Posted on 10/06/2005 6:13:22 AM PDT by ejdrapes
It's hypocritical anyway. The same people flashing the charge are also the ones telling us that since George Bush is the president and a good man we should trust him on Harriet Miers too because he knows what's best for us. What's more elitist than that?
Maybe she believed that, but that's not what she went for publicly. She just said that if they were going to put out a position on such a controversial subject, they ought to poll their members first.
I've explained this before on other threads. The ABA leadership, to the shock and distress of many members, unilaterally adopted a pro-abortion position. The pro-life response was to demand a vote of the full membership (with the expectation that the pro-abortion position would be voted down). Miers was on the pro-life side of this battle.
No, she was on the side advocating the issue be voted on. If you can produce any article saying she campaigned urging other members to vote pro-life on the issue, then do so.
Well here's a well researched article from the apparently liberal William Bunch, the senior writer for the Philadelphia Daily News (it doesn't quite satisfy your challenge, but it comes interestingly close):
Harriet Miers' strange crusade on abortion: Does anti-pro-choice equal pro-life?
We don't know the answer to that question. But we suspect that when the Senate tries to figure out just what the heck blank-slate Harriet Miers -- President Bush's surprise pick for the Supreme Court -- is all about, they'll spend a lot of time looking at her role as president of the Texas Bar Association in the early 1990s.
That's because it's the one period in which Miers -- mainly a corporatist lawyer for the likes of Microsoft and Disney -- had to take a lead role on some hot-button issues. And during those years, Miers made headlines for one thing:
When the American Bar Association adopted an official policy in support of abortion rights, it was Miers -- more than anyone else -- who led the fight to get the policy undone.
Aha!...you say. There's your proof that Bush's stealth nominee would like to overturn the Roe v. Wade abortion rights ruling that the justice she seeks to replace -- Sandra Day O'Connor -- ended up voting to preserve.
Well...not exactly. From our initial research, Miers managed to lead this effort without uttering a word on her own personal stance on abortion. Instead, she stated publicly that it was her belief that the pro-choice policy was "divisive," and indeed, the abortion policy did cause several thousand ABA members to quit.
Still, in the 1992-93 era -- shortly before she became a Bush insider -- she pushed the issue with incredible determinination. Here's what the Record, an American Lawyer publication, wrote on Aug. 10, 1993, after she lost one round (Note: Quotes are all from Nexis):
"I remember the Alamo," proponent Texas State Bar past president Harriet Miers said as she withdrew her measure. She said she'd continue the fight today. "What we have is a playing field coated with butter and I don't think it is tipped in my direction."
The issue actually starts with a close political ally of Miers, a fellow Dallas attorney named Darrell Jordan who was president of the Texas Bar Association in 1990, around the time the ABA's leadership adopted an official pro-abortion rights policy. Jordan actually succeeded in getting the national group to flip-flop back to a neutral position, but a new pro-choice stance was adopted in 1992.
Jordan, like Miers, never adopted an official anti-abortion stance and merely argued that the action was too divisive. Not everyone saw it that way. According to a March 31, 1995 article in the Dallas Morning News, Jordan's position was blasted at a news conference by Austin lawyer Virginia Schramm as an "anti-choice, anti-female and anti-family" position. But in the same article, Miers -- who was a co-chair of Jordan's campaign to become mayor of Dallas at the time -- hailed his stance as "courageous."
Miers' approach -- endorsed by the Texas Bar Association -- was for a referrendum of all ABA members on the abortion issue. "The State Bar of Texas continues to believe that we have a referendum procedure, and if we do not use it in connection with this issue, what issue would you ever use it on?", she asked. But ultimately, her efforts did not succeed.
The only thing that seems clear from the episode is we know that Miers is not a rabid pro-choice advocate, but you weren't expecting anything different from the Bush White House, were you? And we wouldn't expect her to shed much light at her confirmation hearing. Here's what she said on an ABA panel on abortion and the judicial nominating process, according to a Feb. 2, 1992, AP story:
"Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it," said Harriet Miers, a Dallas lawyer and president-elect of the State Bar of Texas.
