Posted on 10/23/2005 5:34:36 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WASHINGTON – Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat, WorldNetDaily has learned.
While some conservative leaders and organizations were stunned by the appointment, most were not alarmed by the lack of a paper trail by the nominee who has never served as a judge at any level.
But a profile of her positions as a leader of the American Bar Association, a Dallas city councilwoman and as presidential counselor is unlikely to ease the concerns of those who were expecting Bush to fulfill his promise to name a justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.
According to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Miers has taken positions as White House counsel that violate the law banning women in combat.
"As White House counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments," she said.
Donnelly believes the actions of Miers could lead directly to a future court ruling requiring women to register with the Selective Service for the draft because they are now being, against the wishes of Congress, assigned to land combat.
"I am very disappointed by the president's choice," she said. "Ms. Miers does not have a judicial 'paper trail,' but her record as White House counsel is a legitimate cause for concern. Democrats and liberals who were willing to use the military for purposes of social experimentation have reason to be pleased."
Donnelly also concludes that Miers approved the Bush administrations retention of President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" regulations, which, she says, are different from the 1993 law passed by Congress
Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.
Under the heading Family Law and subheading Adoption, the document states: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child."
Also included, under the heading International Law and Practice, is a recommendation for "the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."
Along with the proposed agenda was a memo, dated Oct. 28, 1998, that explained the document.
"The Committee urges all Delegates to review this list for items of interest to their constituencies, and to act as the catalyst for further contact and action so that each entity will have the earliest opportunity for consideration and input."
The memo is signed by Miers as chairwoman of the Select Committee of the House.
As a city councilwoman, Miers also said Dallas had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services. And she courted the support of the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas in her successful 1989 campaign.
In addition, economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council.
Bush said, "Trust me."
We must trust, we must trust, we must trust, we must trust........
/s
"she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court"
If that proves to be true, that has to be the last straw on this nomination.
It's as if Bush is trying to force conservatives to the Constitution Party in 2008.
These are not the droids you are looking for.
Like Limbaugh, Frum, Noonan, Rich, Krauthammer et al, Farrah makes a good living telling others what is what. Now the question is, whether what he believes and advocates is anyone's best interest other than a narrow group of pundits who hate Mies since the President did not seek their counsel in the selection process.
About 22% of the people who vote Republican in Minnesota consistently say that the reason they do so is on the basis of moral and traditional values. I do not believe any of the above mentioned pundits speaks for them or even approves of them. Running beneath the opposition to Miers is a strong feeling that some ignorant, knuckle dragging, Neanderthal Jesus freak does not belong on SCOTUS.
Let Miers speak before the Judiciary Committee and let the Senators vote. After all, was not the pundit mantra "give an up or down vote" the basis for the success of the last nominee?
No rule by philosopher kings! Our US Senators can vote her up or down and then face the electorate. That is the way the Constitution proclaims.
But remember we are just supposed to "trust" Bush on this one.
Yesterday I moved from I'll-wait-until-the-hearings to NO WAY on Harriet Miers.
The ICC would be a disqualifier for me. I hate that treaty. And the fact that a Spanish judge issued an international arrest warrant (since quashed by grownups) for 3 American soldiers for a friendly fire incident in which they have already been cleared underscores the problem.
She needs to go.
You guys must be desperate when you repost retread articles.
It just gets better.
Souter in a skirt
Thanks, I didn't know that. The ICC is a real deal closer for me.
Now think, I know you can.
Do you think if Harriet Miers was for the ICC that she would work for an administration that gutted it and gave the UN the finger over it.
You guys are getting desperate. You use your brains once in a while.
I hear Sununu speaks highly of her.
Exactly, what does that say about him if this person has influence on any of his decisions? And the fact that he trusts her and nominated her?
Well, that is what the Senate Judiciary Committee is for--asking these questions. So far they are allegations and it is unclear to me at least whether she supports these things.
Outstanding! You are unwilling to give the President of The United States nominee a fair hearing! Brilliant defense of the Constitution. Rule by Limbaugh et al is your choice of governance. /sarcasm
I no longer support Miers and think she should remove herself from consideration. However, I dont see any where in Farrah's lastest trash piece that he has any proof that Miers favored any of these issues. ABA lawyers put them up for a vote. Once they get enough support from the committee, the go to the membership for a vote. Fact that they went up for a vote doesnt mean that Miers personally favored any of these issues. It's similar to certain issues being voted on in the House or Senate that the leadership opposes. What is she supposed to do, resign her position if an issue comes up that she disagrees with? Or should she stay and be influential in preventing their passage?
Embarrassingly for your baldly stated assertion: there is, in fact, no substantive "debunking" of any of Farrah's points anywhere in the thread cited. Oopsie.
You guys must be desperate when you repost retread articles.
Didn't show up on Search. If the Mods feel it should be removed: I have no hey problema with that.
"Desperate," however, is a term better reserved, I feel, for those so slavish in their need to prove their undying devotion to a political party (rather than conservative political principal, per se), that they ardently champion -- and even lie on behalf of! -- a pro-ICC quota queen for the United States Supreme Court. YMMV, however.
NTSA.
Yeah right, just put in the term "mystery woman" and do the search through the date, and voila this know nothing farah hit piece, but you already knew that.
I have absolutely no difficulty believing that statement to be 110% true.
And then some.
lol
Either re-read Posting #20, or else go run and fetch A Big Person to do so for you.
wow, Bush admin joining the gang of pedophiles and playing with liberal soviet rifraf....this really take the cake...but is not surprizing given the consciouslessness of liberals who give themselves up and commit suicide....why is Bush sleeping with such people he apparently know nothing about (not an excuse)
No sparks in this
LOL! Then why is she working for an administartion that effectively neutered the ICC.
Oh BTW, she is more pro-2nd amendment than Bork.
"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts," Miers wrote in Texas Lawyer when she was president of the state bar. "Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble ... access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. "We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs," she concluded.
Harriet Miers, 1992
Schumer on MTP just said "And I agree with my friends on the right, that we need to know Harriet Miers judicial philosophy." Congratulations Far Right...you just sealed for all time the fact that Chucky Schumer is RIGHT to demand to know the nominees philosophy.
Didn't see it
No matter what you say there were better choices. Whenever liberals choose someone for the Supreme Court that are strong liberals. So why cant Bush pick a strong conservative instead of someone that no one knows anything about and try to make the liberals happy?
yep yep yep, sigh....
I'm not giving up on Bush..... and FreeRepublic
.....AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHY HARRIET MUST BE STOPPED!!!!!!
n'ough said.
The poster in question has already had that humiliating little fact pointed out. And is busily scampering away from it. :)
Schumer on MTP just said "And I agree with my friends on the right, that we need to know Harriet Miers judicial philosophy." Congratulations Far Right...you just sealed for all time the fact that Chucky Schumer is RIGHT to demand to know the nominees philosophy.
That's your opinion, you can make your "better" choice when you are on the campaign trail for a year to become President of the United States.
I'll trust Bush rather than some blowhards.
Just as I'm sure Bill Cliton would be a hoot on a night out with the guys hitting the stip clubs, but had no busines being President, Harriet Miers is a nice, intelligent, rather recently converted Evangelical who has no business on SCOTUS. Nothing personal.
I was NO WAY the FIRST DAY.
If we had FR and the internet when Souter was up for nomination, he wouldn't be where he is today!
Two thumbs up for Jim Robinson for giving us a place to vent our facts and frustrations, even if all of us don't toe the party line all the time!
Of course farah knew that, but conviently left it out.
Lawyering is a nasty job... and women doing it, save for genuine counsel, gain little power for much filth...Harriet proves it
Gee... you really aren't much good at this sort of thing, are you...?
Excuse me reply #19.
She's so stealth, even GW didn't know she was a PC liberal.
"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts," Miers wrote in Texas Lawyer when she was president of the state bar. "Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble ... access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. "We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs," she concluded.
Harriet Miers, 1992
The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Anyway, we'll see. Even if the entire base and all the conservative think tanks and journalists oppose her to a man, it's still an uphill job to stop our goofy herd of GOP senators from confirming her
See reply #27, doesn't seem PC to me.
She sounds more like a politician than a judge.............
Try again.
"Outstanding! You are unwilling to give the President of The United States nominee a fair hearing!"
The President of the United States couldn't afford a potential Souter nominee, and now he's finding that out.
OUCH! That one's gonna leave a bruise -- ! :)
Illogical arguments raised solely for convenience. You folks not only speak out of both sides of your mouths, you do it simultaneously without the slightest indication that you hear the strange dissonance that causes the rest of us laugh at you.
Earlier the Miers fanatics were crowing about how her long and intimate work for the uber-liberal ABA meant nothing, that she was easily capable of working, around, and even leading people she personally disagreed with. Now your tack is, "How can you believe she would work for an administration she doesn't agree with?"
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.