Window Into Miers' Legal Thinking in the 1990s Reflects a Glint of Liberalism

Los Angeles Times ^ | 10/14/2005 | Scott Gold and Richard A. Serrano

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

HOUSTON — In the early 1990s, lawyer-bashing was all the rage. And Harriet Miers didn't like it one bit.

Then the president of the State Bar of Texas, Miers used her monthly column in the Texas Bar Journal to condemn politicians who were trying to score points by disparaging the legal profession. She suggested the criticism was myopic, and noted that it was coming, by and large, from Republicans.

It was time, she wrote, to "fight back."

The written record of President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court is meager. But her musings in the Texas Bar Journal in 1992 and 1993 offer a window into a different era for Miers.

At the time, she was perched atop a fractious organization of 55,000 lawyers that included law-and-order prosecutors, boardroom advisors and legal clinicians paid in chickens on the border. The crosscurrents were fierce, and Miers fought them by choosing a path that could safely be described as politically moderate and, at times, liberal — by Texas standards anyway.

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."

[MNJohnnie]

Source where we can see the actual facts rather then the adaptations of what she supposedly said? Considering the number of times the anti-Miers have deliberately misquoted and misrepresented what Miers actually said this week, we have NO reason to trust the Anti-Miers veracity any more.

[MNJohnnie]

written record of President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court is meager. But her musings in the Texas Bar Journal in 1992 and 1993 offer a window into a different era for Miers.

Perhaps the Anti-Miers can explain why I am suppose to hyperventilate about these out of context statements from 1992-93 and ignore the Oct 2005 endorsement of Miers by both the Executive VP of the Federalist Society and Conservative Hero Judge Pickering?

Sorry this is just more flailing around by the anti-Miers for some justification for their current hissy fit.

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Sorry this is just more flailing around by the anti-Miers

You forgot to work in the mandatory accusations of "elitism," "sexism," "liberalism," "treason" and "live kitten-swallowing."

[Panerai]

State Bar organizations around the country are full of liberals, ELITE liberals. I think it's kind of ridiculous the Administration calling Miers objectors "elite", when Miers is nothing but an "elite".

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

I think it's kind of ridiculous the Administration calling Miers objectors "elite", when Miers is nothing but an "elite".

Miers' glassy-eyed acolytes only misuse the word "elitist" as habitually as they do because they don't actually know what it means, save in the cloudiest and most imperfect sense.

[Redgirl]

Add "RINO" to that list too.... :)

[sopwith]

Dump the dame.
This is the supreme court, no guessing games.

[GarySpFc]

I would suggest you read the following link. It should dispel this liberal nonsense.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502907/posts

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

My favorite is "judicial oligarchist."

:-)

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

Read it. Spectacularly UNconvincing.

Being an "Evangelical Christian" is no guarantee whatsoever that one may not, simultaneously, be a shrieking and wild-eyed liberal. (See: "James Earl Carter.")

suggested that taxes might have to be raised to achieve the notion of "justice for all."

She praised the benefits of diversity

Speaking of "liberal nonsense": wannna clue me in as to which chapter(s) and verse(s), specifically, The Masked Evangelical here is pulling those out of...?

[OldFriend]

How many times is this article going to appear on FR?

[LibLieSlayer]

Not to mention Bush-bot, moderate, dolt, stuck on stupid, liberal, Kool-Aid drinker, not a "true" Conservative, and party-line bot!

After all of these bad words, I have to go rinse out my mouth with soap! ;-)

LLS

[LibLieSlayer]

Please let me add "glassy-eyed acolytes" to my prior word list! You coined a new one! Are you sure you are not an elite? ;-)

LLS

[GarySpFc]

Being an "Evangelical Christian" is no guarantee whatsoever that one may not, simultaneously, be a shrieking and wild-eyed liberal. (See: "James Earl Carter.")

There is no way Mieers could teach in an independent Christian Church and be a liberal. It simply is not possible.

[Capitalism2003]

Why not Janice Rogers Brown...WHY WHY WHY?

