Posted on 10/23/2005 5:34:36 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WASHINGTON – Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat, WorldNetDaily has learned.
While some conservative leaders and organizations were stunned by the appointment, most were not alarmed by the lack of a paper trail by the nominee who has never served as a judge at any level.
But a profile of her positions as a leader of the American Bar Association, a Dallas city councilwoman and as presidential counselor is unlikely to ease the concerns of those who were expecting Bush to fulfill his promise to name a justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.
According to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Miers has taken positions as White House counsel that violate the law banning women in combat.
"As White House counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments," she said.
Donnelly believes the actions of Miers could lead directly to a future court ruling requiring women to register with the Selective Service for the draft because they are now being, against the wishes of Congress, assigned to land combat.
"I am very disappointed by the president's choice," she said. "Ms. Miers does not have a judicial 'paper trail,' but her record as White House counsel is a legitimate cause for concern. Democrats and liberals who were willing to use the military for purposes of social experimentation have reason to be pleased."
Donnelly also concludes that Miers approved the Bush administrations retention of President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" regulations, which, she says, are different from the 1993 law passed by Congress
Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.
Under the heading Family Law and subheading Adoption, the document states: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child."
Also included, under the heading International Law and Practice, is a recommendation for "the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."
Along with the proposed agenda was a memo, dated Oct. 28, 1998, that explained the document.
"The Committee urges all Delegates to review this list for items of interest to their constituencies, and to act as the catalyst for further contact and action so that each entity will have the earliest opportunity for consideration and input."
The memo is signed by Miers as chairwoman of the Select Committee of the House.
As a city councilwoman, Miers also said Dallas had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services. And she courted the support of the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas in her successful 1989 campaign.
In addition, economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council.
"IKnowYouAreButWhatAmI?" :>)
No-one is saying that Ms. Miers is a horrible person; they're saying she is a horrible nominee to the SCOTUS.
Try to not confuse the two issues.
And congratulations "Big Gulp" Republicans...for putting party over principle, for wanting a fight with Conservatives more than bringing the "Moderates" to heel...for selling out Conservatives in FAVOR of the very politicians that are the problem here (Spector over Toomey...Chaffee over his Conservative challenger)...and for trying to ram "Trust Me" down our throats again, just like Daddy did!
Oh, and thanks for Cronyism over Competence, and calling Conservatives "sexists/racists/eeee-litists" just like the DemonRATs do...you and this administration have sealed for all time the fact that Chucky Schumer and Hillary can call Conservatives "sexists/racists/eeee-litists" and you and your blind faith/support has given them this weapon!
Thanks for the clarification. You are right. Having it as an agenda item is no proof of support. I am a real foe of the ICC.
Well, that certainly lends clarity to the issue.
Why don't you just followup on Mr.Dane's posts with a "Me too"?
Thank you. I would be a complete idiot to have not done so.
And in case it doesn't occur to you, I've implicitly insulted you.
Most Leftists are just plain stupid. But they are the enablers of the malevolent Leftist leaders, including a considerable number of sociopaths.
citing platitudes like how she "supported her mother" or "goes to church" is not a defense of her suitability to sit on the highest court in the land for life.
You should learn the difference. Apparently the white house needs to as well.
"You have established your own litmus test for this nomination as shirley as the left has established theirs."
Don't call him shirley.
It's a defense of ad hominem attacks. Why don't you get a tutor so you can get into the third grade reading comprehension group?
The more we learn about Miers, the worse she looks, a prediction I made the day after her nomination.
There is indeed a difference, which is why it was interesting she said she was opposed to legalizing it, not just that she found it "icky" but they had the right to do it.
The idea that she would then be okay with gay marriage is so....beyond retarted.
Here's a suggestion. MYOB or quit whining. Either way is okie dokie with me.
I have not seen anyone debunk Elaine Donnelly's comments about Miers and women in combat. I have enormous respect for Elaine and don't think anyone can deny that she has credibility on this issue. I have excerpted her comments about Miers from her website and pasted them in below so you can compare her own words to Farah's reporting.
Given the evidence that Miers supports affirmative action and other elements of feminist ideology, I confess to doubts that the President disregarding sound advice is the most likely explanation for the situation that Donnelly describers. I think there is very real cause for concern here.
Why do pro-Miers folks think her former law partner described her as a liberal on issues other than abortion if she is the conservative that we all want to believe she is? I believe he said it for one reason: because it is true.
______________________________________________________ http://www.cmrlink.org/terrorismwar.asp?DocID=255
As CMR[Center for Military Readiness] has reported in a series of articles on this website (See Issues/Women in Combat), since 2004 the Department of the Army has been violating current Defense Department regulations regarding the assignment of women in land combat. At issue are the improper assignments of female soldiers to certain land combat support units that collocate (operate 100% of the time) with infantry, armor, and Special Operations Forces, which are required to be all male.
In allowing the Army to do this, the Department of Defense has been circumventing a law requiring official notice of proposed rule changes to Congress at least three months in advance. The law also requires an analysis of the effect of rule changes on women’s exemption from Selective Service registration. None has been provided.
There are only three explanations for this disappointing situation. As White House Counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Defense Department’s illicit assignments of women to units required to be all-male, without prior notice to Congress as required by law, or she was unaware of the long-term legal consequences of those improper assignments, or she gave sound advice that the president did not heed.
When the president falsely stated she was the most qualified candidate he could find, he locked her into this nomination. Were she to withdraw, and the President nominated any one of the known candidates on his list, that candidate's better qualifications would highlight the fib he told.
The Democrats are not going to be too bothered by this nomination. If she has a hearing, she will be confirmed.
I seriously once thought of GWB to be like Michael, but it is obvious he is not. It is sad however, since Michael knew to take out his enemies. GWB simply gives his enemies the bullets.
The more I think about it, it truly is the Tessio situation. Tessio thought he would get over on Mike by making a deal with Barzini. By doing so, he sold out the family and himself. The same is true with Meirs. GWB made a deal from weakness and thought us lapdogs would not realize it the same way Tessio thought Michael would fall for the "gesture of peace."
In the end, unless GWB becomes more like Michael Corleone and less like Fredo and Tessio, he will go down like his father.
To be quiet honest, I am insulted at how this administration thought we would not see past its shallow attempt to make a deal with Reid and Specter and throw its most ardent supporters into the wind.
Rightttt.... everyone else is wrong... Bush is right... trust him.... trust him.... you are getting very sleepy..... trust him
Certainly can't argue with that... :)
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.