Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Miers is dead in the water
Town Hall ^ | 10/06/05 | Laura Hollis

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.


TOPICS: Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: harrietmiers; harrietthemere; miers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 461 next last
To: jdhljc169
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.

Let see, grand juries...what are they made of?. Who is judging the guilty in the court of law?...Judges?...nope, just regular people like you and I.

Now the BIG question...whats wrong with Ms. Miers appointment to the Supreme bench?
Where in the Constitution sez that an appointee to the Supreme Court ought to be a designated and well qualified judge?

If my memory serves me right in the history of the Supreme Court appointees, 41 of them including the late Chief Justice Rehnquist were no judges at all.

You do not have to be a professional Judge to pass on judgment within the letter of the law.

281 posted on 10/06/2005 9:41:39 PM PDT by danmar ("No person is so grand or wise or perfect as to be the master of another person." Karl Hess)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rhetorica

The President appoints a stealth constructionist and the 'right' throws a fit for not having an overt conservative?... The next nominee will be a moderate in the stenchy cloth of Ginsberg!


282 posted on 10/06/2005 9:42:21 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 276 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit

Like I say, buddy...read the Paper.... ;)


283 posted on 10/06/2005 9:42:29 PM PDT by paulat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 279 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

Baloney. A couple with legal training might. But that's about it.


284 posted on 10/06/2005 9:42:45 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker

no, your inferred opinion that Meirs was questionable based on Warren being her favorite justice is ridiculous.....like the pro-life issue was the only one Meirs thought of to determine a favorite justice.


285 posted on 10/06/2005 9:42:55 PM PDT by griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 262 | View Replies]

To: wardaddy

I think Bush might drop her.

Look how he dropped Trent Lott. Also, check his feeble record of supporting his appeals court nominees. Miguel Estrada and Charles Pickering certainly didn't get the support they deserved. And, truthfully the only reason Brown, Owen and Pryor are on the Circuit Courts now is b/c of the Gang of 14 fiasco.

I believe Bush's principle reason for the Miers pick was to avoid a fight. He expected a fight from the Dims, but he's getting a fight from the right. And, the fight from the right could be far more damaging to him personally than the fight from the left.

He may love old Harriet, but chances are his loyalty has a limit.


286 posted on 10/06/2005 9:44:09 PM PDT by bourbon (It's the target that decides whether terror wins.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: SpringheelJack

No its Bush TRUSTS her to be the kind of Justice he wants. That is the only real FACT in all this nonsensible whining I have seen. There has not been ONE reason of any weight other than I DON'T KNOW if....


287 posted on 10/06/2005 9:44:27 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169

Here's the question..... if the whitehouse went to Dobson for his nod, then asked for him to say a few nice things, and they deliberately did it to have him be the judas goat....... Then the face of politics will change in this country. Look for the Christian right to dry up their support of the republicans. There is only so many times lucy can convice charlie brown to kick the football. I am a loyal supporter of Bush but if he douped Dr. Dobson, that will be it ... not for me but also the Christian right.


288 posted on 10/06/2005 9:44:29 PM PDT by Walkingfeather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: utahagen

Evangelical does not guarantee conservative....why do so many FReepers insist on this?

Are any of ya'll Evangelicals, Charasmatic-Pentocostals, or Fundamentalists?

Plenty of moderate "open-minded" Evangelicals....her church has a clause in their mission statement about "no dogma where Christians opinions diverge"....no hard core Conservative church would have that.

I'm Southern Baptist which is considered evangelical and I would wager that half our congregation are less conservative than the average FReeper even. 75% less conservative than the average freeper 5 years ago


289 posted on 10/06/2005 9:44:53 PM PDT by wardaddy (i'm all outta bot i can't live without you,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

To: jdhljc169

This whole Miers business leaves me cold. I'm not saying anything else about it.


290 posted on 10/06/2005 9:45:43 PM PDT by Ciexyz (Let us always remember, the Lord is in control.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: griffin
no, your inferred opinion that Meirs was questionable based on Warren being her favorite justice is ridiculous.....like the pro-life issue was the only one Meirs thought of to determine a favorite justice.

What do you think she is most likely to have admired about Warren Burger, that would cause her to pass on more congenially conservative picks such as Scalia or Rehnquist?

291 posted on 10/06/2005 9:45:46 PM PDT by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: jeremiah
This nomination of Miers is GW thumbing his nose at the Conservative base.

"They wanna critericize my good buddy Alberto Gonzales? Heh-heh-heh...."

292 posted on 10/06/2005 9:46:05 PM PDT by steve-b (A desire not to butt into other people's business is eighty percent of all human wisdom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Virginia Queen
Not so fast. The long and the short of it is she didn't come to this dance with you, she came with "W". "W" picked her, "W" wants her and this IS his dance to arrange, not yours or mine. She is not done until "W" says so.

I am starting to think he uses the same "ME" protocol for our borders.

293 posted on 10/06/2005 9:46:44 PM PDT by Black Tooth (The more people I meet, the more I like my dog.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: griffin

First, you are misrepresentaing my position.

I stated Democrats have lied about discussions with Roberts, so this is an alleged conversation he had with Miers until she either confirms or denies it.

Second, if you think naming a Justice that vote for R v W is inconsequential, you are wrong. No one has stated that would be the only reason to support a Justice, but nevertheless, it raises questions. Questions anyone has the right to ask.


294 posted on 10/06/2005 9:47:16 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Barbour/Honore in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 285 | View Replies]

To: muawiyah

The feeling was mutual Washington despised Burr and considered him completely untrustworthy. He made sure never to advance him in any way. Burr always blamed Hamilton for Washington's disdain. What is ironic is that Burr may have saved Hamilton's life early in the war by leading his unit out of great danger during a battle arouind NYC.


295 posted on 10/06/2005 9:48:03 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Soul Seeker
Goerge Will is solidly pro-life. One of thae most beautful peices of writing I ever read was Will's essay, "Jon Will's Apptitudes". Will wrote of his son Jon, who has Down Syndrome, "Because of advancing science and declining morals, there are fewer people like Jon around than there should be."
296 posted on 10/06/2005 9:48:24 PM PDT by utahagen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 267 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Actually, I just thought it was odd that a poll that shows a vast majority of people on FR either support her already, or are withholding judgment until they know that facts,

might be used by those (maybe not you specifically, but those on this thread) who argue she is either unqualified, or a crony and therefore unsuited regardless of qualifications,

as backing THEIR point of view, even though they are the smallest part of the poll sample.

As one in the "still waiting until we have all the facts" crowd,

And therefore in the majority of the poll,

I laugh at your poll. Ha Ha. Ha. Ha (cough cough cough).


297 posted on 10/06/2005 9:49:19 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
No its Bush TRUSTS her to be the kind of Justice he wants. That is the only real FACT in all this nonsensible whining I have seen. There has not been ONE reason of any weight other than I DON'T KNOW if....

Like I said, her only qualification for the court is that Bush knows her and thinks she's cool. Unfortunately, when dealing with something like the Supreme Court that ain't going to cut it.

298 posted on 10/06/2005 9:49:27 PM PDT by SpringheelJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: utahagen

Thank you for clearing that up.


299 posted on 10/06/2005 9:50:45 PM PDT by Soul Seeker (Barbour/Honore in '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 296 | View Replies]

To: Vision Thing; flashbunny

Yeah, thanks for bringing this up here. No one can read no less reply on every thread on this topic.

I wonder which is more of an issue, black robe fever or going native inside the beltway. As I remember Blackmon, Souter, Kennedy and Stevens were all judges before their appointment to the SCOTUS.


300 posted on 10/06/2005 9:51:46 PM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 461 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson