Skip to comments.SOME QUICK THOUGHTS ON HARRIET MIERS: (Miers supports gay adoption and Int'l Criminal Court?)
Posted on 10/03/2005 10:54:28 AM PDT by Rodney King
SOME QUICK THOUGHTS ON HARRIET MIERS: This pick reinforces several traits Bush doesn't want reinforced right now. It's a pro-business pick. In Texas Miers specialized in "commercial litigation, including antitrust and trade regulations and intellectual property disputes" according to this bio. It's a pro-crony pick. She was Bush's personal lawyer as far back as the 1980s, and obviously loyalty to Bush trumped intellectual firepower. Finally, the Miers pick cements the idea that Bush is politically weak and scared of a major fight with Democrats. As Bill Kristol just pointed out on Fox, this choice will be depressing to conservatives at exactly the moment when they were looking to be bucked up by the president.
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.
Over to you, Pat Roberts and John Bolton.
He's right on at least one thing...Bush is scared of a fight with the Senate MINORITY.
The mods have pulled this out of any area where it will be noticed, please ping people to it, thanks.
If you go to the blog they have links to the actual documents.
She submitted the report alright, but like I said she might have been opposed to those findings. Conservative Senators need to ask:
To: Members of the House of Delegates
From: Select Committee of the House
Subject: Sneak Preview of 1999 Los Angeles Midyear Meeting Agenda
Date: October 28, 1998
As part of its ongoing effort to improve communication, the Select Committee of the House has prepared the attached report which includes information concerning issues that are being developed for presentation to the House of Delegates.
In most instances, these matters will likely be considered at the upcoming Midyear Meeting in Los Angeles. Where information was available concerning items being developed for later meetings of the House, that information has been included and is so noted.
The Committee urges all Delegates to review this list for items of interest to their constituencies, and to act as the catalyst for further contact and action so that each entity will have the earliest opportunity for consideration and input.
Please note that: 1) this list is tentative in nature; 2) the filing deadline for submission of reports with recommendations by Association entities and affiliated organizations is Friday, November 20, 1998; and 3) information as to what has actually been submitted will be forwarded to you as soon as possible after that deadline.
House of Delegates
October 28, 1998
The Committee expresses its appreciation to those who provided the information on which this report is based. We ask that you provide additional information on any new developments or issues to any member of the Committee or to Rochelle E. Evans at the American Bar Center. She can be reached at 312/988-5157.
Harriet E. Miers, Chair
Richard M. Macias, Vice-Chair
Michael A. Bedke, Reporter
Daniel W. Hildebrand
C. Timothy Hopkins
Christel E. Marquardt
Estelle H. Rogers
Marna S. Tucker
Lonnie J. Williams
Diane C. Yu
Presidents and Executive Directors of State and Local Bar Associations and Affiliated Organizations Represented in the House of Delegates
Section and Committee Chairs
Senior Management Group
Section and Committee Staff Directors
Ad hominem bovine excrement. Loyalty to President Bush and intellectual firepower are assumed by this quote to be mutually exclusive. Horse manure.
Who is this woman Ms. Miers?
Did I blame her for anything? No. So get off of your high horse, or is there a polcy a new policy at FR of not linking to posts that don't square with your views?
Thats ok, I am not sure what to think of the nomination. I was pissed this morning. I have now come to the conclusion that she is no Souter, but, she is also not going to be an intellectual conservative heavweight who will serve as a beacon to a generation of young conservative lawyers as Scalia has, which is too bad.
She may turn out to be Scalia Part II but this really does disappoint me.
Context would be quite useful here. Does anyone other than those shrieking about Miers understand what is invovled in submitting said report? Is it the work of a larger committee? Would we know how Miers voted if it was part of a larger committee?
No, we don't know.
Neither do I, as stated in post 1. However, it is worth finding out the answer.
Agree there. It's going to be an interesting few weeks here.
IMHO, I think we need fewer "quick thoughts" and more patient evaluation.
"POTENTIAL AGENDA ITEMS FOR 1999 of the American Bar Association"
You are correct that it is just a list of potential agenda items. It was most likely added as an agenda item by the ABA bar members working on International Law so they could get more chargable hours. Who knows? But an agenda item that was pushed by an unknown source(s) can not be tied to Meirs recommending an ICC.
Sure, her viewpoint on and ICC would be a great area to discuss during her confirmation hearing.
The blog you are linking to, only shows an agenda of topics that were to be discussed by the committee Miers chaired.
She wasn't supporting those views.
Dear Mr. BassAckwards: You posted it, then followed up by saying we need to find out if it's true.
(It isn't true.)
Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot that at FR we are not allowed to post and discuss issues that are firing around the internet until we know 100% certain what the answer is.
Thanks for enlightening me.
Why would you make such a statement? You have no way of knowing this to be true or not. There's too much negative assuming going on, IMO.
Simply because she is not known in legal circles as one. There are very well-known legal heavyweights in the conservative movement like Lutting, McConell (not the Senator, the other one). She is simply not known as one of them.
Of course it doesn't prove anything. But why not go for the sure thing?
That was my point. There is NEVER A SURE THING. In the end, you have to hope the nominee has been vetted well and that the President is confident in the fact that he truly knows that she will uphold and apply the Constitution. Like I said, it all boils down to trust in all nominations.
No problem, RK. I like you too much to watch you making an arse of yourself by running around shouting fire without seeing the flames.
No charge for the enlightenment.
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.