Talk:Harriet Miers/Archive 2005

message: There seems to be dispute over the number of T's in her name. Peripatetic
:Just one T NoSeptember 11:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I added the redirects though Mmmbeer 11:49, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Is it Harriett or Harriet? 

message: What's that link to Texas Lottery Commission Scandal doing there?  Looks like it has nothing to do with her. — ceejayoz ★ 12:21, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It was added by an anon; probably just trying to attack her character.  BTW:  ceejayoz from the Relic Forums? --tomf688{talk} 12:28, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: We can't simply assert, without attribution, that she's "credited with rescuing the commission from the previous corruption scandal."  I'm sure some partisan Republican can be found to say such a thing, and that's fine if reported as that person's opinion.  If NPR did some kind of investigation and came to that conclusion (as opposed to merely reporting what her boosters were saying), so much the better.  I'm removing the plaudits, however, until someone provides a version that meets our NPOV standards (by being attributed to a notable spokesperson).  Furthermore, there were at least some corruption issues on her watch.  I'll try to write a summary with citations. JamesMLane 07:15, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lottery scandal? 

message: Just to tell you that I added a warning to vandals to not try anything here, like it was done with other current events articles that appear on the Main Page. Titoxd 17:40, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism warning 

message: I have copied verbatim everything under "Supreme Court nomination" onto Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and hearings.  Perhaps rather than larding this article up with all the details, we could summarize here and go into more depth over there? Brandon39 20:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Separate Supreme Court nominations and hearings page

message: Could someone please expand on the role of "Assistant to the President and Staff Secretary"? Because it kind of sounds like he just hired his administrative assistant to be a SUPREME COURT JUSTICE! {rageful-screech} jengod 20:15, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Putting aside concerns about Ms. Miers' experience and the potential role of her personal friendship with the President (which I share) and apparent religious rightism (which I also share, see my user page, but such concerns do not need to be in an npov article), she has had a significant career (including heading a law firm of hundreds of lawyers).  The title of secretary may be more in the sense of the "UN secretary-general" rather than "someone who types and keeps track of the managers' schedules."  "Assistant to the President" is likely just below a cabinet-level post (Rice was formerly "assistant to the president for national security" IIRC).  Pakaran 21:39, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Assistant to the President" doesn't imply administrative assistant, nor any pejorative connotation you attach to it.  Other people with the same title include Andy Card, Karl Rove, and I. Lewis Libby. -Parallel or Together? 11:18, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Secretary??

message: The page says she is the oldest nominee since Lewis Powell. What about Ruth Bader Ginsburg? She was born in March 1933 and nominated in spring or summer 1993. Isn't that the same age or older than Miers? --JamesB3 20:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've checked, and you are indeed correct, Ginsburg was ~3 months over 60 when she was nominated, Miers is just  1.5 months over 60. I've made the change. -Greg Asche (talk) 21:01, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Also, Rehnquist was almost 62 when he became CJ.  Of course, he was younger when he started on the Court.  Pakaran 21:41, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oldest?  

message: The "Views on Abortion" section seems confusing and possibly POV.  Can we change it to make it clearer? 128.135.157.81 21:34, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  Some people want to talk about abortion in the article.  We need to restrict ourselves to talking about Harriet Miers.  It's fine to mention that her position on abortion is probably the #1 question mark in most people's minds because changing O'Connor's swing vote could overturn Roe v. Wade, but that is as far as we should go here.  Not appropriate to talk about how it has or doesn't have a legislative basis.  Tempshill 21:54, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, Tempshill. If Wikipedians want to talk about how this nomination could affect abortion law, they should do it in a new sub-head in abortion. Please please please go over there. --Jacquelyn Marie 22:11, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

text: i agree, and the edits have helped.  I have made a couple of additional edits to clarify O'Connor's swing vote role on the court (the reason Miers nomination is so important for this issue).  TMS63112 22:44, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, thanks to whoever subsequently moved the abortion and qualifications paragraphs over to Harriet Miers Supreme Court nomination and hearings; that's where they do belong, along with other controversies about her nomination.  Tempshill 15:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Abortion

