Hidden Testimony Reignites Miers Fires


PDA






rick_reno
October 13, 2005, 12:20 PM
Amazing.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash4hmn.htm

The DRUDGE REPORT has obtained a copy of sworn testimony given by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers in 1990 in which she said that she “wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society” – a conservative and libertarian lawyers’ organization – because it was “politically charged.”

But Bush's Supreme Court nominee did not include in that category the NAACP and other liberal groups, the transcript reveals!

Word of the testimony circulated late last week, roiling conservatives and setting off a scramble among lawyers to obtain the actual testimony. Sources tell the DRUDGE REPORT that conservatives demanded that the White House and its allies release copies of the testimony, but their demands were ignored.

A source close to the Bush administration says, "the process requires the White House to prepare documents to turn over to the Senate Judiciary Committee and only after the committee has had the courtesy of receiving them are such docs made public."

MORE

Miers testified in a voting rights lawsuit claiming the Dallas City Council had too few black and Hispanic members.

The DRUDGE REPORT can now reveal that not only did Harriet Miers testify that she would not join the “politically charged” Federalist Society -- she testified that she had joined a liberal organization – the Democratic Progressive Voters League.

[According to the Handbook of Texas Online [http://www.tsha.utexas.edu/handbook/online/articles/DD/wed1.html], the Democratic Progressive Voters League is a Dallas political organization closely associated with the Democratic Party.]

Miers was also asked whether she considered “the NAACP [to be] in the category of organizations” that she considered to be “politically charged.”

Her answer: “No, I don’t.”

[The Internal Revenue Service has threatened to revoke the NAACP's tax-exempt status after the civil rights group's chairman, Julian Bond, condemned Bush administration policies on education, the economy and the war in Iraq, during a speech last summer.]

MORE

Now presented here for the first time, the testimony.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION

BY MS. JULIAN: . . . . .

Q. Ms. Miers, are you a member of any predominantly minority organizations, such as the NAACP, Black Chamber of Commerce, Urban League or any other predominantly minority organizations?

A. Women minorities?

Q. Well, maybe predominantly racial and ethnic minorities?

A. No.

Q. . . . . In your capacity as an at-large member do you think being involved in such organizations might assist you in having a perspective that – bring a perspective to your job that you don’t have?

A. I attend meetings designed to give me that input. However, I have tried to avoid memberships in organization s that were politically charged with one viewpoint or the other. For example, I wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society any more than – I just feel like it’s better to not be involved in organizations that seem to color your view one way or the other for people who are examining you. I did join the Progressive Voters League here in Dallas during the campaign as part of the campaign.

Q. Are you active in the PVL now, do you intend to be?

A. No, I am not.

Q. Do you think the NAACP and Black Chamber of Commerce are in the category of organizations you were talking about?

A. No, I don’t. . . . .

Transcript of Trial, Roy Williams et al. v. City of Dallas, No. CA-3-88-152-R, pages V-46 to V-47 (U.S. Dist. Ct., N.D. Tex. Sept. 11, 1989).

END

If you enjoyed reading about "Hidden Testimony Reignites Miers Fires" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
El Tejon
October 13, 2005, 12:58 PM
Souter III, the Saga continues. :rolleyes:

Kennedy, Souter, Roberts, female Souter. . . . I wish the Republicans would quit stabbing me in the back. :uhoh:

boofus
October 13, 2005, 01:02 PM
Janice Rogers Brown

pax
October 13, 2005, 01:15 PM
I wish the Republicans would quit stabbing me in the back.
As long as you keep voting for them no matter what they do, they will continue to stab you whenever stabbing suits their purposes.

pax

cuchulainn
October 13, 2005, 01:32 PM
I still don't know enough about Miers to have an opinion (one side labels her "arch liberal" or "stealth liberal" while the other labels her "conservative evangelical Christian").

But the fact that once, 15 years ago, she declined to label the NAACP and others as “politically charged" doesn't really tell me much.

Typical Drudge molehills begetting mountains.

Standing Wolf
October 13, 2005, 04:21 PM
As long as you keep voting for them no matter what they do, they will continue to stab you whenever stabbing suits their purposes.

Yep. If we had a competitive multi-party system, we'd see a lot more competition and a lot less back stabbing.

Hypnogator
October 14, 2005, 12:08 AM
Again were skrood.

Cause of Bush's ineptitude!

c_yeager
October 14, 2005, 02:32 AM
Am I the only one who thinks that judges SHOULD be unpolitical? I thought we were against activists on the bench...

publius
October 14, 2005, 07:48 AM
But the fact that once, 15 years ago, she declined to label the NAACP and others as “politically charged" doesn't really tell me much.
Really? Because the fact that she DID label the Federalist Society as politically charged at the time tells me quite a bit.

Both orgs are clearly politically charged, but she only sees it in one place. That's the place she doesn't agree with the politics involved.

Like I've been saying since she was nominated... Souter in a dress.

RealGun
October 14, 2005, 08:19 AM
A trivial issue and a weak excuse for more Bush bashing and LP plugs. This doesn't belong on THR.

cuchulainn
October 14, 2005, 08:38 AM
publius: Both orgs are clearly politically charged, but she only sees it in one place. That's the place she doesn't agree with the politics involved.Maybe she was being PC about the NAACP. Maybe she was naive about the NAACP. Maybe she makes a distinction between “politically charged” and "politically active," and the NAACP fell into her definintion for the latter. I can think of other plausible reasons.

Maybe you are correct, and she's a closet leftist.

I have no idea, but the fact that 15 years ago she once -- once, mind you -- declined to label the NAACP as “politically charged” doesn't really tell me much.

