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.
Very troubling. That's the problem with nominating an international woman of mystery. She could be Margaret Thatcher. Or she could be Susan Estritch.
That wasn't what I was worried about, and I repeat - how the hell am I supposed to check on Harriet Miers?
"A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series's first lecture, in 1998." And how does an 'after-the-fact' speaker and numerous pricks thereafter gat laid at Meirs' feet? By innuendo! Beware the 'friendly voice' of reason.
Spot ON!!!
And in any case, though Burger was no Warren, I can't imagine either being tops on a real conservative's list. This information is far more damaging to her case than what was posted in this thread's top article.
***
It is all adding up to another O'Conner or worse. Maybe she was letting Leaky know who she really liked without being blunt about it. We need to lean on Brownback, Allen and possibly McCain.
That's ridiculous ~ many captains of industry would have absolutely no problem moving from a position in business to a seat on the Court.
Not at all. Bush simply gives the RATS a very small target. How are they going to hit Aunt Harriet? Or even shoot at her?
He does not like fireworks as much as some on FR. I like them but understand the President's political needs.
That is cruel, adolescent, and totally unnecessary.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/06/AR2005100601713.html?nav=rss_nation/special
In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.
Democrats have lied before, they lied about their conversations with Roberts, but if this is true...
With Miers, it's the only qualification she has. The defense in her favor by guys here is simply "Bush knows her".
Isn't your above the definition of oxymoronic?
Aaron never forgot!
Bet he didn't like Washington all that well either.
Very little? How can you base your verdict on no evidence?
Hamilton took little from his father in law. But his relation to Washington was crucial. The quote did not say that friends or relations should not be appointed but those of whom were not QUALIFIED.
But is was a good sophist attempt by our friend. And any quote of Hamilton is worth repeating.
So...you don't know ANY liberals or moderates that pack heat? LOL! Good one...
Most folks forget that Earl Warren was a vicious racist.
She has been there for 5 years already and from what I heard shuns the DC party circuit, why would she change?
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.