She was Ronald Reagan reincarnated.

http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/brown.html

[Capitalism2003]

Janice Rogers Brown On American Government

Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible. [“A Whiter Shade of Pale,” Speech to Federalist Society (April 20. 2000)(“Federalist speech” at 8]

Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled; community impoverished; religion marginalized and civilization itself jeopardized....When did government cease to be a necessary evil and become a goody bag to solve our private problems? [“Hyphenasia: the Mercy Killing of the American Dream,” Speech at Claremont-McKenna College (Sept. 16, 1999) at 3,4]

In the last 100 years – and particularly in the last 30 – ...[g]overnment has been transformed from a necessary evil to a nanny – benign, compassionate, and wise. Sometimes transformation is a good thing. Sometimes, though, it heralds not higher ground but rather, to put a different gloss on Pat Moynihan’s memorable phrase, defining democracy down. [“Fifty Ways to Lose Your Freedom,” Speech to Institute of Justice (Aug. 12, 2000)(“IFJ speech”) at 2]

[W]e no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens. [IFJ speech at 3-4]

Government acts as a giant siphon, extracting wealth, creating privilege and power, and redistributing it. [Speech at McGeorge School of Law (Nov. 21, 1997) at 18][See also Landgate, Inc. v. California Coastal Commission, 953 P.2d 1188, 1212 (Cal. 1998)(Brown, J., dissenting)(re ferring to government as “relentless siphon.”)]

have argued that collectivism was (and is) fundamentally incompatible with the vision that undergirded this country’s founding. The New Deal, however, inoculated the federal Constitution with a kind of underground collectivist mentality. The Constitution itself was transmuted into a significantly different document...1937...marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution...Politically, the belief in human perfectibility is another way of asserting that differences between the few and the many can, over time, be erased. That creed is a critical philosophical proposition underlying the New Deal. What is extraordinary is the way that thesis infiltrated and effected American constitutionalism over the next three-quarters of a century. Its effect was not simply to repudiate, both philosophically and in legal doctrine, the framers’ conception of humanity, but to cut away the very ground on which the Constitution rests... In the New Deal/Great Society era, a rule that was the polar opposite of the classical era of American law reigned [Federalist speech at 8, 10, 11, 12]

In the last 100 years – and particularly the last 30 – the Constitution, once the fixed chart of our aspirations, has been demoted to the status of a bad chain novel.

anice Rogers Brown on democracy, capitalism, socialism, and “liberalism”:
Democracy and capitalism seem to have triumphed. But, appearances can be deceiving. Instead of celebrating capitalism’s virtues, we offer it grudging acceptance, contemptuous tolerance, but only for its capacity to feed the insatiable maw of socialism. We do not conclude that socialism suffers from a fundamental flaw. We conclude instead that its ends are worthy of any sacrifice – including our freedom….1937…marks the triumph of our own socialist revolution. [Federalist speech at 6-7, 10]


more here...read it and weep (for our loss).

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=12751#1

[KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle]

There is no way Mieers could teach in an independent Christian Church and be a liberal. It simply is not possible.

Don't dodge. Answer the question, please (I'll repeat it, here):

suggested that taxes might have to be raised to achieve the notion of "justice for all."

She praised the benefits of diversity

Speaking of "liberal nonsense": wannna clue me in as to which chapter(s) and verse(s), specifically, The Masked Evangelical here is pulling those out of...?

[G.Mason]

"You forgot to work in the mandatory accusations of "elitism," "sexism," "liberalism," "treason" and "live kitten-swallowing.""

A very interesting e-mail to Hugh Hewitt

You may find this interesting, then again?

"Mr. Hewitt:

I am a practicing commercial litigator who thus far supports the nominee (although I am reserving final judgment until the hearings). I am also flummoxed by the rush among the Washington DC Conservative Establishment both to condemn this nomination and to dictate to the President of the United States that he must chose a nominee from a list of "pre-approved" names of probably 20 or so acceptable jurists.

Just for fun, I compared Miers' qualifications with that of another potential nominee, Judge Edith Brown Clement on the 5th Circuit, and found them to be very similar -- almost eerily similar. Actually, I would say "Creepy Similar." Like, "These Two Could Be Twins" similar.

By way of background, Judge Clement was one of the judges that Peggy Noonan described in her WS Journal article as being an acceptable alternative to Miers. Others have dropped her name as well (according to Mona Charen's most recent article, David Frum also cited her as a good choice, but I could not confirm this independently). Also, Clement was leaked as the early pick for the seat that ultimately went to Roberts. Based on the fact that Miers lead the search, I am not surprised that, considering their similarities in age and experience, Clement rose to the top of the list. (There's a scoop there for someone to follow and report on!)

Consider the following:

1. Both Miers and Clement went to regional Southern schools -- well respected locally, but without real national profile. (Clement: B.A. Univ of Alabama '69 and J.D. Tulane Law '73; Miers B.S. SMU '67 and J.D. SMU Law '70). I know Miers was Law Review, honors, etc, and I assume Clement was as well.

2. Both clerked for federal district court judges in the South in the early '70s (trial court judges, not the typical federal appellate clerkships for SCOTUS nominees). Clement clerked for Judge Christenberry, E.D. La. from 1973-75; Miers clerked for Judge Estes, N.D. Tex. from 1970-72.

3. Both enjoyed long, successful careers in large Southern law firms. From 1975 to 1991, Clement practiced principally maritime litigation at Jones Walker -- a well respected firm of about 200 lawyers with offices throughout Louisiana (Baton Rouge, New Orleans) and in Texas (mainly Houston). From 1972 through 1996, Miers practiced commercial and business litigation with Locke Purnell -- again, a well respected firm of about 200 lawyers with offices throughout north Texas (Austin, Fort Worth, Dallas).

4. In the early to mid 1990s, both obtained some of the highest levels of success in their profession. In 1991, Bush I appointed Clement to a district court judge position in the E. D. La. (the same place she clerked almost 20 years prior). Miers did not receive a trial court appointment, but in 1992 was elected President of the State Bar of Texas (she was President of the Dallas State Bar in '84). In 1996, Miers' partners voted her president of Locke Purnell. Locke Purnell then merged with another large Texas firm (based in Houston), became Locke Liddell, and Miers was elected co-managing partner of this new firm by her new and old partners -- the firm was by then one of the largest in Texas. This type of prominent position gave Miers access to very important people, and Miers impressed the newly elected Governor and received some legal appointments that sound a little silly now (counsel to gubernatorial transition team, Lottery Commission chair, etc).

5. In 2001, Bush appointed Clement to a seat on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals and she was confirmed immediately 99-0 (not considered too controversial). Miers, however, went with Bush to DC and moved from WH staff secretary to WH deputy chief of staff to WH counsel -- all assistant to pres/ policy positions. (Note: I am tired of people describing staff secretary as a "paper shuffling" position -- the position is currently held by Brett Kavanaugh, a lawyer who is a former Supreme Court clerk, a Ken Starr protégé, and a Presidential nominee for a seat on the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. The fact that Miers has been dismissed as a "secretary" is the one place where I would say sexism has entered this debate. Nobody has ever dismissed Kavanaugh as a secretary.)

Considering their similarities in age and background, it does not surprise me one bit that Clement rose to the top of Miers' list. In fact, it actually surprises me a lot that Clement did not get the first SCOTUS nod (according to a Wash Post story, Clement came pretty close, but she and Bush did not hit it off in the interview whereas Bush and Roberts did). But I think this demonstrates pretty clearly that Miers possesses almost identical qualifications as Clement. But Clement is being suggested as an alternative by the same people who are suggesting that Miers is unqualified?

In fact, I would go one better -- I have, in my law practice, encountered some federal trial judges in some rural areas who are pretty dense (I'm not speaking of Clement -- I don't know her at all). But I have never, ever met a managing partner of a firm the size of Locke Liddell that I did not consider to be real bright. DC folk may not see this, but I am convinced that Bush sees Miers as an extremely successful Texas lawyer who is comparable or even interchangeable experientially with someone like Clement. (Or, for that matter, other "big firm Texas types" like Priscilla Owens who received her J.D. from Baylor in '77 before spending 17 years at Andrews & Kurth or Gonzalez who spent 12 years at Vinson & Elkins (he did go to Harvard)).

I bet Bush is hearing about this bugaboo from others, turning to Laura and saying -- what's the fuss?

I think two things are going on here. First, some independent minded/ con law bloggers (like Glen Reynolds) really want a SCOTUS nominee who is a "public intellectual" -- Professor/Judge McConnell is probably the most mentioned and I really cannot think of another on the radar (Posner?). There aren't many. Second, most prominent conservative opinion writers -- people who spent their whole lives writing opinions in and out of government -- want a judge who has spent his or her whole life writing opinions in and out of government. Luttig, Wilkinson, Rogers Brown all fit this mold. There's a fair amount of "self identification as qualification" going on here.

Me, I am a practitioner and I want someone who has practiced for a long time, and who has achieved the highest level of success in practice. I would be fine with Clement or Owens, but the President decided Miers was his pick and I really cannot quibble. He makes judgment calls on jurisprudence and temperament (subject to consent of the Senate), not me -- if there's any place he's earned my trust, it's on this.

If Miers was denied confirmation in place of someone in the "public intellectual/ judge for life" mold it is quite possible that for the first time in this nation's history the Supreme Court of the United States would consist of no one who has either (a) tried a case or (b) spent a significant portion of his or her life not in academia, in government or on the bench (with the exception of the 10 year appellate practice that C.J. Roberts engaged in). I do not think that would be a good thing.

In any event, I enjoy your analysis and, again, feel free to use as much of this as you deem appropriate. I do think the comparison between the careers of Miers and Clement is an original take and is worth posting.

Regards,

--Bob"

From ... http://www.hughhewitt.com/

[B Knotts]

Forget putting JRB on the Supreme Court...there's our 2008 presidential candidate!