From the Dallas Morning News:
She may have no judicial record, but Supreme Court justice nominee Harriet Miers took firm stances on issues ranging from taxation to democratic reforms abroad as a one-term member of the Dallas City Council, a Dallas Morning News study of city records indicates.
For example, in 1991, Miers voted in favor of a council resolution reaffirming economic sanctions Dallas had imposed against South Africa, then under a white minority-rule apartheid government. The council adopted the resolution by a 6-2 vote with three absences.
At the time, President George H.W. Bush was considering repealing federal economic sanctions against the country.
A 1989 city ordinance prohibited Dallas government from buying goods that originated in South Africa or conducting business with firms that sold goods or services there for use by the police, military or prison system.
“As she goes through this nomination process, something like that should cheer the liberals and lead to gnashing of teeth among the very conservative social conservative,” said Cal Jillson, a political science professor at Southern Methodist University, Miers’ alma mater. “Hers was the appropriate moderate Republican position of the day, but beating up on South Africa wasn’t a way to win friends with conservatives.”
It was one of several council votes that will be scrutinized as her court nomination moves forward. She served between June 1989 and November 1991.
Miers was one of 10 Dallas council members to unanimously approve a 1989 agenda item that revised minimum height, weight and vision requirements for Dallas firefighters to facilitate “promotion of certain ranks in the Fire Department,” particularly women.
The agenda item’s title: “Implementation of Fire Department Affirmative Action Plan.”
(h/t Patterico, who has more.)
Meanwhile, USA Today’s Joan Biskupic corroborates John Yoo’s assertion (later repeated by David Frum) that Harriet Miers was an influence on the Administration’s decision to argue FOR Affirmative Action in Grutter . From the the Oct 7 issue of Washington Week (no web link):
BISKUPIC: There’s not a paper trail at all on her, and actually the truth is -– there are a couple decisions that she was –- she played a larger role in. For example, the affirmative action case from Michigan two years ago, she gave a little bit more advice than usual. But one of the reasons that I think Alberto Gonzales had some things going against him is because he actually had his fingerprints on some of these memos. Harriet Miers didn’t.
In the instance of the Dallas firefighters, we can perhaps give Miers the benefit of the doubt; after all, she had yet to undergo her Party conversation, and in 1989, it may still have seemed like a good idea to decide on the basis of what kind of reproductive organs one is packing in one’s flame retardant trousers how effective one would be carrying heavy equipment and putting out fires (and really, who needs perfect eye sight to fight a three-alarm blaze? You just kinda look for the big yellow hot spot and spray water on it, right?)
But in Grutter, Bush let conservatives down, and he showed a willingness to make certain political calculations (wrongly, in my opinion) at the expense of ideological coherence. And if it turns out that Miers, his trusted friend and confidant, was (along with Al Gonzales) behind pushing that political and ideological surrender—than I simply cannot trust her to act any differently on the court.
Because presumably the President’s personal lawyer wouldn’t advise the President to side with a policy practice she felt was on its face unconstitutional. And race-based affirmative action is precisely such a political practice. That the Court continues to deny what is to many lay people so blindingly obvious is one of the reasons many Americans—and in particular, many conservatives, libertarians, and classical liberals—are so committed to changing the direction of the Court.
As Patterico reminds us:
[…] those who say we should “trust Bush†on the Miers nomination seem to forget his position on certain issues […].
You might be able to trust Bush to pick a pal that he thinks will carry out his political agenda. But even if he’s right, that’s not necessarily the same thing as picking someone who will be your idea of a judicial conservative.
This gets precisely to the point, and it echoes an observation that I made recently, namely, that “the Miers nomination[…] appears to be an instance of George Bush finding an evangelical who will be tough on porn and abortion (which social cons will find appealing), but [who] will prove to be “moderateâ€Ââ€â€or at least deferentialâ€â€on affirmative action and other proportional-based moves toward social-engineering [the Dallas firefighter example, which suggests, too, she would likely support Title IX].” That is, she appears to be a person whose loyalty to Bush extends to his political philosophy, which, on the domestic front, at least, is far less conservative than Howard Dean or the MoveOn folks would have you believe.
