'The Right Result' Was Key to Miers - In Dallas, She Made A Name for Candor

Washington Post ^ | October 8, 2005 | Jo Becker

[RGT]

DALLAS, Oct. 7 -- This city was already on edge, divided along racial and class lines over how to desegregate public housing, under court order to change an election system that kept minorities out of power, and seething from a series of police shootings that killed innocent blacks.

So when a black county commissioner was arrested after a physical altercation with an off-duty police officer who allegedly had spat a racial slur at him, more than 1,000 demonstrators marched on City Hall. Many feared violence until Harriet Miers, a first-term City Council member and local lawyer, spoke to the

[maryz]

according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices.

It struck me yesterday how much this story reminds me of "stupid Bush jokes" told incessantly by a staunch Kerry supporter I couldn't avoid at the time. How did the "several people" come to this knowledge? Through Miers? Unlikely at best. Through Leahy. Perhaps; and we all know Leahy's high devotion to truth. Overheard Leahy telling a joke he made up about her? No proof, but it does sound like those "stupid Bush" jokes.

[joebuck]

This thing reads like a puff piece trying to sell Miers to the left while not alienating her any more than possible with the right. That's what scares me most about this nominee - the left is WAY to anxious to accept her. Much to anxious. I don't think its some master counter-psychology ploy by the left either. ("if we act like we love her that will terrify W's base who will then reject him and say nasty things about him on FR - yeah, yeah, that's the ticket."). I think the Dems, like all predators, know it when they spot the weak animal in the herd. They see her as someone they can make "grow" with lots of false flattery and enough invitations to the right partys.

[irish guard]

Check out the take on this article.....not sure I believe it is true, but we may have misunderestimated Bush once again...its long but darn interesting

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/8/0481/04691

[massadvj]

My personal guess is that she will not be a Scalia, a Thomas or even a Roberts. She may agree with them from time to time, but she will go off the reservation when she is persuaded that "justice" for the plaintiffs deserves more than the justice the law and the constitution demand.

My thoughts exactly. Based on this report, she seems to see herself as strident on life, but very flexible on social justice issues. I suspect she will care more about social outcomes than a more rigid test of constitutionality, and there you have the makings of an O'Connor or Earl Warren.

[LS]

She also appears to be strong against so-called "gay rights."

I don't like the Aff. Action comments, though. Not at all. And I'm a supporter of Miers.

[LS]

Oh, don't mind some of them. When the nominee was announced, I said she'd be a good one. Then came Frum and Kristol and the rest, piling on, and I still said, she'd be a good one. Now, Mark Levin has backed off quite a bit, and Thomas Sowell has started to come around (I don't know if he ever opposed her), but the message is getting out---a "known" conservative justice with a judicial record, like a Brown or Luttig or Alioto, was NOT going to get through the liberal RINOs like Chaffee and Collins and Snowe. I'm convinced Bush met with all of them, named names, and they told him flat-out, "No, I won't vote for Luttig, and I won't vote to break a filibuster over Brown. But I will vote for Miers and plead ignorance with my constituents."

In the last two days, both Levin and Sowell have now echoed these thoughts.

[q_an_a]

the end of the article has this gem - it is probably why GWB likes her, "I want to be respected, and I want to be viewed as being true to my convictions," she told a newspaper. "But I don't much care what people think."

[griswold3]

Excellent analysis. Although Bush is not conservative, I do believe his plans are long term and in the best interest to preserve the republic.

[little jeremiah]

I think your comments are prescient. Someone up the thread mentioned poor blacks. Roughly 80% of babies born to black mother are illegitimate. But a couple of generations ago - Before Welfare - that was not the case. The problem is not lack of money or lack of laws. The problem is lack of morality, not lack of money.

[little jeremiah]

I also don't like the desire for the "right result". A SCOTUS judges shouldn't be aiming for results or outcomes.

[DJ MacWoW]

The MSM has an agenda and they are in overdrive to spread gossip. Unfortunately, some freepers are buying it. "Unnamed sources" doesn't bother them. Partial quotes doesn't bother them. The justice they wanted nominated wasn't so lets bash the Prez. And yes, The WaPo article sounds like a whispered joke told in the presence of the subject.

[maryz]

I don't like the Aff. Action comments, though

I haven't seen a complete story. Another story said the city was under a federal court order to desegregate, and her words came from her testimony in the case. And local redistricting is always going to be bare-knuckled groups jockeying for power (what were Eldridge Gerry's dates?). I haven't seen anything about her role in that particular mess that I think would disqualify her.

It might be enlightening to read a complete, fair, well-informed piece on the situation. But I doubt one exists.

[LS]

Agreed, and if subtly asked, all this could be learned in the hearings.