Posted on 10/08/2005 12:51:57 AM PDT by RGT
DALLAS, Oct. 7 -- This city was already on edge, divided along racial and class lines over how to desegregate public housing, under court order to change an election system that kept minorities out of power, and seething from a series of police shootings that killed innocent blacks.
So when a black county commissioner was arrested after a physical altercation with an off-duty police officer who allegedly had spat a racial slur at him, more than 1,000 demonstrators marched on City Hall. Many feared violence until Harriet Miers, a first-term City Council member and local lawyer, spoke to the
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
In another instance, candidate Miers agreed to sit down with a group of abortion rights activists. Operation Rescue was staging regular protests at area abortion clinics, and the group of about 10 women who met with Miers wanted to know whether she supported a 1985 city ordinance that protected patients from harassment. Four of the women in attendance said in interviews that Miers was immovable.
"She said, well, I'm sorry, it's murder, and that's that," said Joy Mankoff, founder of a local women's political action network. "There was no room for any discussion."
Although the women left the meeting convinced that Miers was completely opposed to abortion rights, one, liberal lawyer Louise B. Raggio, continued to support Miers and still does. Miers, for her part, has raised money to promote a lecture series on women's issues bearing Raggio's name. The first speaker was feminist Gloria Steinem.
"The abortion issue is a bad issue for me," Raggio acknowledged, "but overall you look at the whole, and there are many issues I could agree with her on."
"She said, well, I'm sorry, it's murder, and that's that."
Not somethin' you'll hear from Souter, Ginsburg, et al.
No, it sure doesn't. But it does read like a play book for Sandra Day O'Connor.
From an article: In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.
Miers Names Favorite Justice: Burger (Who Voted For Roe)
Then THIS comes out: This is what I'm told happened:
"Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren — interrupted by Senator Leahy — Burger for his administrative skills.
Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn't express admiration for his jurisprudence."
http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/078890.asp
Do you think the MSM is trying to slime her? They wouldn't do THAT would they.
Let's see... minority rights, pro-life, fortitude to do what's right regardless of what people may think on the Left or the Right... She sounds to me like someone with an unusual innate sense of right and wrong AKA justice.
Minority rights is another important issue. Poor blacks and the unborn both represent the weak. What impressed me in this article is her proclivity toward right regardless of political ramifications.
I was undecided, but am becoming more impressed with her the more I read.
For the most part I admire what I have been learning of this nominee. She will likely do just fine on the court. If people think back many of the same doubts were expressed about Clarence Thomas before the "media lynching" caused people to circle the wagons around him.
In the meantime the tantrums over here are the best entertainment Du and the like could ask for. It reminds me of the months prior to the 1992 election when the far right worked as hard as they possibly could to tear down GHB, and in so doing elected Bill Clinton instead.
Btw, notice how people who speak well of Miers are now being called "Bushbots"? I thought the Schivo matter had taken this place down as low as it was likely to go, but I wonder how deep the actual bottom will turn out to be.
Or maybe Miers is neither Left nor Right, but just right?
Good question...........and one that a lot of us are asking.
Why stay on a forum that is populated by so many irrational, out of control, name-calling people, when the reason we are here in the first place is for rational discussion of issues that are important to the future of this nation? When one of the things we thought distinguished conservatives from the left was that we could actually THINK??
How deep will the bottom be to this frenzy of unbridled DU-like emotion?
I would actually take "I want to be respected" as a cautionary note.
Clarence Thomas has had abuse heaped upon him his entire tenure on the court. But he holds steadily to his course, despite the fact that he would receive widespread praise if he "moderted."
This does not mean that Miers would not as well. But since she coupled that with ""But I don't much care what people think.", I don't think that will be a problem.
I would actually take "I want to be respected" as a cautionary note.
Clarence Thomas has had abuse heaped upon him his entire tenure on the court. But he holds steadily to his course, despite the fact that he would receive widespread praise if he "moderted."
This does not mean that Miers would not as well. But since she coupled that with ""But I don't much care what people think.", I don't think that will be a problem.
It is interesting that many talk about the "base" as if it is some uniform group of like minded people. There are really several groups in the conservative base but only one that really matters, since they get the vote out, and that is evangelical Christians. If you look at those in opposition and those for, the split is between those who want a Senate fight with the dems and those who are comfortable with a born again Christian selection and trust Bush. The problem is those who are most vocal think they are the majority of the base while they are not. Much like Move On and the Daily Kos with the dems.
So here we have a group of Conservatives who are asking for the defeat of Miers but who, at the same time, decry the dems for going against tradition and not allowing the President to pick the nominee unless they agree. It seems they are now in the same camp and have agreed with the dems that the President cannot have his say in who he nominates but must get their approval first.
This storm will blow over when they start to think about what they are doing and who they are coming to resemble. That is already happening at places like Powerline who think , reason and realize that we often, especially in politics, do not get what we want. Especially in this Senate.
The real base will support the President, the rest will mellow a bit, and he will get the appointment.
What is actually funny in all this is that the dems will not know what to do. They think that the base is against the choice so will lay off. The storm is subsiding, but they will not see it. The dems may be caught short since they think the pubs will do the dirty work. But the complaint against her is she is not Conservative enough, so how can they fight that? Or she does not have elite credentials, but some of the greatest SC Justices did not, so what have they against the "Common Man"? Plus she is a woman, which is what they wanted. In essence, they are painted into a corner.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
"She pressed hard for solutions, and she was the one who would come up with alternatives," said Mike Daniel, one of the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs. "She clearly perceived the need for a remedy."
My personal guess is that she will not be a Scalia, a Thomas or even a Roberts. She may agree with them from time to time, but she will go off the reservation when she is persuaded that "justice" for the plaintiffs deserves more than the justice the law and the constitution demand.
The benevolent "desire" is a strong desire in all persons. You need great intellectual fortitude on the Supreme Court to protect the constitution from your own compassion, and to place the object of that compassion where it belongs, in the legislatures.
"The dems may be caught short since they think the pubs will do the dirty work. "
Your words are more prescient than you may realize.
The DNC often over-plays their hand. To wit, notice on all the talking head shows (and ABC, NBC,CBS) the first thing they talk about and try to focus on is the disagreement among the "GOP base" regarding Miers.
They are trying to hype that and portray the GOP as being in "disarray".
Meanwhile, the MSM does a blackout on Bush's speech the other day, and then turns around and does another "poll-a-torial" saying Bush's support is waning.
It's co-ordinated, planned, and it needs to be stopped by a GOP response that is equal in strength.
Great post, KeyWest.
The real base will support the President, the rest will mellow a bit, and he will get the appointment.
A lot of wisdom and reason in that post, Key West (I'm not surprised, btw. :)
I do hope that these Conservatives soon recognize what their behavior has been like, and whom it resembles. (The first day of the nomination felt as though the forum had literally been invaded by aliens).
And you are right in noting the split among Conservatives who are Christians, and looking toward the overall goal of moving America to the right, and towards righteousness, and see in Harriet Miers great hope for accomplishing that goal.... and those who just want the fight to put the Dems away, or want someone more 'impressive.'
My husband and I have watched this whole phenomenon in amazement, and talked about it at great length. The 'fight' is not the end. The movement of the court away from liberal activism, and toward constitutional conservatism IS. And we are both very optimistic that our prayers for just that, will be answered very soon.
Let the President exercise his Constitutional right, and trust him because he has not let us down once when it involves morality or moral conservatism........or the courts.
Take out the name of Harriet Miers and I would swear you are talking about George W. Bush . As I have always said W is not a consrvative
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.