Will Bush get to kill off Roe vs Wade??
Get ready for a big fight.....
Full Version: Rehnquist Dead....
Though I hate to feed conspiracy theories so quickly, it is remarkably convenient for the Bush administration that this will be a headline issue when the Sunday morning politicals go out - a neat distraction from the fury over New Orleans.
Maybe Rehnquist agreed to take one for the team, and pulled the plug on himself...
Maybe Rehnquist agreed to take one for the team, and pulled the plug on himself...
We. Are. So. Fucked.
On a positive note, anyone to the right of Rehnquist might be compromised by his white robes or Nazi paraphrenalia.
This alone can hardly drag the SC further to the right...
This alone can hardly drag the SC further to the right...
Yeah, they'll bury that evil old motherfucker under a burning cross.
What Roo said.
What Roo said.
As some one who is not abrest of these things, what is Rehnquist?
QUOTE(kindofjudy @ Sep 4 2005, 04:15 PM)
As some one who is not abrest of these things, what is Rehnquist?
hiya koj
rehnquist was a justice in the supreme court - republican.
he believed that there was a place for religion in politics, speeded up cases of capital punishment and voted against the 1973 bill to legalize abortion. - generally a nice guy. lmfao.
if u put his name in whatever search thing you use theres loads about him.
happy reading!
Supreme Court justices are in the job for life - they either quit or die in the job. With Renquist's death, that means George Bush (ptui!) as president gets to nominate two judges (another, Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman SCJ in American history, retired last month) who will stay in office for the rest of their lives, and who will shape the laws of this court. Because George Bush (ptui!) and his criminal gang hate the poor, women, minorities and any form of assistance that don't involve multinational corporations, they will nominate youngish white men who will further erode human and civil rights in the United States. The first thing in the crosshairs - legal abortion.
As hateful and evil as Renquist was, he was much more useful alive. Now, watch what scumbag right wing anti-Darwinist will come slithering in the courts of my land.
As hateful and evil as Renquist was, he was much more useful alive. Now, watch what scumbag right wing anti-Darwinist will come slithering in the courts of my land.
mmm sounds like the kind of guy I would invite round for dinner. And serve him up with a nice chianti. Will go and look him up. Back soon.
Thanks shayand Barbara
Thanks shayand Barbara
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Sep 4 2005, 12:35 PM)
....they will nominate youngish white men who will further erode human and civil rights in the United States. The first thing in the crosshairs - legal abortion.
They're probably smarter than that - they have enough tame African-Americans and Hispanics (including women) to avoid the obvious accusations. Especially since they have just proposed a youngish white man for the first opening.
Or perhaps you're right - maybe Bush will blatantly go for a SC full of Hitler Youth...
Just take a look at John Roberts. When he doesn't look like the 40 Year Old Virgin, he looks like a member of Hitler Youth.
maybe I'm in a pessimistic mood. I wonder why?
...everybody knows, everybody knows...
maybe I'm in a pessimistic mood. I wonder why?
...everybody knows, everybody knows...
And now Bush is touting for Roberts to be directly appointed Chief Justice!
I guess you were right, Barbara....
I guess you were right, Barbara....
QUOTE
And now Bush is touting for Roberts to be directly appointed Chief Justice!
which is unfuckingbelieveable....
i swear george bush must be the luckiest fuckhead in the universe... all these judicial appointments... he well and truly has fucked us over.
i'm with roo. we're fucking doomed!!!!!!
KoJ, if you can type "what is renquist" in here, you can type it in google too.
So Bush couldn't get a fucking thing done in Louisiana for a week, but he can appoint a chief justice within 5 minutes of the last one dying?
So Bush couldn't get a fucking thing done in Louisiana for a week, but he can appoint a chief justice within 5 minutes of the last one dying?
QUOTE
KoJ, if you can type "what is renquist" in here, you can type it in google too.
yeah KofJ, how dare you ask a question in here!!!! or want other posters opinions on Rehnquist... remember we should all be so fucking perfect and know it all like maria.
I know I feel so awful for asking a question. I only wanted Barbaras and Shays point of view, silly me. Why did I bother joining a forum, when all I had to do was google my life away in solitary
Yep. Catastrophe. Damage possibilities? Inconceivable. Civil rights could be deeply dented. However, Republicans have screwed it up in the past (feeble hope), and Supreme Court justices USED TO go become more moderate once appointed, but Scalia and Thomas both proved it is possible to be too evil for that.
In the plus column -- at least the new Chief Justice won't be Scalia or Thomas.
Nope, sorry, it's still so depressing that doesn't really help. There's no plus column.
We're screwed.
Farewell everything the US ever stood for. Hello Miserable New World.
Come on China, it's time for you to take over. We're done here.
In the plus column -- at least the new Chief Justice won't be Scalia or Thomas.
Nope, sorry, it's still so depressing that doesn't really help. There's no plus column.
We're screwed.
Farewell everything the US ever stood for. Hello Miserable New World.
Come on China, it's time for you to take over. We're done here.
QUOTE(Mata @ Sep 5 2005, 06:33 PM)
Yep. Catastrophe. Damage possibilities? Inconceivable. Civil rights could be deeply dented. However, Republicans have screwed it up in the past (feeble hope), and Supreme Court justices USED TO go become more moderate once appointed, but Scalia and Thomas both proved it is possible to be too evil for that.
In the plus column -- at least the new Chief Justice won't be Scalia or Thomas.
Nope, sorry, it's still so depressing that doesn't really help. There's no plus column.
We're screwed.
Farewell everything the US ever stood for. Hello Miserable New World.
Come on China, it's time for you to take over. We're done here.
In the plus column -- at least the new Chief Justice won't be Scalia or Thomas.
Nope, sorry, it's still so depressing that doesn't really help. There's no plus column.
We're screwed.
Farewell everything the US ever stood for. Hello Miserable New World.
Come on China, it's time for you to take over. We're done here.
To late the Americans tried taking over China, didnt work, And I dont think the chinese would touch America with a very long stick
QUOTE
I know I feel so awful for asking a question. I only wanted Barbaras and Shays point of view, silly me. Why did I bother joining a forum, when all I had to do was google my life away in solitary
oh my word im so sorry koj. i didnt have a clue who he was either til i looked on google.
sorry if i seemed dismissive.
x
No you are fine Shay no problem. see post 14 and 15 above.
Here is an excellent article on Rhenquist by Alan Dershowitz. I knew about the voter supression but not about the racism and antisemitism...
09.04.2005
Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist
by Alan Dershowitz
My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong. History requires truth, not puffery or silence, especially about powerful governmental figures. And obituaries are a first draft of history.
So here’s the truth about Chief Justice Rehnquist you won’t hear on Fox News or from politicians. Chief Justice William Rehnquist set back liberty, equality, and human rights perhaps more than any American judge of this generation. His rise to power speaks volumes about the current state of American values.
Let’s begin at the beginning. Rehnquist bragged about being first in his class at Stanford Law School. Today Stanford is a great law school with a diverse student body, but in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it discriminated against Jews and other minorities, both in the admission of students and in the selection of faculty. Justice Stephen Breyer recalled an earlier period of Stanford’s history: “When my father was at Stanford, he could not join any of the social organizations because he was Jewish, and those organizations, at that time, did not accept Jews.” Rehnquist not only benefited in his class ranking from this discrimination; he was also part of that bigotry. When he was nominated to be an associate justice in 1971, I learned from several sources who had known him as a student that he had outraged Jewish classmates by goose-stepping and heil-Hitlering with brown-shirted friends in front of a dormitory that housed the school’s few Jewish students. He also was infamous for telling racist and anti-Semitic jokes.
As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating – under oath – that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job.
The young Rehnquist began his legal career as a Republican functionary by obstructing African-American and Hispanic voting at Phoenix polling locations (“Operation Eagle Eye”). As Richard Cohen of The Washington Post wrote, “[H]e helped challenge the voting qualifications of Arizona blacks and Hispanics. He was entitled to do so. But even if he did not personally harass potential voters, as witnesses allege, he clearly was a brass-knuckle partisan, someone who would deny the ballot to fellow citizens for trivial political reasons -- and who made his selection on the basis of race or ethnicity.” In a word, he started out his political career as a Republican thug.
Rehnquist later bought a home in Vermont with a restrictive covenant that barred sale of the property to ''any member of the Hebrew race.”
Rehnquist’s judicial philosophy was result-oriented, activist, and authoritarian. He sometimes moderated his views for prudential or pragmatic reasons, but his vote could almost always be predicted based on who the parties were, not what the legal issues happened to be. He generally opposed the rights of gays, women, blacks, aliens, and religious minorities. He was a friend of corporations, polluters, right wing Republicans, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, and other bigots.
Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years and as chief justice for nineteen. Yet no opinion comes to mind which will be remembered as brilliant, innovative, or memorable. He will be remembered not for the quality of his opinions but rather for the outcomes decided by his votes, especially Bush v. Gore, in which he accepted an Equal Protection claim that was totally inconsistent with his prior views on that clause. He will also be remembered as a Chief Justice who fought for the independence and authority of the judiciary. This is his only positive contribution to an otherwise regressive career.
Within moments of Rehnquist’s death, Fox News called and asked for my comments, presumably aware that I was a longtime critic of the late Chief Justice. After making several of these points to Alan Colmes (who was supposed to be interviewing me), Sean Hannity intruded, and when he didn’t like my answers, he cut me off and terminated the interview. Only after I was off the air and could not respond did the attack against me begin, which is typical of Hannity’s bullying ambush style. He is afraid to attack when there’s someone there to respond. Since the interview, I’ve received dozens of e-mail hate messages, some of which are overtly anti-Semitic. One writer called me “a jew prick that takes it in the a** from ruth ginzburg [sic].” Another said I am “an ignorant socialist left-wing political hack …. You’re like a little Heinrich Himmler! (even the resemblance is uncanny!).” Yet another informed me that I “personally make us all lament the defeat of the Nazis!” A more restrained viewer found me to be “a disgrace to the Law, to Harvard, and to humanity.”
All this, for refusing to put a deceptive gloss on a man who made his career undermining the rights and liberties of American citizens.
My mother would want me to remain silent, but I think my father would have wanted me to tell the truth. My father was right
09.04.2005
Telling the Truth About Chief Justice Rehnquist
by Alan Dershowitz
My mother always told me that when a person dies, one should not say anything bad about him. My mother was wrong. History requires truth, not puffery or silence, especially about powerful governmental figures. And obituaries are a first draft of history.
So here’s the truth about Chief Justice Rehnquist you won’t hear on Fox News or from politicians. Chief Justice William Rehnquist set back liberty, equality, and human rights perhaps more than any American judge of this generation. His rise to power speaks volumes about the current state of American values.
Let’s begin at the beginning. Rehnquist bragged about being first in his class at Stanford Law School. Today Stanford is a great law school with a diverse student body, but in the late 1940s and early 1950s, it discriminated against Jews and other minorities, both in the admission of students and in the selection of faculty. Justice Stephen Breyer recalled an earlier period of Stanford’s history: “When my father was at Stanford, he could not join any of the social organizations because he was Jewish, and those organizations, at that time, did not accept Jews.” Rehnquist not only benefited in his class ranking from this discrimination; he was also part of that bigotry. When he was nominated to be an associate justice in 1971, I learned from several sources who had known him as a student that he had outraged Jewish classmates by goose-stepping and heil-Hitlering with brown-shirted friends in front of a dormitory that housed the school’s few Jewish students. He also was infamous for telling racist and anti-Semitic jokes.
