Posted on 10/13/2005 2:43:57 PM PDT by KMAJ2
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU OCT 13, 2005 12:52:43 ET XXXXX
2005: PICK PRAISES FEDERALIST SOCIETY IN SPEECH
**Exclusive**
The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained exclusive excerpts from a speech Bush Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers made to the DC Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society on April 29, 2005.
At the speech Miers’ declared, “You [the Federalist Society] are an important ally on many issues, especially in our battles to ensure for our Nation a distinguished Federal judiciary, a judiciary the American people deserve.”
MORE
Miers went on: “There is a reason White House Counsels have sought out your organization for over twenty years: the influence your organization has developed within the legal society and society as a whole.
"From your educational publications to your various speaking events to your network of legal professionals, you have stimulated an on-going debate about the principles of the Constitution. Our Nation is better for it. And as this debate has raged your organization has grown tremendously.”
A Republican strategist told of the excerpts was not surprised. “Harriet Miers has at least five lawyers who are members of the Federalist Society on her own staff in the White Counsels Office.”
Another drive-by shooter, who uses innuendo rather than actually cite a single instance in which a member of the Bush administration has dissed the Federalist Society.
If this is the MO of the Federalist Society, to whine like a petulant child at imaginary demons, I would begin to have second thoughts myself.
Sounds like a T-Shirt.
You cherry picked.
disingeniuous
If members are good enough to staff the highest levels of this administration, if the group is good enough to fete during speeches given to conferences it's held, then to turn around and say that a member of that organization is not acceptable as a Supreme Court justice...
It irks me.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=federalist+society
I looked at about 30 entries, and the best I found was Scott McClelland non-commital when the press questioned nominee Roberts alleged connection or membership to the Federalist Society.
Q It was reported, as you know, that he was in the Federalist Society, which is an important legal group in the conservative -- on the conservative side. Then the White House said, no, it was not the case. And now it appears that he was part of the leadership group. What is the real story here?MR. McCLELLAN: He has no memory of ever joining or paying dues to the Federalist Society. He has no recollection of that. He has participated in events and panel discussions. He's given speeches at Federalist Society forums. But he doesn't have any recollection of ever paying dues or joining the organization.
Q Isn't that kind of a simple thing to nail down, prior to now?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, David, he's answered this over the last few years the issue has come up, and he certainly has participated in some of the events that they've sponsored or that they've hosted. But he just doesn't have any memory of ever paying any dues to the organization.
Q But will the White House work to get to the bottom of whether he belonged to the Federalist Society, to release to the public everything that can be known about Judge Roberts? ...
MR. McCLELLAN: I think that we've -- that we've already addressed it. He has no recollection of ever joining the Federalist Society. But I think what's important for the American people to know is that he is someone who is highly qualified for this position, and he is someone who will make decisions based on the law and based on our Constitution, and not try to make law from the bench. He is someone who is viewed as impartial and open-minded and fair. And that's the type of judge that he has been for the last couple years and that he will be once he's on the Supreme Court.
Q But it sounds like you're suggesting the White House is not committed to releasing whatever documents it feels are --
MR. McCLELLAN: There haven't been any requests made of us, Jessica, so it's all speculative at this point.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/07/20050725-5.html
July 25, 2005 - Press Briefing by Scott McClellan
As I said, that is neutral to stand-off-ish. Do you have something more directly on the point that the WH has praised the FedSoc and values the orinciples of its mission statement?
This is interesting, especially because Sean Hannity and Laura Ingraham are telling us every 5 minutes that Meirs has publicly denounced the Federalist Society.
I'm not saying that Federalist Society members are not good enough for the federal bench - I'm saying they are harder to get confirmed in THIS Senate - like I said, I hope things continue to improve on that front, but that's the reality of the situation for now.
complete unravelling of "the base".
That's the only thing you have stated that I agree with.
