Miers Said To Be On "Extreme End" Of Pro-Life Movement

[Mark E. Smith]

The Dallas Morning News 10/3

DALLAS - (KRT) - As political activists rush to mine Supreme Court nominee Harriet Mier's slender public record, a former campaign manager says she opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989.

"She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race.

"I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president."

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said she couldn't comment on Bartos' recollection but added that President Bush "does not have a litmus test for his judicial nominees."

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/12809508.htm

I'm beginning to believe that the rights' so-called problems with Miers are not as genuine as some seem to think.

[Maat]

1. I agree.

I have a bad feeling about this.

[spindrifter]

5. I'm hoping the Dallas City Council kept

some good records about this SSC nominee's single term there. I'm wondering what specific issues came up at the Tx. Bar Assn. meetings while she was president and what issues come up during the 6 mos. to a yr. after she left that office. The only way we're going to be able to sort out what she brings to the table is to look at the trail.

[mike_c]

2. the ONE and ONLY thing Bush needs to do to achieve Reagan-like...

...stature among conservatives is to lay the foundation for the repeal of Roe v Wade. Nothing else, good or bad, would have as much effect on his legacy among RWers. He would be feted for the rest of his life. He would be a saint to them. He knows and understands this. Overturning Roe is his single most important domestic objective. All the stuff he does to help his buddies concentrate their wealth reflects favorably on him, but if he can see to it that Roe falls HE will be the undisputed hero of the wingnut base.

[Maat]

9. I think you are correct, Mike.

n/t

[regnaD kciN]

20. A Pyhrric victory, though...

Overturning Roe, for religious conservatives, would turn out to be what passing the Civil Rights Acts of the '60s were for those of us on the left -- a triumph for our principles that turned out to be a disaster for our hold on political power.

If Roe gets tossed out, and abortion recriminalized, you're going to see a backlash against Republicans by average Americans (a large majority of whom, despite some misgivings about abortion itself, clearly want the right to it to remain legal) of the sort you can hardly imagine -- comparable to the "Dixiecrats" bolting the party in the late '60s, but taking place throughout the country, not just one region.

Concurrently, the large faction of the Religious Right (and, in particular, the Roman Catholic "pro-lifers" who so often make common cause with the fundies) concerned mainly with abortion would no longer have that as an impetus to vote Republican. The "single-issue" voting bloc would fracture, and it's doubtful that appeals to homophobia alone would be able to keep them in line. Since I made an analogy to one '60s movement above, I would point out that this aspect would be similar to the anti-Vietnam movement -- once U.S. troops were no longer fighting there, anti-war youth who gravitated to the entire liberal platform because of their concerns about Vietnam wound up drifting away from the rest of the left's platform, eventually spreading out across the political spectrum.

Whether either side likes it or not, abortion is one of those issues where the vast majority of the political energy is generated by the side that's losing. I think the Republicans know this -- and will thus be loathe to actually do something about ending abortion, rather than continuing their usual strategy of using it as a red-flag issue to generate votes.

[MarsThe Cat]

24. Exactly right...errr...left.

the LAST thing the repukes want is for roe to be tossed out- they need to keep it simmering at a low boil, so that their blue-collar constituency doesn't take notice of how they, their future, their children and their children's futures are being robbed blind by the corportists.

[AndyTiedye]

29. But the Fundies Count the Votes!

If Roe gets tossed out, and abortion recriminalized, you're going to see a backlash against Republicans by average Americans (a large majority of whom, despite some misgivings about abortion itself, clearly want the right to it to remain legal)

You won't see it though. It won't be on TV, which will be full of clergypeople singing Bush**'s praises. You won't see it at the ballot box thanks to Diebold.

Concurrently, the large faction of the Religious Right (and, in particular, the Roman Catholic "pro-lifers" who so often make common cause with the fundies) concerned mainly with abortion would no longer have that as an impetus to vote Republican.

Of course they would. They want to ban birth control. They want to pass more laws to hurt gay people. They want more censorship. They want it all and the Rethuglicans will be happy to give it to them.

The "single-issue" voting bloc would fracture, and it's doubtful that appeals to homophobia alone would be able to keep them in line.

They have a lot more mileage to get out of homophobia before our party sells gays out like they're selling women out now.

They can throw in a little racism (make that a LOT of racism), like they have been doing lately.

Whether either side likes it or not, abortion is one of those issues where the vast majority of the political energy is generated by the side that's losing. I think the Republicans know this -- and will thus be loathe to actually do something about ending abortion, rather than continuing their usual strategy of using it as a red-flag issue to generate votes.

"Political energy" doesn't seem to have had much effect on last year's election.

[regnaD kciN]

30. Wrong...

"Political energy" doesn't seem to have had much effect on last year's election.

On the contrary, as I pointed out earlier, the political energy was with the "losing" side on abortion -- i.e. the pro-lifers.

[readmoreoften]

68. I'm confident that they can demonize gays to great advantage.

I have faith in the power of homophobia. Characterizing heterosexuality as a moral accomplishment is a great way to attaboy your base. (You're a good man, you sleep with women. Way ta' go.)

If Roe goes, we'll just see gay conflated with pedophilia over and again. Frankly, I think the RW would love to have abortion overturned just so they could use the momentum to overturn gains made by GLBT people.

[FeloniousMonk]

130. What are you talking about?

You might be expressing some truth relevant to some political player in Washington, but the real "conservatives" want abortion gone. They also don't want public education or public libraries. I don't think that some people here realize what they are capable of and how bad they want what they want.

