Yet Another Crony

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

Published on October 3, 2005 By dabe In Politics

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.

Comments (Page 2)

dabe

on Oct 07, 2005

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.

Dr Guy

on Oct 07, 2005

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.

Lee1776

on Oct 07, 2005

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

dabe

on Oct 08, 2005

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.

Dr Guy

on Oct 08, 2005

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.

Lee1776

on Oct 08, 2005

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.

Moderateman

on Oct 08, 2005

3 more years, yeh! 3 more years, yeh!

say it loud brothers and sisters,

3 more years, yeh!

Pam Johnson

on Oct 08, 2005

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

Pam Johnson

on Oct 08, 2005

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

dabe

on Oct 09, 2005

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.......................

Dr Guy

on Oct 09, 2005

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.

You are right and wrong. WHile it is not in the constitution, it is in the constitution that the legislative branch needs to make the law that would abolish juvenile crime. The Constitution is very clear on that. In that case, while it may be a moral imperative, that does not count when the court rules. By Definition, the court needs to be amoral. Taking your argument to the next logical step, Pat Robertson should be making the laws of the land since he has a very definitive and hard core moral compass. Do you want that? I think not. But that is what you are advocating.

Dr Guy

on Oct 09, 2005

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.

You are 180 degrees wrong. Yes, there should be no Morality in reading the constitution. For your morality is definitely different than mine, and you cannot say yours is more right. Yours is not more right. But, as a democracy, we have to make laws that a majority of citizens agree with, based upon their morality. The judges then need to interpret them in an amoral way. I would be the first to scream if Scalia (a Catholic) outlawed abortion (even tho I would fully agree with the intent of the ruling) based upon the teachings of the Catholic Church.

So I really dont scare people. But the left version of Jerry Falwell, you Dabe, do scare me. Nambla is in your court and uses much the same langauge. And that scares me. But we do have a safeguard against rampant moralism by any sect in the US, at least we are supposed to. It is called the amorality of the Judicial Branch.

We make our own laws. If other countries start making our laws, then we might as well turn over the ruling of your country to them, for we have no voice or right to disagree with their ideas of what we should do.

dabe

on Oct 09, 2005

Whatever, guy. You and I will never agree. I am not 180 degrees wrong. My opinion is not "wrong". And, it's fucking disingenuous to compare me to the likes of Nambla, you asshole. I hope that you never rise above the idiotic paeon that you are to have any say whatsoever in our judicial system, beyond your vote. You scare the fucking shit out of me. You and your beloved dipshits who think that removing our individual rights, based on your freakin' interpretation is scary. As for Nambla, you asshole, rape and sex with children is already illegal, and has absolutely nothing to do with what occurs between two consenting adults. You are a disingenous slob of a human being.

Dr Guy

on Oct 09, 2005

You scare the fucking shit out of me. You and your beloved dipshits who think that removing our individual rights, based on your freakin' interpretation is scary.

Nice to see your old potty mouth self. I am glad I scare you, but again you are 180 degrees off the truth. I dont want to remove rights, I want to make sure we have all our rights. And that cannot happen as long as some appointed Judge is going to deny us those rights. And you celebrate that. I would say you scare me, but you are so far out of the mainstream that even if one of your whacky compatriots win, I cant see them doing anything that you call for.

I am a self aware human, that is content with myself. You still hate yourself, god only knows why. As for slob, I will match you clean vs filth on your part. Any time, any way.

I dont hate you Dabe. I pity you. I am glad I am not as small and bitter as you are, and will never be.

Manopeace

on Oct 09, 2005

Doc... I must say... bringing up NAMBLA was downright mean. There is nothing that Dabe believes in that supports sick outfits like that. That was a real low blow...not nice!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!