See speeches by President Bush and VP Cheney on down (link above).
hey, don't go trying to brink logic into the argument.
if it weren't for the more polite language in use I'd have a hard time telling the difference between DU and FR on some of the Miers threads. and that is not a statement of my position on the matter.
there are four ways this can go:
a) she could be confirmed
b) she could be confirmed, along with long lasting damage to the RNC and/or conservative movement
c) she could not be confirmed
d) she could not be confirmed, along with long lasting damage to the RNC and/or conservative movement
(duh) right now it seems headed for (d)
Mr. Sessions (R)Mr. Sessions affirmative…. “My conversations with Harriet Miers indicate that she is a first-rate lawyer and a fine person. Her legal skills are proven and her reputation throughout the legal community is excellent. It is not necessary that she have previous experience as a judge in order to serve on the Supreme Court. It’s perfectly acceptable to nominate outstanding lawyers to that position. I look forward to the confirmation process and to learning more about her judicial philosophy.”
Mr. Cornyn (R) Mr Cornyn…affirmative "The President has announced his nominee to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States: Harriet Miers, currently serving as White House Counsel. As he did with Judge John G. Roberts, Jr., the President has chosen an outstanding nominee for our nation's highest court. The Senate should consider this nomination in both a thorough and expedient manner.
"Harriet Miers is a brilliant legal mind. She is a woman of outstanding character who clearly understands what it means to follow the law. She is deeply committed to public service, and has a distinguished history of professional achievement. It is clear that her past experiences have well prepared her for the honor of serving our country as a Supreme Court Justice. I strongly support her nomination.
"It is important that we put aside partisanship, and that the Senate fulfill its constitutional responsibility of advice and consent. This fine nominee must be treated with civility and respect, not as a political pawn. I hope that we in the Senate can move forward in a manner worthy of the American people."
Mr. Coburn (R) Mr.Coburn..affirmative. “Harriet Miers deserves a fair and thorough hearing and confirmation process. I look forward to learning more about her qualifications and judicial philosophy in the coming days,” Dr. Coburn said, adding that he plans to meet with Miers this week.”
.
Didn't I read something somewhere about a Federalist Society "coup" over this nomination? It was in one Legacy Media outlet or another. (They all look alike to me.)
The FedSoc NEVER takes a position with regard to issues, nominees or candidates. At least it says it does not.
The notion that it is "conservative" is an epithet for those who advance the mission of Fed Soc.
Q. What is the Federalist Society?A. It is an organization of 25,000 lawyers, law students, scholars, and other individuals who believe and trust that individual citizens can make the best choices for themselves and society. It was founded in 1982 by a group of law students interested in making sure that the principles of limited government embodied in our Constitution receive a fair hearing.
Q. Does the Federalist Society take positions on legal or policy issues or engage in other forms of political advocacy?
A. No. The Society is about ideas. We do not lobby for legislation, take policy positions, or sponsor or endorse nominees and candidates for public service. While overall the Society believes in limited government, its members are diverse and often hold conflicting views on a broad range of issues such as tort reform, privacy rights, and criminal justice.
http://federalist.wlu.edu/Text%20Documents/About_FedSoc.htm
... the Federalist Society is dedicated to advancing traditional legal principles--limited, constitutional government, the separation of powers, individual liberty and responsibility, and the rule of law--throughout the legal community.
Here is something the cat dragged in. I know, it's WaPo. Just for the record.
By Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 29, 2005; Page A21After President Bush tapped John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, the nominee was widely reported to be a member of the Federalist Society -- an assertion that White House officials vigorously disputed.
When it was later disclosed that Roberts was once listed as serving on the steering committee of the group's Washington chapter, Bush aides continued to insist that Roberts has no recollection of ever being a full-fledged member of the conservative legal group.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/28/AR2005072801779.html
FedSoc invites from all walks. It is a debating society for goodness sakes. It invites people from the range of flaming liberals to flaming libertarians and everywhere in between.
The fact that a person spoke at a FedSoc function says nothing. Now, the words that person utters there, those say something about the person.
The fact that she is there is neither an endorsement nor negative. It is neutral. Nothing wrong with that. The point is to get onto the substance of Ms. Miers positions, and we're kind of stuck with reading tea leaves.
Is there anybody or anything you won't smear with nasty innuendo and lies in your effort to derail Harriet Miers?
It would have been more accurate for me to say "approach to judicial issues," or political philosophy.
But your larger point is absolutely correct.
"No recollection?"
Those are weasel words, and do demonstrate that the Bush administration's association with the Federalist Society verges on strategic ambiguity, which does not satisfy me, and should not be good enough for any conservative Constitutionalist.
Oh, they're not? From the Pavlovian response of democRats whenever the name of the group is spoken, you could have fooled me.
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.