Bush Supreme Court Nominee Former Microsoft Lawyer 1036
DaveM writes "Bush's most recent Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers, successfully argued that people who were sold defective software by Microsoft weren't "injured," and couldn't participate in a class action against the company. The case involved unstable compression features in MS DOS 6.0, which were corrected by a $9.95 update, MS DOS 6.2. Plaintiffs wanted Microsoft to offer the updates for free, but eventually lost to Miers' arguments."
Re:What do you expect? (Score:5, Informative)
And more importantly, if you read through other news articles about her, you'll see that many of her arguments are highly based on logic. In the mentioned Microsoft case, her argument was against the "class" that was chosen for the lawsuit. The plaintiffs chose everyone who bought DOS 6.0 as for the class, arguing that they had been harmed and shouldn't have to pay $10 for an upgrade. However, not everybody who bought the product was using, or intended to use the compression features, so it was difficult to justify including all of them in the class. Therefore, the class was decertified. The suit was dismissed and dropped because the lawyer representing the plaintiffs didn't want to bother with actually getting a more reasonable class determined for the suit.
Re:Well... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wrong process anyway (Score:1, Informative)
It's obvious the question is from an anti-Bush person. What exactly would you suggest? Have the Senate appoint them? Well, there would be no checks and balances that way and since the Senate is currently in Republican hands, for the most part VERY CONSERVATIVE Republican hands, I have a gut feeling that if the Senate appointed someone you probably would like that person even less. I have a feeling that if there was a Democratic president then you wouldn't have a problem with the process. Besides, you never really know what the judges will do anyway. I doubt that the first President Bush had any idea that David Souter would turn out the way he did on the court and I'm sure if he could go back in time he would not have nominated him.
Re:Key phrase (Score:3, Informative)
Re:oh god (Score:3, Informative)
There are plenty of valid criticisms of Miers, but that's no more one of them than is her work as an attorney for Microsoft.
Re:I Was Injured (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Wrong process anyway (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Capitalism (Score:3, Informative)
Re:What do you expect? (Score:3, Informative)
So, when the highly-promoted "look you can double your disk space with our latest and greatest" DOS 6 turns ut not to be able to do what it says, and people are told NOT to use that feature because it corrupts their data, if they take those precautions, they haven't been harmed? They were ripped off! And being charged for the fix was bullshit.
Comment removed (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:2, Informative)
I'm sorry, what is irritating?
Clinton was actually impeached due to the fact that there were impeachment hearings.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:1, Informative)
If MS hired your firm and the partners tell you to take the case, you probably should if you want to have healthy employment with them.
If the firm was kept on retainer before the case existed, for the most part the firm is contractually obligated to do work for their client.
If she was a partner and they all decided to take the case it might be partially her fault. However, enough of the firm wanted the case to allow it.
If she is the only one making decisions for the firm and decided to take the case, then yes, "she chose to take the case."
However, the case is more complicated than should MS upgrade people for free. The prosecution argued *everyone* who bought MS-DOS 6.00 should get a free upgrade. The defence argued only people who were *affected* with data loss should get free upgrades. The prosecution wanted a more general ruling than what was considered fair so they got nothing.
It wasn't exactly MS sticking it to everyone and saying, "Fuck you." Most people didn't use DoubleSpace and most people who did suffered no data loss.
For the record, I am not a fan of MS or Bush, but I tire of *everything* associated with them being bashed to hell.
Re:oh god (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:3, Informative)
Largely on the basis of this denial, the jury found him not guilty. The plantiff, who had been sexually harrassed, lost any hope for recompense in the case.
However, Clinton lied. Jane Doe #4 was Monica Lewinsky. When the evidence that he *had* been seeing Lewinsky arose, he was revealed to have perjured himself before the court, thus denying the plaintiff her civil rights. When he was called before congress to explain himself as part of the initial investigation, he *again* perjured himself. That's lying to congress. If you or I do that, we go to jail for 10 years.
Remember that the only article of impeachment ever drawn up against Nixon (largely by a young law clerk named Hillary Rodham [yes, *that* Hillary Rodham Clinton]) was for "lying to the American people". In other words, Nixon was to be impeached, not for lying under oath, not for compounding that perjury with another perjury, but for telling an untruth on national television. Remember the finger wagging, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky"?
The house felt that there was sufficient evidence for a "trial" in the senate and forwarded two articles of impeachment. The Senate rules require a super-majority to remove the president from office, a lucky thing, since 55 senators voted to remove him. In other words, the majority found him guilty of lying.
The Arkansas state Bar has since revoked his law license and his ability to practice law. He was found guilty of perjuring himself before the bench and was summarily judged and had to pay the original plaintiff some $900,000 in a settlement.
That's why he was impeached. Live it, learn it, love it.
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Nice flaming headline. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Well... (Score:3, Informative)
That's just for those appointed in the 20th century. Note that this is not authoritative, as I couldn't find a solid list of those without prior judicial experience, so I ended up going through two biography sites to determine them. Nevertheless, I think it's at least fairly accurate, and shows that of the 52 justices appointed in those hundred years, nearly half had no prior judicial experience. Many, if not most, of them also never argued in front of the Supreme Court.
