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."

[goldstategop]

The cat's out of the bag. She may or may not have had a political evolution. But she was a member of the Texas Bar, considered the Federalist Society "too politically charged" and was a liberal. Who is she? Why, Harriet Miers! Souter In A Skirts MEGA-BARF! The more we learn, the more alarming the news about Bush's choice gets.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[BigSkyFreeper]

So now we're to trust anything that comes from the LA Times now?

[goldstategop]

Read the story. Texas is conservative and here we find a woman who's big on liberal causes. Maybe she changed. I have. But you can be guaranteed this just raises more questions about who Miers' is today.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Howlin]

Amazing, ain't it?

[John Robertson]

"So now we're to trust anything that comes from the LA Times now?"

Are you nucking futs? 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.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Read the story.

I did, doesn't change the fact that a bomb-throwing Liberal fishwrap is going to bat for Conservatives.

[BigSkyFreeper]

It "came from there", the writers are LA Times writers.

[goldstategop]

Still - its not gonna change many conservative bloggers' outrage. This is throwing more fuel on the fire.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[goldstategop]

Its their journalists. I wondered why Harry Reid recommended her. Now wonder no more.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[John Robertson]

"It "came from there", the writers are LA Times writers."

You're too smart not to have understood what I meant.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Still - its not gonna change many conservative bloggers' outrage.

Course it's not. What's obvious is Conservative bloggers are going out on limbs, digging through the rubbish to find anything, because unlike 61%, they don't want fair hearings. They have some preconcieved pent-up rage over "knowing little about her".

[BigSkyFreeper]

I wondered why Harry Reid recommended her.

Because he knew you'd be incensed with rage.

[goldstategop]

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? President Bush may know her personally but most people don't know her record and what they do learn only tells them that a lot of loyal conservatives were passed over. Its not exactly an exercise in celebrating conservative courage in Washington's hostile liberal culture.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[Kryptonite]

Ping me when a conservative blogger mentions the filibusters and the McCain-led Gang of 7's deal with the devil.

Until then I don't give a damn what any of them think.

[billclintonwillrotinhell]

What's obvious is Conservative bloggers are going out on limbs, digging through the rubbish to find anything, because unlike 61%, they don't want fair hearings. They have some preconcieved pent-up rage over "knowing little about her".

Who doesn't want fair hearings? There are some bloggers who would like to have NO hearings because they'd prefer Miers withdraw. Then Bush can nominate a judge who is ON RECORD being an originalist for a number of years as opposed to Miers, whose judicial philosophy is one big fat question mark, possibly even to herself.

[goldstategop]

We all mentioned that in the spring and the party leadership turned tail and ran. We worked hard to increase the GOP majority in the Senate and may find that instead of Scalia and Thomas clones on the Court we are stuck with squishy RINOs. No wonder people are fed up.

(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)

[BigSkyFreeper]

She's a late convert to conservatism.

Irrelevant

As far as we know she was a Democrat most of her life.

Irrelevant

She joined the Bush campaign when - in 1994?

Irrelevant

President Bush may know her personally but most people don't know her record...

Then why the sudden urge to throw her under the bus?

and what they do learn only tells them that a lot of loyal conservatives were passed over.

Like who?

[defenderSD]

My hunch, just an intuitive hunch about the Miers nomination, is that the Senate judiciary committe believes Miers does not want to overturn Roe v. Wade, while Bush believes she is also strongly opposed to legalization of gay marraige. Bush knows that she will not vote to create special rights for gays and other kinds of minorities that are not in the constitution. That inclination was implied by her recent statement about "the genius of our constitution." So Bush has a nominee who will vote to block gay marraige, while the senate believes they have a nominee who will uphold Roe v. Wade.

She will be confirmed after a few anticlimactic hearings, and conservatives will generally agree with her votes on the court. Miers will not create any problems for the GOP in '06 and '08. See you in the morning.

[BigSkyFreeper]

There are some bloggers who would like to have NO hearings because they'd prefer Miers withdraw.

Yes, I am aware of that. There are also some who believe she can be of more use on a lower court. If she can be of use on a lower court, why not the USSC?

Then Bush can nominate a judge who is ON RECORD being an originalist for a number of years as opposed to Miers, whose judicial philosophy is one big fat question mark, possibly even to herself.

Couldn't agree with you more there.

[Sometimes A River]

So are you saying she didn't do any of these things?

Then I imagine the corrections from the WH will be forthcoming...