Posted on 10/06/2005 7:15:47 PM PDT by jdhljc169
Today's Chronicle of Higher Education has a story that describes Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' involvement with a lecture series at her alma mater, SMU Law School. The inaugural lecturer? Gloria Steinem. I've played these games in law schools, and this story sends up red flags for me. Here's my take on it ...
I was reserving judgment, but after having read the Chronicle article (and given conservatives' skittishness about her already), I think she's a non-starter. Miers may be a very nice person - and by all accounts she is. But she has never served as a judge, and while I do not think that an attorney must have been a judge in order to be an excellent justice, I do think that if you want to be certain of a nominee's views on the proper role of the judiciary, you better have seen them in action as a judge.
We haven't. And absent that, we must look to other events in Miers' professional life to ascertain her perspective. To that end, the Chronicle article is instructive:
In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community ...Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground ... A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series's first lecture, in 1998. In the following two years, the speakers were Patricia S. Schroeder, the former Democratic congresswoman widely associated with women's causes, and Susan Faludi, the author of Backlash: The Undeclared War Against American Women (1991). Ann W. Richards, the Democrat whom George W. Bush unseated as governor of Texas in 1994, delivered the lecture in 2003.
Having served on the faculties of three law schools, I can tell you that if you are an academic of the conservative political persuasion, this is the way you play the game: you call things by the terms the liberal academic establishment uses ("Gender Studies," "Women's Studies," etc.) and then you bring in lecturers and provide content that challenges their prevailing "wisdom."
There must be dozens -- hundreds -- thousands -- of conservative female attorneys, politicians, pundits and successful business owners in this country who would be wonderful role models for female SMU law students. If Miers pushed for the creation of a lecture series to honor Texas' first and finest female attorneys, and the series brought in the likes of Steinem and Faludi, then I know as much as I need to know about this woman.
Stick a fork in her. She's done.
"She is untainted by black robe fever."
uh, if she is confirmed, she will be subject to the same fever.
Better to have someone who has been a judge that we can tell is immune to it, then to put someone on the bench who may fall victim to it.
Not everybody posts an opinion on the polls at FR ~ you know that.
Since 91% of the country told Michael Newdow and his Ninth Circus Court facade to go to hell, I don't think Bush needs to reassure that 91% of anything. James Dobson likes her, Fr. Pavone too, even that goofball Terry Randall likes her.
So what you are saying is it's ok that a MAN is appointed but its somehow different when a 60 year old woman who has
the relatively the same prior experience and background as the recently deceaseed CHIEF, Justice Renquist? Is that what you are saying?!!!
...and...I would add...whether is is proper for the Executive Branch to nominate someone from its inner circle. The Founding Fathers had a point. I quote Hamilton (in the WSJ piece) again:
WSJ
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007354
Cronyism Alexander Hamilton wouldn't approve of Justice Harriet Miers
BY RANDY E. BARNETT
Tuesday, October 4, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
"from Federalist No. 76:
"To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. . . . He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."
Harriet Miers is not just the close confidante of the president in her capacity as his staff secretary and then as White House counsel. She also was George W. Bush's personal lawyer. Apart from nominating his brother or former business partner, it is hard to see how the president could have selected someone who fit Hamilton's description any more closely. Imagine the reaction of Republicans if President Clinton had nominated Deputy White House Counsel Cheryl Mills, who had ably represented him during his impeachment proceedings, to the Supreme Court. How about Bernie Nussbaum?
As the quote from Hamilton suggests, the core purpose of Senate confirmation of presidential nominees is to screen out the appointment of "cronies," which Merriam-Webster defines as "a close friend especially of long standing." Cronyism is bad not only because it leads to less qualified judges, but also because we want a judiciary with independence from the executive branch. A longtime friend of the president who has served as his close personal and political adviser and confidante, no matter how fine a lawyer, can hardly be expected to be sufficiently independent--especially during the remaining term of her former boss." (endquote from WSJ)
ok.
But if it was reversed, you'd be crowing about the results.
I'm with you. Jeez, all this talk about the dems giving our candidates up or down votes yet it seems many here don't want to give this nominee the same thing.
Sadly, I fear this party may be imploding and it's the last thing we need.
And this was when? Yes, the mid 60's when Robert Bork was smoking pot, and God knows what else was going on. Get real people!
Actually, according to Suetonius (who is the only source for the story, I think), "it was said" that Caligula intended to make his horse Incitatus consul. That would have been a higher honor than merely being one of hundreds of members of the Senate, but obviously it never happened.
It's not who likes her.
It's what we know about her.
Here's one of the other times we were told things were supposed to be a certain way, but didn't turn out like they promised:
The Associated Press
July 7, 1981, Tuesday, AM cycle
Asked about Mrs. O'Connor's position on the extremely sensitive abortion issue, Reagan, who said he had interviewed the intended nominee, told reporters as he left the press room: "I am completely satisfied."
At her press conference, Mrs. O'Connor declined questions over that issue, the ERA and others, saying "I'm sorry. I cannot address myself to substantive issues pending my confirmation."
But deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said she had told the president "she is personally opposed to abortion and that it was especially abhorent to her. She also feels the subject of the regulation of abortion is a legitimate subject for the legislative area."
United Press International
July 8, 1981, Wednesday, AM cycle
Television evangelist James Robison, taking the opposite position of many of his conservative colleagues, Wednesday said he supports the nomination of Sandra O'Connor to the Supreme Court.
In a statement, Robison said he based his support for Mrs. O'Connor on a conversation Tuesday with presidential counselor Edwin Meese. A Robison spokesman said Robison obtained the following statement from Meese:
''Sandra O'Connor thinks abortion is abhorrent and is not in favor of it. She agrees with the president on abortion. There was a time when she was sympathetic toward the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) movement, but the more she studied and found out about it the more she changed her mind.
''She is very conservative ... Sandra O'Connor assured the president that she was in agreement with him and she totally supports pro-family issues and the Republican platform.''
Not hardly. Miers never clerked for a Supreme Court Justice or worked as Assistant Attorney General. Even compared to the weaker Supreme Court nominees Miers falls dramatically short.
Exactly.
So Miers both advocated a lecture series and gave money to fund it. Who picked the speakers? That is at issue.
I am an academic and the usual case is that donors do not get to pick who you hire in an endowed chair nor would they get to pick the speakers in an endowed lecture series.
I don't think anybody objects to Miers having an up or down vote. They just want her to be voted down.
The hell it is. The unknown is the fear.
I rarely post anything from a poll unless it's a scientifically conducted poll, and there's more than one being taken at that time.
The article seems to suggest that ALL of the speakers for the first 3 years were barking moonbat feminists. If Miers created the lecture series and solicited donations for it, one would have to assume that she had input as to who gave the lectures.
It doesn't look good.
Wasn't Bork, rather it was William F. Buckley, out on his yacht.
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.