As a law clerk, Rehnquist wrote a memorandum for Justice Jackson while the court was considering several school desegregation cases, including Brown v. Board of Education. Rehnquist’s memo, entitled “A Random Thought on the Segregation Cases,” defended the separate-but-equal doctrine embodied in the 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v. Ferguson. Rehnquist concluded the Plessy “was right and should be reaffirmed.” When questioned about the memos by the Senate Judiciary Committee in both 1971 and 1986, Rehnquist blamed his defense of segregation on the dead Justice, stating – under oath – that his memo was meant to reflect the views of Justice Jackson. But Justice Jackson voted in Brown, along with a unanimous Court, to strike down school segregation. According to historian Mark Tushnet, Justice Jackson’s longtime legal secretary called Rehnquist’s Senate testimony an attempt to “smear[] the reputation of a great justice.” Rehnquist later admitted to defending Plessy in arguments with fellow law clerks. He did not acknowledge that he committed perjury in front of the Judiciary Committee to get his job.
The young Rehnquist began his legal career as a Republican functionary by obstructing African-American and Hispanic voting at Phoenix polling locations (“Operation Eagle Eye”). As Richard Cohen of The Washington Post wrote, “[H]e helped challenge the voting qualifications of Arizona blacks and Hispanics. He was entitled to do so. But even if he did not personally harass potential voters, as witnesses allege, he clearly was a brass-knuckle partisan, someone who would deny the ballot to fellow citizens for trivial political reasons -- and who made his selection on the basis of race or ethnicity.” In a word, he started out his political career as a Republican thug.
Rehnquist later bought a home in Vermont with a restrictive covenant that barred sale of the property to ''any member of the Hebrew race.”
Rehnquist’s judicial philosophy was result-oriented, activist, and authoritarian. He sometimes moderated his views for prudential or pragmatic reasons, but his vote could almost always be predicted based on who the parties were, not what the legal issues happened to be. He generally opposed the rights of gays, women, blacks, aliens, and religious minorities. He was a friend of corporations, polluters, right wing Republicans, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, and other bigots.
Rehnquist served on the Supreme Court for thirty-three years and as chief justice for nineteen. Yet no opinion comes to mind which will be remembered as brilliant, innovative, or memorable. He will be remembered not for the quality of his opinions but rather for the outcomes decided by his votes, especially Bush v. Gore, in which he accepted an Equal Protection claim that was totally inconsistent with his prior views on that clause. He will also be remembered as a Chief Justice who fought for the independence and authority of the judiciary. This is his only positive contribution to an otherwise regressive career.
Within moments of Rehnquist’s death, Fox News called and asked for my comments, presumably aware that I was a longtime critic of the late Chief Justice. After making several of these points to Alan Colmes (who was supposed to be interviewing me), Sean Hannity intruded, and when he didn’t like my answers, he cut me off and terminated the interview. Only after I was off the air and could not respond did the attack against me begin, which is typical of Hannity’s bullying ambush style. He is afraid to attack when there’s someone there to respond. Since the interview, I’ve received dozens of e-mail hate messages, some of which are overtly anti-Semitic. One writer called me “a jew prick that takes it in the a** from ruth ginzburg [sic].” Another said I am “an ignorant socialist left-wing political hack …. You’re like a little Heinrich Himmler! (even the resemblance is uncanny!).” Yet another informed me that I “personally make us all lament the defeat of the Nazis!” A more restrained viewer found me to be “a disgrace to the Law, to Harvard, and to humanity.”
All this, for refusing to put a deceptive gloss on a man who made his career undermining the rights and liberties of American citizens.
My mother would want me to remain silent, but I think my father would have wanted me to tell the truth. My father was right
I don't share many of your concerns (I think this might be the first time I have disagreed with Roo on this forum). I believe given the state of society today, and given even the feeble token Democratic opposition, there is no one that President Bush could successfully appoint to the Supreme Court to the right of Rhenquist.
At least in Roberts I see someone who is willing to reconsider his previous thinking (i.e. his beliefe that Roe v Wade should be overturned while working in the Reagan administration to his recent reference to Roe v. Wade as "settled law").
Replacement of Rhenquist for Roberts and someone else for O'Conner, it certainly could be worse. You need to remember how far right these two were.
At least in Roberts I see someone who is willing to reconsider his previous thinking (i.e. his beliefe that Roe v Wade should be overturned while working in the Reagan administration to his recent reference to Roe v. Wade as "settled law").
Replacement of Rhenquist for Roberts and someone else for O'Conner, it certainly could be worse. You need to remember how far right these two were.
QUOTE(LeftintheUS @ Sep 8 2005, 10:12 PM)
I don't share many of your concerns (I think this might be the first time I have disagreed with Roo on this forum). I believe given the state of society today, and given even the feeble token Democratic opposition, there is no one that President Bush could successfully appoint to the Supreme Court to the right of Rhenquist.
At least in Roberts I see someone who is willing to reconsider his previous thinking (i.e. his beliefe that Roe v Wade should be overturned while working in the Reagan administration to his recent reference to Roe v. Wade as "settled law").
Replacement of Rhenquist for Roberts and someone else for O'Conner, it certainly could be worse. You need to remember how far right these two were.
At least in Roberts I see someone who is willing to reconsider his previous thinking (i.e. his beliefe that Roe v Wade should be overturned while working in the Reagan administration to his recent reference to Roe v. Wade as "settled law").
Replacement of Rhenquist for Roberts and someone else for O'Conner, it certainly could be worse. You need to remember how far right these two were.
I just wanted to give you a quick reminder about who Rhenquist really was from an obituary by Alan Dershowitz.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-dershow...t-c_b_6844.html
Really, Roberts can not be any worse. Really!!
