Miers' Texas Writings Reveal A Glint Of Liberalism (Souter In Skirts MEGA BARF Alert)

Los Angeles Times ^ | 10/14/05 | Scott Gold And Richard A. Serrano

[goldstategop]

She called for increased funding for legal services for the poor and suggested that taxes might have to be raised to achieve the notion of "justice for all."

She praised the benefits of diversity, called for measures that would send more minority students to law schools, and said that just because a woman was the head of the state bar did not mean that "all unfair barriers for women have been eradicated."

She was upset that although poverty was rising in Texas, impoverished families received a disproportionately small share of welfare and Medicaid benefits. ...

Dallas lawyer Mark Curriden said that although most lawyers in Texas agreed that Miers was "very smart," conservatives for the most part disliked her work with the bar.

"They don't trust the bar," he said. "They don't want anything to do with it."

[Reaganghost]

"I am amazed at the hysteria about her.."

The hysteria is not about her. The problem is Bush. Conservatives are slowly coming to the realization that Bush is just another go along to get along politician. He says what he thinks people want to hear to get elected or to exercise power while in office. Bush is not a solid conservative. His record proves it. Bush is not only a lame duck; he's a lame conservative that would rather get along than rock the boat or do what is right. Leadership is not doing what is politically possible. Leadership is doing what is right when everybody else wants something different.

[kittymyrib]

True conservatives in Texas never were under the illusion that Gov. George Bush was a conservative. He loved hobnobbing with the good ol' boys in the Democrat party and appointed few real conservatives to head Texas state agencies. Spending soared and state regulation of "independent" school districts became epidemic. We are not surprised by his refusal to nominate outspoken conservatives to the SCOTUS.

[Gondring]

I think your assessment is correct. Yet Bush still slapped conservatives in the face and made a weak move. I expect Miers will continue the degradation of the Constitution, not as much as Ginsberg or Breyer, but also not protecting it, like a strict constructionist would.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

ping

[xzins]

2nd is it true

Exactly. And in what context.

Most of what she says in the lead excerpt, I can agree with to a degree...if I get to put it in context.

Let's have the hearings. Let's listen to where she stands, and let's support her or not support her based on the facts.

That is definitely something we can agree on.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

It already has.

Miers has been defended by none other than Eleanor Smeal.

Yes, that Eleanor Smeal.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

True conservatives in Texas never were under the illusion that Gov. George Bush was a conservative.

Precisely.

All you have to do is listen to Tom Pauken for a few minutes to figure that out.

[Dane]

She's a late convert to conservatism. As far as we know she was a Democrat most of her life. She joined the Bush campaign when - in 1994?

Ronald Reagan was a FDR democrat and a union President.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

Yeah. She's a lousy pick. I just don't see what we can legitimately do about it.

[Redbob]

"They have some preconcieved pent-up rage over "knowing little about her"."

A thoroughly justified rage, if you consider some of the other justices that GOP Presidents have foisted on an uncritical people: David Souter, Anthony Kennedy, Sandy Day O'Connor,...

[GOPJ]

It didn't "come from the LA Times," it was published there. It's either factual or it's not. First, is it true. Second, if it is...deal with it.

You're right. It's "is it true or not", not where is it published. And what's with the name calling? We're not sexist or elitist. What's happening to Republicans?

[Condor51]

***At 60 years old she packs heat. That's not exactly anti-second Amendment.****

With all due respect, she doesn't "pack heat".

From the couple articles where the gun thing has been mentioned it has been further noted that:

• The gun - a .45 S&W revolver, was a gift from her brother when she first moved to Dallas a gazillion years ago.
  
• In said articles it was reported that she fired the gun exactly ONE TINE at a range, hit ZERO, and has put the gun 'away' - where it has since stayed.

So much for "packing heat" or being PRO 2nd Amendment.

And as its been noted many 'famous' limo lib gun grabbers pack heat, senator Di-Fi being the biggest hypocrite.

---

*** She's a Bush Loyalist.****

Excuse me but I don't want a "Bush Loyalist" on SCOTUS. I want a "Constitution Loyalist" there. And if she is a Bush loyalist, what does she do when Bush leave office? Hmmmm, I know... how about "grow intellectually" - i.e.; move left.

[Cboldt]

All I need to know is the Federalist Society doesn't like this nomination.

The Federalist Society NEVER takes a position on an issue, candidate or nominee.

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

Open, reasoned dialog is the ticket.

As a matter of objective truth, it is impossible to have a reasoned debate againt "trust" or "faith." Faith is a position held even in the face of contrary expression, regardless of the content of that contrary expression.

[Candy_nsuch]

What can be done?
I feel as if the conservative concerns are falling on deaf ears. Frankly, GW BUSH seems more annoyed & arrogant toward conservatives than anything.
What the Meir's defenders seem to forget is we the tax paying, civil right losing, American people are who will live with this fiasco for decades after GW BUSH returns to Crawford Texas.
I am very upset over this nomination and the more reaction I witness from the White House the more distressed I get.

[Kryptonite]

DEFEAT MEIRS IN COMMITTEE!

The best thing that could happen would be if Miers is defeated after a floor vote.

If Miers isn't confirmed in this fashion, Bush could always say screw you Harry Reid and nominate someone from not on Reid's list, thereby neutering the filibuster (heck the dems couldn't even support someone from their own list after all) or giving Republicans a big leg up on discrediting it altogether if the next nominee was actually filibustered. Having called their hand by picking Miers from Reid's list, he'd now be able to force feed someone else with rock-ribbed conservative credentials down their throats. Everyone would be happy except demonrats and all would then be right again.

Miers would have to be voted down first, instead of withdrawn or defeated in committee.

[Condor51]

*** The more we learn, the more alarming the news about Bush's choice gets. ***

I think you're 100% correct.

And one another thing that bugs me about her (among many) is she considers the Federalist Society as 'bad' and overtly political & the NAACP as not political at all.

So she's either a lair or a dope, maybe both. And I get the sick feeling its the last.
And those gushing cards she sent to Dubya - I'm still trying to figure out that move? Fawning toady or just a typical kiss a$$ looking for a promotion.

(of course by criticizing Harriet we're being sexist and "petulant")

[Dr. Scarpetta]

She's a lousy pick. I just don't see what we can legitimately do about it.

It's up to her to withdraw, or she'll probably be voted in. How can Republicans vote against her when they voted for Ginsberg, the ACLU liberal?

[Southack]

"I cannot imagine why Bush chose her, any explanation that makes sense is a negative one. Since he REFUSES to fight with the Dems over ANYTHING"

Have you been asleep for the past 5 years?!

Do you think that there was no fight over Bush's 3 income tax cuts? No fight over Bush's withdrawal from Kyoto and the ICC? No fight over Bush's national missile defense? No fight over opening up the Alaska Petroleum Reserve to new oil drilling? No fight over banning partial birth abortion?

No fight over going to war with Iraq?!

No fight over UN Ambassador Bolton?!

No fight to get right-wing judges such as Bill Pryor and Janice Rogers Brown confirmed to the federal bench?!

No fight to arm commercial pilots?!

What world have you been watching that you've seen Bush fight no fights in Washington?!

[Southack]

"All I need to know is the Federalist Society doesn't like this nomination. That's good enough for me... "

Except, if you are *honest*, you don't know what the Federalist Society likes or dislikes in any nomination (they take no position, ever).

[FedUpinNY]

We should be glad to have a 60 year old who's views are
so strong and conservative only George knows about. He
gets her through I'll never vote republican again.