Who is Harriet Miers?
File Under: Biography
The liberals hate her, because she has conservative credentials. Conservatives swear they have a crystal ball, and just know that she's going to betray them when on the court, and become a liberal. But who is Harriet Miers? We're not talking about a "lack of a track record". I mean, she's 60-years old. She HAS a track record of some sort, believe me. Just because it wasn't Googled fast enough to make the morning columns doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Frustrated by premature whining from both sides, TDI now presents a whining-free, politics free, biography of Harriet Meirs:- Was born in Dallas, Texas, on August 10, 1945. She has three brothers, and is single.
- Got her bacchelor's degree in Matchematics in 1967 and J.D. in 1970 from Southern Methodist University. After graduation, she clerked for US District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970-72.
- Was the first woman hired at Dallas's Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, and was later elected the first female President of the firm.
- Represented Microsoft, Walt Disney, SunGard, among other clients, as a trial litigator.
- Selected in 1985 as the first woman to become President of the Dallas Bar Association.
- In 1992, she became the first woman elected President of the State Bar of Texas, where she served for a year.
- Was one of two canadites for the #2 post at the American Bar Association, but withdrew to serve in the White House.
- Served as general counsel for the transition team of Governor-elect George W. Bush in 1994.
- Served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission from 1995 'till 2000. When he was appointed, the commission was in a scandal, and she was taxed with cleaning the commission up.
- Appointed to be Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary in January, 2001.
- Started serving as Counsel to the President in February, 2005.
- Promoted to Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff in 2003.
- Described by Andrew Card in a 2003 interview as a "quiet, highly respected force and someone who is seen as not having any agenda other than the president's." She visits the President at Camp David frequently, a privilidge few ever get.
- Former law partner R. Bruce LaBoon says that "Harriet is not a person that gets frustrated easily. She doesn't lose her temper. She is very cool and calm in a storm."
- Is known for putting in long hours. She is described as being very dedicated to her job.
- Hosted one of the segments in the Ask the White House online chat. Here's the transcript.
- The New York Times is set to publish that Harriet Miers was born again around 1979, and that she became more conservative after committing her life.
That was alot to go through, I know. But if you went through every sentance, you'll see that not only did she A) not just appear out of nowhere, but also B) she's had quite the life in public office. She sounds dedicated, no matter what her politics are. And as far as politics go, well, TDI doesn't like to dabble into that too often.
Based on character alone, from a quick web search, she seems pretty good. It's be extremely fascinating to have lunch with her, at any rate.
6 comments:
Ah, but the politics are the interesting and important bit. Though issues like abortion are more than political, obviously. Knowing somebody's resume is useless if you don't know what they believe, which is what the talking heads are trying to determine right now. One can be cool and calm, yes, but that's more or less meaningless if we don't know why she's cool and calm.
There's a lot of mixed info, but given her recent support for homosexual adoption and an international court, I think that much of the concern is in fact valid.
Yes, the politics themsleves are very fascinating. But people are still digging her's up. I'd wait until there's a clearer picture painted before I write my art review.
Plus, TDI doesn't like listing political laundry, dirty or clean.
But I think people are scared that she someone has both dirty and clean laundry, on both sides of the clothesline. And some people just cannot comprehend someone who thinks across the aisle, and won't follow lock-in-step in some political party, mainstream or fringe.
The bigger question than all of her politics and beliefs is this... Will she put aside person beliefs for the letter of the law? Some people can, and that's a true talent. Some people rule based on what THEY think is right or wrong.
When he hear two people, and one swares up and down that he will preserve the ideals of his party, and the other says he will do what's best according to the Constitution and the resulting laws, politics be damned, I'd go for the second guy.
Part of the reason conservatives are all "AAAAAAAHHH!!! She's the female anti-Christ!!!" is because she'll go across, for what she feels is right. She may not BE right, but I'd rather than have someone who can look at all sides and make his/her own opinion, than someone bred to judge based off of talking points.
Plus... She's replacing SANDRA DAY O'CONNOR. I mean, "worst case scenario" (depending on one's politics), she'd be exactly the same. And we're still here, with all limbs intact.
Pro intl court, Pro gay rights, anti-abortion, whatever... That's "Gimmie Back My Bullets" and "In God We Trust"'s territory.
Here at TDI, we try to bring a different perspective on things. And that includes looking beyond the politics, and at THE PERSON.
I'm not exactly afraid to cut across political lines, as you well know. The whole two-party system is more and more of a sham, anyway, as the two operationaly are essentially the same, though their rhetoric is of course different.
I fear your logic is flawed... you say you want someone who will enforce the letter of the law, then say that you want somebody who can make their own opinion. Personally, I want somebody who enforces the law because they believe in it. And you can never put personal beliefs aside, a person's worldview defines how they act. I'm sure you can understand why people would be wary of somebody who supports gay rights. If they think that's right, their understanding of what the law is is severely flawed.
I suppose the point I'm trying to make, (and I'm really not trying to beat you over the head here) is that, as we heard during the Clinton impeachment process, character matters. By all accounts she's a nice enough person, but if she supports abominable postitions then we ought not support her.
That's an "if", though, right now. Even the nice stuff, like the talk of conversion and all of that, may not be real. Journalist and ideologs are desperate for something to publish.
Just wait a few weeks, let every seep out, and then make a judgement call.
Making assumptions on if she's fit for the bench, even before she's testified, is premature. It's not kosher to hold off testimony in the day and age of 24/7 fire-and-brimstone columnist, but it is the fair thing to do, to find out WHAT positions she holds, WHY she holds them, what devils are in those details, yadayada.
Let the media squeeze every story out of her life, and then give HER a chance to speak out. It's the fair thing to do!
What I'm saying is: I'm not going to discuss the politics head on, and I'll keep going in circles. I support some alleged positions, I dissaprove of others. WAIT for more information, and wait for HER own words at the hearings.
Making judgement calls based on very little is funny for movies, such as "Halo". But I hate it when all sorts of people do the exact same thing, for something as serious as the Supreme Court.
holy crap u 2...thats way 2 much 2 digest at this hour!! Thanx 4 the info chuck, i was wondering about her!!
Post a Comment