Saying that the Rethugs "will be creamed in the polls for the next 20 years - only 35% want Roe overturned" neglects the fact that if the Bushites have their way, the political efforts to reimpose "the traditional family" and its "values" will have changed that 35% to 80%. Under such conditions, the "uppitiness," if you will, that led various minorities, such as blacks, women, and gays, to demand their rights will be practically gone from public view. You think it's bad now? Never underestimate what can happen. It won't be like Nazi Germany, but it will be bad. They have spent decades learning from history, both from the Nazis and from the sixties. Never let some kind of political odds-making give you false confidence.

They have been planning this for decades, just like the invasion of Iraq. Just like the election, probably. And they don't care how many millions are "incidentally" hurt by the results of their ideological impositions. STD's and teen pregnancies could run rampant, but the "conservatives" will gladly look the other way, if they don't provide a method for stoning women who become "damage goods." We are talking American jihadist, here!

Miers will be a backdoor to the Supreme Court that the Bush cadre can manipulate for decades hence. Abortion will go first; then anything else that threatens the "traditional family" -- which is to say, that which is good for the likes of Halliburton is good for the family.

[fshrink]

55. Conservatives would at last

get the emblematic figure they historically deserve: a manipulative idiot. As for the rest the old gopher never stops working.

[adigal]

58. He does NOT want to overturn Roe!

The repubs do NOT want this issue to be resolved by overturning Roe for two reasons:
1. They will be creamed in the polls for the next 20 years - only 35% want Roe overturned

2. They will have no red meat to get the religious right to the polls - they are not going to vote for Tax Cuts in the same numbers that they vote to keep "them lib'ruls from killin' babies."

Not going to happen - I would be totally and completely shocked if it did. And if would kill the republicans.

[okieinpain]

79. well I figure this is the one we need to block. there is no other reason

for him to nominate her, other then he knows she's against roe.v.wade.

[DURHAM D]

3. The "rightwing reaction" seems completely scripted/orchestrated. eom

[Junkdrawer]

50. Agreed...

We're being sold a Texas Fundamentalist Corporate Conservative as if it's a great victory for the Left. I mean, one of her few public stances as president of the Texas Bar Association was to attempt to reverse the National Bar's position supporting a woman's right to choose.

Truth is that Bush is vulnerable to a successful filibuster due to his low approval ratings, so he's going Stealth and they're using the Right Wing blogosphere to sell it to the Left.

What's next? "The invasion of Iran seen as great victory for the anti-war movement. Right wing bloggers disappointed that Syria and China are left untouched."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4966091

[ClintonTyree]

65. And Harry Reid is buying it.......

as of now anyway. His fawning over her yesterday was enough to make me want to :puke:

I'm REALLY beginning to question the judgment of our "leaders".

[Junkdrawer]

94. Some are trying to say this was a clever move by Reid in order to...

capture a wealth of White House documents via the discovery process...

I'll believe that when I see it. More likely, Reid doesn't want to reconcile a filibuster and his anti-choice stance to his constituents.

[Zhade]

112. Those people, sir, are FUCKING IDIOTS.

NT!

[Solly Mack]

4. what a surprise

shakes head...

[Vickers]

6. 'President Bush "does not have a litmus test for his judicial nominees."'

I swear, it gets funnier every time I hear it!

:rofl:

[BanzaiBonnie]

70. I don't trust Bush

So why should I trust anyone he nominates. I hope to high heaven that we've learned our lesson from Michael Brown.

I consider Ms. Miers to not have a very balanced perspective on life. If she has not had ongoing relationships in a familial setting she does not have enough real life experience to hold judgement over the real lives of others. So unless she still lives with her parents and/or siblings I don't want her on the bench.

She looks like one of those crazy cat ladies. (No offense to any cats out there)

And, is it just me, or does she have a look on her face of the cat who ate the canary? Scary she is!

[Guaranteed]

7. If this is the case...we may need to filibuster, and it's for DAMNED sure

that our Democratic leadership has some things to answer for.

[DELUSIONAL]

26. Reid has already said he is happy with this idiot woman

As usual Reid is a useless waste of horse do-do.

[Charlie Brown]

8. there's a big difference between Miers' views as city council candidate

and her views as Supreme Court Justice. She'll have to look at these issues in a legal perspective, and not just say "I stand for (insert platform point here)." Even most Dems say they oppose abortion on a personal level. I don't see why Miers should be singled out for a campaign position from 16 years ago.

[Maat]

10. Because a leopard never changes her spots?

She just finds legal language to justify her predetermined position.

And, yes, I have a J.D. (law degree). You could predict the ruling of a particular justice if you knew his political tilt (i.e. belief system). That justice found the legal precedent/buzzwords/rationale to lead to that opinion afterwards (you could just tell).

I've read hundreds of opinions since my first year of law school. Rehnquist, for example, was as predictable as could be.

[Charlie Brown]

16. There are always exceptions to these trends

Scalia upheld a woman's right to choose while he was a lower judge, and was the deciding vote in the ruling that protected flag-burning as constitutional in 1989.

In the recent medicinal marijuana case, it was the "liberal" justices who ruled that Feds could prosecute people who legally acquired pot. Rehnquist, Thomas, and O'Connor dissented.

It would not surprise me at all if Miers' views on abortion are not consistent with the vague description she gave in 1989.

[Maat]

18. I just don't believe she changed such a fundamental belief.

We just have to agree to disagree there.

[blondeatlast]

42. Me neither. Remember, Thomas had "not formed an opinion either way"

on Roe v. Wade.

I remember the joke that he was the only living American who hadn't. It may have been a joke, but jokes aren't funny unless they strike a chord in reality.

One may have doubts on both sides of the issue itself, but when it comes to Roe, you are either fer 'r agin, period.

[bunkerbuster1]

54. either fer 'r agin? really?

I'm about as pro-reproductive rights as they come, I have zero interest in compromising on any part of it, whether it's parental notification or late term abortions.

But I'm not necessarily thrilled that elective abortion remains (barely) legal throughout the nation by judicial order.

