The Miers Testimony (WSJ/James Taranto)

Wall Street Journal ^ | 10-13-2005 | James Taranto

[Stellar Dendrite]

President Bush last week expressed his confidence in the constancy of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, saying that "20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy," as she is today. White House aides making the case for Miers, meanwhile, have been insisting that she is a reliable conservative. Since she has no judicial record and has had little to say about constitutional law, we can only guess at what her judicial philosophy might be, if indeed she has one at all. But if she is a political conservative, then she has not remained constant over the past 20 years.

We base this on a look at her testimony in Williams v. Dallas, a voting-rights case from 1989, when Miers was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council. Read over it and the impression that emerges is of a left-leaning centrist, not a conservative. (The testimony is here, as a five-megabyte PDF file, but we're not 100% confident that our server will be able to handle it. If it disappears, check back here for a new link as soon as we're able to provide one.)

[governsleastgovernsbest]

Thanks for the clarifications. You made a number of important points, and did so in a very fair manner. I sincerely appreciate it. The hearings should certainly be interesting - if we get that far. I think it's possible that as the hearings approach, her advisors might decide she is not quite ready for prime time, and she could at that point bow out.

[Alberta's Child]

Thanks for the link to that Fund article. Fund writes good columns in the WSJ, but I've never been a huge fan of his. Some of those WSJ op-ed writers aren't all that conservative -- they're more of the "economic conservative / social moderate" type of Republican that is so common in the Northeast.

[Victoria Delsoul]

You're right about that. I like John Fund, I always did. So, I'm awfully glad he changed his mind.

[Theophilus]

Yes, they should be the correct transcription of her extemporaneous response to questions she was asked in 1989 when she was a councilwoman.

OK, I was a little concerned that she might be getting blamed for paraphrasing that might be the doing of the person taking the minutes.

[Pessimist]

"The Democrat party that Reagan left was politically to the right of the current GOP. They spent less and were more faithful to America. Sad, ain't it."

Exactly!

A lot of people mistake republican victories as a sign of the country moving right. Instead, both parties have moved to the left, conveniently placing the 'pubs right on top of the "mainstream" (aka socially moderate, fiscally liberal)block of US voters.

Some victory.

[thoughtomator]

Yah, this alleged second coming of Reagan was a Democrat all through the Reagan Presidency. Another lame avenue of wishful thinking exploded by a mere cursory inspection of the (thin) record.

[ContemptofCourt]

But they were not legal briefs. They were messages from the head of an organization to its members in a newsletter, and that is how they were written. They were folksy, personal, and effusive. They were exactly what you would expect. There was nothing wrong with them, at least the 8 that I read.

You are spouting off RNC talking points...and poor ones at that.

Did you even read what she wrote? It is utter crap.