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 ...
Upholding the views of our founding fathers is in the "public interest."
Filing torts against treasonous fifth columnists who work for subversive groups like the ACLU, NLG, CCR, and ACORN is in the "public interest."
Advancing the unreconstructed left's agenda-either overtly or by stealth-is not in the public's interest, if by "public" you mean the American polity.
IOLTA feeds that critter, and while there is plenty of liber "taking advantage" of that pool of money, not all of it goes toward liberal causes.
My bottom line - this is a neutral data point, on an matter that is close to irrelevant when it comes for Constitutional jurispridence.
The banks at which the law firm's account is (and it's pretty darn large account, so gets a fairly generous interest, especially in the 1990s) is who pays. The law firm then looks at the monthly statement the bank provided of interest, and writes a check for exactly that to this "public interest" fund so the account ends up even steven. Probably treated like any other charitable donation by the IRS, so it's a wash to the firm.
Things continue to come out regarding a stealth nominee who looks more and more liberal with each passing day.
Good point. Maybe Reid was pushing for her because he knew about her past and knew how her nomination would go down with true conservatives. Perhaps he knew a nomination like this would really hurt the president and wanted her for that reason. I doubt though for a single second he actually thought Bush would be foolish enough to take his advice. He was probably just throwing a hail-mary into triple coverage that somehow ended up getting caught.
Put a fork in her, she's done!
He is hoping to sell the Senate on the idea that she is just another O'Connor so why get into a fuss about her. Trying to find someone who would fit that bill and who is willing to go under the klieg lights, is just this side of impossible. I'm not sure even O'Connor herself would have been willing to do this.
Yeah... we got O'Connors replacement alright.
Very rarely is a meaningful date placed on any of this mud getting hurled at the lady. I am disgusted at the disinformatsia of this approach.
LOL! So much can be gleaned from two words by you that it takes my breath away. If it's any consolation to you, if it was a man, I would say "that man". Talk about grasping for straws as the truth comes out regarding this stealth liberal.
I'm sure that Harriet Meirs is a wonderful woman, with a good heart and a compentent lawyer but...she's not Supreme Court material. The White House needs to find someone else good and soon, or they're going to finish off the seemingly good reputation of this woman and let the Press make a complete fool of her and them!
Then again, he's not any more of an enemy to the conservative agenda than either George W.Bush or Andy Card.
Evan Gahr might be a flake, but even now I'd venture to guess that he's more conservative than Harriet Miers is, or has been, or will ever be.
I am reminded of the old saying " The louder he spoke of his virtues, the faster we counted our spoons"
She's a studious sort, and will have no problem digging in.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if for a day.
Let's see, I was callled elitist, told I knew nothing about constitutional law and told I had a "perfervid filthy little mind" -- my favorite. I saw post after post decrying the name calling on both sides, though I saw very little of that from folks who had genuine concerns about this nominee for various reasons. Now all those busy little bees -- who did most of the name calling in a misguided effort -- will be back at work on other topics just like nothing happened. They learned nothing, they forgot everything, and they moved cheerfully on their way.
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.