Anyone have any thoughts on Harriet Miers’ appointment to the Supreme Court? It looks like a simple case of cronyism to me. She seems less socially conservative than I would have expected. I have no doubt, however, she is corporately very conservative -- not unlike Roberts I imagine.
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer -- how sad!!
The rich get richer and the poor get poorer -- how sad!!
Oh, I'm sure she's on the payroll, but it was a VERY politically astute selection.
Harry Reid has all but agreed to her appointment.
Many I'm being conned along with a whole bunch of other people, but I can't but help feel relieved at the appointments of Roberts & Miers - remember, the Republicans have the power (should they choose to use it) to force in nutjobs to the right of even Thomas & Scalia.
Corporate America may be getting the booze in for a big party this weekend, but at least women's rights and other minority rights are less likely to be rolled back.
Harry Reid has all but agreed to her appointment.
Many I'm being conned along with a whole bunch of other people, but I can't but help feel relieved at the appointments of Roberts & Miers - remember, the Republicans have the power (should they choose to use it) to force in nutjobs to the right of even Thomas & Scalia.
Corporate America may be getting the booze in for a big party this weekend, but at least women's rights and other minority rights are less likely to be rolled back.
What is the scariest most frightening thing is she is not only NOT a judge, she has never argued a case to the Supreme Court. No, that is not the scariest. The scariest is as White House Consul, she was in charge of investigating the Valerie Plame case. No, that's not it, It's that she said George Bush was a brilliant man. No, that's not it...
According to today's Washington Post, conservatives don't like her because she's not evidently conservative enough ('William Kristol, the conservative editor and strategist, said the selection left him "disappointed, depressed and demoralized."') and democrats don't like her because she's too close to Bush ('Sen. Patrick Leahy, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, who voted for Roberts, could not resist noting that Miers "has a reputation for being loyal to this president, whom she has a long history of serving as a close adviser and in working to advance his objectives." Leahy added: "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." Those are fighting words, carefully chosen.')
But does anybody dislike her enough to block her? My problem with her is primarily that she is utterly unqualified. Why do Republicans always treat the top court in the land as if it were a personal playing ground? They seem to have no interest in appointing great legal minds – only zealots and amateurs. Pathetic.
But does anybody dislike her enough to block her? My problem with her is primarily that she is utterly unqualified. Why do Republicans always treat the top court in the land as if it were a personal playing ground? They seem to have no interest in appointing great legal minds – only zealots and amateurs. Pathetic.
That pinhead Harry Reid says he likes her.
Yup. That cartoon about sums it up.
Oy vey. (It's Rosh Hashanah, I'm getting in the spirit)
Oy vey. (It's Rosh Hashanah, I'm getting in the spirit)
QUOTE(Bogues @ Oct 4 2005, 01:34 AM)
...
Many I'm being conned along with a whole bunch of other people, but I can't but help feel relieved at the appointments of Roberts & Miers - remember, the Republicans have the power (should they choose to use it) to force in nutjobs to the right of even Thomas & Scalia.
Corporate America may be getting the booze in for a big party this weekend, but at least women's rights and other minority rights are less likely to be rolled back.
Many I'm being conned along with a whole bunch of other people, but I can't but help feel relieved at the appointments of Roberts & Miers - remember, the Republicans have the power (should they choose to use it) to force in nutjobs to the right of even Thomas & Scalia.
Corporate America may be getting the booze in for a big party this weekend, but at least women's rights and other minority rights are less likely to be rolled back.
I am in complete agreement with you Bogues. My feeling is that we take the bitter pill now. Rather than have a larger one rammed down our throats should Bush's approval rating creep up a couple of points.
Nobody knows if they are to they are right wing nutjobs or not! We are continually rolling over with the faint hope that it's not going to get worse and it keeps getting worse.
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Oct 4 2005, 05:17 PM)
Nobody knows if they are to they are right wing nutjobs or not! We are continually rolling over with the faint hope that it's not going to get worse and it keeps getting worse.
What's worse than a Rhenquist?
(That is either a joke in need of a punchline, or good start to a contest!!)
Maybe a Roberts, who is very young and will have up to 30 years to wreak havoc on the Constitution.
(can't think of a punchline)
(can't think of a punchline)
And like the rest of the Bush cronies, corrupt:
Is Ms. Miers Just Another Corrupt Republican?
By Damon McCullar
After doing some homework, I found this Houston Chronicle article. The summary is below and the full article is after the jump.
In the late 1990s two guys, a former pro football player named Russell Erxleben and Brian Stearns, ran a $40 million + ponzi (pyramid) scheme involving hundreds of people, bilking them out of tens of thousands of dollars a piece. The secret to the sheer magnitude of their scheme is that rather than keeping their money in a bank, they kept it in Locke, Liddell and Sapp's trust fund. They then convinced potential "investors" that the money was safe because it was locked up in this big law firm's trust fund. To close the deal, they told them that one Harriet Miers was a partner there and that she worked for the governor. Locke Liddell knew what was going on, kept quiet about it and ended up getting sued and having to settle for more than $30 million in the affair. At the time Miers was a managing partner, meaning she was on watch when this scandal went down.
Either Ms. Miers was in on the deal or she is highly incompetent. Given the Republicans knack for all things shady, I have to believe
that Ms. Miers was in on the deal. Is this party corrupt to the core?
Firm takes heat for cons' crimes
Settled suits cost top-tier legal entity $30 million, with more pending
By Janet Elliott
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau (10-21-01)
Locke Liddell and Sapp is one of Texas' premier law firms, having represented some of the state's top corporations and individuals, including George W. Bush when he was governor and general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.
But it is two other former clients, convicted swindlers Russell Erxleben and Brian Stearns, who have brought unwanted attention tot he 426-lawyer firm with offices in Houston and several other cities.