LS
October 14, 2005, 09:02 AM
Souter III, the Saga continues. :rolleyes:

Kennedy, Souter, Roberts, female Souter. . . . I wish the Republicans would quit stabbing me in the back. :uhoh:

If Miers is approved, 2004 would be the last year I voted Republican.

RealGun
October 14, 2005, 09:27 AM
If Miers is approved, 2004 would be the last year I voted Republican.

In that case, you might have been a Republican supporter for the wrong reasons. What does Miers represent to you?

publius
October 14, 2005, 09:43 AM
cuchulainn, you're missing out on the great joys of pessimism! If she's Souter in a dress, I'll be happy I was right. If she's Thomas in a dress, I'll be happy you were right! (OK, despite the somewhat disturbing image there...)

cuchulainn
October 14, 2005, 10:09 AM
publius: If she's Thomas in a dress, I'll be happy you were right!I'm not making that prediction, BTW. I don't know enough about her one way or the other, which is as big a problem in its own way as are your concerns.

fourays2
October 14, 2005, 11:56 AM
In that case, you might have been a Republican supporter for the wrong reasons. What does Miers represent to you?

She represents a stab in the back. We were promised justices in the mold of scalia and thomas. I think it's plain to see that miers is niether scalia nor thomas.:mad:

RealGun
October 14, 2005, 01:34 PM
She represents a stab in the back. We were promised justices in the mold of scalia and thomas. I think it's plain to see that miers is niether scalia nor thomas.:mad:

What would a Scalia or Thomas do for you that a Miers won't? How do you know?

publius
October 14, 2005, 08:40 PM
I think the point is, if he had nominated, say, Alex Kozinski, we'd have something to go on (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/circs/9th/0210318p.pdf) with regard to how he might interpret the Constitution. The President can say "trust me" and "she's born again" all he wants, but one opinion like that one says all I want to hear. I don't trust him. I don't care that she's born again. I want to know if she can correctly identify something - anything - which is NOT interstate commerce.

A judge with a record might help me to learn that. "Trust me" does not.

Old Dog
October 14, 2005, 08:49 PM
Y'all are worrying too much ... This is all just a great tactic by the Bush administration to get his first candidate Borked, so he can go ahead and nominate his real candidate ... She won't get approved, and by the time this round of confirmation hearings is over, the Democrats won't be able to deny the next candidate, who'll be the person Bush really wants in there ...

horge
October 14, 2005, 09:01 PM
Yep. If we had a competitive multi-party system, we'd see a lot more competition and a lot less back stabbing.


Likely wrong, I think.
Take it from one who LIVES under a multiparty system.

Because it's a free-for-all, there is a heck of a lot less restraint in mudslinging and illegal action ---too many (guilty) parties for public anger to focus on long enough.

Worse, sans a runoff election, anyone elected from a mulitparty smorgasbord enjoys only a minority of the popular vote ---the elected merely got more votes than the others.


h.

pax
October 14, 2005, 09:02 PM
Old Dog ~

Bush doesn't seem to work that way.

He either doesn't understand the Constitution, or doesn't give a rat's hind end about it, but he's not a liar in most senses of the word.

pax

Sam
October 14, 2005, 09:50 PM
All I keep hearing is old stuff and the word 'Unqualified".

Don't care about her old stuff, people sometimes change.
I want the right to directly interrogate her myself.

As for "Unqualified", what is unqualified. Nothing in the Constuitution says that the person must have served as a judge, or a Constuitutional scholar, or even be a lawyer.

Personally I think we need to hire a plumber for the job. Someone who really knows that $#!t runs downhill and has been soaked a time or two.
Time for a fresh perspective.

Sam

Old Dog
October 14, 2005, 10:48 PM
Well, Pax, I used to think that about this president. Did you catch "Saturday Night Live" last weekend? Great skit with "Bush" crowing about cronyism, "But Dick, that's what we do!" "Gonzalez" ready to see Bush after "Miers" walks out of the Oval Office (great bit, really) ...

I suspect this administration is a bit more Machiavellian than many want to believe. This move (Miers' nomination) is a win-win for Bush -- if she's approved, great, another Bush crony makes good; if not, Bush can go for a "legacy" choice ... And I do think the administration understands the Constitution -- I just don't think they particularly care about it.

RealGun
October 15, 2005, 06:21 AM
I think the point is, if he had nominated, say, Alex Kozinski, we'd have something to go on with regard to how he might interpret the Constitution. The President can say "trust me" and "she's born again" all he wants, but one opinion like that one says all I want to hear. I don't trust him. I don't care that she's born again. I want to know if she can correctly identify something - anything - which is NOT interstate commerce.

A judge with a record might help me to learn that. "Trust me" does not.

Those who pass specific litmus tests are less likely to be confirmed. You can't win. The hubbub though is about replacing the deciding vote (O'Connor maintained the 5-4) on future abortion questions. You are correct though that O'Connor was on the dissenting minority side of the interstate commerce question.

All this fuss about SC nominees would be much less a concern if Congress would get off their butts, stop bowing to the Court, and make laws that would preempt or invalidate SC rulings on certain matters. There should also be tests for constitutional readings, beyond which those voting in favor of pushing the envelope would be subject to being called before the Senate Judiciary Committee. When the Court starts making law, their confirmations to life appointments become coronations.

fourays2
October 15, 2005, 10:48 AM
Y'all are worrying too much ... This is all just a great tactic by the Bush administration to get his first candidate Borked, so he can go ahead and nominate his real candidate ... She won't get approved, and by the time this round of confirmation hearings is over, the Democrats won't be able to deny the next candidate, who'll be the person Bush really wants in there ...

yes, but what if that person is gonzales?

If you enjoyed reading about "Hidden Testimony Reignites Miers Fires" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!