Posted on 10/23/2005 2:20:22 AM PDT by counterpunch
The White House fed the impression that being associated with the Federalist Society was somehow a matter of shame by having a spokesperson quickly insist that Roberts had "no recollection of being a member of the Federalist Society, or its steering committee."Now that we know Harriet Miers was handling the Roberts nomination inside the White House, this strange, contemptuous attitude towards the Federalist Society starts to make sense.
What kind of sense do you make of it?
(Great article. Thanks for posting it.)
If the Federalist Society is just a club for people who want to debate Constitutional law issues (minus the extreme liberals), why would Miers think it would "color" one's views?
It seems that intellectual debate would help a member/participant clarify his own thoughts and consider more fine details but not necessarily change one's views. Besides, it's not like the FS people have no other stimuli from the rest of the world to "color" their thoughts in other directions.
I've been keeping an open mind about Miers, but I'm beginning to turn negative about her. Her position on affirmative action, if true, would disqualify her for the SC.
It's time to look for plan "B". Let's find a way to turn this into a positive by nominating a married woman who is a recognized conservative.
Informative piece- thanks for posting.
If the Federalist Society is just a club for people who want to debate Constitutional law issues (minus the extreme liberals), why would Miers think it would "color" one's views?
In the late sixties a little known, Canadian born professor of literature named Marshall Mcluhan published a little book. For many of us it crystallized the power of delivering pre-packaged images in a crowded technologically driven society. His book was The Medium is the Massage, An Inventory of Effects.
Never mind that we could of gotten much the same massage (message) from reading savvy, worldly Benjamin Franklin's inventory of virtues in his Autobiography, wherein he counsels propriety, or at the very least, the appearance of propriety. Reading would have been simply too slow and wasteful of time.
Miers, like Barnett and even the elder Bush in his face off with Dukakis, understood the public judges people by the company they keep. Lie down with dogs. Get up with flees.
Miers certainly did not believe an association with the Federalist Society would color her views. The association, she correctly believed, would color people's perception of her views.
Look at what people are making of her slight association with the NAACP during her time on the Dallas city council. Posters would have you believe she spent all five minutes of her free time organizing lunch counter sit-ins in North Dallas.
But, what does the NAACP think about her? They issued an Action Alert asking members and friends to press their Senators to question her closely about issues near and dear to them. From the sample letter they suggest their supporters use:
I am writing to urge you to do all you can and to fulfill your Constitutional duty to thoroughly assess the ability of Harriet Miers to ensure the continued protection under law of the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, especially those of color. Specifically, I hope that you will demand direct and detailed answers to questions on Ms. Miers position on issues important to African Americans and other racial and ethnic minority Americans, including equal opportunity programs (such as Affirmative Action), voting rights, criminal and juvenile justice issues, continuing inequities in public education, housing discrimination and the death penalty, especially when it is imposed on mentally handicapped or juvenile defendants.
[. . .]
Thus, I am urging you again to do all you can to see that prior to any final vote that Ms. Miers views on civil rights and civil liberties are well known. Please contact me in the very near future to let me know what you are going to do on this matter and what I can do to help you make certain that the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans are protected.
The NAACP is very wary of what a Justice Miers means to their interests. But, from what gets posted here abouts, you'd think she was the dog that laid down with them.
I know that the Federalist Society chapter at Rutgers Newark used to make some pretty outrageous (and frequently hilarious) remarks in their newsletter regarding Affirmative Action, the NJ Supreme Court and the stupidities of Liberalism in general. I could see how some of those statements, taken out of context, could be construed as offensive.
Well, considering Miers's enthusiastic embrace of affirmative action on the Dallas City Council, Texas State Bar, and as White House Counsel, I guess it makes sense why Miers has such contempt for the Federalist Society then.
that had to do with electoral politics of changing two or three at large seats into district seats on the Dallas council.
Got something against district representation.
ensure the continued protection under law of the civil rights and civil liberties of all Americans, especially those of color.Because all Americans have equal rights, but some have more equal rights than others.
Got something against district representation.I have something against Miers's "Constitutional" interpretation of "proportional representation" in the Voting Rights Act. I also have something against her support of set-asides, and her pro-affirmative action advocacy within the White House on the University of Michigan case.
It's pretty simple, the Dallas case was about district representation, instead of having 2 or 3 at large seats.
It seems like common sense to have district represenatation, but that gets lost.
In your local community would you rather have district representation or at large seats?
Your reading of the Voting Rights Act case is incorrect.
Allow me to provide this quote from Miers's testimony in the case:
"I certainly hope that if the system, if the 10-4-1 system is the system that we're going to do business under, that the lines be drawn to accomplish the purpose that it was designed to accomplish, which is the increase of minority presence on the Council, which is important."
Your objection is what, Counterpunch?
She didn't advocate the 10-4-1, because the 4 refers to quadrants. She would have preferred increasing the single member districts and keeping the At-large districts. She believed quadrant approach left the city without someone without "sectional" allegiances.
Did you ever live in Dallas? Fort Worth?
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.