing other issues likely to come before the court. -- BD2412 ^talk 04:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• That raises larger issues about why there are two articles, and whether it is appropriate to duplicate information in them. I'm not sure I understand the rationale for two articles. But that's a whole other issue. TMS63112 06:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the distinction is clear: Harriet Miers the person, Harriet Miers nomination the event. Mmmbeer 13:24, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Someone has added the phrase "addicted to pussy" near the beginning of the article. The vandal is at least somewhat clever, because the phrase does not appear on the edit page. 12:33 AM

Somebody fixed this problem. Gotta love Wikicops. 12:34 AM

130.132.231.50 04:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)Jason Green-Lowe

The occurs when someone has removed the vandalism but the server's cache has not updated yet, you can force it to do so manually by appending ?action=purge to the end of the URL (this is if you are viewing /wiki/Harriet Miers, if you are viewing it in index.php you can use &action=purge). -Greg Asche (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Academics?

Has she even written a law review article? Anything that shows work or interest in the law that wasn't for a paying client? Postdlf 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

That is a very good question to ask.

Along a related line, a question can be raised about reading comprehension. Her undergraduate degree was in a science related field, mathematics. But did she ever study any foreign languages? Or at least Classical Latin. You'd be surprised how many lawyers couldn't conjugate a Latin verb if their lives depended on it.

Is the ability to conjugate Latin verbs a requirement to practice law in the United States? This would be news to tens of thousands of practicing attorney's who probably can't conjugate a Latin verb. After all, law school admission committees have moved toward an emphasis on a student's demonstrated analytical ability-- such as success in natural sciences and mathematics. When would a person have the time to learn how to conjugate a latin verb? What's the point? Who cares?

Furthermore, no attorney worth his salt would use a Latin term when an English term will do. There are occassions when the term of art is a Latin phrase, such as "res judicata." When such is the case, there is no need to know anything about Latin beyond the correct use of the phrase in one's legal writing-- which is not really knowledge of the langauage, but legal knowledge. Furthermore, many courts, notably the 9th circuit, is moving away from all Latin terms and phrases. For example, they refer to "friend of the court" briefs and "as a poor person" rather than in forma pauperis.

Profound Intelligence?

"Further proof of profound intelligence can be seen when U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told George W. Bush in a 1997 birthday card that he was "the best governor ever" and, in a separate note to her boss, said she hoped his twin daughters recognize their parents are "cool.""

This seems a bit biased for an article that at least attempts to be neutral. Since I stumbled upon this while writing a paper about Miers, I don't really feel like changing it. I think a better solution would be to add the cards and stuff this bit references down in the links. I personally saw the cards as a .pdf file at nytimes.com; linking to the times site is bad, though, as I believe it turns into a paid option in a short period of time. 163.120.80.254 09:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Abortion views update

From the AP: Miers supported ban on most abortions. They include links to pictures of the questionairre she filled out for the pro-life organization. So in 1989 she indicated support for an amendment to ban abortion except when it's life threatening. This doesn't mean she'd rule against Roe v. Wade, but it does indicate that she's pro-life and would like to ban abortion. Nathan J. Yoder 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality revert

Why was the last change rolled back? They inserted a sourced statement indicating how many previous justices had no prior judicial experience. The version he reverted to is POV (using the word "unusual"), where as the new version uses an objective, quantative description. Nathan J. Yoder 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Why she withdrew

I've been reading but not editing this article. There's no mention of the disclosure of her 1993 speeches which seem to follow liberal talking points on abortion and judicial activism. Isn't that the consenus view of why she withdrew? That these speeches couldn't be defended to the conservative opponents of her nomination. patsw 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

• Pure speculation. The cited reason in all the news reports and by Bush is the conflict over the refusal to disclose any of the Miers-White House documents. Mmmbeer 15:25, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

O'Connor still Justice

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, must be wandering if she'll ever get to retire. First Rehnquist dies (not his choice), causing withdrawl of Roberts nomination (Roberts was later nominated & confirmed as Rehnquist's successor) ,later Meirs gets nominated for O'Connors seat and now she (Meirs) withdraws. O'Connor may not get to retire until 2006. 18:21, 27 October 2005

Linked the Text

I've added a link to the text of the letter from Harriet Miers, but I'm also going to copy it here for safe keeping (fear that the link may vanish).

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 indicated 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 stated 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

Mmmbeer 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Possible Merge

I think this section does need to be merged back into the Harriet Miers article. I have already placed part of the Reactions to her Nomination section into the Bush Supreme Court candidates article where I think it best fits logically

BoBo 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the article should be merged at all because it includes key details on what the Supreme Court nomination process is like, if only at the beginnings. I would very much like it if there was a Wikipedia article on Robert Bork's failure to enter the high court, and I think people twenty years from now who wonder about Miss Miers and the reasons why she never made it will be grateful to have a specific article on that process, instead of a section in an article on her otherwise uneventful life. LeoDV 07:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I definitely support a merge - the woman's only achievement of encyclopaedic note is her Supreme Court nomination. With that now gone, this page is superfluous. If she had gone on to be part of the court then a separate page might - might - have been warranted. But that is no longer the case. El T 09:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Uh, NO. The information on her nomination is definetly important and worth saving, but there is far too much to put on a personal bio page. It deserves a sub-article as much as anything (like Lists of [some TV show] episodes) Staxringold 15:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

And WHY should the nomination page information be saved? It is (old) news/current events, not encyclopedia-quality reference material. Now that Reactions to her Nomination has been merged back in, I think the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court page should be deleted. --Paul 19:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

What? No way, the article is very high quality and it would make her personal article way to long if we moved the SCOTUS nom into it. Why doesn't it deserve an article? People don't get nominated to the Supreme Court very often. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I also oppose the merge. An article on a withdrawn SCOTUS nominee is equally as notable as an article on the process leading to a candidate's withdrawal. That the list of SCOTUS candidates who have withdrawn is shorter than the list of Justices makes them more notable, IMHO - Miers is the first since, what, 1912? I kow WP:ISNOT a crystal ball, but think how much more notable it may become, in fact, if GWB has to go through numerous candidates before getting one approved - if he goes through enough, we may need a succession box just for the failed nominations. ;) --Kgf0 22:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't know if its notable, but the nomination and its withdrawal are important and significant apart from her bio. patsw 02:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose a merge, unless we are also going to merge Winston Churchill into World War 2, Apollo 13 into Jim Lovell, Iraq war into George W. Bush, Led Zeppelin into Jimmy Page, etc. etc. I agree with I agree with user:LeoDV, user:Staxringold, user:Greg Asche, and user:Kgf0: when people participate in historic events, I would have thought it patently obvious that both the person and the event will usually merit separate entries in Wikipedia. Simon Dodd 14:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

why does her own party hate her?

what are some of the issues that make her party hate her or anyone hate her for that matter. the news repeatedly states that shes contraversial but doesnt really emphasise why.

Wikipedia is not the damn Onion. Whoever sabotaged this article should be banned. Somebody clean this up.

^{Moving unsigned comment by 128.135.60.87 to the bottom.  BD2412 talk 03:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)}

When you say that this article has been sabotaged, to what statements are you referring? I read the article and it doesn't even remotely resemble The Onion, which is a shame because The Onion is extremely entertaining at times. I share your sentiments, however, that the Republican Party (or specifically the more conservative members of the Republican Party) and political pundits in the media (mainstream and alternative) never gave her much of a chance to plead her case. -Parallel or Together? 09:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)