Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

'The Right Result' Was Key to Miers - In Dallas, She Made A Name for Candor
Washington Post ^ | October 8, 2005 | Jo Becker

Posted on 10/08/2005 12:51:57 AM PDT by RGT

DALLAS, Oct. 7 -- This city was already on edge, divided along racial and class lines over how to desegregate public housing, under court order to change an election system that kept minorities out of power, and seething from a series of police shootings that killed innocent blacks.

So when a black county commissioner was arrested after a physical altercation with an off-duty police officer who allegedly had spat a racial slur at him, more than 1,000 demonstrators marched on City Hall. Many feared violence until Harriet Miers, a first-term City Council member and local lawyer, spoke to the

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: miers; supremecourt

1 posted on 10/08/2005 12:51:59 AM PDT by RGT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: RGT
Good news and bad in the article. She comes off as a pro-life liberal that supports affirmative action and feminism...

In another instance, candidate Miers agreed to sit down with a group of abortion rights activists. Operation Rescue was staging regular protests at area abortion clinics, and the group of about 10 women who met with Miers wanted to know whether she supported a 1985 city ordinance that protected patients from harassment. Four of the women in attendance said in interviews that Miers was immovable.

"She said, well, I'm sorry, it's murder, and that's that," said Joy Mankoff, founder of a local women's political action network. "There was no room for any discussion."

Although the women left the meeting convinced that Miers was completely opposed to abortion rights, one, liberal lawyer Louise B. Raggio, continued to support Miers and still does. Miers, for her part, has raised money to promote a lecture series on women's issues bearing Raggio's name. The first speaker was feminist Gloria Steinem.

"The abortion issue is a bad issue for me," Raggio acknowledged, "but overall you look at the whole, and there are many issues I could agree with her on."

2 posted on 10/08/2005 1:01:06 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
On abortion Miers said...

"She said, well, I'm sorry, it's murder, and that's that."

Not somethin' you'll hear from Souter, Ginsburg, et al.

3 posted on 10/08/2005 1:07:13 AM PDT by ppaul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RGT
This article is insightful but like a roller coaster ride. I would read one paragraph and think "Oh, that is great" but upon reading the next my thought was "Uh Oh."

I would like to know her reason for not seeking reelection.
4 posted on 10/08/2005 1:10:05 AM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ppaul
Not somethin' you'll hear from Souter, Ginsburg, et al.

No, it sure doesn't. But it does read like a play book for Sandra Day O'Connor.

5 posted on 10/08/2005 1:12:05 AM PDT by msnimje (If you suspect this post might need a sarcasm tag..... it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: RGT
I don't know as I'd believe ANYTHING the WaPo says about Miers.

From an article: In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.

Miers Names Favorite Justice: Burger (Who Voted For Roe)

Then THIS comes out: This is what I'm told happened:

"Miers was asked about Justices she admired. She responded that she admired different Justices for different reasons, including Warren — interrupted by Senator Leahy — Burger for his administrative skills.

Reasonable people could ask whether Burger was a great administrator, but the comment is taken out of context by the Washington Post. Miers didn't express admiration for his jurisprudence."

http://bench.nationalreview.com/archives/078890.asp

Do you think the MSM is trying to slime her? They wouldn't do THAT would they.

6 posted on 10/08/2005 1:53:26 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RGT
"That's the thing about Harriet -- she did things she didn't have to do and that, if you were only looking out for yourself, you wouldn't do," said John Wiley Price, the Democratic county commissioner whose arrest sparked the protest. "She was gutsy."
.
.
A loner who liked to say that she made her decisions based on "the facts," Miers brought a lawyer's intellect and courtroom demeanor to a venue where ego-massaging, compromise and vote trading were more common. She left elected office of her own choosing after one term, lamenting to a local reporter that "decisions are more political" than an effort to reach the "right result."
.
.
"We spent about 1,200 hours together and had in excess of 6,000 agenda items, and I never knew where Harriet was going to be on any of those items until she cast her vote," former council colleague Jim Buerger said. "I wouldn't consider her a liberal, a moderate or a conservative, and I can't honestly think of any cause she championed."
.
.
"I want to be respected, and I want to be viewed as being true to my convictions," she told a newspaper. "But I don't much care what people think."

Let's see... minority rights, pro-life, fortitude to do what's right regardless of what people may think on the Left or the Right... She sounds to me like someone with an unusual innate sense of right and wrong AKA justice.

