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.
Yawn. If you all think this is a smoking gun, you are smoking something that I want to share in.
Folks in the real world don't operate in constricted little prepacked boxes, with a host of positions that weave together into a nice little ideological cube conceived in the mind's eye of others.
"I think she will be in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor in regards to how she makes her decisions," said Pederson, Miers' personal friend for more than 20 years. "She is not an ideologue. She is very pragmatic and will try to do what is right."
***
Yep, I read that too.
And then there's this:
"Reagan chose O'Connor, probably because of her conservative credentials, her strict constructionist views of the Constitution, and her ability to elicit widespread support."
And some conservatives were having a hissy fit over her (sound familiar). Reagan told them to calm down, she is anti-abortion. Well....we all know how that ended up.
Check your reading glasses. It's from townhall.com...a conservative site.
1) Do you suggest that any nomine who is said to be a "good Christian" be rejected? Because such a nomine might turn out like O'Connor?
2) I believe O'Connor voted with Rehnquist 85% of the time. You think that's shameful?
Stop, you're embarrassing yourself.
Miers was put on the Lottery Commission to root out corruption and she did. I'm sure you agree that if a state is going to have a Lottery (leaving aside the question if you are in favor of them at all---if one does exist, one must deal with it) it is best to have it run cleanly.
Pardon me, but I am free to use an analogy however I wish. Last time I checked I still lived in the United States. We shall simply have to agree to disagree. I support the President and I do trust him. Again, that is my right.
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
Harriet Miers is not just the close confidante of the president in her capacity as his staff secretary and then as White House counsel. She also was George W. Bush's personal lawyer. Apart from nominating his brother or former business partner, it is hard to see how the president could have selected someone who fit Hamilton's description any more closely. Imagine the reaction of Republicans if President Clinton had nominated Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills, who had ably represented him during his impeachment proceedings, to the Supreme Court. How about Bernie Nussbaum?
As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of "cronies," which Merriam-Webster defines as "a close friend especially of long standing." Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent--especially during the remaining term of her former boss.
How about hiring a successful accountant to do open heart surgery? Law requires lawyers because it is dense stuff, built-up over the 1,000+ years of the common law. Common sense is no help in legal matters, as most Anglo-American legal doctrines are counter-intuitive in nature. One does not have to be a judge to be in the Supremes, but a thorough legal education (evinced by a sound and well-articulated judicial philiosophy) is necessary.
I don't think that's fair. I do not believe that Bush is a vindictive man. This nomination is exactly what it appears to be and no deep thinking about it is necessary. Bush turned tail and ran away from a fight.
Having voted for GWB twice I've always stepped up to his defense when necessary. The only issues that I've had are his boneheaded immigration policy and now this, his nomination of Harriet Miers for a seat on the SC. In fact I feel that this is so wrong headed on the part of Bush ... I'm beginning to think the libs may be right when they question his intelligence. Nominating Harriet Miers, when they're are others far, far more qualified is beyond comprehension. Bush has taken leave of his senses ...
This is such BS. I have never seen more Crybaby Conservatives on oneissue at one time.
The president's only sin? He didn't clear his nommination with the 23,674,951 leadingConservatives in the country.
"I just don't think she'll make a good auto mechanic and therefore I shall never ask her to fix my car."
She would probably not be a good roofer either but she'll do fine on the Supreme Court. =)
(Fuss is over the fact that she didnt attend and Ivy League College methinks)
You are right. He wasn't.
Unfortunately, Alexander Hamilton did not practice what he preached given that his career was paved by his mentors, George Washington and John Jay, and underwrote by his wealthy father-in-law, Senator Phillip Schuyler.
You can only quit once.
it's you're right to use an anology.
However, the more apt analogy is Bush abadoning the base that got him through the primaries and into office.
You know, those poor schlubs who give money, volunteer, go door to door, drag all their friends to the voting booth.
I'm sure the ones like that who brought "W" to the dance are thrilled he's over in the corner cozying up to harry reid.
WSJ
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354
Cronyism Alexander Hamilton wouldn't approve of Justice Harriet Miers
BY RANDY E. BARNETT
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
"I'm seeing an awful lot of people who are decrying Bush for betraying his base who told us time and time again that they had left the Republicans, turned their backs on Bush, had it with Bush, etc.
"You can only quit once."
You were NOT supposed to notice that!
Ack, the part of my post where I questioned the claim that President Bush said Miers had in fact experienced discrimination or just said she had overcome the odds (a run-of-the mill description when few women attended law school in her day, etc), got deleted somehow and the Lottery part left.
Anyhoo, this was part of my other reply to your decrying Miers rising to the top.
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.