In the past two years, Lock Liddell has paid $30.5 million to settle lawsuits filed by investors who plowed money into enterprises run by Erxleben and Stearns, both of Austin. The deals turned out to be nothing more than elaborate Ponzi schemes.
In a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, investors typically are offered high rates of return. But new investments are used to pay off early investors until the scheme collapses.
The class-action lawsuits alleged the law firm lent its credibility and reputation to enable Erxleben and Stearns to commit securities fraud.
Today, representatives of the firm will participate in mediation of a separate federal lawsuit filed in New York by two foreign corporations that loaned $20 million to Stearns.
Stearns continually told investors that his law firm was the same one that represented Gov. Bush, according to court documents. Harriet Miers, who was co-managing partner of Lock Liddell, represented Bush. She left the law firm in January to become an assistant to President Bush.
Is Ms. Miers Just Another Corrupt Republican?
By Damon McCullar
After doing some homework, I found this Houston Chronicle article. The summary is below and the full article is after the jump.
In the late 1990s two guys, a former pro football player named Russell Erxleben and Brian Stearns, ran a $40 million + ponzi (pyramid) scheme involving hundreds of people, bilking them out of tens of thousands of dollars a piece. The secret to the sheer magnitude of their scheme is that rather than keeping their money in a bank, they kept it in Locke, Liddell and Sapp's trust fund. They then convinced potential "investors" that the money was safe because it was locked up in this big law firm's trust fund. To close the deal, they told them that one Harriet Miers was a partner there and that she worked for the governor. Locke Liddell knew what was going on, kept quiet about it and ended up getting sued and having to settle for more than $30 million in the affair. At the time Miers was a managing partner, meaning she was on watch when this scandal went down.
Either Ms. Miers was in on the deal or she is highly incompetent. Given the Republicans knack for all things shady, I have to believe
that Ms. Miers was in on the deal. Is this party corrupt to the core?
Firm takes heat for cons' crimes
Settled suits cost top-tier legal entity $30 million, with more pending
By Janet Elliott
Copyright 2001 Houston Chronicle Austin Bureau (10-21-01)
Locke Liddell and Sapp is one of Texas' premier law firms, having represented some of the state's top corporations and individuals, including George W. Bush when he was governor and general partner of the Texas Rangers baseball team.
But it is two other former clients, convicted swindlers Russell Erxleben and Brian Stearns, who have brought unwanted attention tot he 426-lawyer firm with offices in Houston and several other cities.
In the past two years, Lock Liddell has paid $30.5 million to settle lawsuits filed by investors who plowed money into enterprises run by Erxleben and Stearns, both of Austin. The deals turned out to be nothing more than elaborate Ponzi schemes.
In a Ponzi or pyramid scheme, investors typically are offered high rates of return. But new investments are used to pay off early investors until the scheme collapses.
The class-action lawsuits alleged the law firm lent its credibility and reputation to enable Erxleben and Stearns to commit securities fraud.
Today, representatives of the firm will participate in mediation of a separate federal lawsuit filed in New York by two foreign corporations that loaned $20 million to Stearns.
Stearns continually told investors that his law firm was the same one that represented Gov. Bush, according to court documents. Harriet Miers, who was co-managing partner of Lock Liddell, represented Bush. She left the law firm in January to become an assistant to President Bush.
What exactly are you going to do about it, Barbara?
The Republicans have the House, the Senate and the White House. It was pretty clear a couple of months back that they might even have the nerve to eliminate the filibuster.
Roberts & Miers for Rehnquist & O"Connor is the best trade you could have hoped for in the real world. There is NOTHING that would have gotten you a better outcome.
Unless you've got your guns and bombs primed out in your garage...
The Republicans have the House, the Senate and the White House. It was pretty clear a couple of months back that they might even have the nerve to eliminate the filibuster.
Roberts & Miers for Rehnquist & O"Connor is the best trade you could have hoped for in the real world. There is NOTHING that would have gotten you a better outcome.
Unless you've got your guns and bombs primed out in your garage...
Well, let's do nothing. Whee!
I would vote no on confirmation. I would continue to vote no, because the Democrats have nothing to lose. Nothing at all, except the support of the few supporters they have left. They are spineless and disgusting.
I would vote no on confirmation. I would continue to vote no, because the Democrats have nothing to lose. Nothing at all, except the support of the few supporters they have left. They are spineless and disgusting.
Oh Christ on a BIKE.
nytimes.com/2005/10/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05miers.html?hp&ex=1128571200&en=7e04971063f63746&ei=5094&partner=homepage
*muffled screams*
QUOTE
In Midcareer, a Turn to Faith to Fill a Void
By EDWARD WYATT and SIMON ROMERO
Published: October 5, 2005
DALLAS, Oct. 4 - By 1979, Harriet E. Miers, then in her mid-30's, had accomplished what some people take a lifetime to achieve. She was a partner at Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, one of the most prestigious law firms in the South, with an office on the 35th floor of the Republic National Bank Tower in downtown Dallas.
But she still felt something was missing in her life, and it was after a series of long discussions - rambling conversations about family and religion and other matters that typically stretched from early evening into the night - with Nathan L. Hecht, a junior colleague at the law firm, that she made a decision that many of the people around her say changed her life.
"She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," Justice Hecht, who now serves on the Texas Supreme Court, said in an interview. "One evening she called me to her office and said she was ready to make a commitment" to accept Jesus Christ as her savior and be born again, he said. He walked down the hallway from his office to hers, and there amid the legal briefs and court papers, Ms. Miers and Justice Hecht "prayed and talked," he said.
She was baptized not long after that, at the Valley View Christian Church.
It was a pivotal personal transformation for the woman now named for a seat on the United States Supreme Court, not entirely unlike that experienced by President Bush and others in the Texas political and business establishment of that time.
