I say "would oppose," because, not having a seat on the Senate Judiciary, there is little I can effect, of course. And I also understand that the prevailing vibe among Democrats is to relax the rhetoric and let the Reps go at each other. I'm always a fan of strong rhetoric, but in this case I concur.
Still, it seems worth discussing (not arguing) amongst oursleves whether or not we think our Democratic Senators should vote for this person, because sooner or later we're going to have to join the discussion when it comes time for the committee and the Senate to vote. I'm offering two reasons why I will ask my Senators to vote no, and both reasons have received little or no coverage in the mainstream press. Indeed, I think it safe to say that the second reason will never be mentioned in any column, or any program. I hope to be proven wrong, of course.
(reasons on the flip)
First, Robert Reich nails my first reason in his latest column in
The American Prospect:
The social or religious values of Bush's Supreme Court nominees get most of attention,
but economic values are also at stake. When Miers said last year that "[t]he future of the American economy depends on ... making the president's tax cuts permanent, lowering the costs of health care, [and] reducing the burden of frivolous lawsuits and unnecessary regulation," she was sharing a particular vision of how American society should be organized.
(Break)
The wages and benefits of women and minorities continue to lag substantially behind those of white men in American society. And blacks and Latinos comprise a substantial portion of the nation's poor. As overall inequality widens, inequities based on gender, race, and ethnicity are becoming more visible. The link between poverty and race was never more evident than it was weeks ago in the hurricane-ravaged tragedy of New Orleans and its surroundings. A future Supreme Court will almost certainly be faced with issues of equal protection for women and minorities in public safety, public health, employment, law enforcement, housing, and health care. How it balances the values of property and community will affect the moral cohesion of the nation.
The same balance underlies how the Court decides whether rules and regulations are authorized by law. Many such laws reflect the nation's intent to protect people who cannot protect themselves on their own, and to establish minimally decent living standards for all. The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 established the right to bargain collectively, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects Americans against discrimination based on race or gender, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 against discrimination because of age. The Employee Retirement and Income Security Act of 1974 protects Americans' pensions. The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 allows employees to take time off for a home or health emergency. And so on.
Each of these laws represented at the time of its enactment America's moral conviction about how we should treat one another as members of the same society -- thereby offsetting inequities in wealth and power. Arguably, as such inequities have widened, each set of protections has become more important. Each has and can be enlarged or whittled down by a Supreme Court intent either on strengthening our national community or protecting property.
(my emphasis)
There's more, of course, and it's well written as usual. This is the aspect of constitutional law that almost never gets mentioned (and yes, I think the fact that our society, culture, and economy is largely directed by corporate interests, this is no accident), yet this is among the most important areas of the law. Miers is clearly on the side of the wealthy and corporate interests. If there is a litmus test based on support for unrestricted capitalism, the costs of which are increasingly borne by working families and the poor, she's passed the test.
While we go back and forth about whether or not she will overturn Roe v. Wade - an important question, to be sure - those who run and control the economy could care less about these questions; they are concerned about OSHA, environmental regulations, restrictions on overseas investments and transactions, and keeping workers compliant and isolated from one another, among other issues, and they want ALL these issues to go their way.
Remember, arguably the most crucial period of economic development in America began in the Civil War and lasted until the 1930s. During this time, the Supreme Court dealt primarily with questions about the economy, taxes, business, private property, and the degree of control the government could exert over corporations. Those decisions (which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy) shaped the course of our economy, society, and culture, and directly affected the lives of millions of Americas. Think of the court overturning the ban on child labor in the early 1900s, and couple that with Norquist and Rove both regarding the 1890s as the best period of American governance, "before the Socialists took over," as Norquist likes to say.
Here's my second reason. Below is an excerpt from the website of Miers' former place of work, the firm of Locke, Liddell, and Sapp, LLC. Here is their summary of services provided under "Labor/Employment: NLRB [National Labor Relations Board]." The first sentence is in bold on the site, the other parts are bolded for emphasis:
The threat of a union organizing effort or strike can be traumatic for any company- which is why you need an experienced partner on your side. Locke Liddell labor and employment law lawyers have handled hundreds of union arbitrations and labor contracts, and have extensive experience in union avoidance counseling. For companies with collective bargaining agreements and labor unions, we handle all matters that arise under the National Labor Relations Act, including NLRB elections, anti-union campaign materials, collective bargaining, arbitrations, strikes and picketing. We have served as the chief spokesperson during contract negotiations representing management's position. For union-free companies, we provide union-avoidance advice and strategies in emerging situations. Our experience extends to the most specialized areas, including the Railway Labor Act that governs many union actions. We have handled a major strike against a national transportation company, and use such experience to counsel any size business on its labor relations concerns.
Ah, "union avoidance." It makes one long for the days when companies were free to hire private armies, like the Pinkertons, to use harassment, sabatoge, and murder to keep the workplace free of democracy. The modern day anti-union mercenary wears an expensive suit, has a law degree, and gets picked to serve on the highest court in the land.
In case anyone regards this as insignificant, the right to organize a union is a basic human right, set forth in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and backed up by our own laws and our Constitution - the right to organize and associate is derived from the right of assembly. As far as I'm concerned, a society that valued justice would deal with those who attempt to deprive others of their human rights to organize by imprisoning them for life. I don't support the death penalty, thus I recommend life imprisonment.
But we don't have that. Instead, law firms help corporations "avoid" unionization, and both parties do so with impunity.
This is her background, and this is more than enough for me to oppose this nomination, all other questions aside. Whether or not any Democrat on the committee will stand up for the rights of working people and demand answers to these issues remains to be seen, of course.