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 3)

Lee1776

on Oct 09, 2005

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.

But the Article also states that recently it has become more common and foreign laws are used differently, no longer are foreign laws just used for international trade agreements (where there is no US federal laws) on the subject, but dealing with social issues where there are US laws on the books:

“When it comes to interpreting treaties or settling international business disputes, the Court has always looked to the laws of other countries, and the practice has not been particularly controversial,” says Norman Dorsen, a professor at New York University Law School. However, beginning in the late nineteen-nineties, the Court’s more liberal members began citing foreign sources to help interpret the Constitution on basic questions of individual liberties—for which the laws of foreign democracies tend to be more progressive than those at home.by: Jeffery Toobin of The New Yorker.

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.

That is the main problem, judges don't write laws. These are the people who enforce the constitution, not write it, and when they do start writing the constitution we may as well start calling them the Polit Bureau (i.e. appointed by the parties, yet saying what the country can do.)

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 responsibility. 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?

Here is where the justices did not follow the constitution and used foreign law. Why you may ask?

Amendment X - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

If something is not in the Constitution or a Federal law then it is the States laws that will be used. The State in this case did have a law stating that a juvenile could face death.

It's beyond reprehensible, and the US was the last of the western civilizations to undertake such barbarism.

Then maybe we are not a western civilization, and really the American civilization. I don't want a judge using their morals (just like you don't want an extremely religious judge using his) to make laws, I want them to use the morals of those laws enacted by the people. If you don’t like a law, use you right to vote in order to change it.

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

But that's just it, you are removing the right of the American people to make a law by ballot or elect those who write the laws (at the local level, if not the Federal level). What judges you like are those who will use laws from other countries and ignore those laws enacted by the American people (local or Federal), just because they are more moral in the Judges opinion.

While you think this is some how protecting the peoples rights, what your really advocating is the removing the right of the American people to create their own laws, even if those laws are barbaric.

I see where you are coming from, while you think protecting one individual’s rights are the highest priority, I find that protecting every American’s right to govern themselves more important. When nine people in black robes start telling me (and voters in the US) that we will us another countries laws, because in their opinion it is more moral then those we enacted, I get scared as hell.

kingbee

on Oct 09, 2005

the right of the American people to create their own laws, even if those laws are barbaric.

and it is the duty of the supreme court to invalidate barbaric laws enacted by federal government or any state.

Lee1776

on Oct 09, 2005

and it is the duty of the supreme court to invalidate barbaric laws enacted by federal government or any state.

Only if those laws violate the Constitution (i.e. the will of the people). If there is nothing in the Constitution pretaining to the law, then the Court has no authority to change or stop it.

kingbee

on Oct 09, 2005

If there is nothing in the Constitution pretaining to the law, then the Court has no authority to change or stop it.

it's not unreasonable to presume a 'barbaric' law might possibly run afoul of the proscription against 'cruel & unusual punishment'?

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!