So, Harriet Ellan Miers has been nominated for the Supreme Court. Although she is an older unmarried woman with no children, she doesn’t appear to have taken on the best aspects of the “wise crone” – she’s only crone-y.

She’s part of the Bush inner circle, and it looks to me that the discussion should center on issues like corporate deregulation, separation of powers, nepotism, and her history as Bush’s personal lawyer. Her areas of specialization are Antitrust & Trade Regulation (her clients included Microsoft and Disney), and Litigation & Appeals. She has never been a judge before. She seems to have turned Republican in about 1990. Miers met Bush in the 1980s, and was drafted to work as counsel for his 1994 gubernatorial campaign. In 1995, he appointed her to the Texas Lottery Commission. She was National Co-Chairman of Lawyers for Bush-Cheney in 2000 and helped manage the Bush v. Gore litigation effort, after which she came to Washington with him in 2001. According to the NY Times profile, she is “often the only woman who accompanies Mr. Bush and male staff members in long brush-cutting and cedar-clearing sessions at the president’s ranch.”

President Bush has described her as “a trusted adviser on whom I have long relied for straightforward advice,” someone with the “keen judgment and discerning intellect necessary to be an outstanding counsel.” When he was governor of Texas, he characterized her as “a pit bull in size 6 shoes” at an awards ceremony.

She was his personal lawyer and is his friend. I’m wondering in what kinds of situations she might have represented or advised Bush – strange that there doesn’t really seem to be much information on that. Well, not much except for getting paid $19,000 to look into Bush’s National Guard service?

According to one view of that

The suit involving Barnes was brought by former Texas lottery director Lawrence Littwin, who was fired by the state lottery commission, headed by Bush appointee Harriet Miers, in October 1997 after five months on the job. It contends that Gtech Corp., which runs the state lottery and until February 1997 employed Barnes as a lobbyist for more than $3 million a year, was responsible for Littwin’s dismissal.

Littwin’s lawyers have suggested in court filings that Gtech was allowed to keep the lottery contract, which Littwin wanted to open up to competitive bidding, in return for Barnes’s silence about Bush’s entry into the Guard.

She got her B.A. (mathematics) and J.D. from Southern Methodist University. She clerked for Belli, Ashe, Ellison, Choulos & Lieff in 1969, and for U.S. District Judge Joe E. Estes from 1970 to 1972. She was the first woman hired by Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely (a Dallas firm whose history extends to the 1890s) , and became a commercial litigator. She was Texas State Bar President, Dallas Bar Association President, Member-At-Large on the Dallas City Council, President of Locke, Purnell, Rain & Harrell, Co-Managing Partner at Locke Liddell & Sapp, LLP, Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief of Staff until last November, and now Counsel to the President (Gonzales’ old job!).

Miers’ office “provides guidance on issues from the legal parameters for the war on terrorism to presidential speeches. Her office also takes the lead in vetting and recommending candidates for the federal judiciary, all the way up to the Supreme Court.” That puts her squarely in the middle of things like torture policies and perhaps the Plame scandal. Egg on face for Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, who said although the discussion of nominees at the White House was one-way, White House counsel Harriet Miers’ “door was open to senators.” It’s as if the head of a Search Committee got the job… um, wait, isn’t that pretty much what it is? Wow, Cheney revisited!

According to Business Week,

Harriet E. Miers was the first person at the White House to learn that Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor was stepping down. And she was at President George W. Bush’s side when he interviewed prospects, including his ultimate pick, Judge John G. Roberts Jr. As the President’s lawyer and trusted friend, the 59-year-old Dallas attorney is at the center of Administration strategy on judicial nominations. Says former Texas Republican Chairman Fred Meyer: “The President doesn’t make any big decisions without chatting with her.”

So wadda ya want? (this is a rhetorical question)

• I want to know why she represented monopolists if her interest was antitrust and trade regualtion – seems like she was on the wrong side, eh? Like several of Bush’s previous judicial nominees, she seems to favor corporate interests over the rights of the individual.
• I want the argument made for the reassertion of constitutional separation of powers – we’re just looking at a further power consolidation of Bushco loyalists.
• I want to hear the word nepotism – she’s been working for and with him for the past 12 years
• I want to know if she was involved in changing our torture policies.
• I want to know exactly what she did as Bush’s lawyer and advisor.
• I want to know who she represented, in what cases, and what her arguments were.
• I want to know what happened in and around 1990, when her political contributions switched from Democrat to Republican.

MoveOn.org’s questions are a little more specific. It looks like they are trying to save some time and money by asking people to research. Please a href=”http://www.moveonpac.org/judgefacts/”>submit information if you find any published information on any of these topics:

• What policies did she advocate for on the Dallas City Council?
• What was her record at the head of the scandal-ridden Texas Lottery Commission?
• What cases did she take on while working as a corporate lawyer in private practice, and what positions did she fight for?
• What has she written or said in and outside of her law practice about her views on constitutional issues like privacy, the “commerce clause” or equal protection?
• White House Council Alberto Gonzales played a pivotal role in softening Americas stance on torture. What positions has Harriet Miers advocated for in the same role?
• Has she ever publicly distanced herself from George W. Bush?
• What are her views on environmental protections, corporate crime, and the right to choose?
• What else should the public know about Harriet Miers?

Of course, it’s possible that Bush could just use this nomination to distract everyone from the bigger fish presently frying, move a few things through the Court, then toss her to the Democrats at a good moment. The next nominee would be worse. I don’t know if the Democrats can find a spine, but I do wish they would get more attuned to their own base and stop trying to play it safe. That strategy hasn’t done anything for them, or us.