Replies

Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.

I no longer support Miers and think she should remove herself from consideration. However, I dont see any where in Farrah's lastest trash piece that he has any proof that Miers favored any of these issues. ABA lawyers put them up for a vote. Once they get enough support from the committee, the go to the membership for a vote. Fact that they went up for a vote doesnt mean that Miers personally favored any of these issues. It's similar to certain issues being voted on in the House or Senate that the leadership opposes. What is she supposed to do, resign her position if an issue comes up that she disagrees with? Or should she stay and be influential in preventing their passage?

What is she supposed to do, resign her position if an issue comes up that she disagrees with?

Yes, of course. Not just because the issue "came up," but because it was considered favorably. I and every conservative/constitutionalist/libertarian attorney that I know resigned or refused to join the ABA for just such reasons. It's a liberal, big government hell-hole where the Harriet Miers of the legal world felt right at home.

Disses the Federalist Society. Loves the ABA.

Easy to see what she's made of.

However, I dont see any where in Farrah's lastest trash piece that he has any proof that Miers favored any of these issues. ABA lawyers put them up for a vote. Once they get enough support from the committee, the go to the membership for a vote. Fact that they went up for a vote doesnt mean that Miers personally favored any of these issues. It's similar to certain issues being voted on in the House or Senate that the leadership opposes. What is she supposed to do, resign her position if an issue comes up that she disagrees with? Or should she stay and be influential in preventing their passage?

It's interesting to contrast this with Miers' refusal to have anything to do with the Federalist Society. You know, that organization founded by jurists like Antonin Scalia, the same Scalia that is supposed to be the model for Bush's appointees.

So being associated with the liberal ABA and all their meddling in public policy and also working with a lot of questionable liberal groups like NAACP is fine (and unquestionable) but avoiding any connections with the Federalist Society is also acceptable? It's fine for a supposedly conservative justice who is steadfast and brave (according to Bush) to run away from some teensy controversy over belonging to the Federalist Society while hanging out with a bunch of liberals and overseeing their actions to advocate very liberal positions to jurists and lawyers? And now we're all supposed to pretend that all of this is unquestionable and somehow irrelevant?

If she refuses to voluntarily associate with conservative jurists but loves to brag about being associated with packs of liberal lawyers, what are we to make of it?

At what point do you consider her freely chosen actions to be meaningful? These are rhetorical questions but you could take a stab at answering if you're inclined.