Does Miers' Loyalty Lie with the President or the American People?

Washington, DC - Yesterday, President Bush named close confidante Harriet Miers, who has been involved in virtually every aspect of the President's political career, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court. Miers served as Bush's attorney both while he was a businessman and when he was Governor of Texas. Later, she moved with Bush to the White House where she held a number of important positions, culminating in her latest role as White House Counsel. Bush's comment today that Meirs, "knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for," -- as well as her long professional association with Bush -- begs the question about whether her loyalty lies with the Bush Administration or with the American people.

"The question remains whether or not Miers can be independent on the bench, given her close association with the Bush White House," said Democratic National Committee Communications Director Karen Finney. "Harriet Miers has led many internal investigations of the various scandals and controversies that have engulfed the Bush White House. Miers should recuse herself from any ongoing internal investigations at the Bush White House while she sits as a nominee to the United States Supreme Court."

As the White House Staff Secretary, Deputy Chief of Staff, and finally, as White House Counsel, Miers' handling of the following issues for the Bush White House relate to her qualifications to serve as an independent voice on the Court.

While a key advisor to the President of the United States, what was Harriet Miers' role in the following?

Bush's Failed Foreign Policy
* Disclosure of the identity of Valerie Plame as a covert CIA agent by a White House source, and the internal investigation thereof.

* The preparation of the 2003 State of the Union, during which President Bush repeated false claims about Iraq's efforts to secure WMD materials from Niger.

* The development of the Bush Administration's policies on the detention and interrogation of enemy combatants within the U.S., and of those detained by U.S. forces at Guantanamo Bay and in Iraq.

* The Bush White House's response to evidence of rampant abuse and torture of Iraqi prisoners by American military and intelligence personnel at Abu Ghraib prison.

Cronyism and No-Bid Contracts
* The legality and propriety of awarding no-bid contracts to specific corporations for the provision of goods and services in Iraq, and the subsequent review of those transactions.

* The investigation and subsequent resignation by the Administration's chief procurement officer, David Safavian, for alleged receipt of illegal payments.

* The decision to award no-bid contracts to specific corporations for post-Katrina clean up.

* Bush Administration's decision to suspend requirement for Katrina contractors to have an Affirmative Action plan for veterans, minorities, women, and disabled persons.

* Bush Administration's decision to suspend Davis-Bacon prevailing wage rules, allowing contractors to hire employees at depressed wages.

Failing to Protect Individual Rights in the Courts
* Shaping the position of the Bush Administration taken before the Supreme Court on issues related to 1) affirmative action, 2) displaying the Ten Commandments on public property, 3) access by the disabled to courthouses, and 4) funding for legal assistance for the poor.

* Shaping Bush Administration positions eventually taken in any case currently pending before the Supreme Court.

Bush's Special Interest Agenda
* Determining the policy of the Bush Administration on specific issues before the Congress including: the Bankruptcy bill, the Class-Action bill, the Patriot Act, and the Medicare drug bill.

Abuse of Power
* The refusal to allow the Chief Actuary of the Medicare system to testify regarding the actual cost of the President's Medicare Prescription Drug Bill when it was pending before Congress.

* The failure to disclose participants in Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force.

Political Stonewalling
* The inquiry surrounding President Bush's National Guard record during the 2004 campaign.

Comments (2) «

President Bush asks us to "trust me, I know this woman" when critics questioned him about Mier's nomination. Sadly, the American people trusted Bush when he claimed that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. Look where that left us? It led us to the death of 1900 American soldiers and countless innocent Iraqi civilians. Not to mention the cost of this wrong war to the tax payers.
We trusted him again when he advanced Mike Brown to the head of FEMA. Look where that left us? Hundreds dead due to incompetency.
So why should we trust him again on Miers?

1

blunt on October 5, 2005 at 11:13 AM

There is much information we really need and are not likely to get in regard to Ms. Miers positions on issues. It is a troubling thought as to where she may stand on many issues, especially with regards to individual rights and right of privacy.

The far right conservatives are upset because she is not a demonstrated conservative of their kind. And we can only hope that she actually is not of their ideological frame. Their hope was to have someone nominated that would force the Democrats to filibuster the nomination so they could try to invoke the nuclear option. A chance to try and ram this down the throats of the Democrats and the American public.

The country is already more divided than I have seen in my lifetime. If you look at the actual results of the last election it is not red and blue states - it is a country of purple states. We need a judge that will look at the issues in the best interest of our citizens and not in the best interest of any political party. Someone that cares for our past and our future. This will be a hard fought nomination and one that I hope all parties will take seriously.

It does concern me that she is so ingrained in the inner circle of this administration. Though being close to the president nominating is not history making. However, this is the administration that gave us an attorney general that said it was all right to aggressively interrogate prisoners (torture?!). That also says we don't have to abide by the Geneva Convention with regard to terrorists (I thought we were supposed to be better than them). It is an administration that wants invasive police powers over our own citizens and that has held citizens for over 3 years as enemy combatants without any access to representation, though our constitution clearly gives that right. And an administration that appointed an ambassador to the UN that even their own party would not agree was the man for the job.

So I look to this with trepidation and have to maintain some hope for our leaders to stand strong and make sure we do the best for our country.

2

nelsont on October 5, 2005 at 12:15 PM

« Hide Comments

Comments are now closed for this entry.