Ms. Miers, born Roman Catholic, became an evangelical Christian and began identifying more with Republicans than with the Democrats who had long held sway over Texas politics. She joined the missions committee of her church, which is against legalized abortion, and friends and colleagues say she rarely looked back at her past as a Democrat.
By EDWARD WYATT and SIMON ROMERO
Published: October 5, 2005
DALLAS, Oct. 4 - By 1979, Harriet E. Miers, then in her mid-30's, had accomplished what some people take a lifetime to achieve. She was a partner at Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, one of the most prestigious law firms in the South, with an office on the 35th floor of the Republic National Bank Tower in downtown Dallas.
But she still felt something was missing in her life, and it was after a series of long discussions - rambling conversations about family and religion and other matters that typically stretched from early evening into the night - with Nathan L. Hecht, a junior colleague at the law firm, that she made a decision that many of the people around her say changed her life.
"She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," Justice Hecht, who now serves on the Texas Supreme Court, said in an interview. "One evening she called me to her office and said she was ready to make a commitment" to accept Jesus Christ as her savior and be born again, he said. He walked down the hallway from his office to hers, and there amid the legal briefs and court papers, Ms. Miers and Justice Hecht "prayed and talked," he said.
She was baptized not long after that, at the Valley View Christian Church.
It was a pivotal personal transformation for the woman now named for a seat on the United States Supreme Court, not entirely unlike that experienced by President Bush and others in the Texas political and business establishment of that time.
Ms. Miers, born Roman Catholic, became an evangelical Christian and began identifying more with Republicans than with the Democrats who had long held sway over Texas politics. She joined the missions committee of her church, which is against legalized abortion, and friends and colleagues say she rarely looked back at her past as a Democrat.
nytimes.com/2005/10/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05miers.html?hp&ex=1128571200&en=7e04971063f63746&ei=5094&partner=homepage
*muffled screams*
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Oct 4 2005, 05:58 PM)
Well, let's do nothing. Whee!
I would vote no on confirmation. I would continue to vote no, because the Democrats have nothing to lose. Nothing at all, except the support of the few supporters they have left. They are spineless and disgusting.
I would vote no on confirmation. I would continue to vote no, because the Democrats have nothing to lose. Nothing at all, except the support of the few supporters they have left. They are spineless and disgusting.
Don't get discouraged Barb. Bogues is right. It's as good a trade as we could hope for. I too would vote no, but I think her confirmation is assured. Would you rather Janet Rogers Brown take the spot?
QUOTE(LeftintheUS @ Oct 27 2005, 01:46 PM)
Who next?
A Scalia clone - like I said, we would probably have been better off with Miers...
QUOTE(Bogues @ Oct 31 2005, 05:20 PM)
QUOTE(LeftintheUS @ Oct 27 2005, 01:46 PM)
Who next?
A Scalia clone - like I said, we would probably have been better off with Miers...
I, too, would have rather taken my chance with Miers.
In light of the Alito hearings. Crooks and Liars brings up this gem from the past.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/10.html#a6651
From the transcript:
Zappa: The biggest threat to America today is not communism; it's moving America towards a fascist theocracy and everything that has happened during the Reagan administration. Is steering us right down that pipe
Zappa: When you have a government that prefers a certain moral code derived from a certain religion and that moral code turns into legislation to suit one certain religious point of view and if that code happens to be very, very right wing almost toward Attila the Hun.
Lofton: Well then you are an anarchist. Every form of civil government is based on some kind of morality, Frank.
Zappa: Morality in terms of behavior-not in terms of theology
My comment...
I have been a huge Zappa fan for some time. I love his music. I have also been impressed with his intellect. This debate occured as the PMRC was trying to censor music. As Wikipedia notes:
"The Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was an American committee formed in 1985 by the wives of several congressmen. They included Tipper Gore (wife of Senator and later Vice President Al Gore); Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker; and Nancy Thurmond, wife of Senator Strom Thurmond. Their mission was to educate parents about "alarming trends" in popular music. They claimed that rock music encouraged/glorified violence, drug use, suicide, criminal activity, etc. and sought the censorship and/or rating of music."
During that time, Zappa hit the talk show circuit and testified before Congress, resulting in many memorable quotes. I thought I might share a few of my favorites with you here:
"The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children and promises to keep the courts busy for years dealing with the interpretation and enforcement problems inherent in the proposal's design... It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation."
"I don't think music turns people into social liabilities. Because you hear a lyric -- there's no medical proof that a person hearing a lyric is going to act out the lyric. There's also no medical proof that if you hear any collection of vowels and consonants, that the hearing of that collection is going to send you to Hell."
"Yeah, I tell them to change the channel if they see some guy in a brown suit with a telephone number at the bottom of the screen asking for money."
-- Senate Hearing, 1985, after being asked by Tipper Gore if there was anything on TV he didn't allow his kids to watch
"I think you should leave it up to the parent, because not all parents want to keep their children totally ignorant."
-- Senate Hearing, 1985 response to a question from Senator Hollings
I wrote a song about dental floss but did anyone's teeth get cleaner?
-- Senate Hearing, 1985, response to Tipper Gore's allegations that music incites people towards deviant behavior, or influences their behavior in general
Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are in my opinion more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality.
-- Statement to the Senate Hearing, 1985
"The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians do not like. What if the next bunch of Washington wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to concealed Zionist doctrine?"
-- Statement to the Senate Hearing, 1985
"Americans like to talk about (or be told about) Democracy but, when put to
the test, usually find it to be an 'inconvenience.' We have opted instead
for an authoritarian system disguised as a Democracy. We pay through
the nose for an enormous joke-of-a-government, let it push us around, and
then wonder how all those assholes got in there."
"Information doesn't kill you..."
