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.”
We're not going to let you get away with hearsay.
Name your sources and their positions in the WHite House.
He / she has been asked three times now for specifics as to said "reports" - don't hold your breath.
Dan Rather
Abu Musab al-Zarqawi
French agents in Niger
CIA
Karl Rove
Elvis
A thousand monkeys typing randomly on typewriters
Actually, her 2005 words convince me otherwise.
You're 0-for-2.
I think it's the third or fourth entry from the top.
You can't miss it.
FNC just reported (Jim Angle) that in 1988, the Federalist Society was just getting off the ground and was comprised of a bunch of conservative Texas politicos. In that context, Miers' original comments on the group seem to make sense.
The Federalist Society has evolved to the point where it is now a conservative/libertarian think tank. So Miers' comments in 2005 also make sense.
Miers is not the one who has changed -- the Federalist Society has changed.
This is not tennis. I am willing to wait.
Not to me. This is an amazingly savvy and patient White House. Let the enemy fire its salvos; it makes the targets for the return fire that much easier to lock in on. Look for more of the same, little by little, the ammunition efficiently used, and deadly. The last missles are usually launched by the winning army.
FNC just reported (Jim Angle) that in 1988, the Federalist Society was just getting off the ground and was comprised of a bunch of conservative Texas politicos. In that context, Miers' original comments on the group seem to make sense.
The Federalist Society has evolved to the point where it is now a conservative/libertarian think tank. So Miers' comments in 2005 also make sense.
Miers is not the one who has changed -- the Federalist Society has changed.
WASHINGTON — Human Rights Campaign President Joe Solmonese made the following statement about Harriet Miers’ completion of a 1989 survey on gay and lesbian rights issues.
“This is only a small window into Harriet Miers’ thinking 15 years ago, but it raises the possibility that she is more fair-minded than our opponents are hoping,” said Solmonese. “We will be closely watching how the White House responds to this news and it will be a good test of whether the extreme right wing has hijacked the process on nominating a Supreme Court justice.
“She wrote she supports ‘civil rights’ for gay Americans but that she would not support repealing a law that criminalized consensual sex between same-sex couples. That is a contradiction that the Senate should investigate. Still, in 1989 she supported AIDS funding, and recognized the importance of AIDS to the whole community,” added Solmonese.
“There are more questions than answers when it comes to her stance on civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans. But what we do know is that right-wing extremists are unhappy with the mere possibility that Miers is fair.”
http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Press_Room&CONTENTID=29155&TEMPLATE=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm
Leonard Leo is the Executive Vice President of the Federalist Society and he supports the Miers nomination.
Are you suggesting that you know more about Miers and her true feelings towards the Federalist Society than does Leonard Leo? Or that Leo is perhaps intentionally undermining his own organization?
[[I'd like to see the full speech, too, but it's possible that jstolzen is correct, at least based on the excerpts.]]
To consider the possibility he is correct, you would have to accept the premise she has had a decades old conspiracy to become a member of the Supreme Court. What is so hard to accept she believes her comments to the Federalist Society, other than entrenchment against her ? It appears the many of the anti-Miers forces are inflexible. They want their nuclear war now and damn anything that might prevent that confrontation.
The full text of her speech will give us an insight into her philosophy, beliefs and how she might rule on the Supreme Court. An insight that we have so far not been given.
No one has been able to give me a factual rebuttal that the democrats screwed up putting her on the list. They seem to adhere to 'only republicans and Bush can screw up'. They try to say because they put her there, they know more about her than Bush does. To say that stretches logic and credibility is an understatement. The conservative reaction is allowing them to take a deep sigh of relief and dodge the bullet that would have effectively fractured their base of support for 2006 and 2008. It would have sent their left wing Deaniac fringe into a full scale rebellion. While I respect everyone's right to their opinion, it is my opinion that conservatives opposing this nomination are short-sighted and are blowing an opportunity to deliver a blow to the left that will have repercussions for years, if not decades to come. Fracture their support now, and make gains in 2006 and 2008, and guarantee yourself the ability to totally reshape the Supreme Court. Instead, we are dividing ourselves to get a nominee put up that will energize and unite the democrat base so we can have that bloody battle over ideology NOW. It is flawed politics and threatens to destroy everything conservatives say they are fighting for.
To date, no one has been able to show Bush has not delivered on his judicial nominations pledge. We already know that a paper trail is no indication or guarantee, Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy are proof of that.
So give me the full transcript of that speech, let me hear and see the full testimony of the hearings to garner a fuller insight into what type of justice she would be. Bush's track record on judicial nominations deserves that much. I trust my gut instincts over letting the words of others, including vaunted conservative pundits, with no better knowledge or insights than I have, sway my opinion. I refuse to be a dittohead. Don't muddy the water with one's dislike for Bush or actions and policies outside judicial nominations.
"My President nominated an undistinguished, inexperienced, 60-year-old enigma to the Supreme Court and all I got was some lousy M&Ms."
When Brown vs. Board of Education was decided....7 of 9 Justices who decided it were not Judges beforehand. When Rehnquist was nominated, former judges were still in the minority. What's your beef exactly?
You have a problem with this? I don't.
Besides, this has been out for DAYS!
1989 again. And distorting by innuendo, shame on you. Are you saying you do not support equal rights for everyone ? There is nothing in her answers that suggest she favors special rights. In fact, her unwillingness to support repealing the law that criminalized consensual sex between same-sex couples is a more telling indication.
O.K. thanks - I dispute that this Administration is unfriendly to the Federalist Society - everyone from the President and Vice-President on down has had very nice things to say about them (so, no, not just nice things about the ABA) - look for yourself among 3,214 instances:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/query.html?col=colpics&qt=federalist+society
Good luck : )
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.