Posted on 10/08/2005 11:17:03 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Sandra Day O'Connor resigned from the Supreme Court in July, the White House reached out to an informal network of conservative lawyers and academics to help build support for the next nominee. The group of about three dozen worked smoothly during the confirmation battle over John Roberts, plotting strategy in conference calls with administration officials and penning newspaper op-eds.
Michael A. Carvin, the lawyer who argued the president's case in Bush v. Gore before the Florida Supreme Court, was riled by a newspaper article about Miers. The story reported that Miers had once been quoted saying she wouldn't belong to the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal group, because she viewed it as "'activist' and 'partisan'." In an e-mail to the group, Carvin—who did not respond to repeated calls for comment—wrote, "This is becoming more embarrassing as every day passes."
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
ping
ping
"because she viewed it as "'activist' and 'partisan'."
Well good. Isn't that what many of us conservatives have been saying about some of these judges for years?
Hello....Hello...Hello.....Is this thing on??
There we were posting away, and this BIG OLD MOD comes along and PULLS THE THREAD...on similar subject!
Ok...First five posters must now perform a verification that all is proper to proceed.
Uh, thats b/c there was no link to the story. I've provided all that now.
http://www.fed-soc.org/ourpurpose.htm
* Law schools and the legal profession are currently strongly dominated by a form of orthodox liberal ideology which advocates a centralized and uniform society. While some members of the academic community have dissented from these views, by and large they are taught simultaneously with (and indeed as if they were) the law.
* The Federalist Society for Law and Public Policy Studies is a group of conservatives and libertarians interested in the current state of the legal order. It is founded on the principles that the state exists to preserve freedom, that the separation of governmental powers is central to our Constitution, and that it is emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.
* The Society seeks both to promote an awareness of these principles and to further their application through its activities. This entails reordering priorities within the legal system to place a premium on individual liberty, traditional values, and the rule of law. It also requires restoring the recognition of the importance of these norms among lawyers, judges, and law professors.
The only 'activist' activities are trying to restore the constitution and the legal system to its proper boundaries.
The more I'm hearing about harriet miers, the less impressed I am. First the vetoing of the 'too christian' white house christmas card, affirmative action for female firefighters, and now this.
She seems to be a person who is hung up on how other people will perceive her. That's not the kind of quality you want in a supreme court justice. That will jsut get us more of the same.
Dang Hall Monitors....don't ya just lov'em!!
I predict you will be getting a lot of use out of that graphic!
feel free to use it as much as you want :)
I don't think your comparison is valid. The Federalist Society advocates the conservative point of view, i.e. no legislation from the bench and greater adherence to the literal meaning of the Constitution. The Federalists have also been the main bulwark against both the application of European constitutional law in American cases and court control over WoT cases (mainly Gitmo).
If Harriet Miers thinks the Federalist Society is "activist and partisan," I'm afraid her judicial philosophy is closer to the liberal point of view than the conserative point of view.
oh I certainly will...I may even have to go back on some old thread and add it in ;)
Poor little unqualified kitty.
I am more than just a little amazed at the negative attitude being expressed by so many conservatives regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. She is, after all, Counsel to the President and his VERY trusted advisor. Not only has she worked closely with the President in Washington, but also in Texas. In all that time, one HAS to assume that she and the President have had some VERY deep conversations concerning her views on many issues. I can't help but think that the President knows her mind like the back of his hand.
EVERY nomination the President has made to a Court has been a conservative. And when the Democrats shamelessly fiIibustered them, the President came back and re-submitted their names AND got most of them through. He stood by his choices!
To think that he would not nominated a conservative to the Supreme Court, flies in the face of everything he has done so far. If George Bush is anything, he is a man of his word and I for one stand solidly behind him with this nomination. George Bush has not disappointed me for 5 years, I honestly don't think he will now.
See post 14....do you agree with the last statement? Just interested in your thoughts after seeing your detailed post about the Federalist Society.
Thanks. I will.
What a stirring endorsement.
I believe those are the same words T.R. used to describe Oliver Wendell Holmes, before sending him up for Senate consideration.
No?
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.