-- Exchange during Senate Hearing, 1985
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/01/10.html#a6651
From the transcript:
Zappa: The biggest threat to America today is not communism; it's moving America towards a fascist theocracy and everything that has happened during the Reagan administration. Is steering us right down that pipe
Zappa: When you have a government that prefers a certain moral code derived from a certain religion and that moral code turns into legislation to suit one certain religious point of view and if that code happens to be very, very right wing almost toward Attila the Hun.
Lofton: Well then you are an anarchist. Every form of civil government is based on some kind of morality, Frank.
Zappa: Morality in terms of behavior-not in terms of theology
My comment...
I have been a huge Zappa fan for some time. I love his music. I have also been impressed with his intellect. This debate occured as the PMRC was trying to censor music. As Wikipedia notes:
"The Parents Music Resource Center (PMRC) was an American committee formed in 1985 by the wives of several congressmen. They included Tipper Gore (wife of Senator and later Vice President Al Gore); Susan Baker, wife of Treasury Secretary James Baker; and Nancy Thurmond, wife of Senator Strom Thurmond. Their mission was to educate parents about "alarming trends" in popular music. They claimed that rock music encouraged/glorified violence, drug use, suicide, criminal activity, etc. and sought the censorship and/or rating of music."
During that time, Zappa hit the talk show circuit and testified before Congress, resulting in many memorable quotes. I thought I might share a few of my favorites with you here:
"The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children and promises to keep the courts busy for years dealing with the interpretation and enforcement problems inherent in the proposal's design... It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation."
"I don't think music turns people into social liabilities. Because you hear a lyric -- there's no medical proof that a person hearing a lyric is going to act out the lyric. There's also no medical proof that if you hear any collection of vowels and consonants, that the hearing of that collection is going to send you to Hell."
"Yeah, I tell them to change the channel if they see some guy in a brown suit with a telephone number at the bottom of the screen asking for money."
-- Senate Hearing, 1985, after being asked by Tipper Gore if there was anything on TV he didn't allow his kids to watch
"I think you should leave it up to the parent, because not all parents want to keep their children totally ignorant."
-- Senate Hearing, 1985 response to a question from Senator Hollings
I wrote a song about dental floss but did anyone's teeth get cleaner?
-- Senate Hearing, 1985, response to Tipper Gore's allegations that music incites people towards deviant behavior, or influences their behavior in general
Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are in my opinion more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality.
-- Statement to the Senate Hearing, 1985
"The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians do not like. What if the next bunch of Washington wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to concealed Zionist doctrine?"
-- Statement to the Senate Hearing, 1985
"Americans like to talk about (or be told about) Democracy but, when put to
the test, usually find it to be an 'inconvenience.' We have opted instead
for an authoritarian system disguised as a Democracy. We pay through
the nose for an enormous joke-of-a-government, let it push us around, and
then wonder how all those assholes got in there."
"Information doesn't kill you..."
-- Exchange during Senate Hearing, 1985
Well, Alito is confirmed, on the same day Coretta Scott King dies.
symoblic, I guess...the start of a new era, and the end of an old one.
@@@@@
The right now has a solid 4 vote minority on the USSC, with Kennedy being the remaining swing vote (though he leans to the right).
All Bush needs is one more USSC justice to lock in a sold right wing majority, without having to depend on Kennedys swing vote.
Interestingly the rationale for voting for a Democratic presidential candidate vis a vis a third party candidate was that they could hold off a right-wing takeover of the Court. This is no longer the case as the right wing takeover is pretty much locked-in now.
symoblic, I guess...the start of a new era, and the end of an old one.
@@@@@
The right now has a solid 4 vote minority on the USSC, with Kennedy being the remaining swing vote (though he leans to the right).
All Bush needs is one more USSC justice to lock in a sold right wing majority, without having to depend on Kennedys swing vote.
Interestingly the rationale for voting for a Democratic presidential candidate vis a vis a third party candidate was that they could hold off a right-wing takeover of the Court. This is no longer the case as the right wing takeover is pretty much locked-in now.
Rhenquist dead but Scalia still alive.
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional...rticleid=132311
From the article...
Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.
“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.
My comment...
WWJD.
http://news.bostonherald.com/localRegional...rticleid=132311
From the article...
Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.
“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.
My comment...
WWJD.
Was this before or after he said prisoners of war don't deserve a trial?
QUOTE(itsmeBarbara @ Mar 27 2006, 01:20 PM)
Was this before or after he said prisoners of war don't deserve a trial?
After. That was when he was in Europe calling Europeans hypocritical.
Ah. Bastard.
Rhenquist dead and paranoid when alive...
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/04/rehnquis...s.ap/index.html
From the article:
The FBI's file on former Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- made public more than a year after his death -- offers insight into hallucinations and other symptoms of withdrawal that Rehnquist suffered when he was taken off a prescription painkiller in 1981.
A doctor was cited as saying that Rehnquist, an associate justice of the Supreme Court at the time, tried to escape the hospital in his pajamas and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him.
My comment:
This makes so much sense. I always knew it!!
From the article:
The FBI on Wednesday released 1,561 pages of documents on Rehnquist to news organizations and scholars in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act following Rehnquist's death in September 2005. An additional 207 pages were withheld under the federal disclosure law, and the FBI said an entire section of his file could not be found.
My comment:
Could not be found? Suuuuuuurre!!!!
From the article:
Much of the FBI's file on Rehnquist appears to have been compiled almost exclusively for his two Senate confirmations -- his initial nomination to the court by President Nixon in 1971 and his nomination as chief justice by President Reagan in 1986. Administration officials apparently hoped to prevent any surprises from sinking his nominations.
In 1971, Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst directed the FBI to conduct investigations of witnesses who were planning to testify at a Senate hearing against Rehnquist's confirmation.
Fifteen years later, during the Reagan administration, the FBI was enlisted to conduct background checks on witnesses who were scheduled to testify against Rehnquist's nomination to become chief justice.
My comment:
There is a reason Nixon and reagan placed high on my list of worst presidents.
