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.
Who are you? Why are you such a negative person? I would take you more seriously if you ever posted anything positive. Go over to DU and post your stupid drivel.
The conversation took place yesterday, as reported by the link.
THe constitution recognised the danger that unqualified people would be appointed because they were friends of the president.
That is why they gave the Senate advice and consent power -- so the Senate could determine the qualifications of a nominee and stop incompetent people from being placed on the bench.
The problem isn't cronyism, it is the appointment of unqualified people because of cronyism.
At the same time, the founders rejected giving the senate the right to PICK the nominees, because they wanted a single person to be held responsible for the choice and its political consequence.
"It just means that she is on automatic pilot and oblivious".
Ah, a mind reader are you? I could use the Powerball numbers for Saturday if you've got 'em.
Speak solely, I do not agree.
It constantly amazes me when MSM haters quote the MSM when it validates their opinions.
Hold on now! I want some of that action! lol
That is illogical.
A logical person does not choose to believe whatever they wish. They seek the facts.
This was reported. It needs to be answered. No matter what you choose to believe.
"This article doesn't actually prove she had any leverage at all in this matter."
Oh No! It was ALL her fault! Just like everything else is W's fault.
NEW RULE: If it ain't W's fault....then it must be Meirs' fault!
Some 'conservatives' are turning to liberal logic....sheesh!
Until I learn more about her. I have not heard her speak yet. I also want to hear what she has to say when she appears before Congress.
I want someone who believes totally in the Constitution and who will not try to legislate from the bench. I want to know more about her personality, not just that she is a nice Christian woman.
I do know that she can hold her own with her male and female peers. She has worked hard and she has overcome discrimination and earned praise for her ability in the process.
Thomas was an embarrassment, but not to the President. He was am embarassment to the Democratics because so many middle-class blacks testified on his behalf, late into the evening. The only blacks Dems want to see, quite literally, are barefoot, pregnant, and ill-educated. The Thomas hearings threw them for a loop, and so they brought out every smear they could think of. Harriet doesn't need to be smeared by Dems; she is weak among conservative Reps. And this issue will not go away. It will only grow.
>She was a member of an ADVISORY panel and pushed for the series.<
This definitely harmed the conservative cause.Gloria Steinhem and Ma Richards are so much more peruasive than most conservatives.We don't dare let prospective Lawyers at a very conservative law school be exposed to their ideas because everyone of them will become libs overnight.
No, I voted for George Bush because his views were more in synch with mine and because I thought he'd do a better job for my country than John Kerry. I don't "believe" in any man.
Yes, I am. Thank you. If you meant that comment as sarcasm, oh well.
Who cares about the Democrats, he passed by a small margin and today we consider him one of the finer Justices on the SCOTUS.
That's only if you're charged with a crime. In the real world you're not assumed to be qualified for a job until someone proves you aren't.
And what are we supposed to do until Jan. 20, 2009?
Good GRIEF this stuff is getting out into the ozone.
Look, I'm not turning cartwheels of joy over this pick, check my posts right after it was announced, but I'm realistic enough to know that if there's a revolt on the right that sinks this nomination, President Bush's administration is going to suffer irreparable damage to the point where he probably might as well just head on back to Texas, because he will be the lamest of lame ducks with no way of turning back.
Everybody seems to think that if the "base" makes its will known, then the president will get the message and appoint Janice Rogers Brown to this post ... and she was my choice, BTW. But while I have no way of knowing this for sure because I'm not privy to the discussions at the White House, everything bit of political acumen I've gained in nearly 40 years, literally since childhood, of following politics is screaming in my ear that there is no scenario, none, nada, zip, ain't gonna happen, metaphysically impossible, in which the president is going to nominate somebody to the court who would be that problematic in the Senate. Mainly because IMHO he realizes that our best and only shot of invoking the constitutional option has come and gone and isn't likely to return, and he's more inclined to direct his remaining political capital elsewhere. So if Miers gets dumped, prepare to be disappointed again.
I cannot believe after the president's great speech today, we are still getting bogged down on this malarkey.
This was reported. It needs to be answered. No matter what you choose to believe
Well you were the one who stated the true fact earlier that demos lie or at best may leave some other things out.
Say it is true for the sake of the argument she meant Warren Berger, now the question said "Justices"(plural), how come there were no other names. Maybe those names were Rehnquist, White, etc.etc., but you are the one who wants to beleive the Compost in the first place, knowing the fact that it is demo mouthpiece.
It is time for Harriet to withdraw, or else to assert a medical difficulty (instead of withdrawing outright).
I would hope not.
While you're b***ching.. O'Connor will be the vote on partial birth abortion just after Thanksgiving.
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.