Transcript of Miers 14 page 1993 speech to Executive Women of Dallas (pdf format)

Washington Post ^ | 1993 | Harriet Miers

[carlo3b]

When did taxing more become a conservative value?

I am so sorry I didn't see your post until just now.. Like so many on this thread, I believe you have misread her point entirely, she is reiterating on several subjects that in the absence of solid legislation a liberal court will take the opportunity to remedy the problem with whatever method they choose..

I believe she says this to frighten us into demanding our Representatives to act and solve the really important problems before it is solved via the courts.. Then again I could be all washed up and she could be a Nazi in a skirt.. I made that mistake with my 1st wife.. :)

[kabar]

I was prepared to jump all over her on the grounds that she was squishy on abortion and other things, however I have read this speech three times, and I cannot for the life of me find much that I can disagree with as a Conservative..

Forget the abortion issue, this speech is far from being the views of a Conservative. Disjointed prose aside, Miers sounds very liberal on social issues to me.

School funding: Miers bemoans the failure of the the so-called Robin Hood plan for school funding. It sounds like the amendment wanted to take from the "rich" and give to the "poor." It is called forced redistribution of the wealth. Miers seems to favor a state income tax to fund education rather than through the property tax exclusively.

The Courts vs the Legislature: Miers seems to blieve that the legislature has abdicated its responsibilites and "abandon to the Courts the hard decisions so that they an respond to constituents: I do not want to do that--the Court is making me." In fact, it is the Courts that are usurping the authority of the legislatures. Miers seems to believe that the Courts should not be blamed for "activism or intrusion where it does not belong." Rather Miers blames the elected leadership.

Political leaders Miers wants political leaders to show more leadership and make hard decisions. She ties it in to placing low income housing around the city, including in upscale areas and links it to racial issues. "But, with respect to racial harmony, lack of familiarity breeds contempt."

Diversity. "...ultimate benefit of a society whose wealth is diversity and who pulls together against common enemies." She refers to the Rodney King incident and laments the lack of minorities who serve in the judiciary. She bemoans all white juries trying cases which significantly impact the rights of minorities. Quotas anyone?

Women's rights Miers sounds like a feminist referring to "glass ceilings" and sexual harassment. She celebrates the fact that the California Bar will elect a woman for the first time and notes that "Texas jumped that hurdle first."

Abortion Miers mentions "the attempt to once again criminalize abortion or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's (sic) right to decide for herself whether to have an abortion."

Religion "No one should be able to oppressively require a student to participate in religious activities against their will, but if a student on his or own chooses to express him or herself in religious terms, that should not be permitted." What does she mean by this statement?

The speech was poorly constructed and written with a number of grammatical mistakes. It certainly does not indicate a superior intellect. Once this is circulated publicly, Miers is toast.

[Ken H]

From what I've seen, the word "chameleon" would be an apt description. Looks like she just can't help but say what she thinks those in front of her at the time want to hear, whoever that might be.

Sounds Kerryesque.

[carlo3b]

Whatever, those silly religious colleges are all the same anyway.. zinggggg.. :)

[Torie]

Fungible is the word perhaps, LOL.

[I got the rope]

Re: mingling of legal principles with faith-principles - I think it makes bad law.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar nor am I a lawyer, but I would have to disagree with you as a Christian. Your way sounds to humanistic. I reject humanistic law that is being taught today. I believe the founders would have too.

The difference between Biblical law and humanistic law is that the Bible does not attempt to save man or usher in a brave new world, or keep the world poverty free or strive for some New Deal society. The purpose of Biblical law is to punish and restrain evil, and to protect life and property, to provide justice for all people. It is not the purpose of the state and it's law to reform man...this is a spiritual matter. Man can only be changed by God's grace and not legislation or edicts by Judges. Humanistic law will never remake man and society. Too much is expected of the law nowadays...it has an impossible burden when its function is no longer to restrain.

Our judges are supposed to be Ministers of Justice with firm beliefs in God. (Romans 13:1-4).

I would argue that the 7th amendment was created for Bible believing Christians. A jury made up of your peers from the community cannot have a lawyer's knowledge of law, but what they can have is Christian's sense of justice and the legal tradition of the community. This amendment is so beautiful because you don't have to have a deep technical understanding of statute law.