She said people who think such inquiries are proper display "a misunderstanding of the separation of powers by proposing that judicial nominees should mirror a president's views."
The Senate should ask her if she still believes that.
Link: http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002391.html
bump
No, do you?
He made the comment that Bush will be able to "muscle" Miers's approval through the Senate.
A telling choice of a word..."muscle." I'll bet that is the word-of-the-day regarding Miers -- muscle.
Second thoughts on Bush and his administration. so-called WMD, largest government spending and deficits in history, closing their eyes to illegal immigration, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown, lack of preparation in Iraq, soldiers paying for some of their own armor,can't control his own Senate, McCain-Feingold, etc.
Interview with David Frum [Bush was unknown to him, a gamble for the country]
so she is a typical woman lawyer....
I don't know why the Bushbots continue to personally attack fellow conservatives over Miers. These are people that still actually support the administration.
Fast-forward to now. I initially saw Roberts as an "unknown" (mainly because he was on nobody's radar screens), but I was able to quickly find solid evidence of his judicial philosophy (both from his Appellate Court bench and prior writings), and was satisfied well before the Judiciary Committee 3-ring circus unintentionally proved his absolute brilliance (side note; I'm still somewhat-disappointed that neither Scalia nor Thomas will ever be Chief Justice, but that brilliance shown through the circus tells me that President Bush didn't go wrong in putting Roberts there).
I'm not seeing any of that judicial philosophy from Miers, and absent that, we have to look at other evidence. That evidence is, at best, thin and contradictory. Given that the Judiciary Committee is a 3-ring circus, I don't expect any evidence of her judicial philosophy to come out therej. So, we have "Trust us" versus the historical record of both all Republican nominees from the past 50 years and "stealth" Republican nominees. You'll forgive me if I follow the historical models, which suggest a like-for-like to left-of-like replacement.
Further, unlike the Presidential election, "griping" is all the voice I have. I don't have a vote in the Senate, and my Senators, Russ "Slimeroad" Feingold and Herb "Nobody's Senator" Kohl, don't listen to me.
I know what you mean about Senators. Mine are Schumer and Clinton.
But, the only way I'll get any influence with them, is by making a fat contribution to their campaign coffers.
Something I'm not willing to do for the likes of SLimeroad and Nobody's Senator (I don't even buy Nobody Senator's 25¢ milk at the State Fair even though it's by far the cheapest drink there). I did, however, send some money to Bush both in 2000 and 2004 (after sending a like amount to Forbes in late 1999).
Say, did you just happen to catch Wendell Goler's report over on Fox News? Further proof that reporters don't have the sense that God gave a bird; he didn't bother moving as the skies opened up and drenched his left arm. Speaking of Fox, they've had horridly-timed commercials. They need a new guy in the control room.
I don't buy the NY Times or Newsday either. That would be equivalent to making a contribution to the DNC.
Say, did you just happen to catch Wendell Goler's report over on Fox News?
Missed it.
We finally know the truth.... Wendell can't make the decision to step out of the rain at the same time that he smiles, talks, thinks about the point he is making, looks at the camera and listens to his earphone.
Dear wideawake,
I think you've hit the nail on the head regarding Mr. Frum's animus toward Ms. Miers.
Mr. Frum has spent some time reading specific persons out of the conservative movement. Perhaps it is time for a little turnabout.
sitetest
Dear syriacus,
"Miers must be able to make decisions if she has held the real-world positions she has held."
Yeah, I caught that, too.
The job of managing partner of a good-sized law firm is all about making decisions.
Conversely, the job of being the president's counsel is all about making sure that every possible stone is turned to elicit every possible bit of information before the president makes a decision.
sitetest
Concisely and cogently stated, sitetest.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.