And what turns a judicial figure into an activist is precisely the kind of political calculus at work in the Administration’s thinking on these issues. Such a calculus plagued the tenure of Sandra Day O’Connor, who would dress her political beliefs in the garb of judicial opinion, and so who pleased liberal activists (as a “conservative” Justice) insofar as she was willing, structurally, to play their game.
But such a worldview should be anathema to a Supreme Court Justice. It’s the reason I strongly opposed an Alberto Gonzales nomination (he gave every sign that he would base important social decisions on political expediency, and he was on record as supporting affirmative action); and it’s the reason that I am now leaning forward making my opposition to Miers official.
The kind of race / gender-based social engineering that Miers seems to think will help society, if legally justified and politically implemented, is, to me, as big a divergence from our founding principles as there is. And beyond that, it has proven a practical failure insomuch as it has granted legitimacy to the notion of identity politics and given power to racial charlatans and feminist social engineers in whose interests it is to keep the country divided into warring factions.
It is also worth noting, so long as we’re pointing out that Miers’ support for the President seems to run toward the political, that had the White House filed a brief in Kelo, it would have filed on behalf of the municipal government.
Sandra Day O’Connor, you’ll remember, wrote a stinging dissent in that case. Which means that, if Miers truly does mirror the political philosophy of the President, the new Court might actually be taking a step backwards.
And if that doesn’t give you pause, nothing will.
****
Glenn points to further divide over Miers: Bay vs Bay; and Ed Morrisey in the WaPo.
****
update: At the invitation of Don Surber and Beth Cleaver, Commissar reads and responds to Beldar’s recent defense of Miers.
Beldar answers in the comments; more here.
See also, Mark Steyn.
Let me be the millionth person to note that even with a Republican majority in the senate, Bush refuses to appoint the kind of justices he promised to appoint. This is the most important thing he can do for his legacy and the future of this country, and he squanders it. He should have nominated Janice Rogers Brown and put up a fight. Too bad this president doesn’t seem to have it in him.
Then again, he is neither a conservative nor a Republican as far as I’m concerned.
I don’t see us ever turning this juggernaut of judicial activism around.
Jeff,
Excellent analysis as always.
Jeff,
Great article, but you are wrong on Miers being pro-life. (I think you take it for granted and I am not sure what your assumptions are.)
It is very likely that she is not pro-life in the judicial sense of the term.
I don’t understand why supporting economic sanctions against apartheid South Africa would bother conservatives other than David Duke. Honestly – I’m not try to beg any questions or make insinuations about conservatives being racist. I simply can’t figure out what could possibly have been objectionable about that policy to mainstream, race-neutral conservatives.
I did a bit more investigation and analysis.
Here is a more positive case that Miers is not pro-life in the judicial sense of the word: Birds of a Feather
Let me be the millionth to post that you would be hard pressed to find 40 conservative Republican Senators.
As an aside, Jeff, please forgive my rambling. None is aimed at you.
I have yet to hear any of the fire breathers explain exactly HOW to get one the ‘staunch originalist with a long paper trail’ nominated. The only thing I have read is how NOT getting a ‘staunch originalist with a long paper trail’ actually past the Senate would be ‘a good thing’. Fire up the base for ‘06. Yep. That’s the answer.
Forget Bush betraying the hard right by not nominating Luttig.
How about the hard right betraying the GWOT.
Frankly, while I am disappointed with the Miers nomination and think it’s a squandered opportunity, MY choice is to NOT cut the president off at the knees at the moment.
I think that giving the ‘high hard one’ to the jihadies (sp?) takes precedence over this nomination. At worse, we will end up with the status quo. At best, a lean toward a more originalist court.
Because really, I am not sure that I know of ANY other politician, of either party, that would have recognized the risk after 9-11 and taken it to the terrorist with quite the same conviction.
As for myself, I refuse to give the KOSacks any ammunition to use in their assault on the present administration. Not because criticism of Bush isn’t deserved, but because we cannot win this war if we have to fight terrorist, the media, the democrats, and ourselves. And I cannot control the terrorist, the media, or the democrats.
A successful GWOT, ME swamp drained, and status quo on the court is a good enough win for me.
Give Miers a chance
It’s official: she’s a Souter.
Smacko… being concerned about the GWOT is yet another reason to oppose this nomination, as Miers would have to recuse herself from any cases that relate to a policy she had a role in creating as counsel to the President.
Hmmm…if she help create policy for GWOT, maybe the ‘unqualified’ description is not apt.
I totally agree. I still think they should find some backbone. They only seem to find spines when they’re up against a Democrat president.
Spineless Republicans are pretty much useless, as are semi-spineless presidents. True, the GWOT is the overriding reason I voted for Bush and support him most of the time, but can’t he at least get one other thing right?
Still, I hope she turns out to be a good choice. Unless she withdraws her nomination, it’s a done deal.
Up to this point I’ve
[url=”http://smalltownveteran.typepad.com/posts/2005/10/some_thoughts_o.html”]
considered[/url]
[url=”http://smalltownveteran.typepad.com/posts/2005/10/more_thoughts_o.html”]
myself[/url] one of Hewitt’s Loyalists, but you just told me something I really
didn’t want to hear. Maybe it’s time for the Republican Party to
self-destruct so a Conservative/Federalist Party can rise from the ashes.
Lets try that last one again (The Preview button is your friend, Bill):
Up to this point I’ve considered myself one of Hewitt’s Loyalists, but you just told me something I really didn’t want to hear. Maybe it’s time for the Republican Party to self-destruct so a Conservative/Federalist Party can rise from the ashes.
jeff, it looks like you are piling on miers with your possible opposition to her based on her support of affirmative action. i am ambivalent concerning her on other factors, now you had to complicate it further with this information of affirmative action.
She’s definitely looking like another David Souter pick.
techno says to gie Miers a chance.
Sure, I’m all for fair play and all. Let’s giver her a chance to prove herself on a district court.
The SCOTUS is for game day, not for tryouts.
Harriet Meirs seems like a very nice, civil lady. It looks like when she was in private practice, she was a capable lawyer. Because circumstance created the opportunity to become a close friend of a man who became president of the United States, she has been given a nomiation to the Supreme Court. She is a complete creation of the president. A figure of some consequence in Texas legal circles, she has no national standing except for what Bush has given her. But any lawyer would tell you, you generally get only one offer of sitting on the bench in your life, and when it comes you better grab it. So I don’t blame her. It would hve been better for her had Bush made her a federal district judge or put her on the circuit court.
What is ominous for her is that no one really seems to be for her except Bush and a small coterie of Bush loyalists.
To me it’s a weak choice. But I see the logic given the legal trouble this Administarion seems to be drifting toward. It’s interesting to me that the critics of Ms. Meirs’ nomination don’t look at in the context of these problems, which are violtions of criminal law.
A top White House official has been indicted for obstruction of justice concerning the Abramoff scandal, which seems to touch many major GOP players. In the crunch I doubt Bush cares about characters like DeLay, Norquist and Reed. But they are all close to Karl Rove. Scandal potentially reaches into the White House again as Rove and Libby face possible indictment by Patrick Fitzgerald, who cannot be dismissed as a partisan operative. Whatever touched Rove, there’s a strong possibility it touches Bush. Even if Bush is genuinely ignorant of all these shenanigans, he looks like the worst kind of incompetent boob.Think of what 1920s politics might have looked like had HArding lived.
I won’t even dwell upon the reality that Bush and his innner circle, having sanctioned torture on the basis of incredibly specious legal reasoning, are almost certainly war criminals. Torture violates not only our own constitution and civil law, it violates our most solemn international obligations. Our adherence to this code was what separated us from the barabarism of our opponents in WWII.
Bush put John Roberts, a genuine legal heavyweight on the Court, because he is clearly deferential to executive power. He will provide the intellectual framework for whatever needs to be done. HE seeks to put Harriet Meirs on because she will owe her very seat there to Bush. She’s a vote. She can can say, “Yeah, what he said” in concurrence with the opinion that spares Bush from accounting for his crimes. If you don’t think that’s not on the minds of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, at al then you are naive.
As for the “social conservatives”. You folks are like the abused wives in a Lifetime Network movie. How many times do you have to be slapped upside the head before you figure out you are never going to get what you want from the Republican Party, or any other mainstream political party. You have been played for suckers since Reagan, who was careful never to be photographed in your presence. Wake up.
