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.
Yup, slipped there -- I've let the cat out of the bag. I confess, I think we should wait until the hearings to pass judgment.
Of course, I've been saying that all along. Seriously, I believe that Bush knows Miers much better than Reagan knew O'Conner. And I trust the people who are vouching for Miers more than I would have trusted the people quoted in 1981 supporting O'Conners.
Still, it is quite true that Miers could turn out worse than O'Conner. But realise that O'Conner is one of those who had a track record that many lament Miers lacked. Track record has not been a perfect predictor of the court.
My opinion on Bush's selection is that he desperately wants to avoid another "Souter". And in the end, he just couldn't bring himself to trust any of the other names on the list NOT to turn into a souter, even though we are all certain they would not. So he picked the most qualified person he knew who he also knew would NOT be a souter.
And while she might be a lighweight, I'm not as concerned about that as others. If Roberts is good, and not evil, I think that Roberts/Scalia/Thomas triumverate will keep her on the straight and narrow.
But I don't know that, and I am scared, and nervous, and wish he had picked somebody else I didn't know but whom all my friends here would have told me was a great pick (I mean that seriously although it sounds not). But I'm not going to start cutting myself before I know there's a reason.
When one cannot defend their points they won't get very far and when one starts bringing up Hamilton they are not going to be able to use him falsely when I am around.
He failed miserably in his attempt.
Again I addressed your action, admonished...i said you were gossiping...not called you a name..'gossip'....there is a difference...but I have said my apology....and will say it again. I'm sorry.
Will say this though...you will have me worried if Meirs says she likes Warren cuz of the Roe vote....in light of other info, i strongly suspect that is not the case....look at all the info together...
Cheers SS.
I'm with ya there, hon. Take care...I'm out for the nite. I hope to talk to you again soon.
There have been no substantial attacks launched just expressions of hurt feelings. If you think a twenty year relationship with the President is irrelevent I can't change your mind. I see it as very important far more so than the popularity based on mythology which seems to drive the opposition here. There is little real personal knowledge of the judges who are praised here only reiterated conventional knowledge.
Lessons from a life of work with someone is far more revealing than a speech or ruling or recommendation.
"You declared me a gossip for referencing a news publication."
Actually i called your action gossip and hypothesising based on the inference you made....not your quote from the news story.
You know you're right. The constitution doesn't say that one needs to be competent to qualify as President. Must mean it'd be pretty unfair of me to refuse to cast my vote for someone who isn't.
Did we have 50 when Thomas was confirmed? I believe we had only 43 Republicans total at the time.
Thanks for the additional info, and the correction. If you knew a person of another faith, it may be reasonable to pass something by them. Since I don't know the relationship of this anonymous person to Ken, I can't know whether the circumstances were ripe.
And since I didn't see the card in question, it is hard to discuss how non-PC it was.
I guess I was reacting from the viewpoint that Miers had made a reasonable call, which led me to the conclusion that if someone told me a card was offensive to others, I probably wouldn't take it to someone who would be offended to ask. Kind of like they tell us that if we hear an off-color joke, but aren't sure of it, we shouldn't go do someone we think could be offended and ask if it offends them.
Like I said, if Ken was a friend, it was rational to talk to him, and I don't know the circumstances, so I apologize for the tone of my statement.
"I'm looking for anything to judge her. There's nothing!"
True Christians follow their heart for Christ and His commands the best they can in everything they do..I think there is good evidence of her heart nature....and being a true Christian, it will affect her world view, which will influence her view of tne role of government and the purpose of the Constitution. By design Christianity and the Constitution are complimentary...a near perfect match.
And I state that is not gossip.
It was a report from a national news organization.
I doubt she'll state the R v W decision, if the discussion occured, is the reason she prefers him no matter her opinion on R v W to be honest. But then I will also state I don't think necessarily liking this Justice means she supports R v W., merely that it would raise questions as to why he is her chosen.
Judge me as you see fit, I deny the charge and have defined why I disagree with your assessment.
My conscience is clear.
And this line of discussion is over.
I'm not a Christian, so that doesn't move me that much.
It may be the only reason she is here, but I obviously don't know it, or I wouldn't have listed all her other qualifications.
I believe that for every person on the court today, there was somebody available at the time that was every bit as qualified as they were, but simply weren't known to the person making the pick.
In this case, we know that high on the list of "qualifications" for this job is a strict adherance to judicial restraint, and a surety that this position will not change over time. In fact, for many of us that is the MOST IMPORTANT qualification, more important than any knowledge of the law.
I say that because philosophy is not something you learn, it is something that is a part of you. If Miers is smart, and every indication is that she is a bright person (but we'll learn that in questioning), she can LEARN about the finer points of the constitution. She can ask the more experienced members of the court.
For that qualification of course, the only thing we can say is "Bush knows her and says she won't change".
And he "knows" that because of his closeness to her.
I'm probably repeating myself, so I'll stop here.
And it still shocks me he got through. Of course, he never would have made it today. After all, he only got 51 votes, and the surely would have slapped a filibuster on him. And I'm just as sure that the senators we have now would NOT have broken a filibuster for him.
That is just my opinion.
"The litmus test is only 5% of the population would support her"
Lucky for us it is not an elected position then! Nor did the founding fathers intend for it to be....and for good reason.
Now if only we could eliminate senate elections....
No judgement was made dear.....don't go away angry.....just go away. :P
Screw that! He's not King, and he'd be well advised to reflect on what happened to the last King of the colonies.
"I'm not a Christian, so that doesn't move me that much."
Well it should a little if one of your fears is a souter repeat. If she is a true Christian at least you know where she stands, education and law experience aside.
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.