Posted on 10/21/2005 11:44:20 PM PDT by indianrightwinger
Scholars Are Puzzled at Miers' Equal Protection Response By David G. Savage, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON -- When asked to describe the constitutional issues she had worked on during her legal career, Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers had relatively little to say on the questionnaire she sent to the Senate this week.
And what she did say left some constitutional experts shaking their heads.
At one point, Miers described her service on the Dallas City Council in 1989. When the city was sued for violating the Voting Rights Act, she said, the council "had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection clause."
But the Supreme Court repeatedly has said that the Constitution's guarantee of the "equal protection of the laws" does not mean that city councils or state legislatures must have enough minority members to match the proportion of blacks, Hispanics and Asians in the voting population.
"That's a terrible answer. There is no proportional representation requirement under the Equal Protection clause," said Burt Neuborne, a New York University law professor and expert on voting rights. "If a first-year law student wrote that and submitted it in class, I would send it back and say it was unacceptable."
Stanford law professor Pamela Karlan, also an expert on voting rights, said she was surprised the White House did not check Miers' questionnaire before sending it to the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
All this blah blah blah when they could just go back to Harriet and ask her "what do you mean?" (congressman billybob, among others, knows some plausible possibilities.)
Miers is going to drive her detractors nuts with hysteria at this rate, and they are going to discredit themselves.
Held: The judgment is reversed. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that political gerrymandering, such as occurred in this case, is properly justiciable under the Equal Protection Clause. Here, none of the identifying characteristics of a nonjusticiable political question are present. Disposition of the case does not involve this Court in a matter more properly decided by a coequal branch of the Government. There is no risk of foreign or domestic disturbance. Nor is this Court persuaded that there are no judicially discernible and manageable standards by which political gerrymandering cases are to be decided. The mere fact that there is no likely arithmetic presumption, such as the "one person, one vote" rule, in the present context does not compel a conclusion that the claims presented here are nonjusticiable. The claim is whether each political group in the State should have the same chance to elect representatives of its choice as any other political group, and this Court declines to hold that such claim is never justiciable. That the claim is submitted by a political group, rather than a racial group, does not distinguish it in terms of justiciability.http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/politicalscience/gillman/davisvbandemer.html
Ping!
That's what she said.
Miers is going to drive her supporters nuts when she withdraws before the hearings.
So either she screwed up, or now we know that she believes that the Equal Protection Clause mandates affirmative action. Gee, either way, how reassuring.
Exactly, and the reason I am still up late pondering.
:) Me too. What's confusing me is that her supporters here on this thread consider it a defense of her that she believes in Constitutionally protected affirmative action. Since when is that a good thing around these parts?
Scholars spend about half of their time being puzzled, the other half being confused. But that's a lot better than intellectuals, who spend half of their time being wrong and the other half being stuck up.
The difference may be that there are both republicans and conservatives on this forum. Remember, they are different. :-)
Oh well, now I started a flame!
Harriet E. Miers' mediocrity make you think her boss is mediocre too. Since he has valued her advice for years and has nominated her to the Supreme Court.
(Voted for GW twice and would do it again)
She has no idea what she said or what she was supposed to say.
No ill feeling against Bush in this whole Miers' episode. Only wish that he will pull the plug. Andy Card is the root of this debacle.
Yes, I would vote for Bush again. This time, with the prayer that he will really nominate someone in the mold of Scalia/Thomas.
LOL! It's impossible for them to "discredit themselves" when they are perfectly write. At best, Miers supporters can spin so hard that they come up with some ridiculous roundabout way of making it sound like she knows what she's talking about.. It doesn't discredit her detractors, since they're right on the law; if anything, supporters discredit themselves in their transparent effort to put lipstick on a bad situation.
Yes they are perfectly "write." They write vitriol at a fever pitch. That's all that can be said about them.
uh huh I've got your vitriol write here, buddy! :p
*SIGH!* But if they only "knew her heart," like President Bush!
[/sarcasm]
Hee!
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.