Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Another David Souter; matbe a liberal in disguise
Topic Started: Oct 3 2005, 09:40 AM (554 Views)
cruiser
Member Avatar
Member
Miers Gave to GOP Candidates, Democrats
Oct 03 11:14 AM US/Eastern


WASHINGTON


Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers gave $1,000 to Democrat Al Gore's unsuccessful presidential bid in 1988 _ and 12 years later contributed to the effort to end Gore's chance of winning the White House.

In 1988, Miers, then a lawyer in private practice, donated $1,000 to Gore, the Tennessee Democrat then seeking the party's presidential nomination, according to Federal Election Commission reports. Gore eventually bowed out and Michael Dukakis secured the nomination.

In 2000, Miers contributed to the campaign of Texas Gov. George W. Bush, who was running against Gore that year. When the votes were still being counted in Florida and the outcome was in doubt, she gave $5,000 to the Bush-Cheney Inc. Recount Fund, according to the non- partisan Political MoneyLine.

Through the years, Miers has contributed more than $10,000 to political candidates, focusing mainly on Texas Republicans such as Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, Rep. Pete Sessions and former Sen. Phil Gramm.

Miers also gave $1,000 to another prominent Democrat _ Lloyd Bentsen, the longtime Texas senator who in 1988 ran for re-election and also was Dukakis' vice presidential choice on the Democratic ticket that year.

Bentsen won another term in the Senate, but the Republican ticket of George H. W. Bush and Dan Quayle defeated Dukakis and Bentsen.

Miers contributed $1,000 to the Democratic National Committee Services Corp. in 1988.

Miers gave some $5,000 to Bush's 2000 campaign and his 2004 re- election bid. She contributed $1,650 to the presidential inaugural committee that paid for some of the festivities surrounding Bush's swearing in to a second term.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Thruout the 1980's she was a registered democrat
Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from a religious conviction.

Blaise Pascal (1623 - 1662)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Seems to me to say she's a loyalist. She says her ultimate loyalty is to the Law and the Constitution, hopefully not some ideology left or right, political or religious.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Rush is not happy: Rush Interviews Vice President Richard B. Cheney on the Nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

But Cheney is: "She believes very deeply in the importance of interpreting the Constitution and the laws as written. She won't legislate from the federal bench, and the president has great confidence in her judicial philosophy...."

Why is Rush not happy with that? Did he, like other social cons, expect an activist nomination?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051003/ap_on_...HNlYwMlJVRPUCUl

When delegates to a national American Bar Association convention adopted a position in favor of abortion rights in 1992, she worked as head of the Texas state bar to force a reconsideration of the issue by submitting it to a referendum by the 360,000-membership. "This issue has brought on tremendous divisiveness and loss of membership..." she said in early 1993.

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
And her motivation: ""This issue has brought on tremendous divisiveness and loss of membership..." she said in early 1993."

And..."There was little outright opposition to Miers in the first few hours after her selection was announced — and what there was came from the most unyielding conservative anti-abortion groups.

"It's not that we don't know anything, and the small pieces of information we do know are disappointing. For example, she's Southern Methodist, notoriously pro-abortion,"said Troy Newman of Operation: Rescue. "

Those who favor judicial activism are not happy.

I suspect that is why Rush is upset.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
from OR site:
http://www.operationrescue.org/

Quote:
 
Washington, DC – Today, President George W. Bush has nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by retiring Sandra Day O’Connor.

While many pro-life groups were frustrated with the lack of information about the abortion stand of Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, even less is known about Harriet Miers. Some have placed her in the same category as pro-abortion administration officials Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes.

“We must reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.

“President Bush promised that he would appoint strong constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but Miers is no Thomas or Scalia,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We must be given a nominee that will restore the protections of personhood to the pre-born. If your head was about to be crushed, would you want to trust you life to someone who will not state their position on your murder?”

“Bush was given one mandate by the American people in the last election and that was to reform the Supreme Court. Reform does not come in a brown paper bag,” said Newman.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
corky52
Member
JB,

You got stiffed by a politician, that comes as a surprise?


:floorrollin: :floorrollin: :floorrollin: :floorrollin: :floorrollin: :floorrollin:

Republicans know that they have to get re-elected and that trumps everything else!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
Chris, (and corky), my thoughts on this is she held a position that the Bar shouldn't take a stand on abortion, and instead worked for them to reconsider. And she said that AFTER it was voted in. I'm hoping that on the supreme court, she will feel the same, and stop this nonsense of hiding abortion under some sort of "privacy", and get the supremes to "reconsider".
If division is again her reason, then more power to her, because she is RIGHT. It divides, more so now then ever before.

