Perhaps not the conservative after all...
 

A Sampling of the Writings of Harriet Miers
A look at the paper trail of President Bush's Supreme Court nominee

Posted Monday, Oct. 03, 2005

What kind of Supreme Court justice would Harriet Miers be? For anyone trying to assess her qualifications, analyze her philosophy and predict her behavior, Miers would seem to present a fairly blank slate. She has no judicial resume and hasn't left a long trail of noteworthy memos, briefs, oral argument transcripts or law journal articles.

Gay Rights

An indication of her stance on gay rights comes from this questionaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas Miers filled out while running for the Dallas City Council in 1989. In it, she supported full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas. (Source: Quorumreport.com)

Views on the Law

Elsewhere, a search for indications of her personal views and writing skills turned up two articles penned by Miers for the legal publication Texas Lawyer. They show a concern for the rule of law—and an emphasis on collegiality, compromise and determination:

In 1992, while president of the state bar, Miers wrote in the publication Texas Lawyer about the effect on the criminal justice system of an episode in a Fort Worth courthouse, where in July of that year, a man angry about his divorce went on a shooting spree, killing two lawyers and wounding two judges and a prosecutor before surrendering at a TV station:




"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."

"Punishment of wrongdoers should be swift and sure. Only then can the criminal justice system serve as an effective deterrent. Those who would choose a rule of man rather than the rule of law must not escape fitting penalty. Again, the lack of adequate resources to support an overburdened criminal justice system looms as a reality. Punishment may come swift and sure in the Fort Worth slayings case because of their notoriety. But we cannot forget the other cases crying for justice languishing in courts throughout Texas and the nation."

"We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction."

"We lawyers are trained in problem-solving and we have the leadership and other opportunities available to professionals in our society. The two men who died exemplified individuals devoted to their God, their families, their fellow man, their communities and their profession. Speakers in both memorial services, used the very same words: ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.’"

"Our sense of helplessness and inability to understand why tragedies like these have to occur should not cause anyone to attempt to explain the Fort Worth shootings as expressions of frustration with judges, lawyers or the justice system. Plain and simple, they are despicable acts—examples of the worst nature of man. The rest of us are challenged even more to demonstrate the best."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...112940,00.html

She opposed the decriminalization of anti-sodomy laws. She's also anti-choice, having attended a great number of anti-choice fundraisers.

The reason she was chosen was because she's not a known nutbag like Priscilla Owen. She's a nutbag without the record to show it and nominating her was a masterful move. She's only being accused of not being conservative enough so that she comes across as a moderate, thus making any fillibuster attempt look very bad for the Democrats.

What does supporting AIDS education have to do with gay rights?

Main issue is that Bush has nominated such a crony. It smells. Had he not campaigned as someone who was gonna restore dignity and honor to the presidency, it wouldn't be such a big deal. He is nothing but giving jobs to his poorly qualified chums. Give me a cheating Clinton any day.

Amen - that post is just such rank spin. If you go to the actual questionaire she completed http://www.quorumreport.com/downloadit.cfm?DocID=4747 - you will see that she is far from any friend to the gay community.

For example, she specifically notes she supports AIDS education because it is a community wide problem.

She also does not comment on the question asking whether it should be illegal for the city of Dallas not to hire someone because they are gay - she instead demurs by saying "I believe that employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors," which in no way addresses the question and, for anyone who knows anything about political speech, means she thinks gay people ought not to be hired. Otherwise, why not answer the question directly with a "yes, I think it is wrong not to hire someone just because they are gay," which is what the question asked.

Finally, she answers "yes" to the question "Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women." However, she stated she was not for the repeal of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code which states:

Sec. 21.06. HOMOSEXUAL CONDUCT.

(a) A person commits an offense if he engages in deviate sexual intercourse with another individual of the same sex.

(b) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor.

So, that negates her "yes" to gay civil rights. In other words, she is not opposed to straight people fellating and sodomizing, just gay people.

This woman is a screaming religious conservative on hot issues. No two ways about that :mad:

Interestingly, nominating someone who has never been a judge is not a new thing. Rehnquist was never a judge and I believe there were others :cool:

Yeah, but they were names with public positions on issues. Not Miers.

