Posted on 10/06/2005 7:15:47 PM PDT by 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.
Here's another powerball. Harriet knows she is not going to be a consensus REPUBLICAN nominee, and things can only go downhill from here. Yes, she is on autopilot. She's been put up, and she will follow through. But Rep meritocracy is out the window, and the damage from this is significant. If Reps don't stand for meritocracy, then all is lost. And I mean this.
You are aware that Harriet Miers was the lead attorney in the litigation to resolve emminent domain claims after Bush's benefactors had put together his deal with the Texas Rangers?
The entire media spectrum has refused to do proper backgrounders on the beginnings of the relationship between Miers and Bush.
When it is done, the charges of cronyism will be undeniable to even the most ardent Bush supporter.
At the same time, the founders rejected giving the senate the right to PICK the nominees, because they wanted a single person to be held responsible for the choice and its political consequence.
Don't mean to be rude...but your post is very condescending and is just paraphrasing what I've been posting ALL NIGHT LONG!!! But I said it, and you, obviously, didn't read the posts.
You're very patronizing. Read Federalist Paper 76.
Do you believe in anything?
If your father gave you his word, would it mean anything to you? would you trust him?
"In the real world you're not assumed to be qualified for a job until someone proves you aren't."
Until the hearings, we have no proof of anything.
You've missed the point. What is worse, you know it.
Who are you? Why are you such a negative person? I would take you more seriously if you ever posted anything positive. Go over to DU and post your stupid drivel.
***
What, I have to agree with you? Please.... If you don't like it, don't read it. I for one am opposed to her nomination and will post as I want as long as I am allowed. What's negative about it? Can't stand the truth? Is that it? Keep sticking your fingers in your ears, sticking your head in the sand and telling yourself that it will be alright. I refuse to do so.
It calls into question the motivation her being born-again, when that qas quite a common ting to have happen in Texas in the 1980s.
What will she be like after shooting the breeze with Kennedy and Souter, Ginsburg, and Bryer? OK, they might be balanced off with Thomas, Scalia, and Roberts. What kind of line will she take after a few cocktail parties in Georgetown?
Sounds like a candidate to "grow" like Kennedy did.
Why not wait for the hearings before you decide anything?
To be honest, I don't think you are going to learn anything at the confirmation hearing, IMO.
"Yes" - the ones just accepting her as offered, no questions asked, come in at just above 30%
Need more info / Yes come in at over 71% for members.
"No" - the ones just rejecting her outright come in at just under 25%
What's the "c" stand for, cspackler?
"Miers said she meant Warren Burger"
WELL THEN! It is obvious! Ms. Meirs choose her favorite justice on the basis of how he voted on this issue alone! Good find! Very solid!
NOT!
Why not wait for the hearings before you decide anything?
**
We aren't going to learn enough at the hearings. I mean, seriously, how much did we REALLY learn about Roberts? Mostly we learned how stupid some senators are.
George Bush ain't my father. You're taking this conversation down a really bizarre path. I hope this is just a weird non sequitur, and not a sign of some cult of personality thing on your end.
Quit lying about what I said. I do not appreciate it.
I stated Democrats have been known to lie about their meetings with nominees.
That does not follow it is a lie.
That follows that she is deserved a response to this report in the WAPO before anyone piles on and states it as fact. That is the logical and fair approach.
To accept or deny this according to ones own prejudices is illogical.
Further, if you read the article she was asked her favoite Justice. She was not given two names. It was a blanket, name anyone she pleased question. She was given no names. It was only when she allegedly stated "warren", being we've had two, that she was asked to clarify.
Now, any further lies you wish to state about me?
You said any man.
If you see no difference between Thomas and Meirs, then nothing I can see can impress you. But think about it a bit. What Thomas' major qualification that the President vouched for him personally, or was it MANY other factors?
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.