Count me in as a fence-sitter there. Sometimes Roe works fer us, sometimes it works agin' us.

[Maat]

113. Exactly.

She is a very dedicated member of a fundamentalist church; I would put the odds at her being open-minded about reproductive rights at nearly zero.

[regnaD kciN]

28. Apples and oranges...

Scalia upheld a woman's right to choose while he was a lower judge (...)

That's a similar (and disingenuous, IMHO) tack to the Right's "talking point" that Chief Justice Roberts would not overturn Roe because, during his confirmation hearing for a lower court, he claimed that Roe was "established law" that he would follow. It's "established" when it comes to the dealings of lower courts, only because the Supreme Court decided Roe, and thus set legal precedent that can only be overturned by a subsequent Supreme Court decision. No lower court is able to overturn a SCOTUS decision, and thus Scaila and Roberts could do no other than to uphold Roe as long as they were sitting on the Circuit Court or Court of Appeals.

However, once they joined the Supreme Court, they moved from a sphere where they could only implement the higher court's prior rulings, to a sphere where they could create new, binding rulings that suited their own beliefs, simply on their own authority.

Holding these up as examples is a little like proclaiming that, say, Bush would never declare martial law to keep himself in office, simply because he believed that Clinton should never use martial law to keep himself in office. A lot can, and does, change, depending on which side of the power equation you now find yourself.

[Zhade]

114. Great points!

NT!

[Mark E. Smith]

32. I would think that at least some skepticism is in order

... unless you have something reassuring to share.

Feelings don't count.

[mzteris]

37. according to reports

she's become MORE RELIGIOUS since the 80's - not less.

[jzodda]

75. Do not forget the impact of having all that staff

Like you I have a JD, and when reading opinions it becomes clear that you can spend some time on westlaw/lexus and find a way to fit almost any case no matter how marginally on point. If you are a Supreme Court Justice you have nobody to answer to so it becomes even easier.

The addition of all that staff whose function is to spend all day on westlaw/lexus and that job becomes so so much easier for her. So if her worldview is what I (and you) think it is we on this side of the fence are in for some tough times ahead.

We will have to rely on Kennedy as the swing vote? We are in trouble.

[Maat]

116. I agree,

We are in trouble.

I'm not denying, however, that if the Bushies act to satisfy their Religious Right base that they won't be backing themselves up into a trap; I worry about things in the short terms (say, the next several years).

I think that they will severely curtail the right to privacy, and its recognized guarantees - that will please the base. None of the Bushies will worry about the poor (as in my indigent clients) one bit.

[mike_c]

19. because Bush's selection is not strong evidence for less polarized...

...rulings from the bench.

[Ilsa]

23. "Even most Dems say they oppose abortion on a personal level. "

Where is this statistic from? I've never read that. I would think that if a majority of Dems felt like they needed an abortion, they wouldn't be opposed to it. I guess it depends on how it was worded.

[Charlie Brown]

25. Howard Dean, Kucinich, Kerry, Byrd, Clarke, etc.

It's probably a generalization to say that most Dems are personally opposed to abortion, but certainly the ones who get the most support nationally have said that. Personally, I think the position they promote is a cop-out to attract religious voters, but they've all gone on record saying they personally do not approve of abortion. If we can overlook that, then why is Miers under such scrutiny for some vague comments she made as a city council candidate?

[FourStarDemocrat]

45. As pres of theTX Bar she argued to the ABA not to take a prochoice stand

That was in 1992. It's also reported that she's attended anti-choice fundraising dinners. She doesn't only keep her anti-choice views to herself, but participates in a process that seeks to stop others' rights to choose.

She's being passed off as as some kind of lukewarm moderate. The rightwing uproar is nothing more than a psych-ops scheme. She IS dangerous.

edit:sp

[Charlie Brown]

115. "Attending anti-choice fundraising dinners"

is very poor criteria to determine her legal views. Since the anti-choice movement is so interwined w/the Republicans (donors, lobbyists, etc.), it would be difficult to find a legal representative from the right who had not met with a pro-life group or attended a fundraiser.

Attending fundraisers of this sort says zero about her legal views on Roe and is indistinguishable from the positions of many Democrats.

If Dems criticize her for the social circles she consorts with, it will look an awful lot like a witch hunt.

And changing the ABA's position statement is a far cry from overturning Roe.

[FourStarDemocrat]

118. Oh come on.

People don't attend anti-abortion fundraisers just for networking/political donor purposes alone. She attended them because she supported their cause.

And attempting to change the ABA's position statement does say a lot. Roe v Wade has been the law of the land for 20 years by that time. The ABA had/has every reason therefore to support it, and here was Harriet Myers trying to get their postition away from that. Why would Miers put up a such fuss if she believed that Roe was legitimate law? All of this says a hell of a lot about Harriet Myers.

[mzteris]

38. most people are opposed

to it on a "personal level" - unless circumstances dictate that it is what they *MUST* do (as in *no other valid option*)

[blondeatlast]

43. It's a bit more complicated than that meme allows for.

"Would you want your daughter to have one?"

Ask someone when said daughter couldn't possibly get pregnant, and the overwhelming majority would say absolutely not, never, perish the thought.

Ask when she's 17 and looking forward to her freshman yearin college, and it would appear on the surface that the askee has made a remarkable about-face--but the askee really hasn't at all.

Roe v. Wade is a question of perceptions vs. reality. Up against the wall, most Americans want the option--but they don't want their daughters to have one.

[Ilsa]

49. Exactly!

"Roe v. Wade is a question of perceptions vs. reality. Up against the wall, most Americans want the option--but they don't want their daughters to have one."

