Posted on 10/24/2005 5:56:40 AM PDT by aceintx
Another skeleton Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers was deeply involved in an American Bar Association scheme that forces lawyers to pool their clients' funds into checking accounts and pass on the interest to "public interest" law firms, Evan Gahr reports at www.chimpstein.com. The program, known as Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts, or IOLTA, was intended to provide legal services to the poor but often ends up promoting left-wing causes, Mr. Gahr said. IOLTA has helped fund "a panoply of left-wing advocates, including a California group that sued to overturn the state's parental consent law for abortion, a gay organization that tried to force the organizers of St. Patrick's Day Parade in Boston to include a contingent of gay marchers, and a Texas outfit that sued to disqualify military absentee ballots," he writes. Mr. Gahr added: "Now, Chimpstein.com has discovered an obscure report which places Miers at the forefront of the American Bar Association's successful effort to foist IOLTA on the nation. This is the smoking gun which at least one conservative group tried to locate and failed." Law professor Charles Rounds, who opposed the scheme, said, "IOLTA is a program, created by state supreme courts or state legislation, whereby lawyers pool client funds -- small sums and large sums held for short periods of time -- into a designated interest-bearing checking account. The interest that is generated on those pooled funds is then funneled through a judicially created legal foundation to various 'public interest' legal firms." Miss Miers in the 1990s served on the American Bar Association's Consortium on Legal Services and the Public, which pushed the idea, Mr. Gahr said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
There's been a fear since she came out that she might be a smoke screen so that he could bring on someone (like Al) who only looked better by comparison. Certainly based on qualifications Al has her beaten hands down. He has the pedigree to serve on the court. What bothers me about him is that I think he has an axe to grind in favor of hispanics. I don't think he has the objectivity necessary to be a fair SCJ. But Bush doesn't either when it comes to hispanics, so it really wouldn't surprise me if Gonzales DID come out of the wings. And if conservatives manage to get the Miers nomination pulled, it would be next to impossible to do it twice, especially for someone who is qualified.
I am unsure who this "we" is you are referring to, white man. [allusion to proverbial comment by Tonto to the Lone Ranger]
But, that comment certainly exposes this "we" as incapable of understanding a life that walked in Harriet's size 6 moccasins.
"What caused them to retreat?"
I don't know. Maybe it finally dwned on them that they've been supporting an empty suit?
The Republicans wouldn't have to lift a finger.
It would be DOA.
That doesn't mean I think Bush would refrain from a Gonzales pick.
In fact, I don't believe he would hesitate for a moment in pulling the trigger, even if he knew beforehand that Gonzales would never make it out of committee.
You left out Bush's biggest and stinkiest turd:
Social Security Totalization Agreement with Mexico, signed June 29, 2004.
With it, Mexican illegal aliens will get unprecidented access to our Social Security system. The Mexican illegal alien only need work for 6 quarters (18 months or 1-1/2 years) before they become eligible to apply for and receive SS benefits, at home, in Mexico. US citizens (you and me) have to work for 40 quarters (10 years) before we're allowed to apply.
Not only that, the Mexican illegal alien can apply for, and receive benefits for his Mexican wife and Mexican children, even if his wife and kids have never stepped foot in the USA.
Now you know why Bush is so hot to get his 'guest worker' program in place.
B T T T
Your hope is in vain. She is Souter-in-drag. What little is known about her indicates she is a closet liberal. Look at her support for gay agendas, affirmative action, etc. She makes O'Connor look like a full-blown conservative.
My impression-and correct me if I'm wrong-has been that Bush has an ax to grind in favor of MEXICANS.
Primarily, Mexicans who reside in this country illegally.
There is a huge distinction to be made between those two groups.
As the Puerto Ricans who have been lobbying this administration-to no apparent effect-for a change in status for Puerto Rico, from an ELA to a state, might tell you.
Or for that matter, the Cuban exiles who demonstrated so vociferously in favor of Elian Gonzalez maintaining his freedom on U.S. soil, but were greeted with a rather tepid response by candidate Bush.
Not to mention, the many Argentinians, Venezuelans, and other South Americans who are denied an opportunity to enter this country legally, simply because border jumpers from Mexico are given priority of place by the Bush administration.
I think that agreement only applies to Mexicans LEGALLY working in the U.S.:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/pending/mexican.asp
January 06 2004 03:29:00 PM EST
President Bush is set to present his immigration proposal Wednesday.
WASHINGTON, Jan 06, 2004 (United Press International via COMTEX) --
President Bush wants to let some of the eight million illegal aliens in the United States move toward legal status without penalty -- but with benefits. His proposals, part of a sweeping change in U.S. immigration policy, will be revealed Wednesday, the Washington Times reported.
Bush will propose that illegal aliens from Mexico, and possibly other countries, who pay U.S. Social Security taxes, but provide false identification numbers, be allowed to collect benefits.
"The president has long talked about the importance of having an immigration policy that matches willing workers with willing employers," said White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan Monday.
The plan is expected to be opposed by Republicans on Capitol Hill, but it will be embraced by Mexican President Vicente Fox when he meets Bush during a Jan. 12-14 meeting in Monterrey, Mexico.
The changes have long been advocated by Fox, whose close relationship with Bush has been strained since border security efforts were beefed up after the Sept. 11 attacks and since Mexico refused to support the U.S.-led war in Iraq.
Fox said the plan would allow Mexicans "to go and come each year as many times as they want, without problems, so that they can work with documents in the United States."
Copyright 2004 by United Press International.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1052775/posts
Yes, a pity indeed. I've lurked far more than posted on these threads and am more disgusted than amazed at how quickly some will desert the GOP because of one judicial nominee who fell short of their image of the perfect nominee. I pray that there are more Republicans who will stay the course than there are those who would cut and run because they didn't get their way on any given issue. The alternative, Democrats, is far more frightening, IMHO.
Such is the reason I vehemently oppose any "Guess Worker Amnesty" scheme offered by anyone.
Without the ones who've legally applied for, paid the required fees, and patiently waited for their chance to come here being given first priority over those illegal border strollers, I have little respect for any plan that places the illegal ahead of the law abiding applicant. Period.
"My bottom line - this is a neutral data point, on an matter that is close to irrelevant when it comes for Constitutional jurispridence."
Agreed. My concerns are with how she will interpret the Constitution -- unlike the affirmative action issue, which relates to how she interprets the Equal Protection Clause, this is not pertinent.
Incompetent and liberal. Sorry. I'm getting redundant.
Why can't we restrain our criticism of the Lady until she has had an opportunity to either make an ass of her critics or of her self before the Judiciary Committee?
That is the way the system is supposed to work, isn't it?
I mean, it's not as if the "equal protection" and "due process" clauses have been subject to that much litigation over the past century or so.
The GAO studied the proposed agreement and found the following:
In summary, SSA has no written policies or procedures outlining the specific steps it follows when entering into totalization agreements, and the actions it took to assess the integrity and compatibility of Mexico's social security system were limited and neither transparent nor well-documented. SSA officials briefly toured Mexican facilities, observed how their automated systems functioned, and identified the type of data maintained on Mexican workers. However, SSA provided no information showing that it assessed the reliability of Mexican earnings data and the internal controls in place to ensure the integrity of information that SSA will rely on to pay social security benefits.
The proposed agreement will increase the number of Mexican workers and family members eligible for social security benefits. Workers who ordinarily could not receive benefits because they lack the required 40 coverage credits for U.S. earnings could qualify for partial Social Security benefits with as few as 6 coverage credits. Under the proposed agreement, more family members of covered Mexican workers would also become newly entitled because of the waiver of rules that prevent payment to noncitizens' dependents and survivors living outside the United States.
Finally, the cost of a totalization agreement with Mexico is highly uncertain. SSA's actuarial estimate states that the cost of a Mexican agreement would be $78 million in the first year and would grow to $650 million by 2050. The estimate assumes the initial number of newly eligible Mexican beneficiaries is equivalent to the 50,000 beneficiaries living in Mexico today and would grow sixfold over time. However, this proxy figure does not directly consider the estimated millions of current and former unauthorized workers and family members from Mexico and appears small in comparison with those estimates. Although the actuarial estimate indicates that the agreement would not generate a measurable impact on the trust funds, an increase of more than 25 percent in the estimate of initial, new beneficiaries would generate a measurable impact. For prior agreements, error rates associated with estimating the expected number of new beneficiaries have frequently exceeded 25 percent. Because of the significant number of unauthorized Mexican workers in the United States, the estimated cost of the proposed totalization agreement is even more uncertain than for the prior agreements.
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.