message: Let's ditch the external links in the intro and write articles on these two notable organizations. -- BD2412 talk 23:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job on that first one. :) --Jacquelyn Marie 04:44, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I've put up a stub for Dallas Bar Association, too. — ceejayoz ★ 18:03, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Nicely done! -- BD2412 talk 18:05, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dallas Bar Association]] and [[State Bar of Texas]] 

message: An anonymous user added the statement that Miers was born in Dallas "near the home of now President Bush."  Which of Goerge W. Bush's homes?  Presumably not in Crawford, where he lives now, nor in West Texas where he was raised.  Even if true, is this relevant?  TMS63112 03:26, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed it.  Distance from Dallas to Midland: 330 miles (5 hour drive); Dallas to Crawford: 120 miles (2 hour drive).
4.228.216.10 06:30, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I think the article makes it clear that Bush and Miers know each other from Texas, starting in the early 1990's, which is the relevant information.  I think having a reference to Bush in the section about Miers birth is confusing and irrelevant because it could imply that they knew each other since childhood, which does not appear to be the case.  TMS63112 20:45, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "near the home of now President Bush"? 

message: The May 1, 2000 Class Action Reporter notes that Miers' law firm, Locke, Liddel & Sapp paid $22 million dollars for its part in "defrauding investors." While Miers was at the head of the firm, it apparently had failed to warn investors that the currency-trading firm that Locke Liddel was representing was apparently operating a Ponzi scheme.
Since she headed the firm during this scandal, it could lead to charges of Enron-like accounting. Should this information be listed in her bio?--RattBoy 10:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The accusation isn't going to go anywhere.  The suit was against particular corporate attorneys that didn't include Miers (who was a litigator), and the firm was vicariously liable.  The attorneys responsible aren't with the firm any more.  A managing partner like Miers was isn't like a CEO; her role is administrative, and she certainly doesn't supervise the work of attorneys in different departments.  -- FRCP11 19:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Miers' law firm paid $22 mill for "Defrauding Investors"

message: In an effort to implement the Cite your sources guideline, which seems especially important in a volatile article that covers hot-button topics, I will add a References section using the note&ref citation templates.  As time permits today, I will also add source references for any direct quotes I can track down (starting with "a pit bull in size 6 shoes" which I already found in the Washington Post).  Assistance is useful.  --Kgf0 15:56, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the template. The template is inflexible, forces a standard by which there is no consensus, and (most importantly) wikifies the name of every writer cited. It's best to use plain text. --Neutralitytalk 18:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Enh, screw it then.  I'll leave it to you to fix the links you left behind.  --Kgf0 18:31, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

text: You guys could always use Wikipedia:Footnote3 without a reference template.  You can get automatic numbering and can jump down and back quite easily..  — Laura Scudder | Talk 23:08, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: Added a NPoV tag to links, it will take a while to see what is germaine and what is not on topic. A lot of these are not on topic, but are PoV attack on Miss Myers, or PoV praise of Miss Myers. PoV links should be removed or moved to the confirmation page. Dominick 13:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: I have now twice removed the "pit bull" quote from the lead of this article, and I'd like to explain why.  It admittedly is a colorful comment, but does not seem to me to fit in the tone of the article.  It also was almost certainly an off-the-cuff comment by Bush.  If a quote from Bush as to her character is wanted in the lead, it would seem more appropriate to draw on a recent one from the official announcement.  However, I really think characterizations like this belong further down in the body of the article (if they belong anywhere).  The fact that it gets a lot of hits on google doesn't seem to me to be relevant; I could also no doubt get a lot of hits on google (for example) that former President Clinton is a "scumbag", since that was a comment attributed to a prominent member of Congress a few years ago.  But I don't think we would want that comment in the lead on President Clinton's article. Brandon39 16:51, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, for starters I'll agree that perhaps it doesn't belong in the lead (FWIW, I sourced it, but I did not add it initially).  I would however make two points: First, it doesn't just get hits on Google, it gets hits on Google that lead to wire and print stories, including the Washington Post, which is a major paper of record in the US.  That makes it a bit more significant, and I daresay you wouldn't get a similar set of hits on "Clinton + scumbag".  Second, if you are going to remove a link to a footnote, you have to remove the footnote as well, or all the subsequent numbers are off. No no, allow me. :-P  In any case, a link to the comment (which I also did not add) remains under External Links, and perhaps that is sufficient. --Kgf0 17:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Your solution seems like a good compromise; and thank you for filling me in on the footnoting problem.  I'll watch that in the future.  FYI, a google search on Clinton+scumbag yields 463 hits.  The first two are CNN and the Washington Post. Brandon39 17:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what I get for not doing the search first.  I guess we've reached consensus, eh?  --Kgf0 17:58, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems like.  Thanks. Brandon39 18:06, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it belongs in the lead section, but it's a notable comment, widely reported, and I'd lean toward including it. JamesMLane 18:18, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Pit bull

message: Dominick added  to External Links. As the template indicates, if you add this, you should explain why on talk. Otherwise it can't be fixed. Rd232 16:15, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV notice external section 

message: Neutrality deleted changes by an anonymous user stating that Miers supported gay rights and this was contrary to her evangelical beliefs.  While I agree that the phrasing and context of those comments were poor. . .there was some basis for them.  Several news sources (including NPR) have reported that as a City Council candidate in Dalllas, Miers supported equal rights for gays (e.g. non-discrimination in housing and employment) but opposed efforts to overturn Texas' sodomy law (which was later struck down by the Supreme Court).  I think some discussion of this in the article is relevant.  TMS63112 03:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay rights 

message: Someone has added the phrase "addicted to pussy" near the beginning of the article.  The vandal is at least somewhat clever, because the phrase does not appear on the edit page.
12:33 AM
Somebody fixed this problem.  Gotta love Wikicops.
12:34 AM
130.132.231.50 04:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The occurs when someone has removed the vandalism but the server's cache has not updated yet, you can force it to do so manually by appending ?action=purge to the end of the URL (this is if you are viewing /wiki/Harriet Miers, if you are viewing it in index.php you can use &action=purge). -Greg Asche (talk) 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Has she even written a law review article?  Anything that shows work or interest in the law that wasn't for a paying client?  Postdlf 23:19, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academics? 

message: "Further proof of profound intelligence can be seen when U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told George W. Bush in a 1997 birthday card that he was "the best governor ever" and, in a separate note to her boss, said she hoped his twin daughters recognize their parents are "cool.""
This seems a bit biased for an article that at least attempts to be neutral. Since I stumbled upon this while writing a paper about Miers, I don't really feel like changing it. I think a better solution would be to add the cards and stuff this bit references down in the links. I personally saw the cards as a .pdf file at nytimes.com; linking to the times site is bad, though, as I believe it turns into a paid option in a short period of time. 163.120.80.254 09:23, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Profound Intelligence?

message: From the AP: Miers supported ban on most abortions.  They include links to pictures of the questionairre she filled out for the pro-life organization.  So in 1989 she indicated support for an amendment to ban abortion except when it's life threatening.  This doesn't mean she'd rule against Roe v. Wade, but it does indicate that she's pro-life and would like to ban abortion.  Nathan J. Yoder 01:41, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abortion views update 

message: Why was the last change rolled back?  They inserted a sourced statement indicating how many previous justices had no prior judicial experience.  The version he reverted to is POV (using the word "unusual"), where as the new version uses an objective, quantative description. Nathan J. Yoder 01:53, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality revert 

message: I've been reading but not editing this article.  There's no mention of the disclosure of her 1993 speeches which seem to follow liberal talking points on abortion and judicial activism.  Isn't that the consenus view of why she withdrew? That these speeches couldn't be defended to the conservative opponents of her nomination. patsw 14:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why she withdrew 