From the article:
The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986 when Rehnquist was nominated to be chief justice. John Bolton, who resigned in December as President Bush's U.N. ambassador, was an assistant attorney general under Reagan.
"Thurmond just gave these names to Bolton they will testify for the Democrats and we want to know what they are going to say," a Justice Department official told a counterpart at the FBI, according to a memo in Rehnquist's file.
My comment:
Did you need another reason to hate Bolton?
From the article:
...The documents show that the FBI was aware in 1971 that Rehnquist had owned a home in Phoenix with a deed that allowed him to sell only to whites. The restrictive covenant was not disclosed until his 1986 confirmation hearings, at which Rehnquist said he became aware of the clause only days earlier.
My comment:
Do you think as a lawyer he might have actually read his covenant? I do.
From the article:
Also detailed in the declassified file was Rehnquist's 1981 hospital stay for treatment of back pain and his dependence on powerful prescription pain-relief medication.
The FBI investigated his dependence on Placidyl, which Rehnquist had taken for at least 10 years, according to a summary of a 1970 medical examination.
When Rehnquist checked into a hospital in 1981 for a weeklong stay, doctors stopped administering the drug, causing what a hospital spokesman at the time said was a "disturbance in mental clarity."
The FBI file, citing one of his physicians, said Rehnquist experienced withdrawal symptoms that included trying to escape the facility and discerning changes in the patterns on the hospital curtains. The justice also thought he heard voices outside his room discussing various plots against him.
The doctor said Placidyl is a highly toxic drug and that she could not understand why anyone would prescribe it, especially for long periods.
My comment:
So much for his rulings on drug-related cases.
From the article:
Charns said some of the censored documents provide intriguing hints of what else Rehnquist's file might contain.
In one previously secret memo from 1971, an FBI official wrote, "No persons interviewed during our current or 1969 investigation furnished information bearing adversely on Rehnquist's morals or professional integrity; however ..." The next third of the page is blacked out, under the disclosure law's exception for matters of national security.
"It would be nice to know what is still classified, three decades later," Charns said.
My comment:
Indeed it would be!!
http://www.cnn.com/2007/LAW/01/04/rehnquis...s.ap/index.html
From the article:
The FBI's file on former Chief Justice William Rehnquist -- made public more than a year after his death -- offers insight into hallucinations and other symptoms of withdrawal that Rehnquist suffered when he was taken off a prescription painkiller in 1981.
A doctor was cited as saying that Rehnquist, an associate justice of the Supreme Court at the time, tried to escape the hospital in his pajamas and imagined that the CIA was plotting against him.
My comment:
This makes so much sense. I always knew it!!
From the article:
The FBI on Wednesday released 1,561 pages of documents on Rehnquist to news organizations and scholars in response to requests made under the Freedom of Information Act following Rehnquist's death in September 2005. An additional 207 pages were withheld under the federal disclosure law, and the FBI said an entire section of his file could not be found.
My comment:
Could not be found? Suuuuuuurre!!!!
From the article:
Much of the FBI's file on Rehnquist appears to have been compiled almost exclusively for his two Senate confirmations -- his initial nomination to the court by President Nixon in 1971 and his nomination as chief justice by President Reagan in 1986. Administration officials apparently hoped to prevent any surprises from sinking his nominations.
In 1971, Deputy Attorney General Richard Kleindienst directed the FBI to conduct investigations of witnesses who were planning to testify at a Senate hearing against Rehnquist's confirmation.
Fifteen years later, during the Reagan administration, the FBI was enlisted to conduct background checks on witnesses who were scheduled to testify against Rehnquist's nomination to become chief justice.
My comment:
There is a reason Nixon and reagan placed high on my list of worst presidents.
From the article:
The late Sen. Strom Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican, was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1986 when Rehnquist was nominated to be chief justice. John Bolton, who resigned in December as President Bush's U.N. ambassador, was an assistant attorney general under Reagan.
"Thurmond just gave these names to Bolton they will testify for the Democrats and we want to know what they are going to say," a Justice Department official told a counterpart at the FBI, according to a memo in Rehnquist's file.
My comment:
Did you need another reason to hate Bolton?
From the article:
...The documents show that the FBI was aware in 1971 that Rehnquist had owned a home in Phoenix with a deed that allowed him to sell only to whites. The restrictive covenant was not disclosed until his 1986 confirmation hearings, at which Rehnquist said he became aware of the clause only days earlier.
My comment:
Do you think as a lawyer he might have actually read his covenant? I do.
From the article:
Also detailed in the declassified file was Rehnquist's 1981 hospital stay for treatment of back pain and his dependence on powerful prescription pain-relief medication.
The FBI investigated his dependence on Placidyl, which Rehnquist had taken for at least 10 years, according to a summary of a 1970 medical examination.
When Rehnquist checked into a hospital in 1981 for a weeklong stay, doctors stopped administering the drug, causing what a hospital spokesman at the time said was a "disturbance in mental clarity."
The FBI file, citing one of his physicians, said Rehnquist experienced withdrawal symptoms that included trying to escape the facility and discerning changes in the patterns on the hospital curtains. The justice also thought he heard voices outside his room discussing various plots against him.
The doctor said Placidyl is a highly toxic drug and that she could not understand why anyone would prescribe it, especially for long periods.
My comment:
So much for his rulings on drug-related cases.
From the article:
Charns said some of the censored documents provide intriguing hints of what else Rehnquist's file might contain.
In one previously secret memo from 1971, an FBI official wrote, "No persons interviewed during our current or 1969 investigation furnished information bearing adversely on Rehnquist's morals or professional integrity; however ..." The next third of the page is blacked out, under the disclosure law's exception for matters of national security.
"It would be nice to know what is still classified, three decades later," Charns said.
My comment:
Indeed it would be!!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.