Miers espoused progressive views as elected official
By Aussiegirl
Here's some information about Harriet Miers from her own testimony in a 1990 lawsuit.
Miers espoused progressive views as elected official, records show
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - 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.
In the same testimony, Miers, then a member of the council, said she believed that the city should divest its South African financial holdings and work to boost economic development in poor and minority areas. She also said she "wouldn't belong to the Federalist Society" or other "politically charged" groups because they "seem to color your view one way or another."
Miers' thoughts about racial diversity placed her squarely on the progressive side of the 1990 suit, which was pivotal in shifting power in Dallas politics to groups outside the traditional, mostly white establishment.
And some constitutional scholars say that if Miers were to embrace the same views as a justice on the high court, she would fall more in line with the court's pragmatic, moderate wing than with its doctrinaire extremes.
"There's an acknowledgement in her comments that race matters and is relevant, and from a fairness standpoint, we should acknowledge the impact of a particular political structure on voters of color," said George Washington University law professor Spencer Overton, a voting rights expert. "It's not unlike something you could see Justice Sandra Day O'Connor saying. A rigid quota system may be bad, but diversity is a compelling interest, and we want institutions to reflect society as a whole."
That notion may not be helpful to Miers' support among conservatives in Washington and elsewhere, who have expressed deep disappointment - and, in some cases, stark outrage - that President Bush did not choose a solidly conservative nominee to replace O'Connor, a swing vote on many issues.
That disappointment continued to resonate Thursday on Capitol Hill, where several Republicans who met with Miers described her as too much of an enigma.
"I think there's still a lot to learn about this nominee," said Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback, after meeting with Miers for about an hour in his office. "The president has had the advantage of working with her for a decade. I must do my own due diligence, I can't say all these issues were overcome in a one-hour meeting.
2 Comments:
"Progressive" is such an inappropriate term for Luddites, reactionaries, feudalists, and other advocates of big government.
Though I have no opinion of Harriet Miers, except that she spells her name funny, I would expect absolutely nothing worthwhile from a Bush appointee, would expect nothing from pretty much anyone appointed to the Supreme Court in today's fascist welfare state.
I mean, both the old parties are so similar in their preferences, the only losers in any of the battles between the two old parties are the citizens and taxpayers.
Anyway, since I expect nothing, I do wish the morons in Congress would just go on and approve the nominees and quit the ludicrous contention.
By the way, isn't it interesting that "in Congress" and "ludicrous" are synonyms?
Progressive is the new liberal, don't you know. It sounds so inoffensive -- who could be against progress, after all?
Post a Comment
<< Home