7 posted on 10/08/2005 2:43:05 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
Abortion is a big issue. In my opinion, since I believe the unborn are human beings with a moral status, and that birth does not "poof!" magically change that status, abortion is a terrific holocaust and the deepest and most sweeping issue - yes, even the defining issue of Our Time. It's that profound.

Minority rights is another important issue. Poor blacks and the unborn both represent the weak. What impressed me in this article is her proclivity toward right regardless of political ramifications.

I was undecided, but am becoming more impressed with her the more I read.

8 posted on 10/08/2005 2:53:35 AM PDT by Lexinom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RGT

For the most part I admire what I have been learning of this nominee. She will likely do just fine on the court. If people think back many of the same doubts were expressed about Clarence Thomas before the "media lynching" caused people to circle the wagons around him.

In the meantime the tantrums over here are the best entertainment Du and the like could ask for. It reminds me of the months prior to the 1992 election when the far right worked as hard as they possibly could to tear down GHB, and in so doing elected Bill Clinton instead.

Btw, notice how people who speak well of Miers are now being called "Bushbots"? I thought the Schivo matter had taken this place down as low as it was likely to go, but I wonder how deep the actual bottom will turn out to be.


9 posted on 10/08/2005 3:03:17 AM PDT by tlb
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky

Or maybe Miers is neither Left nor Right, but just right?


10 posted on 10/08/2005 5:09:20 AM PDT by RoadTest (We need our borders, language and culture secured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: tlb; Miss Marple; DrDeb; MJY1288; Peach; Mo1; kitkat; GretchenM; mystery-ak; kayak; pollyannaish; ..
Btw, notice how people who speak well of Miers are now being called "Bushbots"? I thought the Schivo matter had taken this place down as low as it was likely to go, but I wonder how deep the actual bottom will turn out to be.

Good question...........and one that a lot of us are asking.

Why stay on a forum that is populated by so many irrational, out of control, name-calling people, when the reason we are here in the first place is for rational discussion of issues that are important to the future of this nation? When one of the things we thought distinguished conservatives from the left was that we could actually THINK??

How deep will the bottom be to this frenzy of unbridled DU-like emotion?

11 posted on 10/08/2005 5:20:20 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RoadTest
Shortly before her term was up, Miers, reflecting on her two years in office, summed up her approach:

"I want to be respected, and I want to be viewed as being true to my convictions," she told a newspaper. "But I don't much care what people think."

I like the sound of that
12 posted on 10/08/2005 5:21:59 AM PDT by Syberyenta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Syberyenta
I like the sound of that

I would actually take "I want to be respected" as a cautionary note.

Clarence Thomas has had abuse heaped upon him his entire tenure on the court. But he holds steadily to his course, despite the fact that he would receive widespread praise if he "moderted."

This does not mean that Miers would not as well. But since she coupled that with ""But I don't much care what people think.", I don't think that will be a problem.

13 posted on 10/08/2005 5:58:10 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Syberyenta
I like the sound of that

I would actually take "I want to be respected" as a cautionary note.

Clarence Thomas has had abuse heaped upon him his entire tenure on the court. But he holds steadily to his course, despite the fact that he would receive widespread praise if he "moderted."

This does not mean that Miers would not as well. But since she coupled that with ""But I don't much care what people think.", I don't think that will be a problem.

14 posted on 10/08/2005 5:59:36 AM PDT by dirtboy (Drool overflowed my buffer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan

It is interesting that many talk about the "base" as if it is some uniform group of like minded people. There are really several groups in the conservative base but only one that really matters, since they get the vote out, and that is evangelical Christians. If you look at those in opposition and those for, the split is between those who want a Senate fight with the dems and those who are comfortable with a born again Christian selection and trust Bush. The problem is those who are most vocal think they are the majority of the base while they are not. Much like Move On and the Daily Kos with the dems.

So here we have a group of Conservatives who are asking for the defeat of Miers but who, at the same time, decry the dems for going against tradition and not allowing the President to pick the nominee unless they agree. It seems they are now in the same camp and have agreed with the dems that the President cannot have his say in who he nominates but must get their approval first.

This storm will blow over when they start to think about what they are doing and who they are coming to resemble. That is already happening at places like Powerline who think , reason and realize that we often, especially in politics, do not get what we want. Especially in this Senate.

The real base will support the President, the rest will mellow a bit, and he will get the appointment.

What is actually funny in all this is that the dems will not know what to do. They think that the base is against the choice so will lay off. The storm is subsiding, but they will not see it. The dems may be caught short since they think the pubs will do the dirty work. But the complaint against her is she is not Conservative enough, so how can they fight that? Or she does not have elite credentials, but some of the greatest SC Justices did not, so what have they against the "Common Man"? Plus she is a woman, which is what they wanted. In essence, they are painted into a corner.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


15 posted on 10/08/2005 6:24:26 AM PDT by KeyWest (A)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: RGT
She left elected office of her own choosing after one term, lamenting to a local reporter that "decisions are more political" than an effort to reach the "right result."

"She pressed hard for solutions, and she was the one who would come up with alternatives," said Mike Daniel, one of the lawyers who represented the plaintiffs. "She clearly perceived the need for a remedy."

My personal guess is that she will not be a Scalia, a Thomas or even a Roberts. She may agree with them from time to time, but she will go off the reservation when she is persuaded that "justice" for the plaintiffs deserves more than the justice the law and the constitution demand.

The benevolent "desire" is a strong desire in all persons. You need great intellectual fortitude on the Supreme Court to protect the constitution from your own compassion, and to place the object of that compassion where it belongs, in the legislatures.

16 posted on 10/08/2005 6:37:54 AM PDT by Wuli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KeyWest

"The dems may be caught short since they think the pubs will do the dirty work. "

Your words are more prescient than you may realize.

The DNC often over-plays their hand. To wit, notice on all the talking head shows (and ABC, NBC,CBS) the first thing they talk about and try to focus on is the disagreement among the "GOP base" regarding Miers.

They are trying to hype that and portray the GOP as being in "disarray".

Meanwhile, the MSM does a blackout on Bush's speech the other day, and then turns around and does another "poll-a-torial" saying Bush's support is waning.

It's co-ordinated, planned, and it needs to be stopped by a GOP response that is equal in strength.

Great post, KeyWest.


17 posted on 10/08/2005 6:41:27 AM PDT by TheRobb7 (The American Spirit does not require a federal subsidy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KeyWest
The base will be after you. Where's your hysteria? ;-)
18 posted on 10/08/2005 6:46:44 AM PDT by auboy ("Don't get stuck on whiny")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: KeyWest
This storm will blow over when they start to think about what they are doing and who they are coming to resemble. That is already happening at places like Powerline who think , reason and realize that we often, especially in politics, do not get what we want. Especially in this Senate.

The real base will support the President, the rest will mellow a bit, and he will get the appointment.

A lot of wisdom and reason in that post, Key West (I'm not surprised, btw. :)

I do hope that these Conservatives soon recognize what their behavior has been like, and whom it resembles. (The first day of the nomination felt as though the forum had literally been invaded by aliens).

And you are right in noting the split among Conservatives who are Christians, and looking toward the overall goal of moving America to the right, and towards righteousness, and see in Harriet Miers great hope for accomplishing that goal.... and those who just want the fight to put the Dems away, or want someone more 'impressive.'

My husband and I have watched this whole phenomenon in amazement, and talked about it at great length. The 'fight' is not the end. The movement of the court away from liberal activism, and toward constitutional conservatism IS. And we are both very optimistic that our prayers for just that, will be answered very soon.

Let the President exercise his Constitutional right, and trust him because he has not let us down once when it involves morality or moral conservatism........or the courts.

19 posted on 10/08/2005 6:53:51 AM PDT by ohioWfan (If my people which are called by my name will humble themselves and pray......)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: msnimje

Take out the name of Harriet Miers and I would swear you are talking about George W. Bush . As I have always said W is not a consrvative


20 posted on 10/08/2005 7:05:51 AM PDT by ballplayer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DJ MacWoW
according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices.

It struck me yesterday how much this story reminds me of "stupid Bush jokes" told incessantly by a staunch Kerry supporter I couldn't avoid at the time. How did the "several people" come to this knowledge? Through Miers? Unlikely at best. Through Leahy. Perhaps; and we all know Leahy's high devotion to truth. Overheard Leahy telling a joke he made up about her? No proof, but it does sound like those "stupid Bush" jokes.

