Posted on 10/23/2005 5:00:29 PM PDT by Crackingham
When Harriet E. Miers, President Bush's Supreme Court nominee, was moving toward the presidency of the State Bar of Texas in 1992, she enthusiastically supported an effort by the group to guarantee positions on its board of directors to female and minority lawyers, her two immediate predecessors said on Saturday. The two former presidents said Ms. Miers had recognized the value in making sure the group's leadership reflected the state's diversity.
Ms. Miers's position at the time, which was reported in The Washington Post on Saturday, concerns some conservative groups, who fear that her support for diversity may veil sympathies for affirmative action and quota systems and indicate how she may vote on the Supreme Court.
"She was all for minority participation on the board," said James Parsons III, the group's president from 1990 to 1991, who initiated the policy. "When she became president, and she was our first woman president, she made a statement that the bar association should always reflect the community and large diversity of the population of the state."
Among the first lawyers to win appointment to the board under the program were Alberto R. Gonzales, the current attorney general, who is Hispanic, and Sheila Jackson-Lee, a member of the House of Representatives since 1994, who is black.
Bob Dunn, who followed Mr. Parsons as president from 1991 to 1992, said financial problems within the association forced him and Ms. Miers to cut the number of board members when they served. "But at the same time, she continued the expansion of the role of minorities," Mr. Dunn said. "She did not want to go back from what we were doing."
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
RINOs need love too....dangit!
Quota Queen.
Souter in Miers' clothing.
"When she became president, and she was our first woman president, she made a statement that the bar association should always reflect the community and large diversity of the population of the state."
Shelia Jackson-Lee... OMG :-)
Yehp... no problem with this nominee... definitely a conservative... trust W on this one... you'll be just fine :-)
If you are a poor white male or middle class white male this country really sticks it to you.
Illegal alien anchor babies get preferential treatment in getting into colleges and jobs than poor and middle class white males.
The non minority academic diversity mongers that promote affirmative action need to give up their own jobs to minorities if they really support it. Easy for them to have discrimination when they are already settled into their careers.
You never hear the stories from the media or the diversity mongers of the kids that couldn't get into the college they wanted to get into because of reverse racial discrimination.
The washington conservative groups put all our ammo into Gonzalez and when Miers was first hinted by the white house we had no opposition research to hit them with.
Miers is just as every bit as bad as Gonzalez.
I can already hear the defensive posture: That was her political view, not what she'll do as a judge. Heard that one already. Sorry, Georgie, this one's a lemon.
IIRC, Bush seemed very affectionate toward Shiela Jackson Lee after some of his State of the Union messages. Which I found odd at the time.
Now it makes more sense.
Care to weigh in on this one?
The hearings are a charade.
The republicans voted for Ruth Bader Ginsberg who is even more liberal than Miers. Miers is a lock for her nomination because the dems won't block her. Dems are secretly thrilled she is the nominee because they like mediocore judges with no core principles. She was the ABA board. She is a dream nominee to the dems. They'd rather have an unqualified rino than a brilliant scholar conservative.
Anyone that is hoping that she will be stopped at the hearings is missing the larger picture. The dye was cast with the gang of 14 months ago. Because of that group Reid had the power to veto any nominee and his recommendation was vital. The hearings are for the cameras. Miers confirmation was assured when Reid recommended her.
Would the white house stop with the lies. One thing to be in a box and have to nominate a rino because of the fillabuster. But it is another thing to lie and call a rino a strict constructionist. Can someone at Fox ask Bush how being in favor of quotas is a strict constructionist?
Miers was setting the precedent for her own appointment to the Supreme Court in the set-aside seat for the differently abled.
I'm withholding judgment on Ms. Miers, but I need to weigh in on this--
Bar Associations are extremely, and notoriously, politically correct. Diversity is the watchword of the decade. It might sound incredibly hypocritical, but you must absolutely bite your tongue and repeat the mantra if you want to get along in such an environment. For some, the political ramifications are not worth it. To speak out against PC concepts such as "diversity" would be to relegate yourself professionally to trolling for automobile accident victims out of a strip mall, or worse, your car!!
It's a private group, they can run it how they see fit. I thought that was a conservative value.
Oh yeah BTW, when did Ms. Miers go to court to force AA on the Texas Bar. She didn't.
But why did Miers chose Bar politics instead of a career of substantive legal achievements such as pursued by, e.g., Janice Rodgers Brown or Theodore Olson?
Because she's a lamer, that's why. A mediocrity.
Perhaps, but drawing conclusions based on support for a program such as this is grasping at straws. Most conservative attorneys don't come out of the closet unless and until they become so successful they are untouchable.
It's the nature of the legal profession these days, sad to say!
Uh she didn't only go into Bar politics, she was also in corporate law, and personally I think it is good to have someone on SCOTUS with real trial experience instead of being solely a judge.
Heck I think a welder by trade would be a good pick for SCOTUS rather than exclusively of people who stay in the bubble aristocracy of academia law and judgeships.
It's a private group, they can run it how they see fit. I thought that was a conservative value.
L I E
The Texas State Bar is a branch of the government. This is not private sector outreach after all.
http://www.texasbar.com/Template.cfm?Section=About_the_State_Bar
Ok a quais-private group.
The Bar is like an independent contractor for the state of Texas as is the AMA. They administer and license lawyers, but they are not under the direct auspices of the Texas legislature or executive barnch.
No Bar head is elected popularly or appointed by the executive barnch.
The Bar runs it's internal dealings without influence from the Texas state govt.
"Get along" is one thing; promote this, which is what is being discussed, is something completely different.
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.