In reality, all we need to know about Harriet Miers is that Bush nominated her.
Reed is gushing all over Miers like a new lover. Reed may want to reserve his judgement until after the hearings.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 02:59 AMAnn, as a leader of the bar, Harriet Miers was a very strong proponent of conservative legal views. She led a campaign to have the ABA (American Bar Association) end its practice of supporting abortion-on-demand and taxpayer-funded abortions.
Harriet Miers' former campaign manager, Lorlee Bartos, says Miers opposed abortion rights while running for Dallas City Council in 1989. Bartos further stated that Miers is on the extreme end of the anti-choice movement and that her beliefs are very strongly felt.
Knowing that Bush has a litmus test for his judicial nominees, I have no reason to believe that she is not Pro-Life. I do agree that "chipping away rights" will continue. It is also possible that a so called Human Life Amendment would be a Constitutional Amendment overturning Roe v. Wade. There is currently no such Amendment pending, but proponents regularly introduce Human Life Bills in Congress, so the threat is always present.
Bush "I know her heart and I know her character."
If that be the case, and he is judging her heart and character by his own, we are in deep trouble.
Sorry, the above post was meant for the postings on The Lessons of Harriet Miers.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 03:07 AMBby-bldthrst twghs ll thr cnsdrtns.
[Editor: ignore=off]Oh Benito, you are tiresome.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 05:36 AMBenito, let me guess. You are a white male, who is threatened by women. You can't stand the thought of not controlling women, and that includes their productive rights. Scary isn't it hon.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 05:41 AMThat's "reproductive" rights.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 05:42 AMThe question I'd really like to hear is:
"Ms. Miers, when you were advising the President on Court nominees, what was it that finally convinced you that you were the perfect person for the job?
Posted by dj moonbat at October 4, 2005 06:09 AMOh, and Bendito wants to control women's productive rights, too, Judith. Hell, just look at all the problems that have been cause by women in the workplace. Maybe if women just stayed home, Bendito would stand a chance of getting promoted.
Nah.
Posted by dj moonbat at October 4, 2005 06:11 AMMaybe if women were uneducated, Bendito could get a woman to love him for his vast intellect.
That's what I hear.
Posted by idiosynchronic at October 4, 2005 06:23 AMIdiosynchronic, I thought there were plenty of that kind of women in the GOP. LOL
DJMoonbat, good question for Ms. Miers.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 06:35 AMHow could fillibusters be put up to the SCOTUS? It is a rule of the senate not a right protected in the constitution.
Also, I think the reason dem senators are trying to sound happy is to make conservatives angry and to not look stupid. Roberts had a longer paper trail than Meiers and they couldn't do anything to stop him. They know they don't have a chance to block her so why look like losers? Just look like it was your idea.
Posted by Tex at October 4, 2005 07:13 AMMiers is pro-gay rights, too. If she's confirmed, it'll be interesting what happens to all the marriage protection court cases going on. She could end up being the swing vote to allow gay marriage.
Posted by muckdog at October 4, 2005 08:22 AMWhere are you getting that from muck?
Posted by Tex at October 4, 2005 08:28 AMMuckdog is just trying to get us to support Miers.
Posted by Judith at October 4, 2005 09:57 AMGood Lord, muck. Did you not read this in eriposte's post on who Miers is:
Miers meets with gay activists
Why are you attempting to call Miers pro-gay? Is that just your veiled attempt to say you think she's gay? Trying to get the left wing to support her or trying to get the right wing to condemn her?
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 10:01 AMNo she won't. Unless bushco tells her too.
Gay Rights issues don't speak to what bushco is about. Money, power, that's their baliwick. Why do you think people like mehlman and drier and the log cabin repugnicans put up with their shit, because of their likability?
Whey gays become a lobby with the $$$$ of Big Pharma or Big Oil, then they'll give a shit one way or the other about gay rights.
Being gay and getting a big fat no bid contract for helliburton are irrelevent to one another, which is why they don't care about Gay Rights. The psycho's do, of course, but they're just cannon fodder, expendable. Props and tools, when they break, you just go out and buy you a new one.
Posted by Duckman GR at October 4, 2005 10:07 AMDuckman, you are right. Gay rights is mere subterfuge so that the minions get upset and don't see their economic livelihood (and saftey net) pulled out from underneath them.
Posted by ann at October 4, 2005 02:16 PM