I wouldn't want aa appendectomy or surgical heart procedure for my child either. But if you need a medical procedure, whether it is an appendectomy or abortion, you want the safest method possible. The meme is absurd and you are correct: it is about reality versus perceptions or preferences.

[DollyM]

48. I fall in this category . . .

I oppose abortion on a personcal level. After feeling my son's tiny life inside me, I couldn't fathom terminating a pregnancy. But, I realize this is a very personal decision and one that every woman who faces an intended pregnancy, must deal with. When I became pregnant (after being told we would not be able to have children) we had just graduated from college and were jobless and broke. I remember going through the local Public Health department who discussed my options, given our situation. But given the fact that this was a miracle baby in the first place, no matter how dire our situation seemed at the time, abortion was not something I would have considered. But now that he is a teenager, there are days . . . LOL! I have friends who have chosen to have abortions and I know it is not an easy decision but I will always believe that it is a medical issue and needs to be protected as such. It is a matter between a woman and her Doctor.

[HockeyMom]

121. I have two daughters

and also had the misfortune to have an ectopic pg at a "christian" hospital where they wouldn't perform an "abortion" on it, which almost killed ME.

From that experience, I can see how really DANGEROUS these people are. Yes, even as a mother, I will still fight for a woman's right to choose. HER decision, nobody else's.

[slay]

31. The problem is

that Roberts (whose wife is anti-abortion) already avoided the questions re: Roe v Wade during his confirmation. If Miers does the same then we could be setting ourselves up to have Roe v Wade overturned. We already know where she stood in her past, and I for one am not willing to risk the health of every young woman I know on someone who we are unsure of (at best) about her intentions to support Roe v Wade. Can't we ever get a freaking honest, straight-forward answer to a nominee's stand on Roe v Wade? :(

[Jersey Ginny]

11. Has there ever been a SC Judge who was never a judge?

I find her lack of experience stunning. Once again, chimpy chooses loyalty over qualifications. Has this every happened? Maybe I'm off base for assuming someone ought to have been a judge first!

[Charlie Brown]

13. Rehnquist, Warren, and White, among others n/t

[Gildor Inglorion]

14. Sure...Earl Warren, William H. Taft...several of them

and Warren, for example, was a STUNNING surprise to his Repuke masters, presiding over the most consistently progressive Supreme Court in American history. Not that I expect any such thing from this Miers person.

[pfitz59]

125. Warren was a governor.

Taft was president. Each had extensive paper trails. Miers is another stealth nominee who owes her allegience to ONE man, not the people or the Constitution! Bush* is building a true "kangaroo court".

[insane_cratic_gal]

12. He doesn't need a litmus test

He frigging knows all of them personally!!!! WTF

[Mark E. Smith]

15. NY Times Article Up Now. This Miers Gambit Could Unravel

... fast!

Miers Was Leader In Effort Within Bar To Rescind Support For Abortion.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/04/politics/politicsspecial1/04abortion.html

[Wordie]

27. Well, that article actually seems pretty inconclusive. But what I don't

understand is that Reid apparently suggested this person to Bush. I haven't read his specific comments, but I've heard that he did here at DU. Did he really do this, and what prompted him to do so? I sure would appreciate a link to any article that talks about this suggestion he made.

Something seems off about this.

[mzteris]

40. reid........

". . . Reid says Miers has "served with distinction as a trial lawyer." . . .

he has the same background -- and that he feels good about anyone with that experience.

After meeting with Miers on Capitol Hill, hours after she was nominated by President Bush to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, Reid said it "goes without saying" that he's happy Bush chose a woman.

Sources have said Reid recommended to the White House that Miers be considered for the O'Connor seat. . . "

http://www.wric.com/Global/story.asp?S=3930259&nav=0Rcx3aIN

[FourStarDemocrat]

44. This was a BAD move on Reid's part.

Did Reid even think to consider her possible views and history on abortion when OK'ing her? I know that he's "pro-life', but he's supposed to be leading and representing the Majority of Senate Dems! h
He's going to look extremely foolish now, as more and more shite on Mier's history comes out. Doesn't Reid assign his staff to do some background/ history checks on Miers before putting her on a recommended lists???

What is wrong with this man????

[klook]

59. If being female is good enough

then Ann Coulter would pass Reid's pap...uh, litmus...test.

(edited for punctuation)

[mzteris]

62. not really

Ann was born Arthur, wasn't s/he?

[Wordie]

74. There's only the one sentence in the source you linked to, about Reid's

suggestion of Miers to Bush. I just don't seem to be able to find anything really substantial about it either. Maybe it's just rumor. I wonder what's really going on, because somehow it seems to me that there's SOMETHING going on that we aren't seeing.

Why does Reid seem to support this woman, while some (not all) far right conservatives also seem to support her. I'm all for the idea of a compromise candidate, but not one who may be a stealth anti-Roe candidate. ...and yet he came out swinging in the case of Roberts.

I'm not sure if he really would support or suggest her just to be able to ask her probing questions in the hearings...so what is he up to?

[populistdriven]

17. The Democrats better filibuster this one or else

[mike_c]

21. yep, but watch-- then he'll withdraw her nomination...

...shrug and say how surprised he is that dems prevented a woman from joining the SCOTUS, and then he'll nominate Gonzales or Ashcroft. I REALLY think this going to turn out win:win for shrub. On the second go around, dems will bluster a little, then quickly approve. Or if they don't filibuster, Miers is a neocon poison pill. She's worked directly with Bush for a decade-- he knows her views and she knows his. If she's confirmed, she will become a neocon lapdog. If she's not confirmed, she'll pave the way for another of the neocon annointed.

[OrwellwasRight]

47. My thoughts exactly. nt.

F'ing typo.