Now, whether there are questions to be raised on other points is another issue. Most, if not all, of the above-listed justices had some public record to turn to in order to see where they leaned. Those that did not serve in elected office or in appointed government positions (cabinet secretaries, SEC, etc) had other roles that left significant paper trails. At this point, I'm quite skeptical of the qualifications which Ms. Miers brings to the nomination, and probably would have been more comfortable with a nomination from the courts or Congress, but I'm willing to wait and see.
Re:Indictments at the Gates (Score:3, Informative)
You know who else is a registered Democrat?
That's right. Zell "Liberalism is a disease" Miller.
Don't read too deep into party affiliation. Many Southern Democrats only share the "D" with their progressive counterparts in the Northeast and along the coasts, and not much else.
Re:What do you expect? (Score:2, Informative)
Re: Lack of experience (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Indictments at the Gates (Score:4, Informative)
Consider Kansas. It's a primarily Republican state. Outside of a few counties, almost all of the state offices go to members of the Republican party.
This usually means that, during primary season, the Democrats try to find someone that is willing to fight a battle where they are most likely out-recognized and out-spent by the existing Republican contender, unless the Republican has done something egregious. It's extremely rare for the Democrats to run more than one person for a seat during the primaries.
In Kansas (and in other states), the Republican primaries are closed primaries - the only people who can vote in them are party members (the Democrat primaries are open to anyone not voting Republican). As a result, some people who see no other way to get their voice heard become "paper Republicans." This lets them have some say in who is running in November, and can at least try to trim off some of the extremists at the primary level.
And sometimes it even works...
Re:Maybe she'll help out when they impeach Bush (Score:2, Informative)
There was sufficient evidence to take him to court on the charge, and because he was the president his 'court' looked rather different than everyone else's. (And actually required a vote to get him into it, instead of the DA just filing charges.)
However going to court doesn't make you guilty, and seven out of twelve jurors voting to convict you when the law requires nine doesn't make you guilty either.
Which seems to be something everyone's ignoring. Clinton, according to the legal process in place to try presidents, did not commit prejury. He was found not guilty.
Now, the same charge has been leveled against him by a private organization, the Arkansas Bar, and they have revoked their permission to practice law on those ground. However, the Arkansas Bar is not the legal system, and cannot find people guilty or innocent, even if it can fine its members under the rules they agreed to when they joined.
Re:You know, here's a news flash... (Score:3, Informative)
Why yes, as a matter of fact she did. She did pro bono work for Catholic Charities. I am assuming that it involved "poor people" as you so elegantly put it.
Personally, I prefer my Judges have a well rounded idea of the Law, rather than some idealistic fantasy.
"I think it matters for example if you choose to defend Microsoft or you choose to represent the people that use Microsoft products"
Well, since she was an EMPLOYEE at a firm that represented MS, I think it doesn't matter one iota. YMMV.
Now, if this was HER firm, founded and operated by HER, you might have a point.
And once again the mods give out a +5 insightful to a post with no real insight at all.
Re:You know, here's a news flash... (Score:3, Informative)
There have now been 108 Justices in the history of the US. Of those, 44 had no prior judicial experience. That's a healthy 41%.
In fact, the 2 of the last 3 Justices that were appointed, prior to Roberts, had no previous judicial experience. Those would be Clarence Thomas (Reagan appointee, 1991), and Steven Breyer (Clinton appointee, 1994).
Kennedy appointed Justices Byron White and Arthur Goldberg, neither of which had any prior experience. I mention them because Kennedy could do no wrong, supposedly.
Not only did 44 have no prior experience, many had only limited experience- Justices John Harlan and John Marshall had only 1 year prior experience. Justice Justice Hugo Black had only 1.5 years prior experience.
Shall I go on, or have I sufficiently proven my point...
Re:Indictments at the Gates (Score:2, Informative)
this whole microsoft... (Score:3, Informative)
it has nothing to do with software.
she's the person who helped wipe bush's national guard records.
it's called cronyism. just about everyone in the current administration is there because of donating to the GOP or is a close friend of the bushs.
http://www.counterpunch.org/frank10042005.html [counterpunch.org]
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-sirota/miers-
http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives
just some interesting links.
Re:You know, here's a news flash... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:You know, here's a news flash... (Score:3, Informative)
As an attorney you can make choices about who you represent. You can make choices about the law firm you work for. YOu can make choices about which cases to take.
"I would find it very hard to call someone moral who abandons their responsibilities because of personal differences. I would call that person petty and childish, and ask them why they had bothered to enter into law in the first place."
It is not the personal responsiblity of lawyers to defend anybody who comes to them and pays them. What kind of fucked up church did you attend that told you that? Are your parents that fucking stupid that they taught you that? Where did you get such a stupid moral learning from?
A lawyer can choose not to defend anybody.