In '97, Miers faced claim she violated constitutional right (free speech!)

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3392556
Oct. 12, 2005, 8:51AM
In '97, Miers faced claim she violated constitutional right
U.S. senators vetting the high court nominee may well review firings in Texas
By R.G. RATCLIFFE
Copyright 2005 Houston Chronicle

AUSTIN - A lawsuit filed by a former Texas Lottery executive director in 1997 accused U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers of violating the director's First Amendment free-speech rights and the Texas Open Meetings Act while conducting a partisan political purge of the state agency.

The case, brought by former lottery Executive Director Nora Linares, never went to trial and was settled with a statement from the commission absolving Linares of any wrongdoing during her five-year tenure at the lottery.

But since President Bush nominated Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, her actions as chair of the Texas Lottery Commission have taken on added significance.

With little information about Miers available in the public record, U.S. senators considering her confirmation are expected to scrutinize her tenure as lottery-commission chairman. The focus is likely to be on controversial firings of Linares and her replacement, Lawrence Littwin, and the lawsuits both filed.

Linares' lawsuit may carry greater weight because it alleges violations of law against Miers.

MORE

eom

Big Brother/Dear Leader will take care of all our needs. Don't trouble yourselves with the cares of this world.

and having secrecy in meetings. No wonder W likes her so much

is as crooked as the proverbial dog's hind leg. Any real investigation into Miers' history is likely to uncover far more scat than they want.

where a SCOTUS nominee has primarily her paper trail with a *gambling* commission to examine for fitness for a lifetime office.

Bushmerica, it's like a whole other country.

this woman will fit right in.

This is what it comes to. Running the fine tooth comb through someone's tenure at the lottery commission in Texas. This is the nominee?


Who cares. If she gets pushed through, I'll me amazed. And some lawsuit filed against her, that she won, will have no place in this debate. Rather, its going to come down to whether or not the Republicans are willing to put someone on the court with nothing more then a wink and a nod from the President. In this case, I think they want more.

it is patently dishonest what Bush is doing now, acting like he doesn't know what she thinks or believes. She is only being appointed because he knows exactly what she thinks. Or he thinks he does. However, the right is fractured, and they will split over this. I like buzz flash, but this is a waste of resources.

And I think allegations of breaking the law, especially if it's a partisan purge of a state agency are ABSOLTELY important.

No, you thing allegation of breaking the law are important if that person is in a different party then you. Most people do. This is not a big deal, it's the lottery commission, and it never went anywhere:

"The case, brought by former lottery Executive Director Nora Linares, never went to trial and was settled with a statement from the commission absolving Linares of any wrongdoing during her five-year tenure at the lottery." Also, further it states "The suit was settled with an agreement that neither Linares nor the lottery commissioners had committed wrongdoing."

But making a mountain out of this molehill is a waste of time, energy, and capital. This is what is wrong with politics. It isn't substantive, it's just partisan BS that n one cares about. Everyone wants the next watergate or Lewinsky. Well, this ain't it. And chasing a scandal instead of concentrating on the root issues and building up candidates and ideas is how you lose elections.

I just don't get why you want to actively ignore potential mountains insisting that everything is a molehill. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but come on, she's not applying to work at Taco Bell, this is the fucking Supreme Court!

I don't want to ignore it, I think we're on the same page here. She is so unqualified to be on the court, and such a fundamentally dishonest pick( I picked her because I know her, I don't know how she feels about abortion, but you Christians are going to like her), why worry about a frivolous lawsuit?

I believe in Karma, to a great extent. And I hate it when anyone, in any party, finds some obscure item and just nitpicks it to death. Great, she had a lawsuit filed against her. Any administrator is going to have a lawsuit filed against them. It just happens.

Maybe I'm agitated in general. rough night last night, long day today.

It's all anyone has. Except Shrub. And Rove. There is just nothing out there and if we want to get any idea how she might behave on the court, we have to dig through sand to find a small pebble of info.

Everything is secret with this group and Miers is no exception. She's so secret that not even the Fundies she was supposed to impress can get a bead on it.

telling people how they think.

Excuse me, but if a Democrat did this, I'd be just as outraged. And I think that most people on this side agree with me that honesty is just as important in a Democrat as in a Republican.

you may think this is just a molehill, but I think it is significant and I am glad we are discussing this. The next Lewinsky indeed! Now that was a tiny, little itty bitty molehill and for you to equate it with Watergate...well, what can I say?
:eyes:

Maybe in your mind, on fantasy island, where it rains ice cream, and everybody sings around the magic wangdoodle at night.

Lewinsky was huge, people followed it, it led to an impeachment, and dominated news for almost two years. Whether you thought it should have been a big deal or not is not the point.

Yet another little piece of the puzzle. Of course, the puzzle is all black.

Cannot believe the minutiae we have to dig through to find ANY information (good or bad) on this ridiculous appointment.

and we'll have a pretty good (or should I say, bad) picture of Miers. So far we know this GOOD EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN WOMAN wants to deny women the right to manage their own bodies, she's another SHUT UP Bill O'Lielly Conservative, she was a TRIAL LAWYER (everything settled out of court though, wink, wink, nudge, nudge, say no more), she fawns over bush and thinks he the most intelligent man she's ever met.........there seems to be a bit of a vacuum here. This is it? This is all the information the Senators are going to use for confirmation?
Miers is a tabula rasa, a blank slate upon which the Cons, with a mere telephone call, can instruct her to vote anyway they wish for the next 30 years or so. She's a clerk, an errand girl that bush wants to carry on his "legacy" within the Supreme Court for decades to come.
How did this nitwit ever get to be president? :eyes: That's a rhetorical question, no need to answer. Do you suppose the Cons have a little bit of remorse over propping up, creating and propelling this empty shell of being into the presidency now? They jumped over some pretty good Conservatives to hand the presidency to this lughead, thinking he'd be malleable enough to control from the background. But the spoiled little frat-boy actually thought HE WAS the president and screwed up their plans royally.
The Cons are in a bit of a fix now, their empire is crashing down around them and bush appoints THIS woman to be the mighty conservative legacy.
It would be laughable if only we weren't all subject to the whims of this dolt of a president and his inane choices for the Supreme Court. As it is, I don't know whether to laugh or slit my wrists. :shrug: