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.
You're wrong, pure and simple. He looked at both sides of Executive nominations.
Amen!
You seem to believe Harriet feels some responsibility to something other than the Constitution. The GOP Senators are not going to listen to the fringe but will all vote for her.
If your qualifications and accomplishments were comparable to Harriet's I might be inclined to care about your feelings in this. She is extremely accomplished by any objective standard. Vague understandings of a possible political philosophy not withstanding.
And it hits the nail solidly on the head.
Now I know how my Indian co-workers feel when they go home and their parents present them with an arranged wedding bride. "We're sure you'll love her! The wedding's tommorow!"
Gossip? It was reported in a national news publication.
I have not accepted it as truth precisely because they have damaged their reputation.
I have asked clarification, rightly, from her on the topic.
I would suggest if your only contribution to this discussion is to level false assertions about my conduct, you cease. I will not indulge it. And perhaps you might also consult your own conduct in this manner.
You obviously haven't read all the posts. They hardly talk about the original piece.
High powered attorneys work on big cases that is one of the things which qualify them for advancement. Implications of unethical actions should be proven rather than deviously insinuated.
To be honest, that is the defense against charges that she won't be a strict constructionist or practice judicial restraint.
It would be silly to argue that her qualifications were "trust bush". Her qualifications are her long, distinguished career as a lawyer and as a person. Her work in, and leadership of a law firm. Her lead roles in her local and state bar association. Her private career as a top-notch corporate attorney representing large clients. Her career in public service. Her rating in the top 100 laywers in the country (twice). The high praise she receives from most who have worked with her. Her recent job screening the smartest jurists in the world to determine their judicial philosophies (apparently successfully, to listen to those here).
They may not be sufficient qualifications to get her into the job interview for you. That's fine. It enough for me to let her move on to the next step. But in either case, THIS is the current qualification list, not some straw-man that her only qualification is that the president knows her.
Some people confuse opportunity with motive. She certainly is only getting this opportunity because of her long and supposedly stellar service for the president. But she was not picked BECAUSE of that relationship. She was picked because of all her qualifications.
After all, Bush did not pick Carl Rove, even though he's known him a LOT longer and I'm sure is even MORE sure of his politics. Why? Because Carl Rove is not as qualified.
Miers is a country-club Republican dimwit who does the liberals' bidding, probably without even knowing it.
Dump her, Mr. President. You've shafted us and it's time
to do damage control, pal. Give us a QUALFIED AND CONSERVATIVE nominee.
So we are supposed to take your imaginings so seriously that we go against the considered judgment of a President that most of us love?
But this is typical of the "arguments" against Miers.
She won those cases, didn't she? Brilliant trial lawyer, I hear, works wonders for her clients.
what actual practice? What are you talking about?
Do you think Renquist, Scalia and Thomas all had identical career experience b4 nomination? What about being in practice for 30 years would not qualify her?
Ok...she became a law firm partner at 32 or 33 yrs old...pretty good just right there....far from illiteracy. Want more? Ok. She was...what..president over the TX barr for a while...ok, still not good enough?...How bout white house legal council to a president with balls to do the right thing regardless of what the polls say...a born-again...loyal to his wife...surround himself with winners...took legal council (hint hint) and nominated Roberts (who incidentally came out swinging yesterday!).
She's a Christian of 26 years to boot! Born-again HARD! Baptised within days of accepting Christ and bearing fruit within her church.
Just what is your litmus test??
You know, I kind of find what you say offensive. You make President Bush soundf like he's worse than Clinton and he thinks his supporters are scum. I volunteered to support his campaign and spent 30 hrs/wk working for his election. I don't think I'm dirt and I hope President Bush doesn't either. Did you feel Clinton was entitless to do whatever he wanted too?
It is. It's the only reason she's there and you know it. There are probably hundreds, if not thousands of people with career resumes just as impressive or better. This is the highest court of the land we're talking about, with only nine spots. Against that her resume is weak, so weak that it serves as no recommendation at all.
The only thing that sets her apart from all those people with careers just as good, and a whole bunch with better ones, is that George W. Bush likes and knows her. And it's the only recommendation her defenders can offer for her here.
Nobody's pumping up her service at the Texas Lottery Commission....
Actually, back a ways you very specifically said you were NOT discussing her qualifications. SO when I say that Federalist Paper #76 discussed the appointment of unqualified people and how you could stop it, that is not a paraphrase of what you have been saying, it is more of a correction.
But I admit that many people between post 16 and this post have said exactly what I said about how you are ignoring the entire part of qualification, so in that sense I was just paraphrasing, but not you.
As to condescending, I don't mean to be. I am rather fond of the federalist papers (I am partial to the writings of Madison moreso than Hamilton, but he did OK), and am always happy to discuss the finer points amongst fellow admirerers.
Most people, when I start quoting them by numbers, just roll their eyes.
I've lost my copy, so now I have to check books out of the library -- but I got several cool books with commentary which were quite interesting in the process.
Anyway, keep on soldiering. OK, maybe THAT was just a bit condescending. But probably no more so than arguing that a point made in correction was actually the point you were trying to make.
BTW, if in fact you have been trying to say all along that Miers doesn't fit the definitiojn of cronyism that Hamilton spoke of because people are missing his qualifier about being unqualified, then I apologize profusely. But also suggest you might work on your communication skills, because it sure looks to me like you are arguing the opposite point.
Well, you have to admit though you would have been spooked if she had meant Earl Warren, right?
Some other report said that she actually answered "yes" to his question. That to me would be a clever answer. "Which justices do you most admire?" "Yes. Thank you for asking".
See? I think that would work for a lot of questions.
Well you apparently don't think like an adult if that silliness is any indication.
I stated a FACT. That doesn't tell you what to think anymore than stating the FACT that the White beat Red Sox yesterday.
You have no other means of taking this nomination THAN faith since you don't know anything about her. You have faith that Bush has made a wrong choice. There is certainly nothing objective to back up your opinion.
i have addressed your actions, not character. If you disagree please post a quote and i will apologize.
Heck, I'll do it now....I'm sorry if I said anything to make you feel like i was attacking you personnally. That was not my intent Sister. Forgive me please. :)
In Christ,
Mike
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.