She has some public service and notariety:

Miers is the current White House Counsel in the Republican administration of U.S. President George W. Bush. She was Deputy Chief of Staff prior to her appointment as White House Counsel to replace Alberto Gonzales when he became Attorney General. Prior to her service in the Bush administration, Miers was a lawyer in private practice for 27 years, mostly handling business cases, and served as the first woman president of both the Dallas Bar Association and later the State Bar of Texas. She also served one term on the Dallas City Council.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

So, I think this issue is a bit of a red herring.

The far more important issue to me is:

Valley View Christian Church in Dallas was Miers's church from 1980 until she moved to Washington, D.C. to work for Bush. The church is evangelical and independent of any formal denomination. It also holds beliefs and practices that are taught in many churches of the Southern Baptist Convention. While being independent, the church's teachings on salvation through Christ is consistent with orthodox evangelical theology, as is its statement of beliefs.

When pastor Ron Key was asked about Miers's views, he said, "her personal views are consistent with that of evangelical Christians… You can tell a lot about her from her decade of service in a conservative church." [3] If Miers holds the same or similar beliefs of her former church, then she is likely to be an Evangelical Christian.

Miers is a former board member of Exodus Ministries, a Dallas-based "non-denominational Christian organization established to assist ex-offenders and their families become productive members of society by meeting both their spiritual and physical needs." [4] It should not be confused with the "ex-gay" ministry Exodus International.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

That is just downright scary shiite.

Pffffft. She has notoriety in Texas as a corporate lawyer, not much else. There is no paper trail; her positions are largely unknown. Point being that was not the case with judges like Rehnquist; they had no judicial experience, but they were not unknowns with unknown positions.

Of course it is, but Shrub wouldn't have it any other way. :laugh: It's precisely why the "outrage" over her not being conservative enough is manufactured ridiculousness.

Yep - esp. when it is proffered that her "advocating" AIDS educational etc. for the total community somehow equates to a pro gay rights position :rolleyes:

I'm not saying she is necessarily poorly qualified because she's not a judge. I just don't think her legal experience stands out in any remarkable way. All Bush can really say about her is that he knows her heart; he can't make a case that she is well-qualified for the bench. Of course, we know that he knows her policy positions which is why he chose her. That and she's a good friend.

Well let's not start talking about the filibuster and Democrats...my LORD!

But, as a conservative, I along with others have many reservations about this lady whom most of us know nothing about really.

There were a lot. I'll post a list later.

The unification of church and state
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

10.04.05 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Uh-oh. Now we are in trouble. Doesn't take much to read the tea leaves on the Harriet Miers nomination. First, it's Bunker Time at the White House. Miers' chief qualification for this job is loyalty to George W. Bush and the team. What the nomination means in larger terms for both law and society is the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Aside from that bothersome little matter, the Miers appointment is like that of John Roberts -- could've been worse. Not as bad as Edith Jones, not as bad as Priscilla Owen -- and you should see some of our boy judges from Texas.

Miers, like Bush himself, is classic Texas conservative Establishment, with the addition of Christian fundamentalism. What I mean by fundamentalist is one who believes in both biblical inerrancy and salvation by faith alone.

She is enrolled in the Valley View Christian Church of Dallas, which she attended for at least 20 years before moving to Washington five years ago. Among that church's other members is Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, considered second only to Priscilla Owen as that court's most adamant anti-abortion judge.

According to Miers' friends, she was pro-choice when a young woman, but later changed her mind as a result of a Christian experience of some kind. Those who spoke of this did not know her well enough to say whether it had been a born-again experience or simply a different understanding of theology.

Miers had the support of feminists when she ran for office first in the Dallas bar and later when she became the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association, even though the feminists were aware she was anti-choice.

At that time, the far more conservative TBA was at odds with the American Bar Association and sometimes threatened to withdraw from the national organization. Miers was considered a moderate in that she did not want to withdraw from the ABA, but favored a proposal to change the organization's stance from support for abortion rights to a position of neutrality.

One of Miers' key backers was Louise Raggio, a much-revered Dallas feminist lawyer. The women lawyers groups favored Miers despite her stand on abortion because she was a candidate acceptable to the Establishment, thus making her electable as a woman.

Miers sometimes took women judicial candidates through her very prestigious firm Liddell, Sapp for the obligatory meet 'n' greet and even donated to Democratic candidates. Both these behaviors were well within the conventions of Dallas city and judicial politics, particularly in the 1980s. Dallas city politics are nonpartisan, and rather like Texas tea ("sweet or un?") come in only two flavors -- Establishment or less Establishment. Miers qualifies as ur-Establishment, despite "being a girl," as few of the old dinosaurs still put it. The slightly feminist tinge to her credentials is a plus, but she is quite definitely anti-abortion.

