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.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the Pro-Abortionist and the Libertarians are in an unholy alliance to block her because she is a Born Again Christian.Their can be no other reason for the petty sniping by the Anne Coulters,George Wills and Mark Levins of the world.They have always just tolerated social conservatives while continueing to socialize with there liberal buds in Washington and LA.and make fun of us.
That comment is ridiculous.
You're right, I'm not impressed and your conversation is waning, goodnight.
THAT is the final truth, whether the nibblers will admit it or not!
We aren't going to learn enough at the hearings. I mean, seriously, how much did we REALLY learn about Roberts? Mostly we learned how stupid some senators are
LOL...very true.
Coulter and Levin are pro-Life. I know nothing of Will.
I am a pro-life Christian.
Try again.
That could have been avoided had Bush appointed someone with more impressive career credentials. That he did not is why so many senators are holding off, in contrast to Roberts.
And I'll be shocked if anything comes out of the hearings. In modern times the nominee's goal is to avoid substance, not draw it out.
Why not? I will learn if she can handle herself well under constant attack. She will have to state her beliefs in what a Supreme Court Justice's real responsibilities are. I know there will be some questions that she will not be able to answer because there would be a conflict, but we should be able to learn if she really does have sound knowledge of the Constitution.
Orwellian mind reading requests, these people are puzzling.
Goodnight! :)
damn....i had not seen this
one thing for sure....i may be pissed at this one but
Bush will never drop her
He values loyalty....even some unearned according to Newt tonight...more than anything
Harriet is the next associate....I have no doubt Bush already had assurances she would fly. Reid would have never gone on record otherwise.
Who are you to tell me what to think??!! And I'm not taking "on faith" ANYTHING an elected official tells me. I am not a child. I am not looking for a "daddy."
"It calls into question the motivation her being born-again, when that qas quite a common ting to have happen in Texas in the 1980s."
She's been an active Christian for 26 years dude! You infer she hopped into it as a fad.....fads don't last 26 years....she's active in pro-life groups, teaches Sunday school, first name basis with her pastor in a large church, calls the pastor at home and asks for prayer the night before nomination is announced.....Born-again W knows her and is confident in her steadfastness!
You don't know what Coulter is for sure.She is just a younger Arrianna Huffington.Her Al franken is Bill Marr.
You're character assessment of her not withstanding, Coulter has stated she is a pro-life Christian.
I was talking in the context of politics, and even then "believing in" has a quasi-religious tone which I don't think it's safe to associate with any person. I think anyone's capable of doing something disappointing or unreasonable, as George W. Bush sure looks to have done with Harriet Miers.
After Hamilton retired as Secretary Washington wanted to appoint him to the Court. Since Alexander had eight children he could not afford to take the position though he wanted to.
Like many he had given up a fortune he could have earned working in private practice to work for the federal government (he was the best lawyer in the Country.) So after the years with Washington he had to earn as much as he could.
That quote's point is NOT about just an arbitrary personal relation but QUALIFICATIONS.
Marshall essentially incorporated the Hamiltonian views of the Constitution into the law and compared himself to Hamilton in legal acumen as "a taper to the sun."
From 2003
In what weird parallel universe would Americans vote for abortion on demand, affirmative action, forced busing, licensing of gun owners and a ban on the death penalty? Whatever dangers lurk in a self-governing democracy, the American people have never, ever passed a law that led to the murder of 30 million unborn children.
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.