I highlighted her speaking before them, I obviously was aware the ABA has taken stances before and Miers evidently was not for endorsing such.
For the bold stuff, which isn't your words, an accurate presentation expresses the grounds for her objection to the resolution. Those grounds were that she though such a hot-button issue required the vote of the entire membership of the ABA in order to be valid - it may have passed, maybe not - but it certainly was going to be passed by ABA leadership. I applaud her sense of wanting to put a divisive issue before the entire membership. But I don't attribute any personal position to her, beyond the desire to have all members vote. She's never expressed a personal position on the matter, instead we have to rely on testimonials from others. I find those testimonials weak, personally.
As for Miers speaking before the FedSoc, you must know thatteh FedSoc welcomes and invites people from the full spectrum of political thought. I arranged Josh Sugarman to participate in a FedSoc sponsored debate.
BTW, remember the brouhaha over Roberts being listed one year on the Federalist Society roster and saying he didn't remember ever being a member?
The brouhaha can be addressed with facts. The mission of the FedSoc is not sinister. The FedSoc is apolitical.
The ABA is NOT apolitical. The ABA advocates advancing certain social change, typically via legislation or legislative interpretation.
I never claimed they were. The implication that I did is absurd.
BTW, when I said I highlighted her speaking before them, I meant in my first posting of the excerpt. The second time I posted that paragraph I highlighted how she used her influence in conjunction with Leonard Leo to amend the Roe V Wade endorsement.
Leo seems enthusiastic about her.