Yet Another Crony

But, it's all they know.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/miers-led-law-firm-repeat_b_8277.html
from JoeUser Forums
Dubya Dumbass did it again. He found yet another crony to hoist and foist upon the American people. This time, it's none other than Harriet Miers. Ya wonder how he finds these idiots, how he dredges from the bottom of the cesspool to come up with such crooks, but it's really second nature to him. That's where the dubya dumbass resides. In fact, Miers was head of a law firm in Texas that had to pay out $millions in fines for defrauding investors. And, as head she was a managing partner, one right in the thick of the firm's policies and decisions. This could prove to be a more horrific case of cronyism than heckova job, Brownie. We're talking about the SCOTUS, for Christ sakes.

And, just for shits and giggles, I'll toss into this post that DeLay has just been handed yet another indictment, this time for money laundering.

I'm going to put together a list of all the crooks and indictments and convictions that this administration has ongoing, to illustrate the criminal legacy that the neocons will leave. It likely won't take me very long. It's all over the internet and in the news.

Anyway, back to Miers, that person who some think is a reach across the aisle to democrats. Well, it's not. It's yet another scam-linked crony from the great state of Texas. But, dumbya selected her for two major reasons: her loyalty and the inside information she holds on such issues as the Texas lottery probe, and of all goddamm things, being paid to launder his service record with the National Guard. There is some ugly history here, folks. I'm betting that she may not last through the hearings process.


Miers Led Law Firm Repeatedly Forced to Pay Damages For Defrauding Investors
article by David Sirota

In case anyone thought Harriet Miers wasn't a corporate-shill-in-White-House-clothing, take a gander at how Miers did her best Ken Lay impression while heading a major Texas corporate law firm. That's right, according to the 5/1/00 newsletter Class Action Reporter, Miers headed Locke, Liddell & Sapp at the time the firm was forced to pay $22 million to settle a suit asserting that "it aided a client in defrauding investors."

The details of the case are both nauseating and highly troubling, considering President Bush is considering putting Miers at the top of America's legal system. Under Miers' leadership, the firm represented the head of a "foreign currency trading company [that] was allegedly a Ponzi scheme." The law-firm admitted that it "knew in March 1998 that $ 8 million in [the company's] losses hadn't been reported to investors" but didn't tell regulators.

This wasn't an isolated incident, either. The Austin American-Statesman reported in 2001 that Miers' lawfirm was forced to pay another $8 million for a similar scheme to defraud investors. The suit, which dealt with actions the firm took under Miers in the late 1990s, was again quite troubling. As the 9/20/00 Texas Lawyer reported, Miers' firm helped a now-convicted con man "defraud investors and allowed the firm's [bank] account to be used as a 'conduit.'" The suit said "money from investors that went into the firm's trust account was deposited into [the con man's] bank accounts and was used to pay for his 'expensive toys.'"

If you think Miers wasn't involved in any of this -- think again. Miers wasn't just any old lawyer at the firm. She was the Managing Partner -- the big cheese. True, she could claim she had no idea this was going on. But that would be as laughable/pathetic/transparent as the Enron executives who made the same ones after they ripped off investors.

I wrote earlier today that Democrats must focus on the fact that Miers' defining career experience up until her nomination was being a Bush crony. These new details about her career only enhance that case, in that it shows she is just like the other corrupt corporate cronies like Enron's Ken ("Kenny Boy") Lay that Bush has surrounded himself with over the years. There is no room on the Supreme Court for people like Miers who are clearly entirely compromised by partisan/corporate loyalties -- loyalties that might make her an attractive candidate to the a corrupt elitists who run today's Republican Party, but a danger to the interests of ordinary Americans.
politics
24,692 views 34 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
Disappointed that there isn't enough history to prevent the inevitable confirmation of this candidate Dabe?

Or is this additional hatred to top off the fact that Roberts got the top slot so easily?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Terp, do you not care about her crooked record? Or, are you so in love with the bushies that you just don't care?

In fact, this has absolutely nothing to do with roberts. But, somehow bringing up miers' lousy record wherein you turn around an blame the roberts confirmation reminds me of how you bushie lovers bring up clinton every time someone points out dubya's failings. Amazing.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another volley in the far left/right "Scorched Earth" option. ;~D
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Another volley in the far left/right "Scorched Earth" option. ;~D


Ya, if you can't beat them at the ballot box, smear them with accusations and attack, attack with anything that is between twenty and one hundred degrees of separation..... until they resign.

Standard Operational Procedure. They just could not find anything on Roberts (You know, the public didn't like it when they tried to research his children's past). Some wonder why the Democrats keep losing their moderate base.

A little hint, stop throwing mud, and come up with some good ideas for once.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Whew!  Thanks Dabe.  I was worried that Miers was not the right person for the court, now I know she will be an excellent addition.  She has your squeal of disproval!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
And, the fact that dipshit blindly patriotic bushie lovers like his crony picks, is good enough for me to question the both the sanity and the morality of the entire bunch of the blindly patriotic dipshit bushie lovers.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since politicians are universally incompetent and corrupt, I find that the best approach is to figure out which faction relies the most on vicious namecalling, rather than inane press releases punctuated by the occasional thoughtful debate, and then oppose that faction wholeheartedly.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top

And, the fact that dipshit blindly patriotic bushie lovers like his crony picks, is good enough for me to question the both the sanity and the morality of the entire bunch of the blindly patriotic dipshit bushie lovers.

Thanks!  I thought you did not love me any more!

Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
The only thing I care about is that she is a Constitutionalist judge and don‘t want to legislate from the bench. The rest about being to far left or right don't matter to me. Because of that, I think she is a good pick.

That's My Two Cents
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
But, she's not a Constitutionalist judge. She's not even a judge at all. She has never been a judge. And, the Constitution is not her forte. In fact, she is a corporate trial attorney. She's a corporate shill. And, were she not a friend of dumbya's, she would likely have been the last person selected for the Supreme Court. If we want the best and the brightest for SCOTUS, we're not getting it with her. She's is nothing but yet another dumbass crony. Even the repubs are questioning her merits. Even the repugs are thinking that if she were not dumbass' attorney, she never would have been selected in a million years.

Lee if you care about a Constitutionalist judge, then you should be worrying about her. She's a lousy pick.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
There are times when I'm embarrassed that, in this day and age, senior British judges are still crown appointments, with candidates being discretely selected, discussed and vetted and the successful ones chosen by the Lord Chancellor's department, whereupon Her Majesty confirms the appointments, acting "on the advice of her ministers".

Then I come and observe the extraordinary partisan ding dong of judicial appointments on the other side of the Atlantic and, just for a nanosecond, my embarrassment is lessened.

Still, it is vigorous democracy, and it seems to work. No one said it had to be seemly.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top

Then I come and observe the extraordinary partisan ding dong of judicial appointments on the other side of the Atlantic and, just for a nanosecond, my embarrassment is lessened.

Give yourself a treat!  Make it a microsecond next time.

Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
One man's crony is another man's trusted associate.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sorry if I offended you Doc, but I think my point is a valid one. I'm not knocking your system, because I think that you've just about got it right, but there is a lack of (judicial) dignity in the over-politicisation of judicial appointments, especially when all sides are trying to prove or second guess the candidates' political opinions which ought, surely, to be a private matter. There are issues here of the separation of powers which the constitutional framers, for all their wisdom weren't able to fully solve.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
But, she's not a Constitutionalist judge.


Since you automatically believe Bush, his cronies and anybody remotely conservative lies ever time they open their mouth, I would not expect you to believe them when they say Meirs will read the Constitution and not rewrite it using foreign laws.

We will see during the Senate hearings if she continues to hold those beliefs. If she doesn’t, then in my mind she needs to go. That's what the hearings are for. Until then, what info all the news media have dug up and statements from people, who know her, will do for me.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since you automatically believe Bush, his cronies and anybody remotely conservative lies ever time they open their mouth, I would not expect you to believe them when they say Meirs will read the Constitution and not rewrite it using foreign laws.


This is absolutely true. However, I was referring to her past, not her present or her future. She has never been a Constitutional scholar, and in fact, is a trial attorney. Sheesh, I thought this administration hates trial attorneys. Whatever. Also, the fact that she was dubya's attorney hired to cleanse his National Guard record immediately makes her suspect. I suppose, if she is on the court, then she would provide some assurances that the dubya won't be impeached or held accountable in any way for his shady dealings with crooks and cronies.

As for a concept of rewriting the Constitution using foreign laws, where the hell do you get this shit? Do you actually believe this crap? Or, do you make it up as you go along? Did Flush Limpballs say that? Amazingly stupid accusation, and one only a neocon extremist would spout.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for a concept of rewriting the Constitution using foreign laws, where the hell do you get this shit?

Ruth "Buzzi" Ginzberg said it.  It is easily googled.

Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
Also, the fact that she was dubya's attorney hired to cleanse his National Guard record immediately makes her suspect.


Please provide a link or proof.

I suppose, if she is on the court, then she would provide some assurances that the dubya won't be impeached or held accountable in any way for his shady dealings with crooks and cronies.


1) What does the Supreme Court have to do with a Presidents impeachment? To prevent an Impeachment would be the exact opposite to being Constitutionalist Judge. The only duty that the Supreme Court of the US has dealing with an Impeachment is swearing in of the next President.

2) Do you really thing that any criminal dealings will ever even reach the Supreme Court? Then even if it did, I would highly dought that the case would be excepted, because the Supreme Court deals with Constitutional and jurisdiction issues, not criminal issued. Just look at the courts docket and see for yourself.

As for a concept of rewriting the Constitution using foreign laws, where the hell do you get this shit?


This is a Great article from the NEW YORKER that lists many of the cases that the Supreme Court has sighted foreign law in their findings. I would also like to see the court shoot down more of the cases from lower courts where the judge used Foreign law in their findings. Link


Or, do you make it up as you go along?


and here is another article that is not so targeted on Kennedy, but others on the court:Link
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
thanks, Lee for the links. Of particular interest is that the two cases cited in the findlaw website, which are also cited in the New Yorker involve issues of executions of juvenile offenders and homosexual sodomy. Intereresting that we would think that these kinds of cases involve writing foreign laws into US Constitutional law. In fact, I find it rather ridiculous that such is the interpretation. Rather, the comparison of other western nations, and how they treat their own citizens is what the point was here, and how maybe, in that we now live in a global environment, that we should possibly consider their points of view. In fact, the New Yorker article describes how Constitutional judges looked to foreign laws since the Constitution was written in order to help interpret intent and morality. I really don't undertand the problem here.

Even here at JU, it is quite evident that we live in a global environment. As hard as the conservatives try to keep the nation backward thinking and isolationist, it's like pissing in the wind. The internet will always be around to remind us that we are not alone; we are not an island; and we are not the moral authority for the rest of the world, In fact, we could even learn some things about moral decency from other countries. Like putting our juvenile offenders to death is maybe immoral in the eyes of the rest of the world, maybe.

Whatever, and admittedly, I had never seen the reference before about judges using other nations' laws to form our own. Actually, if those laws are good, then why not consider those laws on their merits rather than dismissing them out of hand just because they belong to a foreign judicial system. I think that is really the reference.

Ya learn something new every day. Thanks again.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Actually, if those laws are good, then why not consider those laws on their merits rather than dismissing them out of hand just because they belong to a foreign judicial system.


Because it is not the right or purview of the Judiciary to make laws. As is clearly stated in the constitution, it is the legislature that does it. And the fact that you just uttered this statement, makes me very afraid of the loony left and their willingness to abrogate their democratic responsibility and leave it to some powder wig elitist.
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Because it is not the right or purview of the Judiciary to make laws. As is clearly stated in the constitution, it is the legislature that does it.


You beat me to it, Dr. Guy.

Judges are not meant to look to other country's laws, even if they are good laws, it don't matter. It is the Legislatures job to read those laws, or our's to vote for Legislatures that will enact those goods laws.

If a Judge uses foreign laws, then they are not following our laws. That is what makes them Activist Judges and not doing the job that is entrusted to them by the Constitution. Their job is not to judge if a law is good or not, just to judge if it is constitutionally legal and enforce those laws that the legislatures creates.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top
3 more years, yeh! 3 more years, yeh!

say it loud brothers and sisters,

3 more years, yeh!
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
There is something else that needs to be thrown into the mix; a Supreme Court Justise does not have to be a lawyer or a judge (or former judge). In fact the president has the right to appointment any citizen to the position. Of course it would have to be approved by the senate; however, if he wanted to appoint Dr. Guy, or even Dabe that is his right under the Constitution. A good example of this is William H. Taft former U.S. President who after leaving office was appointment to the SCOTUS and approved by the senate.

Pam
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
Addin:

Where in the constitution does it infer that an appointee needs to have studied constitutional law? Oh!, it doesn't because when the founding fathers first wrote the constitution there was no one familar with and how things would work out.

Pam
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
Where in the constitution does it infer that an appointee needs to have studied constitutional law? Oh!, it doesn't because when the founding fathers first wrote the constitution there was no one familar with and how things would work out.


I think this i a good point, and one that follows what I had read in the New Yorker article on the subject. If you all take the time to read the article, the link being in Lee's post above, you'd see that the Supreme Court justices have a history of looking to foreign courts to help them understand their judicial responsibilities.

And, that leads me back to my original response to Lee and the rest of this. I guess it's a matter of interpretation wherein a SCOTUS justice is actually writing laws based on foreign court systems or just looking to those courts for help in understanding their responsibilities. The one case that comes to mind, in particular, is the constitutionality of sentencing a juvenile offender to death. I do not think it's really in the Constitution one way or the other, and such a sentence is one of morality rather than legal reponsibility. And again, I applaud those judges who based that decision on the merits of the case. In fact, how can any society with concience put a juvenile offender to death? It's beyond reprehensible, and the US was the last of the western civilizations to undertake such barbarism. In that interpretation of a justice's responsibility, it's not about "writing laws" based upon other countries' laws, but one of determining whether it's constitutional based on our own Constitution, and specifically the clause dictating what constitutes harsh and unusual punishments.

As for the sodomy laws, that seems less clear cut to me, though I do think it really speaks of whether the government has a right to be in our bedrooms when particular behavior is between two consenting adults. Again, it's an interpretation of a constitutional right of privacy, rather than a re-writing of our constitutional law.

And, guy, it is your intrusional mindset that scares the bejesus out of me, because you hold a very conservative interpretation, or a complete lack of morailty when reading the Constitution, which in turn refuses to allow any judicial discretion at all. In such, you believe in putting children to death, because the Constituion doesn't specifically say not to, and to prohibit acts between consenting adults again because the Constitution doesn't specifically say not to. Both are intrusions on American ways of life, and you scare the crap out of me, and why I hate the judges you seem to like. My idea of a Constitutional judge is one who doesn't interpret the Constitution in a manner that would remove our rights, as American citizens, wherein you want ones who would dicatate personal rights that they have no business discussing, like sodomy. Geez.......................