[carlo3b]

The speech was poorly constructed and written with a number of grammatical mistakes. It certainly does not indicate a superior intellect.

Sheeeze, give her an C on grammatical stuff, and let her speak in her hearing..

If she is as dumb as a box of rocks as you English teachers say, she'll get the ole heave-hoe anyway, whats wrong with that? Then you will get an A for catching it soooooo soon.. I'll present it myself.. :)

[LibertarianInExile]

"LOL. Nice attempt at backpeddling. You almost had to label yourself a traitor."

ROFLMAO.

[Cboldt]

I'm not a Constitutional scholar nor am I a lawyer, but I would have to disagree with you as a Christian. Your way sounds to humanistic.

It is, and it isn't. There is no easy way to explain the dividing line, in part because one's faith does inform how one approaches the law. But I think holding firm to Constitutional principles and legal restraint can be expressed without reference to faith.

The underlying behavior, however, needs faith, morality, "something more." Society needs something more than law in order to obtain stability. Law provides dispute resolution structure and criminal remedy; but it cannot create morality of its own force. The law best serves an otherwise moral people. Law cannot create morality, and it is barely able to enforce it.

If you have time, read Blackstone - OF THE NATURE OF LAWS IN GENERAL.

[LibertarianInExile]

...bowler...HAHAHAHAHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHEHOOHOHOHOHOHOHOHOHO...

...[gasping] stop it, yer killin' me...

...schmabortion...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAROFLMAO!

[Don'tMessWithTexas]

You are wrong. Read again.

[carlo3b]

Fungible.. Great idea, I sometime use portobellos in my marinara sauce...*<]:P

[Cboldt]

Religion "No one should be able to oppressively require a student to participate in religious activities against their will, but if a student on his or own chooses to express him or herself in religious terms, that should not be permittedprohibited."

It's a recapitulation of the religion clauses in the 1^st Amendment.

[LibertarianInExile]

"Clearly she mocks the elected governance for abdicating their responsibility to the courts, as we all should and she says it clearly. She mocks the way that the abortion protesters are now characterized as terrorist.. Who can argue about that?"

You know, I've been thinking about what you have to say here, and all I can say is

[ellery]

You or anyone else can bust on me or rub it in or whatever, but I was willing to compromise on almost every other point to get a solidly pro-life Justice. But if Miers is not that, then there's nothing left.

Hey, as new, pertinent information comes out, we consider it and sometimes change our minds. All smart people do this. :)

[carlo3b]

You are wrong..

Moi????? Not a chance, and Don'tmessWithItaliansFromTexas.

[carlo3b]

Wonderful.. you brought the beverage, I'll bring the pasta.. I love when we all agree on the real important stuff..

[LibertarianInExile]

"Of course, given Miers' writing skill, that may not be what she meant. No matter - it's how it came across. Can you imagine such poor and imflamatory writing on a Supreme Court ruling? SHUDDER!"

Sheesh, I hadn't even thought of THAT problem with her writing skills. It's easy to see how she could be a closet lib, but that she might actually fubar things with an opinion that could be completely interpreted opposite her own...what a nightmare for the citizens who have jobs affected by this kinda $#!#. As if Sandy Baby's weaseling wasn't bad enough.

[ridge]

I agree with her thought processing. I wonder how Harriet did on the LSAT. Assuming it was similar to the present format, the logic games and reasoning must have hammered her.

On one level, her style seems overly complex. It's like she's trying to write/talk like Buckley, and she can't pull it off 'cause her grammar is so bad.

On the other level, she can't seem to reason properly. It's mind-boggling to assume someone has spent a life time communicating with high-caliber professions, and she has not begun to mimic the same relative standard of written and spoken expression of thought. At her level she could hire someone to teach her clarity, style and grace.

[kabar]

It's a recapitulation of the religion clauses in the 1st Amendment.

So what do you divine from that? Is she for or against prayer in the schools, or placing a creche' in the public square? Reciting the Pledge of Allegiance?

Recapitulation of the 1st Amendment? "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

"No one should be able to oppressively require a student to participate in religious activities against their will, but if a student on his or own chooses to express him or herself in religious terms, that should not be prohibited."

I have a hard time equating the above statement with a recapitulation of the 1st Amendment. What does it mean "chooses to express him or herself in religious terms?"