Um, no. They don’t.
They set the rules for Clinton’s impeachment trial to ensure he couldn’t possibly be convicted.
…regardless of the evidence.
(left that off my last comment)
You should put this at the beginning of your post so we know not to waste our time reading the rest.
Tell Cindy(TM) that I said Hi
Since Miss Miers is likely to be confirmed, is there any possibility I could interest anyone here in retention elections for federal judges?
(Disclosure: I posted this comment almost verbatim at another blog earlier this evening. It’s still all mine, though.)
The Miers nomination is dismaying because it indicates a bunker mentality in our President. There’s no way this confidant of his is the best qualified person for the court, and it wastes valuable political capital for him to insist that she is. She has a fine legal mind, a good heart, and strong conservative principles? Fine! Put her on a federal circuit bench somewhere and let her prove it, not the flippin’ Supreme Court. If being an articulate lawyer and a Bush booster were the main requirements, then we could just have Hugh Hewitt be the nominee.
Judges dispense justice, whereas lawyers represent clients. I personally know nothing about doing either, but I know there is a qualitative difference. I’m less concerned about having a highly-placed soldier in the culture wars than I am about having a qualified, competent judge to render ordinary, everyday justice. For all the op-ed frothing about the hot button issues of the passing scene, having someone who knows what they’re doing when they sit down at the bench each day is ultimately of more consequence.
Turing = room, as in There’s not enough room on the court for Caligula’s horse.
Plus, this pick suggests that Bush has no stomach for a big fight over principle in his SC pick. One of Reagan’s biggest mistakes was in not fighting back against the tarring of Robert Bork. Simply trying to slip under the radar is going to be Bush’s.
Harriet Souter? How can you oppose Harriet Souter.
Paul —
One of the things I based it on was this. Even if Miers is ideologically pro-choice, she may still believe Roe was bad law.
Jeff,
I’ve looked into that a little. Miers was quoted as saying that the platform would not have full force unless supported by the members. Note that she did not resign when the petition was rejected.
There are many possible interpretatios including the possibility that she was possioning herself to slide into GOP politics (which she did shortly thereafter). However, a pro-lifer would have resigned (at least one with scruples).
In any case, she did not push a pro-life platform, she just simply suggested that perhaps the ABA should not take a policy stand without a vote of the members. A year before she gave significantly to multiple pro-choice candidates and the DNC ($1000 to Gore running as pro-choice). This was all well after her “conversion”.
Also, Texas was strongly trending GOP at the time–it had voted GOP during the last two presidential elections (Reagan 80 and 84) and Bush 88. They also elected Phil Graham. The writing was on the wall for many opportunistic pols.
I think we would have to agree that Miers is opportunistic with a strong drive if nothing else. Dumb luck did not put her where she is today. Its fair to remember also that by the account of her former fiance, Miers chose career over family. That says something of her values.
Game theory implies that if Miers is not well anchored principly, she will seek to maximize her power on the court the same way that O’Connor has–by being a swing vote. She does not have the Constitutional anchoring that Roberts has so I think that chances of her finding a principled position are pretty slim.
The fact that she grabbed the position that she was supposed to be vetting other candidates for speaks volumes to her ambition over principle.
Jeff,
In 1989 (the year she supposedly became a Christian) Miers gave money to the Texas Coalition For Life.
Let me put it this way. The Texas Coalition For Life makes James Dobson look like a moderate. The fact that she gave them money tells me she is strongly pro-life.
Paul,
Wow, you mean she thinks that important decisions should be put to the vote and let the democratic process win? Damn…good thing the hard right conservatives don’t learn of these crazy ‘originalist’ details. They might torpedo her nomination.
Exactly how many years of begin a conservative does it take before you get to learn the ‘secret handshake’?
I’ll state that the rest of your post is similiar twaddle. It seems, IMO, that like many of the critics, you set your position and THEN looked for supporting arguements.
Oh I forgot,
And there is no sexism involved in the criticism of Miers? Would you even consider spouting this if Miers was a man?
