Posted on 10/24/2005 12:46:30 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
While I was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council, I dealt with issues that involved constitutional questions. For instance, when addressing a lawsuit under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, the council had to be sure to comply with the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause.
The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not require proportional representation as an imperative of political organization. The entitlement that the dissenting opinion assumes to exist simply is not to be found in the Constitution of the United States.
Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U.S. 55 (1980) (addressing a voting dilution claim under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act brought against at-large Commissioners of the Mobile, Alabama Commission).
So: it’s not just pointy-headed legal scholars who say that the Equal Protection Clause does not have a “proportional representation” requirement. If you disagree with that assertion, then you don’t just have a problem with the legal scholars. You have a problem with the Supreme Court.
And yes, I understand the argument that Miers was referring to the “one man person, one vote” rule. That may be. But the Supreme Court quote I just gave you should establish beyond any doubt that Miers’s language was, at a minimum, both 1) sloppy and 2) contrary to a settled understanding of the phrase.
Thanks to commenter Neil J. Lehto.
P.S. As was discussed extensively in John Roberts’s hearings, the holding of Mobile v. Bolden relating to Section 2 of the VRA was superseded by later Congressional amendments. These amendments do not affect the Court’s holdings regarding the Constitution in the slightest.
P.P.S. I await the commentary from those who claimed that the Equal Protection Clause obviously does require “proportional representation”; and/or that only pointy-headed legal scholars, “socialist, group-rights advocating, racial-demagoguery spewing civil rights lawyer[s],” and out-of-touch Con Law geeks would deny that simple truth; and/or who claimed that I was digging myself into a hole by claiming that Miers was either woefully ignorant or hopelessly imprecise. You know who you are. Let’s hear from you. I’d like you to acknowledge that, at a minimum, Miers used misleading and imprecise language.
It's not lokin' good for the Home Team, Kenny..........
In other news, the sky is falling. Film at 11.
Come on now, why does someone sitting on the highest Constitutional Court in the most powerful nation in the World need to know about Constitutional law?
You are wrong, but I'm tired of arguing. Anti-miers fatigue has set in. If you repeat stuff again and again, eventually you can tire out your opponents and claim victory.
It is only "misleading" because some refuse to accept any meaning other than their preconcieved notion of what two words put together mean.
Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
14th. Amendment
to the U.S. Constitution
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Section 2. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age,(See Note 15) and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned. But neither the United States nor any State shall assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of insurrection or rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; but all such debts, obligations and claims shall be held illegal and void.
Section 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
"... Being....Sucked....In.....Can't.....Resist.....Pull...."
THe words "proportional representation" appearing next to each other in a supreme court case have a different meaning and context that the two words "proportional representation" appearing next to each other in an answer sheet filled out by Harriet Miers.
You said you understood that.
Sounds like nerves to me.
"Come on now, why does someone sitting on the highest Constitutional Court in the most powerful nation in the World need to know about Constitutional law?"
only an elitist would expect that.
The phrase has an entirely different application to someone who is a lawyer and is a member of a City Council, as Harriet Miers then was. She would have known, as I do, that there have been many cases, filed in many jurisdictions, usually by the ACLU, against city council elections. They were filed against "at large" elections, in which all seats are chosen city-wide. Or, they are filed against "multi-member districts," in which usually three members are elected district-wide.
The ACLU's central argument in all of these cases is that such elections do not elect a "proportional" number of minority candidates, usually blacks. The argument continues that a court order ending the at-large or multi-member districts would result in more black victories, and therefore the court has the power to do that.
This issue, stated the way I just described it, would be of interest to any thoughtful city council member in Dallas or in any other major city.
And, competent commentators on Miers would know the truth of what I have just described.
Congressman Billybob
Latest column: "Reporting on the 2,000th American Death in Iraq"
"It all depends on what the meaning of 'is' is."
Miers booted it. The relevant SCOTUS ruling, establishing this, has been duly cited. A little good grace and humility on the part of the pro-Miers camp certainly couldn't hurt any, right about now.
Do you feel you've accorded yourself with grace and humility?
Since she is applying for a job on the Supreme Court, should she not gear her answers towards that position rather than that of a City Council Member?
You forgot to mention how we're all big, stinky, smarty-pants elitists with too much book larn'in, as well. :)
In the questionnaire, when she mentioned "proportional representation," Miers specifically did so in the context of the lawsuit, Williams v. Dallas. That lawsuit was explicitly about proportional representation of minorities on city council, so the most reasonable explanation by far is that that is what Miers meant when she used the term.
Below is additional support, taken directly from Miers' testimony in that trial. She seemed to me like she was trying to have it both ways. She (rightfully, I believe) made the point that race differences are often superseded by economic and geographical differences, and even says she opposes the philosophy of drawing lines just to create minority districts.
But then she says this (page 56):
"I certainly hope that if the system, if the 10-4-1 system is the system that we're going to do business under, that the lines be drawn to accomplish the purpose that it was designed to accomplish, which is the increase of minority presence on the Council, which is important."
Like I said, this attack is a cheap shot, and anyone competent in Supreme Court cases on elections would know that it is a cheap shot. The Court has taken up, but not finally settled, the issues in the "city council election" cases. I've spent 35 years working on election law cases. I resent the people, including George Will, who misstate the issue and then attack Miers on the basis of their misconceptions. Will is, I think, simply wrong -- because he thinks he understands the issue far better than he really is. Some of the people who are using this as an "issue" don't care whether it is true or not.
For some, this is a "Mosquito Charge." Never mind if it's true. Does it draw any blood? If so, good, and keep repeating it.
John / Billybob
THis is a discussion about whether Miers understood the constitution, not about whether she supported electing more minorities. That would be a political, not judicial, discussion.
Hard to keep the two straight with the miers nomination, but traditionally that is what true judicial conservatives do -- argue the judicial philosophy of a nominee, NOT their personal political views which have no bearing on being a judge (at least that's what we say when the nominee is a good conservative).
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.