message: I've added a link to the text of the letter from Harriet Miers, but I'm also going to copy it here for safe keeping (fear that the link may vanish).
:Dear Mr. President:
:I write to withdraw as a nominee to serve as an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States. I have been greatly honored and humbled by the confidence that you have shown in me and have appreciated immensely your support and the support of many others. However, I am concerned that the confirmation process presents a burden for the White House and our staff that is not in the best interest of the country.
:As you know, members of the Senate have indicated their intention to seek documents about my service in the White House in order to judge whether to support me. I have been informed repeatedly that in lieu of records, I would be expected to testify about my service in the White House to demonstrate my experience and judicial philosophy. While I believe that my lengthy career provides sufficient evidence for consideration of my nomination, I am convinced the efforts to obtain Executive Branch materials and information will continue.
:As I stated in my acceptance remarks in the Oval Office, the strength and independence of our three branches of government are critical to the continued success of this great Nation. Repeatedly in the course of the process of confirmation for nominees for other positions, I have steadfastly maintained that the independence of the executive Branch be preserved and its confidential documents and information not be released to further a confirmation process. I feel compelled to adhere to this position, especially related to my own nomination. Protection of the prerogatives of the Executive Branch and continued pursuit of my confirmation are in tension. I have decided that seeking my confirmation should yield.
:I share your commitment to appointing judges with a conservative judicial philosophy, and I look forward to continuing to support your efforts to provide the American people judges who will interpret the law, not make it. I am most grateful for the opportunity to have served your Administration and this country.
:Most respectfully,
:Harriet Ellan Miers
Mmmbeer 18:22, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linked the Text 

message: I think this section does need to be merged back into the Harriet Miers article. I have already placed part of the Reactions to her Nomination section into the Bush Supreme Court candidates article where I think it best fits logically
BoBo 00:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the article should be merged at all because it includes key details on what the Supreme Court nomination process is like, if only at the beginnings. I would very much like it if there was a Wikipedia article on Robert Bork's failure to enter the high court, and I think people twenty years from now who wonder about Miss Miers and the reasons why she never made it will be grateful to have a specific article on that process, instead of a section in an article on her otherwise uneventful life. LeoDV 07:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I definitely support a merge - the woman's only achievement of encyclopaedic note is her Supreme Court nomination. With that now gone, this page is superfluous. If she had gone on to be part of the court then a separate page might - might - have been warranted. But that is no longer the case. El T 09:24, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Uh, NO. The information on her nomination is definetly important and worth saving, but there is far too much to put on a personal bio page. It deserves a sub-article as much as anything (like Lists of [some TV show] episodes) Staxringold 15:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: And WHY should the nomination page information be saved?  It is (old) news/current events, not encyclopedia-quality reference material.  Now that Reactions to her Nomination has been merged back in, I think the Harriet Miers nomination to the Supreme Court page should be deleted. --Paul 19:40, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

text: I also oppose the merge.  An article on a withdrawn SCOTUS nominee is equally as notable as an article on the process leading to a candidate's withdrawal.  That the list of SCOTUS candidates who have withdrawn is shorter than the list of Justices makes them more notable, IMHO - Miers is the first since, what, 1912?  I kow WP:ISNOT a crystal ball, but think how much more notable it may become, in fact, if GWB has to go through numerous candidates before getting one approved - if he goes through enough, we may need a succession box just for the failed nominations. ;)  --Kgf0 22:12, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I don't know if its notable, but the nomination and its withdrawal are important and significant apart from her bio. patsw 02:02, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible Merge

message: what are some of the issues that make her party hate her or anyone hate her for that matter. the news repeatedly states that shes contraversial but doesnt really emphasise why.
Wikipedia is not the damn Onion. Whoever sabotaged this article should be banned. Somebody clean this up. 
:Moving unsigned comment by 128.135.60.87 to the bottom.  BD2412 talk 03:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: When you say that this article has been sabotaged, to what statements are you referring?  I read the article and it doesn't even remotely resemble The Onion, which is a shame because The Onion is extremely entertaining at times.  I share your sentiments, however, that the Republican Party (or specifically the more conservative members of the Republican Party) and political pundits in the media (mainstream and alternative) never gave her much of a chance to plead her case. -Parallel or Together? 09:32, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  why does her own party hate her?