[ClintonTyree]

69. No way they'll filibuster.......

remember, they SAVED the filibuster but they can never USE it again or the Pukes go nuclear. Some battle they fought, huh? :eyes: They saved nothing, the filibuster is for all intents and purposes dead and she'll be confirmed with at least half of the Democrats voting for her, just like Roberts.

It's all too predictable. It's like watching a bad movie that you already know the end of but you can't do a damned thing about it. It's still going to happen anyway.

[Paligal]

22. Additional evidence she is ANTI-CHOICE

1. She donated money to the very man who brought the partial birth abortion ban case to the Supreme Court, Donald B Stenberg
http://www.newsmeat.com/washington_political_donations/Harriet_Miers.php

2. She has been romantically linked with Texas Supreme Court judge Nathan Hecht (wikipedia), who has been vocally anti-choice in his rulings, according to the Republican National Coalition for Life: http://www.rnclife.org/faxnotes/2000/mar00/00-03-24.html

3. This quote from another thread worries me:
Quoting Mr. Hecht on Ms. Miers's judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says." Mr. Hecht says he and Ms. Miers "went to two or three pro-life dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1823612#1823623

4."She is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement," said Lorlee Bartos who managed Miers' first and only political campaign and said they discussed abortion once during the race. "I think Harriet's belief was pretty strongly felt," Bartos said Monday. "I suspect she is of the same cloth as the president."
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/washington/stories/100405dnnatabortion.d644831.html

[JerseygirlCT]

33. Yup. Carefully calculated, I suspect. nt

[WLKjr]

34. Of Course She is Anti-Choice, she never

had kids, so what does she know.



Apparently everything.

[TroglodyteScholar]

35. Kind of have to wonder if she's ever had intimate relations...

I mean...if she has, she's a sinner.

Sorry, I know that's low...but how can the family-oriented right wing even consider a family-less woman? In their world view, she knows nothing about the true nature of womanhood, right?

[Liberal Isti]

51. One of my co-workers

said he read somewhere that she's a virgin. But, I certainly can't say that for a fact.

[Megahurtz]

120. Really?! She never had kids?!

And she certainly looks like she's behond her prime to have any either!
So she's safe! Typical Repuke selfishness.

This Court is being "stacked" alright and this is getting really bad.
We do not live in a Democracy in this country anymore. We're being ruled by an imperialist dictator.
Where is the strong Democratic opposition? Is everyone gone???:shrug:

[evirus]

36. I'd bet $40

yah......... i would bet $40 that if we oppose her we will be called sexist

[apnu]

63. you would win that bet.

The Rethugs have women and blacks in the administration for only one reason, to hamstring major blocks within the liberal movement.

They don't care one bit about Democrats, they care about whiping out liberals in America.

They've played the race card with Powell and Rice and they'll play the sex card with Miers.

[Paradise]

39. shrewd and cunning!

DO NOT BELIEVE ANYTHING THEY SAY, and, more particularly, anything they say in lock-step...

[trogdor]

41. Told ya.

Fake outrage from the right places to throw the real opposition off balance. I never bought that for a second.

If I were on the Judiciary Committee, I'd be treating this like a real job interview and make her prove her qualifications, but you can't always glean one's ideology from interviews.

[wellstone_democrat]

46. City Council records won't show much, that Church does

she belongs to and is active in a very conservative anti-choice congregation---maybe you need to live in Texas to understand it but this isn't the Presbyterian congregation in Minneapolis or Boston. You don't belong to a church this unequivocal and hold other views on central issues. You also don't spend decades consorting with one particular group of people in all your working and non-working hours if you have *other* views on critical issues of social and cultural importance.

Let's get to one bottom line here:
She was assigned the task of making sure the Nat Guard record of Bush* would stand scrutiny. This means she knew there were questions and likely what sort of questions---if he had no problems there would be no concern. Thus, she understood that he had not fulfilled his duty (in time of war no less) and not only assisted with that, she is described as nearly besotted with admiration for him. That isn't enough to tell some of you exactly how she believes? How she sees the world? How she will act?

[Ilsa]

52. Which Presbyterian church does she belong to? When I lived

in Dallas years ago, our large congregation split over social issues and the final granting of assets when we joined PCUSA. The group that split off was extremely conservative, and finally allied themselves with the evangelical presbyterians.

[wellstone_democrat]

53. No I meant that "church" here is diff ---not that she's Presby

She's "non denominational" and what I was trying to say to people more familiar with mainstream denominations that have a wide variety of opinions in one congregation that non-denom fundies in Texas are monoliths---you believe all or you find yourself another church to match your beliefs.

I've seen too much: "but she might not agree on *that* but just like the services" sort of comments. To those in the northern states in particular or in mainline denoms, that seems reasonable. In Fundy megachurches, that isn't what happens. Actually, her church is widely known and its hard shell fundy.

[Tarc]

57. many here need to relax

Yes, but the church that the Schiavo judge belonged to was of a similar conservative bent, and he chose to follow the rule of law rather than meekly submit to the will of that church. They asked him to leave, if I recall, and I tihkn that took a hell of a lot of character to do. We have no idea if Miers is of the same sturdy character or not, only time will tell.

But people, this coulda been much, much worse. Imagine if Dubya had the balls to nominate one of the previously filibustered picks like Priscilla Owens, or a staunch righty with a proven track record like Michael Luttig. We already know that any filibuster would fail, either by them gonig for the nucular option or the "band of 14" negating it.

And please, stop with the "conservatives are just putting on a show protest", as that is BS. I'm worried that nearly 6 years of defeats has made some here a bit overly-paranoid. It isn't out of the ordinary to think/dream that we actually "won" a round here; with Bush's ratings tanking, Rove-gate, Iraq mess, hurricane bungling, we effectively pushed him into a position of weakenss where he had to nominate a consensus appointee. I've been poking around many of the big right-wing boards this week, and they are in full-blown freakout hysterics over this. Many won't switch over and vote Democrat, but they'll do what alot of moderate/left-leaning types did in 2000; stay home.

[wellstone_democrat]

60. As a "granite stater" that has lived in Texas 10 years

and who KNOWS of the church to which Ms. Miers belongs, the law firm and circles she is emeshed within, I'd say that it isn't "hysteria" and that Digby has it right on what is upsetting people here about her: they wanted an "in your face" Ashcroft-style appt. Sure, they will stay home but only with the real threat of the dreaded Democratic victory. She's a corporatist which is the true threat. The social issues slant is only a bonus---there is a lot more than Roe on the table in the area of personal rights and liberty. She's a safe vote for the expansion of Executive powers and that is the REAL problem. I've yet to see any indication of "backbone" in a long career---servility yes. Backbone? Individualism? no.

But, if you underestimate our churches and their cultural force, you underestimate a lot (btw, Schiavo's church was Roman Catholic which, again, has more historical latitude in personal beliefs---not at the vatican or diocesan level but "on the ground")

[ClintonTyree]

72. How could it have been worse?

That we would have known what the particular theo-fascist stands for instead of having a stealth theo-fascist? I'd much rather have some standard from which to judge someone's ability to serve on the SC than have some stealth fundie slipped in under the radar.
9 posts and telling us "many here need to relax"? We've been fighting these bastards for the last 5 years, where have you been? We could have used your help.
Welcome to DU, but it's not advisable to barge in and start telling people that have been here for years how they should feel. Maybe you should try to slowly acclimate yourself until you're better known. We're a little wary of strangers around here, you have to earn trust and respect. Hell, you're not even safe then! ;) We're a pretty good group, but be a little more cautious in your assessments for a while. :hi:

[Tarc]

83. high horses?

Please, spare me the "I have a 1000 posts" elitism.

I just think that there are some here who still haven't come to terms with our party's 44+1 seat minority Senate status yet. There is no way to block the president's nominees; the filibuster would either be shattered or bypassed as it was several months back. And with Harry Reid apparently being the one who suggested her in the first place, she will probably wind up getting more votes than Roberts, barring ahny suprise revelations at the hearings.

Miers could very well turn out to be a reprehensible Scalia clone, or she could be the next David Souter. That uncertainty is causing huge ripples in conservatism right now, with extremists Randall Terry's Operation Resacue group calling for her rejection. Spitting the Republican Parfty into splinters is key to getting back on top in the pending elections.

[ClintonTyree]

102. Hey.......

I tried to be at least half-way friendly. It's apparent you're not interested in that so...... enjoy your stay. I'm sure you'll be a big hit around here with a combative attitude like that.

[Tarc]

128. I'm sure I will too

as some here seem to need a wakeup call. I loathe having this smirking chimp in office as much as any honest Democratic voter does, but the reality is with a 55-45 minority, we can't block jack squat.

What do honestly expect Bush to do for a nomination? A Ginsburg or Breyer soundalike?

The fact that Miers' pick has caused so much consternation in the righty camp should be seen as a huge blessing to all of this. Even ghoulish vermin like Ann Coulter is panning the pick.

[wurzel]

56. Miers is 60 years old, never married, childless, presumably a virgin.

She is going to decide the reproductive rights of women. Based on what?

[sunnystarr]

81. A 60 year old virgin????

In a party that screws everyone?? Now that proves she's out of the mainstream!

Edited to add a thought ...

Maybe it's the vision of the UP or DOWN vote that makes her yearn for Senate approval. up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...up..down...
She's got a lot of catching up to do :bounce::bounce::bounce:

[zonkra]

109. That description

fits my dear departed great aunt. She was a closet lesbian. She wasn't a hypocrite though, because she wasn't a faux-"Christian" Mammon/Moloch worshipper or even a Republican. She also wasn't Inquisitor General Alberto "Torquemada" ("Tork" for short) Gonzalez in square-heeled drag, just a fine woman who wasn't just some intentionally ignorant phony flak lawyer for an illegitimate "President" with the unmitigated Cheney-esque gall to pick herself as the most qualified person in the land to be a SCOTUS Justice absent any experience as a judge whatsoever. I say check her hymen. If she's not a virgin and not married, she might not pass muster with her own party. Have Lucianne Goldberg do it. She'll be thorough.

[area51]

126. "Have Lucianne Goldberg do it."

Uh-oh, I think I'm gonna :puke: .

BTW, welcome to DU, zonkra.

[raysr]

61. "if the right doesn't like her,

she must be OK?"Yeah that would work.

[Old Vet]

67. This is a very clever calculated appointment, Talking points are..

1) Tell everyone bush made a terrible mistake, That the democrats are loving this.

2)She has no history, No matter what anyone says, Its very hard if not impossible to see where she stands.

This was Bushs personal lawyer, Shes so lock step with him it should be illegal. The big plan is to PRETEND conservatives are dumbfounded by this nomination. As far as harry reid goes, Hes sharper than most give him credit for. This is a intense game of chess between the dems and repugs, There are no rules, Peoples careers are on the line to get these cronies appointed. Underhanded tactics seem to be SOP for the repugs, So be careful of all the repug tears being shed over this nomination, Because this sadness will surely turn to glee when shes appointed. IMHO.

[ClintonTyree]

64. My thoughts exactly........

methinks the theo-fascists doth protest too much.

There's nothing here for them to be wary of other than the fact that so little is known of her. As her ideology slowly starts to reveal itself they'll be flush with glee over bush's new choice for the Supreme Court. bush has filled the Court with under the radar crooks just like him, Roberts and Miers. Remember, there wasn't that much known about bush either before the 2000 election. All the bodies had been buried and his papers were in Poppy's Library, unavailable to "prying eyes". Stealth fascism.

