Posted on 10/13/2005 2:18:54 PM PDT by NixonsAngryGhost
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/news/breaking_news/12839992.htm
Posted on Fri, Oct. 07, 2005
Miers argued for minority representation in Dallas
By Stephen Henderson
Inquirer Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON - In what appear to be some of her only public statements about a constitutional issue, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers testified in a 1990 voting-rights lawsuit that the Dallas City Council had too few black and Hispanic members and that increasing minority representation should be a goal of any change in the city's political structure.
In the same testimony, Miers, then a member of the council, said she believed that the city should divest itself of its South African financial holdings and work to boost economic development in poor and minority areas. She also said she "wouldn't belong to the Federalist Society" or other "politically charged" groups because they "seem to color your view one way or another for people who are examining you."
Miers' thoughts about racial diversity placed her squarely on the progressive side of the 1990 suit, which was pivotal in shifting power in Dallas politics to groups outside the traditional, mostly white establishment.
Some constitutional scholars say that if Miers were to embrace the same views as a justice on the Supreme Court, she would fall more in line with the court's pragmatic, moderate wing than with its doctrinaire extremes.
"There's an acknowledgment in her comments that race matters and is relevant, and from a fairness standpoint, we should acknowledge the impact of a particular political structure on voters of color," said Spencer Overton, a George Washington University law professor and a voting-rights expert. "It's not unlike something you could see Justice Sandra Day O'Connor saying. A rigid quota system may be bad, but diversity is a compelling interest, and we want institutions to reflect society as a whole."
That notion might not be helpful to Miers' support among conservatives in Washington and elsewhere, who have expressed deep disappointment - in some cases, outrage - that President Bush did not choose a solidly conservative nominee to succeed O'Connor, a swing vote on many issues.
In the 1990 federal lawsuit, Miers was called to the stand by an attorney for black and Hispanic citizens who said the City Council's structure illegally impeded their ability to win seats.
Only two of the city's eight single-member council districts had ever been represented by blacks; no blacks had ever been elected to the three citywide seats. Hispanics had no single-member representatives, and only one Mexican American had ever won a citywide seat.
Blacks and Hispanics made up more than 40 percent of the city's population.
The plaintiffs contended that the structure diluted the potential for minority representation on the council by drawing district lines that minimized the impact of minority votes.
Miers agreed that the council had too few minority members and that increasing the number of single-member districts - thus redrawing district lines - would be one way to change that. She said the structure needed to "encourage additional African American, Mexican American representation on the council."
She also said that as "one of the ingredients" in remaking the council, a racial balance would be important. Miers was careful not to endorse the idea that race should be the sole or even primary focus on redistricting efforts, saying at one point that "while race is an issue, you have economic diversity, which is really the crux" of the problem.
"To be representative, you've got to deal with more than race," she said.
Her comments were strong enough for the judge in the case, a Democratic appointee, to quote Miers among council members who agreed that the system challenged in the lawsuit was unfair.
"There was no doubt she understood the problems and wanted to find a solution, both in terms of politics and the underlying unequal services," said Michael M. Daniel, one of the lawyers who handled the case. "She obviously played a role in this case."
The Supreme Court confronts the role of race in policy-making decisions in a number of areas, including voting rights and affirmative action. Miers' 1990 views suggested contextual solutions that avoided rigid rules, much like O'Connor's opinion in the landmark 2003 college-admissions case from Michigan.
That approach is not embraced by several justices, such as Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Bush has described Scalia and Thomas as his favorite justices.
Little in Miers' record - mostly as a corporate lawyer in Dallas and legal adviser to Bush - suggests she would have developed a particular constitutional approach or outlook.
In her testimony in the voting-rights case, she said she had become familiar with the issues by reading up on cases. She also acknowledged having given a speech about a pivotal 1973 Supreme Court ruling about legislative redistricting in Texas.
In her Texas testimony, Miers also discussed her own bid for an at-large council seat and her efforts to reach out to residents in the city's largely poor, minority areas. She said that she noticed great disparities in the kinds of city services available in different neighborhoods and that many citizens in poor and minority areas felt inadequately represented on the council.
Miers said she had worked to get Hispanic and black representatives onto the oversight board for the city's transit system and to boost economic redevelopment and safety-net programs in Dallas' struggling communities.
Her testimony reveals practical experience in issues involving the race and class divide - something none of the other current Supreme Court justices has.
"I think it showed her the human side of the legal issues she'll confront," Overton said. "The question is: Who will she be as a judge? Will she bring those same sensitivities to the bench as a judge? My hope is that she will - just as Justice O'Connor did."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contact reporter Stephen Henderson at 202-383-6003 or shenderson@krwashington.com. James Kuhnhenn of the Inquirer Washington Bureau contributed to this article.
read a little about her home congregation in Dallas too. She's a real evangelical, and probably would rule against abortion and gay rights. But that says little or nothing about her overall judicial philosophy, or whether she even has one. However, reading between the lines regarding her congregation, she's probably a Dispensationalist/Darbyite--if you don't know what that is (shame on you!), Google it. She also seems to agree with Bush that all inter-group differences and it is the government's duty to "fix it." Her aversion to the Federalist Society suggests that she may be comfortable in further centralizing power in Washington.
"Pragmatic moderate" wing?
Isn't that the bunch that wants to consult foreign law?
Of course, this won't satisfy the Bushbots. Nothing would.
I agree with her position in 1990 on race relations in 1990 in texas. And I understand why she would not want to join the federalist society. She didn't say they were evil.
The NAACP in 1990 was nothing like the NAACP today, or at least wouldn't have looked so to a democrat from texas.
But I'd rather hear it from her what she believes now, rather than devine what she would do tomorrow based on something she did in 1990.
I can't even remember what I cared about in 1990, that was 15 years ago.
I've always found it distasteful that the democrats dig up decades-old stuff and use it against nominees who have said they didn't have the same opinions today. I never thought I'd have to defend a conservative nominee from such an attack by my fellow conservatives.
Oh well, I guess that's just how things are today.
"I never thought I'd have to defend a conservative nominee from such an attack by my fellow conservatives. "
That's because we're not sure that the nominee that you're defending is particularly conservative!
The obvious answer is we're all over-reacting. After all, Robert Byrd used to be a Kleagle and he's just fine today, right? I mean, we didn't actually see him lynch anyone. And, it may be that Ms. Miers is actually a Bush hater. This seems to have been a deliberate act to embarrass the President. She has to have known this would come out if she let herself be nominated to the Supreme Court.
What is wrong with that?
The details in this story should be the last straw as far as serious conservatives are concerned. This woman is a corporate dimwit pseudo-Republican who will end up siding with the liberals on most of the big ones.
UNLESS SHE IS STOPPED !!!
I'm sure she thinks it's the literal word of God. Her church has a link to a Young-Earth Creationist web site that's so off-the-wall even other YECers disapprove of it.
Who cares? Her job is to interpret constitutional law.
Believing in the Bible is irrelevant to this. It is no protection against acquiescence to liberal policies, and to liberal judicial philosophy.
One reason we got this horrible nomination is that too many conservatives have come to equate conservatism with fundamentalist Christianity. They are two different things. Churchgoing is no substitute for a real understanding of the constitution and its principles.
No argument here. I couldn't have put it better myself, in fact.
I was just answering a question someone asked.
My understanding is that most of Judaism no longer views this literally. Does not the Vatican accept the ancient age of the Earth and some of Natural Selection?
A SCOTUS Judge must have a "real understanding of the constitution and its principles.
And that's the bottom line.
Thank you for being honest in your elitism.
Amen but don't you know the media likes Falwell, Robertson and any chance to undermine Christianity by accentuating their excesses.
The Vatican has no problem with evolution, and certainly does not insist on a young earth.
The Vatican has no problem with evolution, and certainly does not insist on a young earth.
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.