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.
Indeed.
Wasn't it Caligula who appointed a horse to sit on the Roman Senate, to show his low opinion of the body? This nomination of Miers is GW thumbing his nose at the Conservative base.
Not so fast. The long and the short of it is she didn't come to this dance with you, she came with "W". "W" picked her, "W" wants her and this IS his dance to arrange, not yours or mine. She is not done until "W" says so.
Not the first time he's done that.
All this yap-yap-yapping over Harriet Miers. What's all the fuss about? She's 60 years old but she's a young 60 years old. Personally, I wouldn't marry her but I think she'll be a good librarian, schoolteacher or Supreme Court Justice. I just don't think she'll make a good auto mechanic and therefore I shall never ask her to fix my car.
Did Miers pick these speakers? This article doesn't tell me anything about Miers, other than that some writer doesn't like her. I think I'll wait for a little real information before I say anything.
The real question is why the President is once again appointing a lawyer ~ we already know what lawyers are like. Personally, I'd prefer someone who'd managed a large company to a profitable year.
I trust the President when he says that Harriet experienced discrimintation and predijuice! Why, if she hadn't she might have risen to head a state lottery and even become a personal attorney of a President! Yes, Mr President, we need more diversifity on High Court in this fascist, racist country.
Thanks. It is something of a leap to go from an advisory committee pushing for a program to running the darn program.
Check the US Constitution, which is what we want her to follow. There is no requirement found there that she be a judge. There is no requirement found there that she be a lawyer.
In fact, I'd like to see 4-5 justices non lawyers. Lawyers have too much say in society already.
I think you place too much value on this hit piece from the Houston Komical.
Have done with her and move on to a conservative.
I agree, she's not too old.
I find it amusing that a good number of the anti-Miers posters say "She's so old. Hillary will get elected in 2006 and then nominate a replacement for Miers."
Of course, a lot of other anti-Miers posters say "Great, now she'll be a wimpy Conservative on the bench for 30 years. We are screwed for decades to come."
I wanted JRB. But I beleive Miers is a committed Christian, committed to the 2nd Amendment, and very strict about details and wording in documents. I think Bush made a smart choice.
Did you read the Wall St. Journal piece on what Alexander Hamilton had to say about cronyism? It is amazing he was so prescient...but then, our Founding Fathers were. Give me a minute, and I will post the quotes to you.
I have no quarrel with whether Miers is qualified or not. Hamilton's words speak to why her situation should not be allowed. This is much like JFK appointing his unqualified brother (RFK) to be Attorney General. JFK said "trust me." That is not a good precedent.
As I said...I am looking up the WSJ piece now.
And "W" got to the dance in the car of his conservative base.
No base, no bush, no miers.
If you're going to use an analogy, make sure you're not just being selective with it.
"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."
http://www.centredaily.com/mld/centredaily/news/12827330.htm
did you see the quote from the 80's where people were reassuring republicans that o'connor was a 'good christian'?
If she gets on the Supreme Court, and makes a few rulings, there is going to be a lot of "I told you so" from half the posters. The question is, which half? Personally, I am not optimistic, but will be thrilled if she turns out to be in the Thomas/Scalia. The sad part is we can only guess at this point.
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.