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 ...
ping
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?
Answer: Nothing.
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.
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.