21 posted on 10/08/2005 7:11:23 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RGT

This thing reads like a puff piece trying to sell Miers to the left while not alienating her any more than possible with the right. That's what scares me most about this nominee - the left is WAY to anxious to accept her. Much to anxious. I don't think its some master counter-psychology ploy by the left either. ("if we act like we love her that will terrify W's base who will then reject him and say nasty things about him on FR - yeah, yeah, that's the ticket."). I think the Dems, like all predators, know it when they spot the weak animal in the herd. They see her as someone they can make "grow" with lots of false flattery and enough invitations to the right partys.


22 posted on 10/08/2005 7:11:35 AM PDT by joebuck
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RGT
Check out the take on this article.....not sure I believe it is true, but we may have misunderestimated Bush once again...its long but darn interesting

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/10/8/0481/04691

23 posted on 10/08/2005 7:13:47 AM PDT by irish guard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Wuli
My personal guess is that she will not be a Scalia, a Thomas or even a Roberts. She may agree with them from time to time, but she will go off the reservation when she is persuaded that "justice" for the plaintiffs deserves more than the justice the law and the constitution demand.

My thoughts exactly. Based on this report, she seems to see herself as strident on life, but very flexible on social justice issues. I suspect she will care more about social outcomes than a more rigid test of constitutionality, and there you have the makings of an O'Connor or Earl Warren.

24 posted on 10/08/2005 7:34:50 AM PDT by massadvj
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ol' Sparky
She also appears to be strong against so-called "gay rights."

I don't like the Aff. Action comments, though. Not at all. And I'm a supporter of Miers.

25 posted on 10/08/2005 8:13:16 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ohioWfan
Oh, don't mind some of them. When the nominee was announced, I said she'd be a good one. Then came Frum and Kristol and the rest, piling on, and I still said, she'd be a good one. Now, Mark Levin has backed off quite a bit, and Thomas Sowell has started to come around (I don't know if he ever opposed her), but the message is getting out---a "known" conservative justice with a judicial record, like a Brown or Luttig or Alioto, was NOT going to get through the liberal RINOs like Chaffee and Collins and Snowe. I'm convinced Bush met with all of them, named names, and they told him flat-out, "No, I won't vote for Luttig, and I won't vote to break a filibuster over Brown. But I will vote for Miers and plead ignorance with my constituents."

In the last two days, both Levin and Sowell have now echoed these thoughts.

26 posted on 10/08/2005 8:17:34 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ppaul

the end of the article has this gem - it is probably why GWB likes her, "I want to be respected, and I want to be viewed as being true to my convictions," she told a newspaper. "But I don't much care what people think."


27 posted on 10/08/2005 8:38:32 AM PDT by q_an_a
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: irish guard

Excellent analysis. Although Bush is not conservative, I do believe his plans are long term and in the best interest to preserve the republic.


28 posted on 10/08/2005 8:41:29 AM PDT by griswold3 (Ken Blackwell, Ohio Governor in 2006 - George Allen, POTUS 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

I think your comments are prescient. Someone up the thread mentioned poor blacks. Roughly 80% of babies born to black mother are illegitimate. But a couple of generations ago - Before Welfare - that was not the case. The problem is not lack of money or lack of laws. The problem is lack of morality, not lack of money.


29 posted on 10/08/2005 8:44:04 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Wuli

I also don't like the desire for the "right result". A SCOTUS judges shouldn't be aiming for results or outcomes.


30 posted on 10/08/2005 8:47:24 AM PDT by little jeremiah (A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, are incompatible with freedom. P. Henry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: maryz

The MSM has an agenda and they are in overdrive to spread gossip. Unfortunately, some freepers are buying it. "Unnamed sources" doesn't bother them. Partial quotes doesn't bother them. The justice they wanted nominated wasn't so lets bash the Prez. And yes, The WaPo article sounds like a whispered joke told in the presence of the subject.


31 posted on 10/08/2005 9:23:00 AM PDT by DJ MacWoW (If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: LS
I don't like the Aff. Action comments, though

I haven't seen a complete story. Another story said the city was under a federal court order to desegregate, and her words came from her testimony in the case. And local redistricting is always going to be bare-knuckled groups jockeying for power (what were Eldridge Gerry's dates?). I haven't seen anything about her role in that particular mess that I think would disqualify her.

It might be enlightening to read a complete, fair, well-informed piece on the situation. But I doubt one exists.

32 posted on 10/08/2005 9:32:34 AM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: maryz

Agreed, and if subtly asked, all this could be learned in the hearings.


33 posted on 10/08/2005 10:21:00 AM PDT by LS (CNN is the Amtrak of news)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson