Miers is dead in the water

Town Hall ^ | 10/06/05 | Laura Hollis

[jdhljc169]

Today's Chronicle of Higher Education has a story that describes Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' involvement with a lecture series at her alma mater, SMU Law School. The inaugural lecturer? Gloria Steinem. I've played these games in law schools, and this story sends up red flags for me. Here's my take on it ...

I was reserving judgment, but after having read the Chronicle article (and given conservatives' skittishness about her already), I think she's a non-starter. Miers may be a very nice person - and by all accounts she is. But she has never served as a judge, and while I do not think that an attorney must have been a judge in order to be an excellent justice, I do think that if you want to be certain of a nominee's views on the proper role of the judiciary, you better have seen them in action as a judge.

We haven't. And absent that, we must look to other events in Miers' professional life to ascertain her perspective. To that end, the Chronicle article is instructive:

In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community ...Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground ... A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series's first lecture, in 1998. In the following two years, the speakers were Patricia S. Schroeder, the former Democratic congresswoman widely associated with women's causes, and Susan Faludi, the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (1991). Ann W. Richards, the Democrat whom George W. Bush unseated as governor of Texas in 1994, delivered the lecture in 2003.

Having served on the faculties of three law schools, I can tell you that if you are an academic of the conservative political persuasion, this is the way you play the game: you call things by the terms the liberal academic establishment uses ("Gender Studies," "Women's Studies," etc.) and then you bring in lecturers and provide content that challenges their prevailing "wisdom."

There must be dozens -- hundreds -- thousands -- of conservative female attorneys, politicians, pundits and successful business owners in this country who would be wonderful role models for female SMU law students. If Miers pushed for the creation of a lecture series to honor Texas' first and finest female attorneys, and the series brought in the likes of Steinem and Faludi, then I know as much as I need to know about this woman.

Stick a fork in her. She's done.

[muawiyah]

In three other threads on this subject, I've identified the "move to Washington" as part of the problem in getting candidates for the USSC.

Not everybody wants to live and work in this area.

My old employer, USPS, used to be able to hire in trainee specialists and managers at the equivalent of the GS 7/9 level. Such folks typically had a Bachelors or Master's degree from a decent school. Now, to get such folks to move to DC they have to start at the equivalent of the GS 13/14 level. It's the same for all the other headquarters agencies in town.

Working here is nuts!

[Cold Heat]

Oh boy, another meaningless opinion from an irrelevant pundit. She helped found a series of lectures at a university. The horror, the horror.

Yes, you nailed it.

This is just political sniping based on nothing.

I share the angst over O'connor these many years, but the fact is, that finding a woman who will not let her personal belief system affect her judgment is quite a task.

If Bush thought for a second that Miers would do that, he would not have anointed her. His reputation depends on that choice, as her ability to remain separate and consider the legal matters on Constitutional grounds will likely be revealed within a year or so.

Finally, as to this article, i see no evidence that she was on the selection committee. College staff are generally libs, with a occasional conservative found with tenure. Conservatives are just not in high numbers in the education field as the Dems are and we have been trying to change that....trying a great deal.

Those two women speakers were on the speaking circuit and were popular at university settings, they are truly leaders in the womens leadership cadre, and that is that. You can't change that reality.

If someone wants to do research on the numbers of notable conservatives speaking at universities on womens issues because of their positions in the womens movements, you will be displeased at the number chosen every time in most every university. SMU included.

Bush has acted as a commander and not as a weak leader who sticks his finger in the air before he makes a decision. He believes in this woman, and that should carry a lot of weight.

I suspect that he will stick by her all the way, and she will never bow out unless he wants her to. She it far too loyal for that to occur.

I look forward to her appearances in the Senate, and I will not compare her to Roberts. I will take her measure against O'Connor and other women of her caliber. I know that like Roberts, she will not legislate from the bench, and that is and has been my concern. Ann Coulter stated on O'Reilly's show that she wants a judge who will vote conservative issues on the court, and she was not ashamed saying it.

I just want a fair minded protector of the Constitution and American tradition. I want someone who can be critical of precedent if required and realizes the final arbiter is the document we cherish. I want her to be able to put all her personal bias aside when deciding cases.

That is what is needed. Years of liberal benchmanship will melt away under these conditions, and a biased conservative is the last thing we need on the court. How could someone like that convince other members of the court that a position taken was legitimate. They must be able to put the politics aside and do what is right.

That is a conservative ideal in every way.

[TheForceOfOne]

Don't worry, George check all the closets in the White House and there were no boogie men to be found. lol

[disraeligears]

W has jumped the Shark

[FredTownWard]

"The article seems to suggest that ALL of the speakers for the first 3 years were barking moon-bat feminists. If Miers created the lecture series and solicited donations for it, one would have to assume that she had input as to who gave the lectures."

"SEEMS", BushMeister? "One would have to ASSUME", BushMeister?

This isn't quite the weakest argument against confirming her, but it's pretty darn close.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh, come on. Hamilton owed his position in the world to his friendship with George Washington. And you will find no one that admires Hamilton more than I.

[el_texicano]

There are quite a number on this forum that complain about the fact she's never been a judge, but have pretty much quieted down when confronted with the facts of Renquist. This article itself comments on that fact, though the writer does their best to CYA. It still comes out.

The constitution does not lay out prerequisite qualifications to SC justice. The founders left it open to even the common American. The constitution is not hard to understand. It is the elitist leftist who have complicated things.

As to whether she would have been nominated if she hadn't been Bush's personal attorney, well duh...how else would he have gotten the insights as to her abilities? I can't know what was in Bush's mind and neither can you. I do know that all of the judges he has nominated up to now have been unquestionably good and qualified.

Bush has a demonstrated track record on his judgeship appointments, and now many here are ready to lynch him for one they don't understand. And if ya'll want to go around pissed off because he didn't consult you and take your suggestions...sheesh, what a miserable life.

I would have chosen JRB, but I'm not going grab on to unfounded assumptions about cronyism and the like. I will not go about trashing her nomination. I want to wait until I hear her in the confirmation hearings before I make up my own mind. I would like to hear more evidence particularly from her mouth.

[SpringheelJack]

Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said."

Unless she had some sort of personal relationship with Burger that would make it natural for her to speak of him by his first name, I think her clarification is bulls**t.

And in any case, though Burger was no Warren, I can't imagine either being tops on a real conservative's list. This information is far more damaging to her case than what was posted in this thread's top article.

[editor-surveyor]

"Wasn't Bork, rather it was William F. Buckley, out on his yacht."

I guess it was both of them, but Bork confessed in a senate hearing.

[flashbunny]

You could, of course, also criticize me for not capitalizing his name, too, like I was earlier.

It's a message board, not an article.

And, BTW, referring to the president by their last name is fine, even in an article...as long as you have previously used his name with his title in the article. That way everyone knows who the president is by name. So when you type in either 'the president', or 'Bush', they know you're referring to the same person.

It's not disrespectful, it's the correct way to do it.

On free republic, where everyone has been talking about President Bush (see, I capitalized it there) for over five years, I think they all know that Bush is the president, so it's kind of silly to demand every time his name is used, it's accompanied by his title.

BTW, are you going to go back through all the threads where the pro-miers attack dogs used Bush's name and make sure they start calling him 'President Bush' every time they talk about him?

[longtermmemmory]

I have been in front of both types, the REAL test is whether the person worked in the real world.

First time judge is irrelevant. NOBODY is immune to black robe fever, the only thing we can do is maximize the chances that real world reference will temper the elitism.

[HelloooClareece]

"I can't imagine anyone here expecting less or not feeling insulted if the selection was one of them."

Exactly right. I have read she is unfazed by the criticism which is a good sign to me. It means she can't be swayed and I like that quality a lot. Kinda like Bush ignores the polls. Shows his backbone. I suspect this lady is stronger than we think and I want her to get the chance to prove it.

[flashbunny]

"And if ya'll want to go around pissed off because he didn't consult you and take your suggestions"

How about the people who go around 'pissed off' that people actually dare question the miers pick?

[Barnacle]

Are you saying Janice Rogers Brown is not a Libertarian?

I don't know if Janice Rogers Brown is a Libertarian or not.

I am saying that there is no why I am that one out of a hundred that would qualify the following statement as remotely accurate.

Look, 99% of you people who oppose this particular nomination actually prefer a LIBERTARIAN.

I could much more easily accept the following:

"99% of people who oppose this particular nomination actually prefer a Conservative."

[paulat]

Oh, come on. Hamilton owed his position in the world to his friendship with George Washington. And you will find no one that admires Hamilton more than I.

So? What does Secretary of the Treasury have to do with Supreme Court lifetime appointments?

[el_texicano]

Have a great day sweetie...

[justshutupandtakeit]

"...NO OTHER MERIT..." Harriet has merit aplenty. Don't distort the meaning of Hamilton's advice.

He was on the end of the same EXACT criticism because of his long friendship with Washington.

In fact, on the death of WAshington he said "I have lost an aegis very important to me." He KNEW that his influence was multiplied because of his relation to George.

You are acting as though the friendship with someone should DISQUALIFY them. That is not at all what Hamilton meant.

[muawiyah]

I think I had a conflict with you (or maybe the Correspondence Secretary you refer to). Aren't you the individual who wanted to send out all the President's Christmas cards WITHOUT ANY RETURN ADDRESS OTHER THAN "WHITE HOUSE"?

At the same time there were folks over there at the WH prepared to take any returned cards and do an address lookup to send yet another card to the targeted individual at a different address (if any).

The "forwarding" system is fairly automated and depends substantially on OCRs. There must be a thousand "WHITE HOUSE" addresses in the DC area ~ so, even for "THE WHITE HOUSE" you have to have a tad more in the return address lest the machines get lost.

I advised you to include a full return address so that you'd get the undeliverable pieces back so you could mail a new one.

Thankgoodness you conformed because 9/11 happened and new security concerns resulted in all mail to the WHITE HOUSE without a return address being destroyed at the special facility out at Dulles.

So, in this one "trust me" again.

[DBeers]

hmmm... Am I to assume that all the speakers were flaming liberals AND that as an advisor, Ms. Miers had totalitarian control ver the the board as to funding use and speaker selection?

About Laura Hollis

Laura Hirschfeld Hollis describes herself as a pro-life Libertarian

Need anything else be said regarding this yet another speculative opinion that poops on the President's choice?

[Goodgirlinred]

It sounds to me that that is what he is saying.