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.
let me guess... he didn't choose to do it
The goal is to win the game. What I have discovered is a woman of great accomplishments. If you have no desire to surf the net to find out more about her, then wait until the hearings. We all will find out who she is and I am optomistic that she will rally the nation behind her.
I doubt that's going to happen. I think momentum is building that will eventually torpedo her nomination.
Her accomplishments are leadership type accomplishments. She is suitable for an Executive Branch position like she has now. However, to the extent she leads her law clerks at SCOTUS, she will need to give them some direction on her judicial philosophy. What will that be? We should not have to hope, it would be better to know.
If she is an efficient and effective leader yet votes like O'Connor, which one of her long time friends suggests is likely, will that make you happy?
It's a garbage tactic if it leads to Souters, as it has.
As for her credentials, what are they talking about? This woman has been recognized in Texas for great accomplishment. Is not Texas good enough? Is this another instance of East Coast snobbery?
She's had a nice career but it doesn't give a whiff of Supreme Court. People from all around the country think that. It's not a regional thing.
Whoops. She has none.
Bush Jr. has screwed us before with his "trust me" schtick, just like his dad's "read my lips" lie. Enough of that.
Wish I could recall his handle.
Not on this!
Uh-huh. She has done community service also: In 1989, she was elected to a two-year term as an at-large candidate on the Dallas City Council. She was a member of the ABA's House of Delegates during the 1980s and 1990s For example, while she served as President of the State Bar of Texas, Ms. Miers also logged 125 pro bono hours handling an immigration and naturalization case for Catholic Charities of Dallas. In addition to her service to the Bar and her pro bono commitments, Ms. Miers has served on the Executive Board for the Southern Methodist University School of Law and as a Trustee of the Southwestern Legal Foundation. From 1995 until 2000, Ms. Miers served as Chairwoman of the Texas Lottery Commission, a voluntary public service position she undertook while maintaining her legal practice and other responsibilities. When then-Governor Bush appointed Ms. Miers to a six-year term on the Texas Lottery Commission, it was mired in scandal, and she served as a driving force behind its cleanup. At 60 years of age, Miss Miers is hardly likely to drift from her conservative philosophy like Souter or O'Connell. She will keep the Constitution nailed down to its original intent. And, at 60 years of age, she has far more trial experience than Rehnquist.
Two things Renquist had going for him when appointed to the SC by Nixon back in 1972. He was in his late 40's ... not 60 like Miers. He served as Ass't Attorney General for Nixon prior to his nomination. His undergraduate degree was from Stanford, a post graduate degree in government from Harvard, then a law degree from his alma mater. He wrote 15 books over the course of his career ... Renquist was a heavy weight. Miers in contrast is a flyweight ... sort of like HS football vs. the NFL.
She's fit in well to the culture around Bush. If I were he, I'd probably think she would be all right. The problem is that she has shwon some chameleon-like tendencies that can only be seen by someone who is not so close to the situation.
26 years ago, that would be 1979. She sure didn't sound like a born-again when she ran for Dallas Council in 1989 and promised the gays everything under the sun.
Evangelical does not guarantee conservative....why do so many FReepers insist on this?
***
Uh, YEP! I have seen so many people change their minds just by this one fact.
Interesting take. Can you give examples?
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.