The Miers Project Moves On
Tweet
Miers espoused progressive views as elected official, records show
In what appear to be some of her only public statements about a constitutional issue, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers testified in a 1990 voting rights lawsuit that the Dallas City Council had too few black and Hispanic members, and that increasing minority representation should be a goal of any change in the city’s political structure.
It just gets better.
20 Responses to “The Miers Project Moves On”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
So, I gather you’ll be supporting her nomination?
By the way, there’s a potential important difference between a stated goal of increasing minority representation and the policy means by which that goal is intended to be implemented.
Similarly (posted below)
I m a little unclear about something, Oliver: Each day you report more and more evidence of liberal positions taken by Ms. Miers, and more and more evidence of conservatives dislike for her.
So, what s the problem?
Besides the fact that she’s totally unqualified for the position to which she has been nominated to?
Not according to Article III.
I think Democrats should rally around Miers. Except for her unnatural devotion to the boy-king, she has some liberal views. I’m afraid that is given another chance, Bush would nominate a Scalia/Thomas type to preempt the wingnut criticism.
Wouldn’t it be great political theater if Democrats vote to confirm, and Republicans don’t?
Trolls, translated:
….must…support…Bush!….might…be…liberal!…must…support…Bush!….might….be…liberal!….must…support…AAIIIEEEE!!…[head explodes]
Thank you for answering the questions, sort of.
So, I guess you won’t be supporting the nomination on the grounds that Miers isn’t qualified.
If that’s the case, why have we only heard from you about the so called “liberal” positions that she’s taken, and not her lack of qualifications.
If President Kerry had won the election and nominated a person to the Supreme Court with qualifications similar to Miers, and who had “liberal” beliefs, would you be opposing that nomination as well?
Strikes me as a little inconsistent.
If Kerry were president I would want him to appoint the progressive version of John Roberts, someone who is actually qualified for the position. I said that even though Roberts is qualified, I think his views are out of line with American values – and that’s why Dems should have voted “no” on him. Miers is just not qualified.
Oliver,
I don’t necessarily disagree with you about Miers lack of qualifications but I would like to hear from you what you consider qualified/unqualified. Don’t just give us examples of one or the other such as Roberts=qualified, Thomas=unqualified. I would like to hear some specifics.
Oliver, look who agrees with you:
from here:
Someone who’s actually done work with constitutional issues, who has been involved in the sort of data it takes to be a supreme court justice, not just hack work for your pal the president.
Whoops! – Last sentence replace “here” with “hear”.
Oliver,
“not just a hack work for your pal the president.”
I wasn’t leading you anywhere with that question, you don’t need to get so defensive. I am curious as to what counts as qualifications in your mind. Remember, some of the largest figures on the SCOTUS did not have judicial experience prior to being nominated to the SC bench. So- you say “some kind of work with constitutional issues.” Thats a start, let’s here more.
“some of the largest figures on the SCOTUS did not have judicial experience prior to being nominated to the SC bench”
Can you share some names with us, zorro?
Yeah and he was AWESOME! Interesting…
41 out of 109
AND, from the Christian Science Monitor:
Experience needed?: The long history of nonjudge justices
For once we are on the same side.
I agree that Harriet Miers is a great thing for our country, but probably for an entirely different reason than your own.
Harriet Miers brings the end of the Reagan Revolution at long last. Reagan pulled in the religious nuts with the bait of Supreme Court appointments, among other things, and now Bush has betrayed them by choosing a Party apparatchik over own of their own. They won’t vote Republican for another generation, thank God.
SadieB: Don’t bet more than you can afford on that proposition. You may view the so-called “religious nuts” that simplistically, if you wish, but the political power fundamentalists, Catholics, and orthodox Jews [your so-called "religious nuts"] is not so fickle, nor should it be taken lightly.
The right is getting really ugly about this{ see here and here }:
I wouldn’t be surprised if the nomination were withdrawn before Halloween.
Nobody has been nominated for the Supreme Court in the twentieth century or in the twenty first with questionable qualifications. Harriet Miers qualifications are unconventional, but she is qualified. Her views on this particular voting rights case are encouraging and more than we ever got from John Roberts, a Brooks Brothers suited racist if there ever was one.