End the denial.
This really is more than only a flesh wound...
Posted on 10/22/2005 12:29:10 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
Miers supported affirmative action: paper
Sat Oct 22, 2005 1:46 AM ET167
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers supported affirmative action goals in the early 1990s when she served as president of the State Bar of Texas, the Washington Post reported on Saturday.
Miers wrote that "our legal community must reflect our population as a whole," and under her leadership the lawyers' association supported racial and gender set-asides and numerical targets for jobs, the newspaper reported.
With Miers' nomination already under attack from conservatives who have questioned her suitability for the high court, the Post said the nominee's stance on affirmative action could give opponents new ammunition in their drive to force her to withdraw.
The newspaper quoted a White House spokesman as saying Miers' record as president of the Texas bar does not demonstrate how she would vote on affirmative action questions involving government hiring that are before the Supreme Court.
The Washington Post also reported that U.S. senators are seeking information about $140,000 paid to Miers' Dallas law firm when President George W. Bush was running for Texas governor in 1998.
Yeah, but before he was elected President we knew he had become "Ronald Reagan". What do we really know about Miers?
You mean the Ronald Reagan as Gov. of California who signed a pro-abortion bill.
yes. I don't really know where you are going with that question, btw. In any event, you seem to be conceeding the point we knew a ton about Reagan before voting for him whereas Miers is an unknown. And Bush promised us he would nominate someone in the mold of Scalia and Thomas and that promise was made long after we all knew what both Scalia and Thomas had done on the court
Do you really think that GW Bush wants his legacy to be that he appointed another souter.
Send me in, coach! ;-)
Now you are sliming RWR. Of course this diverts attention from Harriet, but it does little to actually bolster her sagging nomination. Furthermore, most folks on this board admire or adore the Gipper.
So you might want to rethink your strategy if your goal is to actually shore up her nomination.
How am I sliming RWR, by stating the truth that he was a FDR democrat, union president, and as Gov. of California signed a pro-abortion bill.
Gee are you a "Reaganbot".
There is too much that is unknown and therefore her credentials do not meet the criteria established by Bush's own promises.
Bush too, like Reagan, could have changed; only for the worse.
I desire some objective, measureable, verifiable, conservative criteria not some vague "trust me" words.
Mr. Bush, tear down this wall of uncertainty.
JRB, baby.
Judging by the fact President Bush nominated Harriet Miers instead of much more qualified legal minds, it would appear Bush actually believes in "gender set-asides" (or quotas), as well.
this belief would go under the broad category of compassionate conservative..........however, I think Bush has broadened "gender set-asides" to "even unqualified women need a little quota now and then - who says our greatest Court in the land should only strive for excellence?
I believe that the University of Chicago should hire me as a professor of cytology. I am a woman and I worked as a Registered Nurse in a major hospital. I believe I have "real-world" experience that I can bring to the scientific discussion. I mean, why do all those scientific elitists who spend their days behind the microsopic lens only get professorships?
This program gets better every day. Bush may be an intelligernt man but it shows that he can be used by toadies that "attach" themselves to him.
"And how about the NBA? Should that reflect our population as a whole? The United States has a Black population of 12%. The NBA has a Black population that is over 80%. QUICK--DO SOMETHING!!!"
Thats only the half of the it. The NBA does not employ many short people, doesn't have any handicapped people, and doesn't employ a single woman!
Reagan also famously said:
"I did not leave the Democratic Party, the Democratic Party left me."
The Dims will love it, but there will be a major fight among conservative GOP Senators and from that fight Harriet will lose enough GOP votes to cost her the nomination. If Frist is smart and really wanting to do the right thing for GWB and the party, he will go let GWB know that now.
If I were Senator Allen, I would put that opposition-to-Harriet coalition together and deliver its "nay" votes to Frist.
He (Allen) might as well start earning his street creds with the GOP base. They'd love him for it.
What the Post missed is that Miers was reportedly more vocal than usual about this case--aligning herself with Gonzales but not leaving a paper trail that shows her role in fighting the outright opposition to preferences that Ted Olson wanted to take.
The only corroboration is from people who were there:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1502612/posts
Do you actually think that if she found a cause for sex and race set asides in private she would not find a reason to do the same in the public arena of the Supreme Court? It would seem that a lawyer may have had some inkling that set asides were unconstitutional even if done in private practice. Her failure to do so indicates that she views sex and racial set asides as being constitutional
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.