‘Gambling’ on Miers

October 6, 2005

Earlier this week, Scott McClellan was asked about the kind of scrutiny Harriet Miers can expect of her service on the Texas Lottery Commission. The White House press secretary said Miers would “welcome the opportunity to discuss her time there.”

“She is someone who helped clean up the Lottery Commission. It was an agency that was in need of cleaning up. And … The Dallas Morning News, certainly a well-read paper in Texas, praised her for the results she accomplished at the Texas Lottery Commission.”

Frankly, it’s tempting to largely ignore Miers’ time as a state lottery commissioner. It was over 10 years ago and helping run a state lottery doesn’t have much to do with being a justice on the Supreme Court. But therein lies the point — Miers’ longest and most substantive public work came during her service on the state lottery commission. If anyone is going to consider her qualifications at all, this is the place to start.

And as Media Matters noted, McClellan’s argument that Miers “helped clean up the Lottery Commission,” is open to some debate. In fact, Dallas Morning News political writer Wayne Slater described her tenure as “troubled … a real, real problem.”

NPR’s Renee Montagne: What was her tenure like?

Slater: It was troubled. It was a real, real problem. It was a troubled agency, but not when she arrived. She was there about a year, year and a half, and then questions of influence-peddling arrived, and during her tenure, it was a stormy time where two directors were fired, another lobbyist — questions were raised about a lobbyist for the lottery contractor.

Similarly, the Village Voice ran a piece suggesting Miers may have also been involved in silencing a whisteblower during her tenure.

This is hardly reassuring. I’m probably off-message here — conservatives are the ones who are railing against Miers’ qualifications — but if the key to Miers’ professional career was a stint at the Texas Lottery Commission, and even that didn’t go very well, her confirmation hearings may actually turn out to be worth watching after all.

I know others have said this, but the similarities between W and Miers are striking. They both were unimpressive Texans, they both became born again, and they both were given opportunities they didn’t deserve.

  • As more becomes known, I would say that it would behoove both parties to vote ‘no’ on Ms. Miers. Bush needs to put up someone with real qualifications, even if it is another right-wing/Evangelical zealot. Say what you want about Roberts’ beliefs, at least he seemed qualified for the job given his law background.

  • I’m probably off-message here — conservatives are the ones who are railing against Miers’ qualifications

    Nah, right on. It is funny to watch the right implode on this issue, but since I saw her heavily eyelined face, it made me think of Katherine Harris in 2000. I shuddered.

    There has to be someone out there more qualified to sit on the high court, even if I disagree with them idealogically. At least make me think you’re trying, Georgie, c’mon!

  • Let me make it unanimous here: this is not off message.

    If there is a “message” from the left, it should not be “wait and see” or certainly not “she’s probably ok.”

    Just because the right is shooting at her that is no reason for us to hold our fire — that she is unacceptable to them doesn’t make her automatically acceptable to us. It may be that Dumbya has finally screwed up so badly his nominee is unacceptable to everyone.

    We should hold out for higher standards — and independence from the executive branch. We know he will send up someone on the right; that is our punishment for not running better campaigns the past two cycles. But to send up a crony, a personal advisor, a nominee with no particular constitutional background, with no particular distinguishing qualification. . .
    our message should be absolutely not.

  • She’s a stooge for the Texas mafia. The fact that Mieirs got paid to scrub Bush’s record should be enough to go against her.

    If the Texas Lottery department is anything like the NY Lottery, it is a cesspool of patronage. Go to the NY Lottery website. Not one word about who is in charge of the NY Lottery. No commissoner, no board, no nothing. Off Track Betting in NY is a retirement home for the politically connected and barely makes money.

    Charlie Gargano, Bush pioneer, has ties to organized crime, as I have written here before. For that matter, a former member of the state banking board has ties to organized crime.

    On Long Island, Jospeh Caride of the Lucchese crime family, was picked up for running a sports wire from Costa Rica in 2003. Jerry Capeci, in a January 2005 story in New York magazine, wrote that Neil Migliore of the Lucchese crime family, is active and influential. NYS was after Migliore for back taxes on $3m in gambling revenue in the ’60s. Migliore was an “investor” in Sam Albicocco’s Port Dock and Stone cement business. Albicocco, Posillico, Migliore and Gargano are all tied to the $2 billion Suffolk County sewer district scandal.

    The Lottery is easy to fix. Take instant scratchoffs. The vendor that prints them is susceptible to bribery. I bet the average buyer never thinks about how the vendor knows to print X number of winning tickets.

    I’d like to know what time the winning tickets were purchased in lottery drawings. If I audited the lottery, I’d get the list of winners and look at what time and where the ticket was bought. All the crooks would have to do is set the computer clock back or hold up transmission of online purchases for less than a minute while the drawing takes place.

    I don’t remember the details but a couple of years ago, there was a news story about a couple of fairly young guys who got nabbed for screwing around with computerized gambling. The only apparent reason they got caught was that they won an inordinate amount of money. I think they were betting on horse races in New York. .

    Here’s a tip – don’t gamble. It’s all fixed.

    I bet Molly Ivins knows a lot about the Texas lottery.

  • I will say right up front that I am a lawyer. (picture me ducking the bricks and bottles being thrown.) I have a great deal of respect for the American legal system. No matter what else is said, this is an extremely important appointment. I believe that the integrity of the system depends on the integrity of its parts just as the ability of the system depends on the ability of its parts. If the integrity and ability of just one member of the Supreme Court is poor or even borderline, our entire legal system is compromised.

    But it is not only the political underpinnings of a justice’s decisions that make a difference in our legal system.Make no mistake about it, the only time cases come before the United States Supreme Court is when there has been disagreement as to how to resolve the particular issue among other judges, most of whom have fine legal minds and abilities. These are important issues with strong and weak points on each side and reasonable minds can easily come to different conclusions on every issue befire the Court. It is vital that Supreme Court Justices be able to see both sides and then weigh both sides of any issue. That is a basic requirement for the job and whether they like to admit it or not all lawyers are capable of doing this. It is vital that the President and the Senate examine Ms. Meier’s outward manifestations and/or statements to be certain that she is able to do so.

    When you nominate a “stealth candidate” you may gain some confusion that initially keeps the outcry down. But the Senate is surely going to probe as deeply as possible into Ms. Meier’s ability to even see both sides. If they do not, I sincerely hope that we oust the majority at the first opportunity.

    Thus far I see no indications anywhere that Ms. Meier will be able to see both sides of every issue from her particular perspective. If she cannot see both sides, she cannot weigh the competing arguments. If I were questioning Ms. Meier, beyond asking her about biases flowing from her right-wing conservative Christian values (which go, of course, to her ability to weigh the issues), I might pose a question that would require her to give a quick outline of the legal arguments available on both sides of some difficult issue just to be sure she also is capable of seeing both sides. Please note, I did not say to ask her how she would decide the issue, as I am sure she would refuse to answer such a question. But it violates no ethical rules to test her ability to see both sides. It is impossible to weigh issues fairly if one cannot see both sides.

    Let us hope that both sides of the aisle in this confirmation process have the foresight to take this seriously. This particular appointment is, in my mind, far more important than the appointment of Chief Justice Roberts and not just because of bias in this particular instance.

  • GamblingPlanet is the #1 Online Casino & Gambling Guide offering you the most reliable and best casino reviews with the hottest bonus offers available.

    • Comments are closed.