Sunday, October 23, 2005

Harriet Who?

Such a beautiful and mild sunny morning, the coffee's good, the child and spouse are with me, Sunday Baroque is on the radio, and I'm doing a little light reading.

Buried well into the Supreme Court nomination questionaire that Harriet Miers filled out for the Senate judicial committee was this:

I was lead counsel for Interstate Fire & Casualty Company (an excess insurance carrier) in this suit that the Catholic Church in Dallas filed seeking to obtain indemnification from liability and defense costs from its insurers. The Catholic Church was seeking coverage after a jury returned a $101.6 million verdict against the Church based upon eleven separate incidents of sexual abuse and child molestation by Father Kos, who had been an active member of the Diocese of Dallas. (Father Kos was also indicted and convicted for his acts). The jury had found that Father Kos committed his acts while acting in the course and scope of his employment. The jury also found, among other things, the Diocese committed fraud and intentionally concealed facts relating to Father Kos. Interstate Fire & Casualty, as well as the other insurers, denied coverage because Father Kos's actions were intentional acts that were not covered by the Catholic Church's insurance policies.

There were numerous issues raised in this litigation, including whether sexual abuse and child molestation are intentional acts that are not covered by insurance and whether the insurance companies had a duty to defend the Diocese in the lawsuits filed against it. The case also involved questions of whether Texas public policy precluded insurance coverage for acts of sexual abuse and child molestation. The case settled prior to trial.

Well, isn't that special.

I supppose somebody has to protect large insurance carriers from the predations of the Catholic Church, so that payouts to molested children will have to come from somewhere else. Lawyers do that.

But if Miers is being sold on her "character," then why didn't she work on behalf of the victims themselves, rather than a corporation? That, I suppose, is just what she does. So now, that settles that. We all have our own values, now don't we?

Maybe I've read too many Alice Miller books. If a person or policy does not support children (and we all carry childhood in ourselves throughout our lives,) then I do not assign value to them or that.

Of course I do not support Harriet Miers. I'm not a total "moran." She's no Erin Brockovich. And no, I do not much like what I've heard about one of Miers' real estate deals, either.

Since Miers really has no judicial experience, the White House is playing up her religious conviction and her character. So much for her character, so that leaves us with... what?

A vote against Roe, and a vote against any and all future rulings that may affect Bush himself. Rulings that may involve, say just for example, treason.


Anonymous said...

Question: Why is it a bad thing that Harriet Miers represented the "Big Bad Insurance" company? Would you rather she represented the Catholic church that allowed such things to happen? The victims have nothing to do with the lawsuit. The church can afford to pay, they were just trying to pass on the responsibility.

dorsano said...

I'm not concerned about Roe V Wade being overturned Shrimplate. For one thing, it would be a political disaster for the GOP.

The majority of rank and file Republicans believe that abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

You can read more here.

We support the protection of Roe v. Wade and want to ensure that the right to choose is personal and NOT political. The choice issue is symbolic to the majority of electoral voters who know that there is much more that can be lost if we do not actively work to protect that right.

Most Republicans would view any judgement which overturns Roe V Wade as intrusive and activist. That's not to say that they don't support some restrictions on abortion and that is a likely possibility.

The "mother's health" clause has been broadly interpreted over the years and it's not inconceiveable that it could be made more restrictive - and I'm not all together convinced that that is a bad idea.

I don't know what kind of justice this nominee would make - that fact that she thinks this president is an intellectual genius is a bit disturbing.

In any case, the president's nomination has shown a light on the cronyism of this administration

and that's a good thing it seems to me.

God works in mysterious ways.

LiberalismIsAMentalDisorder said...

Let me preface by saying that Harriet Miers is perhaps the worst nomination to ever be made for the SCOTUS.

That said, I dont see why it is an issue that she did her job as a corporate lawyer, its what she chose to do.

By focusing on inisignificant things about her shows a pettiness which runs rampant amongst ... ahem .. "liberals" .. why not instead focus all of your attention on the reason why most conservatives and republicans oppose her....LACK OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE.

Nuff said :)

dorsano said...

Cronyism and "LACK OF JUDICIAL EXPERIENCE." are sort of related it seems to me.

I can understand why Republican partisans are concerned that this incompetent adminstration might appoint more incompetent people into positions of leadership.

But when we elect people who think that government can't do much good, it seems sort of silly to expect them to do much good when they govern.

HypnoKitten said...

Good post!