Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Another skeleton, (In Miers Closet)
The Washington Times, Inside Politics ^ | October 24, 2005 | By Greg Pierce

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Political Humor/Cartoons; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: aba; abascheme; bloodinthewater; chimpstein; iolta; judicialnominations; miers; sc; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-222 next last
To: The Red Zone; cynicom; wildandcrazyrussian
Protecting and preserving the underlying structure of the U.S. Constitution is in the "public interest."

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.

41 posted on 10/24/2005 6:43:01 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: cynicom
Take a look at Chimpstein.com where the article originated, look at his other posts and tell me he is a conservative ally.
42 posted on 10/24/2005 6:43:59 AM PDT by ekwd (Murphy's Law Has Not Been Repealed)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: aceintx
She's an open advocate for indigent people who need legal services. See her affiliation with Exodus.

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.

43 posted on 10/24/2005 6:44:15 AM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wildandcrazyrussian

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.


44 posted on 10/24/2005 6:44:16 AM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone

Things continue to come out regarding a stealth nominee who looks more and more liberal with each passing day.


45 posted on 10/24/2005 6:45:37 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: aceintx

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.


46 posted on 10/24/2005 6:46:00 AM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: aceintx

Put a fork in her, she's done!


47 posted on 10/24/2005 6:46:25 AM PDT by aShepard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cynicom

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.


48 posted on 10/24/2005 6:47:50 AM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: aceintx
Ugh...

Yeah... we got O'Connors replacement alright.

49 posted on 10/24/2005 6:48:10 AM PDT by johnny7 (“What now? Let me tell you what now.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservativecorner

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.


50 posted on 10/24/2005 6:49:02 AM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Huck

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.


51 posted on 10/24/2005 6:49:22 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: aceintx

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!


52 posted on 10/24/2005 6:51:32 AM PDT by Lucky2 (Just imagine if Algore or J F'n was President...thank God for our President Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rodney King
It works so well because a lawyer's trust account is a lot like a fast running river--no given amount of water (money) is there for a very long time but the actual amount of water that's consistently there is quite large. A lawyer will receive, for example, a $50,000 settlement check for a client, deposit it in his trust account, and, within less than a week, disburse the settlement to the client. In that time lots of other similar checks will have been received. The short holding period means clients usually don't particularly care about the interest. However, the high average balances can produce a significant amount of interest that's essentially "free" money. Harriet & Co. battened on to that "free" money to fund all sorts of left wing causes.
53 posted on 10/24/2005 6:51:39 AM PDT by libstripper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ekwd
No, he's not an ally.

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.

54 posted on 10/24/2005 6:52:24 AM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: TXBSAFH

I am reminded of the old saying " The louder he spoke of his virtues, the faster we counted our spoons"


55 posted on 10/24/2005 6:53:05 AM PDT by lastchance (Hug your babies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Lucky2

She's a studious sort, and will have no problem digging in.


56 posted on 10/24/2005 6:53:53 AM PDT by The Red Zone (Florida, the sun-shame state, and Illinois the chicken injun.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if for a day.


57 posted on 10/24/2005 6:54:15 AM PDT by cynicom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: The Red Zone
Let's take this article as an example. You tell me what you consider mud slinging, and then I can intelligently analyze what you consider mud, and what you consider accurate. Very simple really, but I bet you won't answer the question. Prove me wrong, and we can have an intelligent conversation on Meirs. Otherwise, you are here to make statements that are best called generalities that don't really deal with the specifics of Meir's record.
58 posted on 10/24/2005 6:54:41 AM PDT by conservativecorner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Stellar Dendrite
More cowbell!
59 posted on 10/24/2005 6:56:04 AM PDT by pepperhead (Kennedy's float, Mary Jo's don't!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Do not dub me shapka broham
Well, that's game set and match. If the Senate confirms her after this I will have to question my loyalty to the R party.

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.

60 posted on 10/24/2005 6:56:41 AM PDT by phelanw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 221-222 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson