[aceintx]

'A political blunder' "Although skeptical from the start, we've restrained our criticism of the Harriet Miers nomination because we've long believed that presidents of either party deserve substantial deference on their Supreme Court picks. Yet it now seems clear -- even well before her Senate hearings -- that this selection has become a political blunder of the first order," the Wall Street Journal says. "Especially in the wake of his success with John Roberts, President Bush had a rare opportunity to fulfill his campaign pledge to change the Court by nominating someone in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. In the process, he would have rallied his most fervent supporters and helped to educate the country about proper Constitutional interpretation. Instead, he picked a woman who was his personal and White House counsel, and who was unknown to nearly everyone outside the White House and his Texas circle," the newspaper said in an editorial. "After three weeks of spin and reporting, we still don't know much more about what Ms. Miers thinks of the Constitution. What we have learned is that the White House has presented her to the country, and thrown her into the buzz saw that is the U.S. Senate, without either proper preparation or vetting. The result has been a political melee that is hurting not just Ms. Miers, who deserves better. It is also damaging the White House and its prospects for a successful second term. "Instead of a fight over judicial philosophy, we're having a fight over one woman's credentials and background. Instead of debating the Kelo decision's evisceration of private property rights, we are destined to learn everything we never wanted to know about the Texas Lottery Commission. "Instead of dividing Red State Democrats from Senate liberals, the nomination is dividing Republicans. Pat Robertson is threatening retribution not against moderate Democrats but against GOP conservatives who dare to oppose Ms. Miers. Chuck Schumer couldn't have written a better script."

[aceintx]

"Chuck Schumer couldn't have written a better script.""

Lest we forget, Harry Ried suggested her appointment....maybe Chuck did write this script!

[conservativecorner]

What a dumb bone-headed move by the WH in nominating this women. Unfrigging real!

[azhenfud]

"...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."

The fork's sharpened tines driven deep into the cooked goose.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[America's Resolve]

No Souter II here. Nope.

[Rodney King]

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

Anyone who beleives that it is ok to do that without the permision of the clients is not a conservative.

[The Red Zone]

What we have learned is that the White House has presented her to the country, and thrown her into the buzz saw that is the U.S. Senate

The U.S. Senate is a dull nail file compared with how she is getting savaged in the media.

[Cboldt]

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.

[aShepard]

Put a fork in her, she's done!

[johnny7]

Ugh...

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

[Lucky2]

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!

[pepperhead]

Pat Robertson is threatening retribution not against moderate Democrats but against GOP conservatives who dare to oppose Ms. Miers.

What is he going to threaten to assassinate them.

[Piquaboy]

I am about as tired of people beating up on Meir as I am of seeing some idiot standing out in a hurricane telling us the wind is blowing.

[Graymatter]

ping for new product (Slushie)

Memo to Ken: send Harriet a cocker spaniel to cram for her Checkers speech

[add925]

If I were a conspiracy theorist, methinks a back-room deal was hatched:

Let Roberts in and my next appointment will be more towards your liking.

Well, you gotta admit, the next one WAS more towards their liking.

I guess smokey-backroom antics HAVE occured in DC before *gulp*

[Racehorse]

Some smoking gun.

"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."

This is one reason why Texas does not have a State income tax.

If you believe the State should not provide legal aid to the indigent, then you should be against the program.  No question about it.  But, if you believe the State should provide legal aid to low income citizens, then how do you pay for it?

This is what the Judicial and Legislative branches of the Texas State government decided to do on behalf of its citizens:

The Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit corporation created by the Supreme Court of Texas in 1984, administers funds to create community capacity to provide civil legal services for low-income Texans, also known as Legal Aid. The organization is committed to the vision that all Texans will have equal access to justice, regardless of their income.

On behalf of the Court, the Foundation administers funds from three sources:

1. Interest on Lawyers' Trust Accounts (IOLTA)
The IOLTA program, established in 1984 by the Supreme Court of Texas, allows attorneys to pool short-term or nominal deposits made on behalf of clients or third parties into one account. Interest generated by these accounts is dedicated to helping nonprofit organizations that provide free civil legal services. As of July 1, 1989, all Texas attorneys handling qualifying client funds must establish an IOLTA account, unless a low balance account exempts them.