She ran for city council in 1989 as a moderate, but struggled during her interview with the lesbian/gay coalition. (At the time, it would have been considered progressive to even show up.) The Dallas Police Department did not then hire gays or lesbians, and when asked about the policy, Miers replied the department should hire the best-qualified people, the classic political sidestep answer.

When pressed, she said she did believe one should be able to legally discriminate against gays, and it is the recollection of two of the organization's officers that the response involved her religious beliefs.

Miers' church states on its website that it believes in biblical inerrancy, full immersion baptism, original sin and salvation dependent entirely upon accepting Jesus Christ. Everyone else is going to hell.

I have said for years about people in public life, "I don't write about sex, drugs or rock 'n' roll." If I had my druthers, I wouldn't write about the religion of those in public life, either, as I consider it a most private matter. Separation of church and state is in the Constitution because this country was founded by people who had experienced both religious persecution and state-supported religions. I think John F. Kennedy's 1960 statement to the Baptist ministers should stand as a model of how public servants should handle the relation between religious belief and public service.

Nevertheless, we are now beset by people who insist on dragging religion into governance -- and who themselves believe they are beset by people determined to "drive God from the public square."

This division has been in part created by and certainly aggravated by those seeking political advantage. It is a recipe for an incredibly damaging and serious split in this country, and I believe we all need to think long and carefully before doing anything to make it worse.

As an 1803 quote attributed to James Madison goes: "The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries."

(c) 2005 Creators Syndicate


URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/arti...m?ItemID=19701

The real question I have is who was THE one behind the Miers pick?

Who do you think? The man who essentially wipes W's a$$ after he ****tes - Karl Rove.

I didnt really think aout him because I've always seen him as so confrontational and didnt think he's have the "Sense" to push someone like Miers. I figured he say F**K everybody, it's Owen or Brown.

He knows W probably cannot win a fight right now because W's numbers are so low. Thus, this was a calculated bet by Rove, who does not want to see W bloodied anymore than he already is.

Karl Rove.

I find it kind of funny that Miers was on the team to find a replacement for O'Connor, just as Cheney was on the team to find a VP. :laugh:

Good point. Hadn't thought of that angle. :nod:

I agree, then we will definetely have to talk about the Republicans and their filibuster history. Like when the Republicans filibustered Abe Fortas as Chief Justice in 1968...although in 2004 they claimed a filibuster has never been used on a judicial nominee---man these people do live in a fantasy world.
Republicans also casually forget about their tactics during the Clinton Administration. So yeah we won't go there buddy.

Hmmmm - let's see - do as I say, not as I do :rolleyes:

Filibustering the Truth

by Judd Legum and Christy Harvey

The greatest impact of George W. Bush's second term will likely be from his judicial nominations, including the appointment of one or more Justices to the Supreme Court. The President's selections will have long-lasting effects on all aspects of American life, including our health, our freedoms and our privacy. Senate conservatives, led by majority leader Bill Frist, have already launched a determined campaign to insure that any potential opponents are silenced--principally by attacking the Senate's most effective tool, the judicial filibuster. A closer look shows right-wing arguments for doing so are based on a series of myths about the Constitution, history and the right wing's own conduct.

Myth 1: Judicial filibusters are unconstitutional. Frist and other Republicans adamantly argue that efforts to challenge Bush's judicial nominees via filibuster are unconstitutional. This past November Frist said, "After much debate and compromise, the Framers concluded that the President should have the power to appoint. And the Senate should confirm or reject appointments by a simple majority vote. This is 'advice and consent.'"

Frist and company love talking about the Constitution and what the Framers intended. But they should get their facts straight. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring the Senate to "confirm or reject appointments by a simple majority vote." The Appointments Clause of the Constitution requires the consent of the Senate before judicial nominees are appointed. The Rules of Proceedings Clause gives the Senate the power to determine the method of consent. It doesn't matter how many times Frist says it: There is no requirement for the Senate to confirm or reject a nomination. No vote means no consent: And that's OK.

In 2003 Judicial Watch, a conservative advocacy group, filed an ultimately unsuccessful lawsuit against the Senate, claiming that the judicial filibuster was unconstitutional. Although no text supports its argument, Judicial Watch argued that it's implied that the Senate's "advice and consent" power must be exercised by a simple majority vote, because it's consistent with the "ordinary principle of majority rule." Nice try, but that position is actually antithetical to the intent of the Framers, who were careful to make sure the majority didn't always rule. James Madison wrote in The Federalist Papers that "measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an interested and overbearing majority." The Senate was created, in part, to prevent the problems associated with the tyranny of the majority.

The real culprit here is Bush, who has ripped the "advice" out of "advice and consent." He has stubbornly refused to substantively communicate with any senators who oppose his nominees. When the Senate fails to confirm his nominees, Bush just reappoints them or, worse, bypasses the Senate altogether and installs them on the bench during a recess. This kind of toxic environment makes judicial filibusters more likely.

Myth 2: Judicial filibusters are unprecedented. Republicans insist that judicial filibusters never happened before. Frist put it this way: "In February 2003 the minority radically broke with tradition and precedent and launched the first-ever filibuster of a judicial nominee who had majority support." In truth, no one should understand the legitimacy of judicial filibusters better than Bill Frist. On March 9, 2000, Frist participated in a filibuster of Richard Paez, President Clinton's nominee to the Ninth Circuit. When confronted about his vote late last year, Frist claimed he filibustered Paez for "scheduling" purposes. Not true. A press release by former Senator Bob Smith titled "Smith Leads Effort to Block Activist Judicial Nominees" plainly states that the intent of the filibuster was to "block" the Paez nomination.

In fact, Paez was only one of at least six filibusters Republicans attempted during the Clinton years. Senator Orrin Hatch and others argue that these filibusters don't count because they ultimately weren't successful in blocking the nominees. All that proves, however, is that Clinton's nominees were moderate enough to secure sixty votes. It also suggests the remedy to Bush's problem: Stop nominating extremist judges to the federal bench.

Myth 3: Republicans have the moral high ground. According to Republicans, their opposition to judicial filibusters is motivated by a nonpartisan commitment to law and decorum. Frist said Republicans in the Senate "are the stewards of rich Senate traditions and constitutional principles that must be respected." Frist talks a good game. In reality, Republicans aren't motivated by a desire to protect the hallowed pages of the Constitution. Rather, right-wing zealots have shown themselves ready to do anything--and everything--to force through their judicial nominees while blocking those of their opponents. One of the more egregious examples of dirty tricks occurred in 2002-03, when Republican staffers from the Judiciary Committee hacked into Democratic computers and stole hundreds of files. Fifteen of those confidential memos, which detailed Democratic strategies for fighting the most extreme Bush judicial nominees, were then leaked to friendly conservative media outlets like the Washington Times, columnist Bob Novak and the Wall Street Journal editorial page.

That wasn't the first time Republicans contaminated the judicial nomination process. During the Clinton years, they used a slew of questionable legislative ploys to smother judicial nominations quietly while in committee. One favorite tactic: In 1994 Senator Hatch added language to the Senate rules for confirming nominees. His objective: to allow a single senator to easily--and secretly--block nominations from leaving committee. It worked. Judge Marsha Berzon's nomination was secretly stymied for more than two years. (Senator Bob Smith finally admitted his role.) The nomination of Judge Ronnie White, who had bipartisan support in the Senate, languished in committee for almost two and a half years. Judge Helen White waited four years for a hearing; she never got one. This behind-the-scenes scheming proved to be so popular, Republicans were able to block more than sixty of Clinton's nominations. (To no one's surprise, as soon as Bush took office, Hatch abandoned this procedure, allowing nominees to sail through.) The bottom line: While a filibuster requires at least forty-one Senators on board to block a nominee, under Republican leadership, it took only a single dissent.

Myth 4: Filibusters are more appropriate for legislation than judges. Hatch claims that filibusters of judicial nominations are unacceptable. However, "filibusters of legislation," he argues, "are different." He's got it backward. Yes, the filibuster plays an important role in protecting minority interests when it comes to legislation. But unfair laws can be overturned or amended at any time. If minority interests are trampled, the aggrieved parties can take their case to the American people and set the country down a new path. Federal judges, however, are nominated for life. Those confirmed by this Congress will be issuing important rulings long after the current group of politicians is history. These judges should not be hard-line ideologues for the controlling political party. They should be acceptable to a broad range of Americans. In other words, if a judicial nominee can't secure sixty votes in the Senate, he or she is not a good choice for the federal bench.

Bush may make the nominations, but federal judges interpret the law for all Americans. Members of the Senate have the responsibility to use every tool they have to make sure the right judges are confirmed. There is no reason that taking a hard look at every nominee precludes a civil, substantive and productive process. But the first step toward ending the acrimony over judges in Washington is putting a stop to Frist's partisan propaganda campaign.

Copyright © 2005 The Nation

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0305-29.htm

Also

http://www.factcheck.org/article324.html#

I think the next time I make a big move, it will be to Canada or the UK. Things are about to get very bad for gay people in this country, methinks. :distress:

This wingnut is certainly no friend to the gay community, and neither is Roberts.

Things are about to get bad. They already are but no one has come right out and said it. Between the deficit, the war and the aftermath of Katrina, we are in one hell of a mess.

But we MUST stay the course..we MUST you know that!

Chris

Yep - essentially and even though we print the money, our currency will be soo debased that it will suffer. Put it this way, would you loan money to someone as in debt as we are, esp. if that person was continuing to expand that debt with no end in sight?

I also hate to say it, but the only way I can see to pay back that debt is to raise taxes, which as you know, I am loathe to say because (1) we pay too much for the govt. waste as it is, and (2) higher taxes will initially hurt the economy. But, thanks to the R's we are once again in a mess just like we were after Nixon/Ford, Reagan/Bush, etc.

BA&TARDS :mad:

Yes but they wont do that, they want the next President to have to do it..because they probably know it will be a Democrat, and that will make him look like just another tax raising liberal...and the average idiot voter just wont get it, they will think it's all his fault..I firmly believe it's all in their big plan.

Not to mention...
 

anyone else in this country who doesnt goosestep along to the Bush administration and their "Final Solution" for this country.

They got it with Bill Clinton :shrug: - of course Bush I had raised them already.

Interestingly, W and Rove have painted themselves into a corner here in that they have alleged revoking the tax cuts is "raising" taxes as opposed to returning them to previous levels. So, they cannot even do that. They will, though, most certainly have to raise taxes by whatever method. It is likely they will cut the states' funding so much that the states will have to raise taxes, but that will only go so far IMO.

hmmm....another quote for my "what liberals REALLY think of Americans book!" :laugh: j/k

I would love to be in it....i dont think that about ALL americans, just the ignorant ones who dont know much

Chris

Which is why I stand by the idea that...not EVERYONE should be encouraged to vote. There is nothing wrong with being politically ignorant, but don't go out and vote just because your favorite celebrity says it's "cool"...

Interestingly, Ann the sow regards all liberals as idiots and a barrage of other insulting names - yet, almost half of the country voted against W. So, the logical conclusion is Ann the saw thinks half of all Americans are idiots, etc. Hmmmmm - seems hypocritical to me.

You're going to have to think of another nick name for Ann, "sow" is not only getting old but you are using it so much you are even spelling it wrong "saw"?!? And really, on a political level...liberals are idiots. Just like you think conservatives are idiots, so let's not pretend this is a "let's blame it all on Ann" thing because honestly those little trips get old after a while. And considering Bush won by such a large amount of votes, not everyone is an idiot after all! :nod:

I know what it is, but my point was its getting OLD. Can't you be creative...come on there has to be something else brewing around in the liberal mind of yours. God knows you are capable of it! :p

I agree--but a favorite celebrity who says its cool can get someone engaged and actually get them into the process--and make them want to know more
anything wrong with that?

Yes. The Gropenfuehrer.

Well I dont think all conservatives are idiots is the difference I guess. There are just certain ones I think are idiots.

I think anyone who refuses to face facts is an idiot and most W lovers in this country just cannot do that.

Iraq is a good example of that. It has been proven over and over again that W lied more than once and also spun the provable intelligence into a far severer picture than was the reality. Yet, few in W's camp can admit that and instead keep lying. That is what I consider stupidity and being an idiot.

Another example is the huge debt this country has taken on as a result of the war in Iraq (which W clearly and incorrectly said the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for) and other scenarios. People just can't admit that is a bad thing and instead just gloss over it because they think W supports their "Christian" hatred of uppity fags and evil abortionists, which are relatively the least of anyone's concerns right now.

That is what I call stupid and idiotic and ole Ann "the war in Iraq is going magnificently" the sow fits that descrption to a T.