Posted on 10/10/2005 5:30:35 AM PDT by gobucks
The Republican base across the country looks more favorably on President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court than the cluster of conservative critics who are opposing her inside the Beltway, according to a Washington Times survey of state party chairmen.
snip
Eileen Melvin, chairwoman of the Pennsylvania Republican Party, said she had just come from a meeting with state committee members in conservative Lancaster County, where she asked them what they thought of the Miers nomination. "They said we trust the president," she said.
snip
In Washington state, party Chairman Chris Vance said he e-mailed information about Miss Miers, provided by the Republican National Committee, to a statewide list of 10,000 Republican officials and grass-roots activists. "The next day, I got less than 10 e-mails out of 10,000 from people who were upset with the nomination," Mr. Vance said.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"I only ask, "Why Miers when there are so many QUALIFIED candidates out there?"
Because Bush has decided to keep his promise. And he has looked at qualifications through a different lens than the one we are all spoon fed as youngsters....- where the only credentials that count are those 'given' to us. It is no wonder so the credentialsia is so up in arms.
never heard this juicy one before. Do you have a link to a summary of this?
I understand completely. I have a bit of familiarity w/ software. It is as if the code writers write the code; these 'conservatives are the compilers, and the tv people are the 'user interface'.
But FR 4.0 doesn't seem to be bothered by the competition. Yes, it is funny.
Many, many thanks. Bookmarked.
Evangelical refers to ones religion, not their political party. Duh.
Jimmy Carter was an Evangelical, I say again.
You are right. I think they just want us to shut up. They could never have gotten where they are without us, and I'm afraid the only time they want us is in the voting booth!
Excuse me. You and some others thought Jimmy Carter was an Evangelical, but he was in every sense of the word a liberal...IN NO WAY EVANGELICAL.
No it isn't. What is politicizing the bench is saying someone isn't fit even before they utter a word in committee. What is politicizing the bench is writing to your senator demanding they reject someone before they have had a hearing.
You have posted for me to print souces of the negative information I listed on ms miers: so here goes
.....................................................
Worldnetdaily 10/9/05 by Jerome Corsi
Posted on 10/09/2005 8:14:00 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
On Feb. 20, 1999, while Harriet Miers was managing the law firm of Locke Liddell from the firm's Dallas office, she contributed $415 to the law firm's political action committee. Federal Election Commission reports show that on May 19, 2000, Locke Liddell's PAC contributed $1,000 to Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate Campaign Committee. For an unexplained reason, Harriet Miers listed herself as a "self-employed attorney," according to the FEC Report on her 1999 contribution to the Locke Liddell PAC.
From Newrepublic On line
For instance economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council. And Miers's long affiliation with the ABA will serve up lots of interesting tidbits that are unlikely to please social and legal conservatives. For instance, she apparently submitted the following report to the ABA's House of Delegates. Here are two of the report's recommendations:
Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. ...
Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.
From NRO on line:
The Ivins piece helps makes sense of the feminist lecture-series mystery. That series is named after Louise Raggio, a prominent feminist lawyer from Dallas. Raggio and her fellow Texas feminists supported Miers in her bid to become head of the Texas Bar Association.
Given all this, the lecture series looks like payback to Louise Raggio and her feminist allies for their political support. That would explain why Miers did not object to the one-sided trend of the speakers, even though she remained on the SMU Law School board. The lecture series was a gift to the left side of Miers’ political coalition. I don’t think it was a simple matter of payback either. By all accounts, despite her personal opposition to abortion, Miers is sympathetic to at least some of what her feminist allies believe. Does this include sympathy with affirmative action? Probably.
From AP oct 7th 05
Miers pressed Bush to let court decide lawyer fees
WASHINGTON -- President Bush praises Harriet Miers as an opponent of legislating from the judicial bench, but as a corporate lawyer she lobbied then-Gov. Bush to let the Texas high court rather than the Legislature decide if attorney fees should be limited.
In the process, Miers unleashed a verbal assault on trial lawyers who typically file lawsuits and whose cases sometimes land in the U.S. Supreme Court, where Bush now has nominated her to serve. She suggested they were "greedy" and had "brought shame" on Texas.
As a corporate attorney in 1995, Miers stepped into a battle between trial lawyers and proponents of limiting lawsuits. She pressed the future president to veto legislation that would have blocked the Texas Supreme Court from limiting attorney fees.
BY DAVE LEVINTHAL
The Dallas Morning News
DALLAS - (KRT) - She may have no judicial record, but Supreme Court justice nominee Harriet Miers took firm stances on issues ranging from taxation to democratic reforms abroad as a one-term member of the Dallas City Council, a Dallas Morning News study of city records indicates.
For example, in 1991, Miers voted in favor of a council resolution reaffirming economic sanctions Dallas had imposed against South Africa, then under a white minority-rule apartheid government. The council adopted the resolution by a 6-2 vote with three absences.
At the time, President George H.W. Bush was considering repealing federal economic sanctions against the country.
A 1989 city ordinance prohibited Dallas government from buying goods that originated in South Africa or conducting business with firms that sold goods or services there for use by the police, military or prison system.
"As she goes through this nomination process, something like that should cheer the liberals and lead to gnashing of teeth among the very conservative social conservative," said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, Miers' alma mater. "Hers was the appropriate moderate Republican position of the day, but beating up on South Africa wasn't a way to win friends with conservatives."
It was one of several council votes that will be scrutinized as her court nomination moves forward. She served between June 1989 and November 1991.
Miers was one of 10 Dallas council members to unanimously approve a 1989 agenda item that revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements for Dallas firefighters to facilitate "promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department," particularly women.
The agenda item's title: "Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan."
BY STEPHEN HENDERSON
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - In what appear to be some of her only public statements about a constitutional issue, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers testified in a 1990 voting rights lawsuit that the Dallas City Council had too few black and Hispanic members, and that increasing minority representation should be a goal of any change in the city's political structure.
In the same testimony, Miers, then a member of the council, said she believed that the city should divest its South African financial holdings and work to boost economic development in poor and minority areas. She also said she "wouldn't belong to the Federalist Society" or other "politically charged" groups because they "seem to color your view one way or another."
Miers' thoughts about racial diversity placed her squarely on the progressive side of the 1990 suit, which was pivotal in shifting power in Dallas politics to groups outside the traditional, mostly white establishment.
Mystery-woman Miers:
New clues to resume
Bush pick supported International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, women in combat, tax hike
Posted: October 3, 2005
8:38 p.m. Eastern
By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
WASHINGTON – Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat, WorldNetDaily has learned.
According to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Miers has taken positions as White House counsel that violate the law banning women in combat.
"As White House counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments," she said.
Donnelly believes the actions of Miers could lead directly to a future court ruling requiring women to register with the Selective Service for the draft because they are now being, against the wishes of Congress, assigned to land combat.
Donnelly also concludes that Miers approved the Bush administrations retention of President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" regulations, which, she says, are different from the 1993 law passed by Congress
Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.
Under the heading Family Law and subheading Adoption, the document states: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child."
Also included, under the heading International Law and Practice, is a recommendation for "the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."
The above snips from News both ON Line and Print.
There is Plenty of proof /statements that cast a very disturbing picture of ms Miers.
The question was about if the choice was between "hitlery" and McCain, I said I'd vote for McCain. Yes. (Hint: use context when posting, it makes your contribution so much more relevant.)
"Signed documents supporting WORLD COURT and HOmosexual adoption" ...
and ...
"Supported funding for radical leftist feminist speakers at Texas college" ...
by sinkspur, in which he said ...
"These are both false, and the documentation has been posted here, over and over.
It is desperation on your part that you continue to post lies about Harriet Miers."
From ... http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1499802/posts?page=196#196
There is Plenty of proof /statements that cast a very disturbing picture of ms Miers.
Your documentation does not support these contentions. Anywhere.
The stuff you DID produce is simply a rehash of things we've already seen, many times. There is simply no evidence that Harriett Miers supported the two items above, and she did not put herself in a position to either promote or discourage the speakers at the Raggio Lecture Series at SMU. So the idea that she was behind the invitation of Gloria Steinem to SMU is ludicrous.
Most of what I've seen about Harriett Miers is rumor, or somebody's interpretation of a rumor.
This is one Republican conservative who does not support the Miers nomination
Some also said the same thing about John Roberts. His paper trail and pronouncements were also relatively thin.
Were you in opposition to Roberts as well?
Now you're on record twice.
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.