2. Basic Civil Legal Services (BCLS)
The Texas Legislature enacted the BCLS program in 1997, when federal funding for legal services decreased significantly. People who file lawsuits must pay a small additional fee to the court, ranging from $2 in the lower courts to $25 for suits taken to the Supreme Court of Texas. These fees are designated to assist nonprofit organizations in providing free civil legal services to low-income Texans.

3. Crime Victims Civil Legal Services (CVCLS)
In 2001, the Texas Office of the Attorney General and the Supreme Court of Texas entered into an agreement to administer a $5 million Crime Victims Civil Legal Services fund over the next biennium. The monies granted must be used to provide free civil legal services to low-income victims of crime.

These diverse funding sources make it possible for the Texas Equal Access to Justice Foundation to grant millions of dollars each year for the provision of Legal Aid to low-income Texans

[Mike Darancette]

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,..

Interest bearing checking accounts? Isn't money in a client's account property of the client?

[jjm2111]

Wow, almost a hundred posts and no Bush bots. Lest we forget: Bush is our leader. She's the best and we just have to trust him. Did I mention she answers the phone politely? </sarcasm>.

I wish she would just withdraw herself already.

[DTogo]

Bush's second term is swirling in the toilet already:

- nominates Miers and kicks his Base for opposing it

- calls Minutemen "vigilantes"

- Iraq policy is succeeding but MSM continues to control the agenda

- Border still unsecured 4 years after 9-11

- RINOS vote for McCain Amdt. No 1977

- Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) threatens to quite Senate so GOP backs down on spending cuts (bridge to nowhere)

- Syria and Iran continue to support Islamo-fascists in Iraq and all they get is lip service from the White House

- still no plan to achieve US energy independence

- Bush is still touting his Amnesty Guest Worker Enema Program

- Bush hosts Muslim leaders at White House to open Ramadan, while 4 American civilians are slaughtered in Iraq, one burned alive

- Bush publicly telling Israel to make dumb security decisions

- Bush invites Abbas to the White House, who proceeds to blame Israel for Palestinian's woes

- Pentagon quick to jump on troops' errors in the field instead of supporting them (or playing down the incident)

- etc., etc., etc.

[Cicero]

This is the smoking gun, all right.

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 a leftist scheme from beginning to end. It's socialist, because it takes other people's money and uses it to make the establishmentarians feel good about helping the "poor" and "downtrodden." But then it turns out that the poor and downtrodden are arbortionists and homosexual activists. It might as well be the Southern Poverty Law Center.

This is not an abberation, either. Harriet Miers has a long record of bleeding heart liberalism, of helping the poor and downtrodden by supporting "public interest lawsuits" and affirmative action for categories such as designated minorities and women.

You can say that she did it because she had to go along in order to get along. She wanted to get to the top of the ABA in Texas. The ABA is a left-wing organization. So she had to go along with them. Well, that's precisely what we've been saying. She's a brown noser, willing to compromise any "Christian conservative" notions she may have in order to get ahead.

The same with her law firm. She constantly donated to PACS that supported leftists, including Hillary and Patty Murray, because that's what she needed to do in order to get to the top of the firm.

What more do we need to know? She is a lousy candidate. That has been evident from the very first, as soon as anyone takes the trouble to read her paper trail.

So, what comes next? I'll be darned if I know. The ball is in Bush's court, and if he doesn't act soon there's no way in hell he can save the rest of his term in office. Even if he does act soon, it's dubious. He really has no choice now but either sit fast and sink slowly into the mud, or pull up his socks and try to salvage a virtually cooked presidency.

The Bushbots will say that this mess is all our fault. No, it's Bush's fault. And only he can try to find some way out of it.

And as many pointed out yesterday, sure as hell the way out isn't to pull Miers and nominate an even worse candidate, supposing he could find one. No, he has to put up a really splendid candidate now, and fight with everything he has to get him or her nominated, or his political future is cooked.