Maybe all the groundbreaking first she accomplished as a female lawyer IS something to be celebrated. Cause there’s plenty of knuckledraggers left to convince.
Humbly Yours,
Smacko
TW: average…….hmm……hmmm…..damn, couln’t think of anything funny :(
Bork was a judicial activist.
He wrote the IXth Amendment out of the Constitution. Called it an inkblot.
I would not have waited this long, i.e. in a heartbeat.
The fact that she places career over family is a simple observation. It would be foolish (and biased) to ignore it. She was engaged for some time and they broke it off for career reasons.
I am wary of people that put work ahead of family. Those values are shortsighted and selfish.
Paul:
So don’t marry one.
I’m a stay-at-home divorced mother (that’s how important family is to me–I make REAL sacrifices to be at home for my daughter), but that’s just a foolish argument. I suppose you don’t trust people in the military, then, either?
In the Real Worldâ„¢, not the blindly ideological world, most employers with a grain of sense are happy to have some around that do, unfortunately, place career above family. I don’t PERSONALLY care to be close to those kind of people–I was married to one of them, but despite his being a lousy husband and father, he is an outstanding employee.
That comment shows you’ll resort to nearly anything to oppose Miers.
And for the record, you’re in a very tiny group of people that REALLY thinks she’s pro-abortion. She’s not, and anyone who’s the least bit objective can see that.
Beth,
I am simply making an observation and following the logic wherever it leads.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion. If you have any evidence that Miers is pro-life politically, I would be very grateful to read it.
The “evidence” I have already seen is not indicative.
Rightwing
The “conversion” was in 1979, not 1989.
This makes a difference since it was well before Miers gave to pro-abortion candidates–not something a pro-life person would do.
Add this to the mix, too.
Paul,
I was pro-choice in 1979 as well. I was also a Christian. No one knew anything about the abortion issue at that time, except that it SEEMED like a lesser evil.
We were wrong of course.
We all know she use to be a liberal. I’m just telling you that NO ONE gave to the Texas Coaliton for life in 1989 unless they were TRUELY dedicated. At the time, we were all seen as fanatics. You had to be a true believer in pro-life to be a part of it or support it.
I wish Dobson and Robertson and the rest would just keep their mouths shut. Good Grief. Do they not know how they sound? Haven’t they been in the public eye long enough to know???
Rightwing,
That probably has more to do with your age at the time than anything else.
The pro-life movement was well established in the GOP by 1985. Well before 1989 it was the clearest determinant of party affiliation. A person that wanted to move up in the GOP was well advised to appear to be pro-life just as pro-choice was the <i>sine qua non</a> of the Democrat Party.
I was in Texas in 1986-87. It was very clearly rending pro-life at the time, especially in Dallas where party activists were very interested in how the candidates stood on the issue.
So your saying it could have been a front?
No, I’m saying that giving to a pro-life group (especially after being in the ABA) would the smart political move in Texas in 1989.
It doesn’t prove anything to me.
Hmmm.
@ RightWingSparkle
“Let me put it this way. The Texas Coalition For Life makes James Dobson look like a moderate. The fact that she gave them money tells me she is strongly pro-life.”
So. If I were to give money to NARAL then I could claim to be a liberal pro-Choice even though I’m a hardline fiscal/pro-life conservative as the day is long?
This is for everyone:
*** You cannot read a person’s views by how much, and to whom, they give money. ***
Any arguments to the contrary are complete nonsense. There’s a lot of reasons why people will give money. Sometimes it’s peer pressure. Sometimes it’s an office politics sort of thing. Sometimes it’s because of being a true believer. Sometimes it’s due to opportunism.
Any, or all, of these reasons could be applied to anyone for any reason on any donation to any cause. Giving money is *easy*, particularly for people who are middle class and above.
To really see where a person is going, look at where he/she spends their *time*.
Giving money is easy. Time is the really precious commodity.
On that note I put together a timeline that composes Miers meteroric rise with her political giving. It is pretty revealing that she is ambitious and opportunistic.
BTW, those bloggers who have staked out a position (an endorsement/rejection/or officially undecided) on the Miers nomination who would like to register their links, please reply here. This way we can follow the meltdown/debate.