Like I said before, she nothing more than a theo-fascist like the rest of the bush cabal only she doesn't have the pedigree papers. The more we find out about this woman the worse it's going to become.

Harry Reid likes her though! :eyes:

[Beelzebud]

66. OH but remember. This was a victory for us!

Or so I was told repeatedly yesterday...

[savemefromdumbya]

71. Ms Fixit ? $19,00 and Bush's AWOL

Not exactly Ms Squeaky clean?

http://www.globalnewsmatrix.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=2835
They paid "hard-nosed Dallas lawyer named Harriet Miers" $19,000 to review the records. According to Newsweek, one result of her work was to deflect charges that former Texas House Speaker Ben Barnes helped Bush get into the Texas Air National Guard despite low qualifications and a long waiting list. Barnes was later forced to testify under oath that he helped Bush.

In fact, Bush's Texas gubenatorial campaign in 1998 (when he was starting to eye the White House) actually paid Miers $19,000 to run an internal pre-emptive probe of the potential scandal. Not long after, a since-settled lawsuit alleged that the Texas Lottery Commission -- while chaired by Bush appointee Miers -- played a role in a multi-million dollar cover-up of the scandal.
http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/002383.html

[barb162]

73. Women are going to lose their reproductive rights the next year or

two. I see no way to stop it, the Democrats just don't have the votes.

[mudderfudder77]

76. Curious

Who would have been an acceptable nominee?

[FourStarDemocrat]

84. Any conservative judge/legal scholar who believes in personal freedoms

There's not any on Bush's shortlist, because to them Conservative means somewhere in the area of Right-wing extremism. But there are many judges out there that are true, old fashioned conservatives in the mold of Sandra Day O'Connor who are not fundamentalist rightwingers or corporate activists. Becaue of my unfamiliarity with Federal and State Judges across the country I can't provide any names, but they are out there.

[barb162]

90. another David Souter or Ruth Bader Ginsburg or....

[appal_jack]

111. a Bill of Rights judge would be acceptable...

Not that I was expecting one to be nominated by B**h, but for me, that's THE fundamental to acceptability.

Something I NEVER hear about in the MSM (but occasionally read here at DU thankfully) is the open-endedness of our inalienable rights as defined in the US Constitution. The Ninth Amendment states that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
and the Tenth Amendment reads:
"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. "

In other words, the ORIGINAL INTENT of the Constitution (whose ratification depended on the adoption of the Bill of Rights for many Founding Fathers) was the judges were ABSOLUTELY FREE to uphold rights of citizens on virtually ANY grounds (Amendment IX). They did NOT need a specific section of the Constitution to back up a decision protecting individual freedoms. But judges (and legislators, and the executive) were expressly PROHIBITED from finding new state powers "between the lines" of the Constitutional text (Amendment X). They COULD NOT grant the state further powers beyond what original Seven articles, plus Amendments had granted.

In other-other words, Roe-v-Wade and ALL other decisions that grant individuals liberties and freedoms ARE Constitutional. Theocratic/Corporatist/Statist decisions such as last year's Medical Marijuana decision are blatantly in CONFLICT with the original intent of the Constitution. Judges only "legislate from the bench" when they erode individual liberties via their decisions. When they "find new rights" (e.g.- reproductive rights, privacy on the internet, etc.), then they are DOING THEIR JOBS as judges.

Call me insane if you will, but I sure would like to see a democratic leader take up this line of reasoning during the upcoming confirmation hearings...

-app
:patriot:

[Herman47]

123. Only if Stevens retires, or

if Ginsburg retires. We still got five votes to sustain Roe. (I think Kennedy is pro-choice).

[elsiesummers]

127. I think you are right - those who think Pubs "need" Roe don't get it.

The Republicans don't need Roe because in fact an overturn of Roe would be a huge rallying cry and shot in the arm for the Religious Right. They have only just begun to try to take over our country and a win would give them momentum to further their agenda. If they have their way we will not recognize the US in twenty years and Roe will only be the beggining, not the end.

[janetle]

77. Rove's fingerprints are all over this right wing screaming

I am completely convinced of this. This woman is right wing religious, anti-abortion and pro-Bush to the depths of her soul---so much so that she passed up having any kind of personal life.

Personally, as an attorney myself, I find her completely unqualified and lacking of even a sliver of objectivity or independence or high legal mindedness. Many of the Supreme Court justices who did not hail from the bench at the very least were law professors or thinkers.

I'm perturbed.

[mudderfudder77]

78. So Because

So because she chose to be single and not have kids she gave up her personal life? I'm surprised that so many of the enlightened on this board are criticizing her for being a single woman. I would think there would be plenty to criticize her for, other than her looks or marital status.

[janetle]

82. I read she is a workaholic....

first in and last out at the office--so I am just wondering about the quality of her personal life. I'd feel the same way if she was a guy totally devoted to his work. Don't get me wrong, I have friends who are single women without children and they have great personal lives to the point that I, as a parent, am a little envious, believe me.

[janetle]

85. And I did NOT criticize her looks!

[Old Vet]

80. Bush is the most intelligent person I have ever met..............

Kind of tells us everything we need to know about her,Period.

[Tarc]

86. Actually...

...this is about as anti-Rovian a move as one could imagine. Rove would not go against his own core strategy of keeping the party base intact and happy. That is what has carried Dubya through two fraud-laced elections; whipping up the far right so that they all vote, and peeling off just enough moderates to squeak out victory.

With all the Plame mess still hanging over the White House, perhaps Rove has fallen a bit away from the inner circle, just as Rumsfeld has had his hand largely removed from foreign policy.

[Paligal]

101. Completely agree- Limbaugh & Co. faking outrage!!

Don't buy the hype. I am 100% convinced that the so-called "opposition" of the righties is orchestrated by the neocons in order to lull the dems into a false sense of her being a moderate. She is NOT, and they are hoping that if they say no, we will say yes as a knee-jerk response. WAKE UP, America!!

[cantstandbush]

87. RW oppositon is all fake. It's Rovian.

They protest just to make the Dems think she is more liberal. The Dems fall for it. Bush and the RW laugh behind closed doors. We will never learn. The Dems have blown two chances of being a different party than the Republicans. I am ready for true Dems to break off and form a real Democratic party.

[YouthInAsia]

88. This woman is a nut. She has been with Bu$h since the beginning

of time and if you dont think that he knows where she stands on every single position then you're crazy. She's ALSO and evangelical, which in itself is crazy. This woman combined with Roberts is going to be the end of us for YEARS to come.

[Tarc]

89. but...

She also apparently ran on a platform of support for gay and lesbian civil rights when going for the Dallas city council.

[YouthInAsia]

91. wasnt that BEFORE she became a EVANGELICAL?

[Old Vet]

92. A couple interesting facts..............

She was Bush's lead counsel helping him fend off people looking for his military records, And also his lead counsel fighting to keep public documents pertaining to his DWI, Hidden. This is the pure definition of a cronie IMHO.

[YouthInAsia]

95. So when he's brought before the court on charges of treason stemming

from the PLame leak case, she'll act like the shill she is and vote on HIS side.

[Tarc]

97. I don't think so

Bios of her say she's been in this church since 1980.

[IntravenousDemilo]

99. Shrubya also mentioned that she's involved with Exodus Ministries

in his run-down of her associations. Exodus has been trying to turn gay people straight for years, with, I might add, pathetic results. Yet they continue to press forward with this losing proposition, blindly unaccepting of the fact that homosexuality is not a choice.

No, this fucking bigot belongs nowhere near the Supreme Court.

[superconnected]

105. She didn't belong to THAT Exodus.

There are a lot of Exodus'. She helped prison inmates (criminals). No wonder she gets along with Bush.

[IntravenousDemilo]

107. Ah, well, that's very different. Never mind. n/m

[Seabiscuit]

93. Bush might as well have nominated Karen Hughes or KKKarl Rove

This woman's been with Shrub a long, long time.

[The_Casual_Observer]

96. The woman is a spinster. The whole thing is crazy, why this

nomination is being taken seriously is beyond me.

[marshall]

98. Spinster?

Spinster--that's code for lesbian, isn't it? Haven't we had a spinster for attorney general?

[superconnected]

104. I'm single and in my thirties and I am not a lesbian.

Spinister is not code word for lesbian. It's archaic for single woman.

Women who chose not to marry are not by default lesbians. What a fucked up conclusion that is.

- Kelly, Feminist in Seattle.

[marshall]

106. Which is exactly my point!

Maybe I should have put a little winking smiley face, but my point is the same one you are making, and I didn't bring the topic up in the first place. I was responding to somebody else who made her non-marital status an issue. It was never an issue (that I was aware of) with Janet Reno (or David Souter or Condoleezza Rice for that matter), so I don't see why it should be an issue with Miers. Look at her judicial philosophy (what can be determined of it), not her bedroom.

[superconnected]

108. Okay

I'm sorry for saying it was a fucked up conclusion.

I read it as bad.

[Dr Fate]

100. I don't trust Democrats who claim to trust this woman- or Bush.

n/t

[superconnected]

103. I don't trust them either.

[XNGH]

110. No Way

IMO ... she won't be confirmed ... just my IMO

[Herman47]

117. OUR SENATORS GOT TO STOP...

this nomination!! There's evidence that Ms. Miers is anti-choice and anti-gay (in 1989 I believe she stated that Texas sodomy laws were okay by her). We can stop her by doing what the Repugnants did to Abe Fortas in the late 1960s (saying he was LBJ's crony) and what Senators in general did to Carswell in 1970 (saying he was mediocre). Ms. Miers is DEFINITELY A CRONY APPOINTMENT (Bush makes so many) and is also UNQUALIFIED (I'm sorry, but SMU + no judicial experience is not what I want for the Supreme Court).

Bush can't get away with this kind of shit (I know, I know, he's gotten away with far worse in the past, but with his poll numbers low, hopefully the Senate Dems will stand tall).

[Chicago Democrat]

119. "Our" senators were the ones who pre-approved this nominee...

per this


http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46630


CHANGING OF THE GUARD
President taps Texan
who`s never been judge
Supreme Court choice of Harriet Miers apparently pre-approved by Democrats

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 3, 2005
9:22 p.m. Eastern



© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

President Bush today nominated a Texas lawyer who serves as White House counsel, Harriet Miers, to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court – a pick that apparently was pre-approved by Senate Democratic leadership.

In choosing Miers, Bush tapped a person who has never been a judge and therefore has no judicial record for opponents to criticize.



-------------



:puke:

[Herman47]

122. Damn!!!

Well, that having been said...

I don't really think that Reid, Nelson, et al have completely committed themselves this early on. The journalist writing that WorldNetDaily article may not have been totally accurate in his or her use of the words, "apparently pre-approved."

[pfitz59]

124. Miers is a horrific choice!

God forbid a third court vacancy!

[PhilipDC]

129. Reid's stance

Reid on the Senate floor yesterday:

It is now well known that I suggested to the President that Harriet Miers would be worthy of the President's consideration. The President has chosen her as a replacement for retiring Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. I am grateful that the President took account of my views.

Over the coming days and weeks, we will learn more about Harriet Miers. The Judiciary Committee will hold comprehensive hearings. I do not intend to make up my mind about whether to support or oppose confirmation of this nominee until after the committee hearings, and I hope everyone in the Senate will follow that.