Skip to comments.The Miers Testimony (WSJ/James Taranto)
Posted on 10/13/2005 1:39:16 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
President Bush last week expressed his confidence in the constancy of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, saying that "20 years from now she'll be the same person, with the same philosophy," as she is today. White House aides making the case for Miers, meanwhile, have been insisting that she is a reliable conservative. Since she has no judicial record and has had little to say about constitutional law, we can only guess at what her judicial philosophy might be, if indeed she has one at all. But if she is a political conservative, then she has not remained constant over the past 20 years.
We base this on a look at her testimony in Williams v. Dallas, a voting-rights case from 1989, when Miers was an at-large member of the Dallas City Council. Read over it and the impression that emerges is of a left-leaning centrist, not a conservative. (The testimony is here, as a five-megabyte PDF file, but we're not 100% confident that our server will be able to handle it. If it disappears, check back here for a new link as soon as we're able to provide one.)
(Excerpt) Read more at opinionjournal.com ...
More hatred from another stealth leftist. </s>
Why were we supposed to believe she is conservative, again?
The circle has come full circle.
This is BS, Miers will never change. Never mind that she went from being a Gore-supporting Catholic Democrat to a Bush-adoring evangelical Republican in the past 20 years ... she'll never change again!
Uh that two years later she stated in a speech that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, unlike rock star judge to the elite who called it an anarchorism.
i wasnt the one who said that you should be, that was another freeper, inquest i believe.
i want you around for entertainment purposes.
Apparently that isn't inconsistent with being a racist and a sexist, two charges that are very unfortunately quite substantial on the same record that allegedly establishes her as pro-2nd.
Did you see where she sent an American greetings card to then Gov. Bush. Time for a special prosecutor according to the right wing media elite.
"...her declaration that she had refrained from joining "politically charged" organizations like the Federalist Society, even though she had been a member of the liberal Progressive Voters League. When the lawyer questioning her asked if the NAACP (of which she was not a member) was "in the category of organizations you were talking about"--i.e., "politically charged"--she answered "no."
This was in 1989 - just 16 years ago. Now her supporters claim that she's a conservative. If she can change that much in 16 years, what's to stop her from changing back over the course of the next 16 years?
She's going to become a lefty FOR SURE.
I dont like your user name, hmm a Newb with a Nazi Name? Sniff Sniff
Ronald Reagan was an FDR democrat and he never changed back.
BTW, I am glad this she was nominated since it has exposed the utter hubris, elitism, and vindictiveness of the so-called "true conservatives".
And you all have "wing-nut" Drudge egging you on.
I guess this answers the question, "What kind of person would John Kerry appoint to the Supreme Court?"
Reagan was Reagan. Who is Harriet Miers?
I'm guessing it's meant to be ironic. Not really the most tasteful of choices, but hey, I'm not an admin here.
The Democrat party that Reagan left was politically to the right of the current GOP. They spent less and were more faithful to America. Sad, ain't it.
Not only a Nazi name....Noontide press (referred to in his tagline) is a Willis Carto affiliated Neo-Nazi/Holocaust revisionist publisher.
And Reagan was also a union President, but that didn't stop him from shutting down PATCo(the air traffic controllers).
So Harriet Miers who argued in favor of affirmative action as a Dallas Council member and just recently as a White House staffer, is going to rule against it as a judge? Doesn't make sense to me.
Conservatives may vehemently disagree on the Miers nomination, but we'll stick together when someone makes statements and has a tagline like Eich_Man's.
Sigh....if you try to use thought or logic, you'll never make it as a Bushbot. You just have to keep repeating to yourself over and over again "I trust the President. Having doubts is disloyal. Just ignore what's in front of your face and trust." If you say it often enough all the blood drains from your brain and it all starts to make perfect sense.
Big differences between Reagan's conversion and (possibly) Miers':
1. Reagan faced the voters every four years.
2. Reagan was very public with his conservative politics.
Here's the message I sent Taranto in response to this column:
Reagan came out and boldly proclaimed his conversion, skewering big government, social security, medicare and US foreign policy. When did Harriet ever make any public statement in support of any controversial conservative position?
I have strongly advocated the restoration of the $200,000 dental program as a model program in terms of public partnership. I have supported the maternal nurse care that was eliminated, be restored. The day-care money that was deleted I have asked be restored because they principally benefit women and minorities in my view.
On the other hand, she says she opposed the formation of a "Police Review Board," even though according to the questioning lawyer it "was supported by at least a majority of the voters in the African-American community," because, she says, "I do intend to vote based on the best interests of the entire community" (page 48).
Yes, absolutely... Conservatives still agree on basic principles, and we MUST stick together despite our occasional disagreements.
got a link?
There was once Harriet lawyerette, Who by sixty would not marry yet, She sucked up to royalty, Who did reward her loyalty, Appointing suffragette to join the SC octet!
If the quotes in your post are truly hers, then I'm starting to be swayed.
" got a link?"
They are indeed. They are verbatim out of the Taranto column posted on this thread.
Given her poor grammar, poorly constructed arguments, and her potential for "growth" evident in the documents Taranto cites, we can count on the MSM to come to her defense any moment now.
Because it is 2005, not 1989, and she says she's a conservative, and those who know her say so, and there is no evidence that she IS NOW A CONSERVATIVE.
You know, at one time she was a baby, and couldn't even feed herself or talk. Why would we want someone like THAT on the court?
The NAACP wasn't the same in 1989 as it is today.
Was Thomas ever a member of the NAACP?
I donned my flame-retardant suit after posting my letter to Taranto on this thread, but have been pleasantly surprised by the two responses to it so far!
I have to wonder if the people responsible for vetting Miers ever read this stuff. How could they possibly not have realized what an embarrassment it would be?
Conservatives dont like OUIJI BOARD sup picks.
Ironic, I think, that some of the same beltway elites who are dumping all over Miers are the same ones who held their noses at RR back in the 70s. No national experience --- a B-Grade actor, intellectual light weight, affable dunce, "divorced," tut, tut, tut......
They are her words, but they are not writings. They are testimony. They are not prepared testimony, but are answers to questions.
One could imagine that a lawyer who filed briefs with appelate courts has the capacity for better communication than what is found in this transcript of testimony.
If you want to say that you hope she would be able to answer questions better on her feet, I will support that, except that this was 16 years ago, so I think I'd rather see how she does in the committee hearings.
I read the opinion columns Brooks referenced. He suggested that they were legal writing, and that they weren't well-written legal writing.
But they were not legal briefs. They were messages from the head of an organization to its members in a newsletter, and that is how they were written. They were folksy, personal, and effusive. They were exactly what you would expect. There was nothing wrong with them, at least the 8 that I read.
Miers Ping #2.
Wow! THAT's how she writes???
Eh....Ahem.....15 years or less is more like it. She was still a very active Dimocrat in 1990.
Let's all quit the chatter here. Bottom line - She is NO conservative & she sure needs more knowledge, more mental power & probably more deep ingrained conservativism to go against the Washington elites. GW, do the correct thing. Get her to bow out & next time use some better judjement & put a proven in. Otherwise get out & let someone else lead. Opposite of RUSH here but this nomination will weaken the conservative position for the pubbies. This is the defining moment& if a proven is not sitting on the SC Bush is toast the rest of his RINO term.
Oh.....a Buchanan supporter?
Why were we supposed to believe she is conservative, again?
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.