• About Harriet Miers: We need more information About Harriet Miers: We need more information President Bush has refused to release any documents from Miers’ time in the White House, and claimed he could not “recall” any conversations with Miers
• About Harriet Miers: We need more information
About Harriet Miers: We need more information
President Bush has refused to release any documents from Miers’ time in
the White House, and claimed he could not “recall” any conversations
with Miers about abortion over 10 years of friendship and legal service.
The people deserve the facts.
It’s remarkable how, even after collecting nearly everything that’s
publicly available, Miers’ position on major constitutional questions
and her qualifications to be a judge are still almost completely
unknown. What is clear is the deep personal and professional connection
shared by Harriet Miers and George W. Bush.
Here’s what some MoveOn members have uncovered about their long
relationship:
From David, of Howell, Mich.:
When Miers was Bush’s appointee to head the Texas State Lottery
Commission, the lottery was accused by a former director of awarding
multi-million dollar nobid contracts to a technology firm represented by
former Lieutenant Governor Ben Barnes. Barnes has since said he helped
Bush escape active duty in Vietnam, and the lottery director alleged
that Barnes demanded, (and under Miers received) the lucrative public
contracts to keep quiet about Bush’s military service.
From Paula, of San Mateo, CA
As Governor, Bush signed a law blocking Texas consumers from collecting
a $6 billion dollar judgment against car dealers for predatory lending
and keeping secret kickbacks. The law firm Miers headed represented the
auto dealers.
From Nancy, of Austin, Texas
Miers was hired as legal counsel on both Bush’s gubernatorial campaigns.
Among other things, her research was used to persuade a local judge to
excuse then Governor Bush from jury duty, a civic task that would have
forced him to disclose his 1976 arrest for drunken driving in Maine. He
was then able to keep his arrest secret until late in the 2000
presidential campaign.
From Stephen, of Birmingham, Ala.
Miers’s personal friendship and allegiance to Bush has been cited for
years in connection with her promotions, including to her highest post
of White House Counsel.
Cronyism on the Supreme Court is a serious threat to our democracy. In
fact Alexander Hamilton specifically argued that the Senate should be
empowered to confirm or reject judicial nominees in part to prevent the
President from using the Court to reward friends and political allies.
The call to reject cronyism and secrecy is bipartisan. As conservative
columnist George F. Will put it today, “The president’s ‘argument’ for
(Miers) amounts to: Trust me. There is no reason to, for several
reasons.” We may have different reasons not to take Bush at his word,
but we can all agree on the need for more information.
Challenge still not answered
Dr. Amy Brock responded to my letter in The Garden Island with what she
calls an example of increase information within a species. She also
commented that “proponents of intelligent design have never published
supporting research in any peer-review scientific journal”.
First of all, Dr. Brock, you know as well as I that intelligent design
supporting research is routinely censored from any peer review
scientific journals like the Scientific American. Secondly, duplication
of genes is not an example of new increase information within a kind. No
new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of already
existing information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book
to be printed with every page doubled, it would not be more informative
than the proper book. As well, the redundant gene copy is no more
susceptible to mutations than its original strand. And as we have
mentioned in the past, point mutations result in a loss of information
not a gain in information. Your statements are not only a fairytale
hypothesis that you speak as a fact, but they also violate the known and
proven mathematical laws of probability and the law of entropy to
mention just a few. As well, for hemoglobin to evolve is far more
complex than Dr. Brock or Scientific American imply. The alpha and beta
chains are encoded on genes of different chromosomes, so they are
expressed independently. This expression must be controlled precisely;
otherwise various types of anemia result. Also there is an essential
“chaperone” protein to stabilize the alpha chain and bring it to the
beta chain. This “chaperone” protein governs the essential folding of
other proteins. How did the the first proteins fold without
“chaperone” proteins? And since the “chaperone” proteins are
themselves complex proteins, how did they fold?
No, Dr. Brock, you still have not given me one example of new increased
information within a kind.
Everyone agrees that natural selection takes place but that is not an
example of evolution.
The evolutionary theory violates known and proven laws. Like the laws of
chemistry, the mathematical laws of probability, and the laws of
physics, most notably but not limited to the second law of
thermodynamics. Why do the evolutionary scientists choose to ignore
these known and proven laws?
I think Dr. Richard Lewontin, a Harvard geneticist, “Billions and
Billions of Demons” in the New York Review of Books, Jan. 9, 1997, on
page 31 says it best, “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that
are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real
struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of
science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in
spite of its failures to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of
health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community
for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment,
a commitment to materialism.”
- Dr. Peter R. Saker
Lihu‘e
Miers is not qualified
There isn’t a lot of information on Ms. Miers because she has never been
a judge nor as a lawyer, tried cases in the Supreme Court arena. This
position is over her head. She may be a nice lady, a church-going
Christian and a friend of Geo W. Bush. Bottom line, she does not qualify
for the magnitude of a lifetime position as a Supreme Court judge.
She may have done well as personal lawyer and loyal friend to George W.
Bush. So ask Mr. Bush about what she has done for him and their personal
relationship, if she’s so qualified. He won’t answer the personal
questions because he doesn’t have to! Mr. Bush just wants us to take his
word about Ms. Harriet Miers. No, thank you. I’m tired of turning the
other cheek to this president and his administration. Aloha.
