The Volokh Conspiracy

Here is another document that purports to show that Miers supports the same civil rights for gays that straight citizens receive. Again, you'll have to check the veracity of the claim.

Here is a "Ask the Whitehouse" online chat that Miers hosted.

A footnote on DC Law's recollection of Miers' talk at the Fed. Soc. lunch: the main drum Miers was beating was that Priscilla Owen in particular needed to be confirmed. Owen, we were told, would make an "outstanding" jurist. Given what I've heard from people who've watched now-Judge Owen in action from close up on the 5th Circuit, I have grave doubts about the yardstick the WH Counsel's office uses for quality--especially for Friends Of George.

From the ProQuest database:

Dialing up the classroom
Miers, Harriet E, Hengstler, Gary A. ABA Journal. Chicago: Sep 1996.Vol. 82 pg. 11, 1 pgs

Was Miers on Law Review? Was she at the top of her class at SMU or did she only have mediocre grades?

A 1991 _Texas Lawyer_ article ( "State Bar Candidates Lock Horns; One Complains About an SMU Prof's Letter" BY CLARA TUMA, _Texas Lawyer_, April 15, 1991; p. 1.) indicates that she served in the City Council of Dallas:

"Miers is one of the few candidates for State Bar president-elect with prior political experience. She has served one term as an at-large member of the volatile Dallas City Council, and is not seeking re-election when her term expires this year."

Surely there are minutes of her speeches and statements there.

A first look at Harriet Miers’s published writings reveals that she lacks one of the most basic qualifications for sitting on the Supreme Court: superior writing ability.

Time Magazine has a link to the two articles she wrote for Texas Lawyer in 1992 and 2000. See time.com/time, at nation, article 0,8599,1112940,00.html.

The articles include the following telling excerpts:

"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs."

[Those who prevent rights and privileges? Those precious liberties include . . . freedom of liberties?]

The two men who died exemplified individuals devoted to their God, their families, their fellow man, their communities and their profession. Speakers in both memorial services, used the very same words: "Well done, good and faithful servant." "

[Speakers in both memorial services, COMMA, used the very same words?]

"However, discerning correctly synergies from a merger and making certain they are achieved maximizes profits in the most remarkable manner. “

[Discerning correctly synergies?]

This nominee is an EMBARRASSMENT.

The gay rights document is meaningless.
Thanks for coming out but you are dead wrong. The fact that she voluntarily filled out a form from a gay rights group in 1989 Texas IS a big deal. That she answered it the way she did is a bigger deal. Moreover, she recommended that gays be given the same adoption rights as straights on an ABA committee she chaired. What does this mean to me? She is a normal human being that is not a bigot. What does this mean to the average Republican in the South? She hates Jesus. Sorry, but that's the truth.

Greedy Clerk - I would agree with you if the adoption document to which you refer said what you say it says. (Speaking of poor writing, that last sentence of mine could use some work.) But it turns out that Miers did not support gay adoption -- the document to which you refer, according to some new blogging, referred to proposals on which Miers' committee did not take a stand. It was a list of possibilities without recommendations.


Our conversation is interesting though, because it suggests that nobody invested in the gay rights debate will be satisfied with Miers' answers to the 1989 questionnaire. To gay rights supporters, it's unforgivable than she wanted to declare gays criminals. To religious right folk, it's unforgivable that she filled out the form in the first place and said anything vaguely supportive at all.

All: here is a link to D Magazine's FrontBurner blog. She has been profiled a few times in the hard copy of the magazine, and they have provided links. In addition, since she is a local, there has been a fair amount of posting about her and people's experiences with her.

Link: http://frontburner.dmagazine.com/

DPG

Xcuse me? What do you mean "you guys think you speak for God"? I never identified myself as a member of any religion, nor as a member of the Right, much less the religious right. I'm a big supporter of equal rights, including equal marriage rights, for all people regardless of sexual orientation.

I was just expressing what I predicted would be a likely response among people who were religious conservatives.

Sympathetic though I am to claims of attorney-client privilege, we (or at least, the Senate, god help us) need something to go on. So far, the public record looks awfully thin. Here's hoping either the White House can be coerced into coughing up some documents, or the Senate actually takes the chance to question the nominee seriously for once.

But I won't hold my breath.

Regarding her online Ask the White House forum: The use of the words "thanks for the kudos" within the last year of ones lifetime should be an automatic disqualifier for the Supreme Court.

To be fair, as I understand it, a lot of those chats are transcriptions of the spoken words by the "chatter" rather than Ms. Miers sitting down at a keyboard and typing. As anyone who's ever been transcribed will attest, something that sounds just fine can read leaden.

You're complaining about a misplaced comma?

Lord, who then can be saved?