Bush isn't stupid, although he often gets accused of being so...
It will be what it will be...and I am hoping he is following God's lead.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
puli-one
Member Avatar
Member
Sorry Cruiser - Did not mean to highjack your thread!
Don & Donna
Puli Pup - Kelly
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Jelly, Bush promised a constructionist not an activist. And her dislike of divisiveness and disuniity as exhibited at that convention might indicate she's something of a centrist like O'Connor.

Interesting quote: “President Bush promised that he would appoint strong constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but Miers is no Thomas or Scalia,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We must be given a nominee that will restore the protections of personhood to the pre-born. If your head was about to be crushed, would you want to trust you life to someone who will not state their position on your murder?”

This Newman character seems to equate constitutional constructionism with his radical ideological agenda. He will be sorely disappointed by both Roberts and Miers.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Interesting. We know the fiscla conservatives feel Bush has abondoned their principles.

The above indicates the pundits like Rush and theocons like Newman think he has betrayed them.

Now here's the neocon himself, Billy Kristol:

Disappointed, Depressed and Demoralized
Quote:
 
I'M DISAPPOINTED, depressed and demoralized.

I'm disappointed because I expected President Bush to nominate someone with a visible and distinguished constitutionalist track record--someone like Maura Corrigan, Alice Batchelder, Edith Jones, Priscilla Owen, or Janice Rogers Brown--to say nothing of Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, or Samuel Alito. Harriet Miers has an impressive record as a corporate attorney and Bush administration official. She has no constitutionalist credentials that I know of.

I'm depressed. Roberts for O'Connor was an unambiguous improvement. Roberts for Rehnquist was an appropriate replacement. But moving Roberts over to the Rehnquist seat meant everything rode on this nomination--and that the president had to be ready to fight on constitutional grounds for a strong nominee. Apparently, he wasn't. It is very hard to avoid the conclusion that President Bush flinched from a fight on constitutional philosophy. Miers is undoubtedly a decent and competent person. But her selection will unavoidably be judged as reflecting a combination of cronyism and capitulation on the part of the president.

I'm demoralized. What does this say about the next three years of the Bush administration--leaving aside for a moment the future of the Court? Surely this is a pick from weakness. Is the administration more broadly so weak? What are the prospects for a strong Bush second term? What are the prospects for holding solid GOP majorities in Congress in 2006 if conservatives are demoralized? And what elected officials will step forward to begin to lay the groundwork for conservative leadership after Bush?


I sense an element of truth in what he says, she will be good of coporate America.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
I don't feel disappointed or demoralized by his choice.
I don't view her I guess, how others do.
I read what she did with the bar over abortion, and I am satisfied with that, and hope she repeats that exact action the same way, for the same reason...which is to say that it was devisive.
Exactly how I feel about abortion. I feel the supreme court just went and did this abortion thing, hidden under a "privacy" veil, and it has divided the country.

I will not know how it all plays out, till it all plays out. I'm all for giving her the opprtunity to do the right thing.... if she said that she was a proabort, and planned on voting that way, would be one thing. But she hasn't done or said that, and in fact behaved in a way that I find acceptable at this time.

Just my opinion, and I obviously am not in agreement at this point with some of my fellow conservatives. I may not always feel that way.
I will give her the benefit of my doubt, till I find out differently.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
It occurs to me that there are some folks who over estimate the effect of the anti-abortion vote in the last Presidential election. Those folks think that, for some reason, George W. Bush is beholden to them, and to them only, for his election. They seem to forget that a goodly number of non anti-abortion folks also voted for him in the last election. In fact, I have read demographic indications that more folks who favor the medical choice of abortion in the first trimester voted for George W. Bush in that last election than hard line anti abortion folks.

"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Well, let's dismiss such agenda-based single issues like abortion, pro or con, because that's not what's at the heart of this nomination, not what's at stake:

Bush Seeks to Reassure Conservatives Miers `Won't Change' Views
Quote:
 
"Not to my recollection have I ever sat down with her [to discuss abortion]," Bush said in his first solo press conference since May. "What I have done is understand the type of person she is and the type of judge she will be."

The president said he has never discussed abortion during any his interviews with his judicial nominees, including Miers.

"There is no litmus test," Bush said. "What matters to me is her judicial philosophy. What does she believe the proper role of the judiciary is relative to the legislative and the executive branch?


What's at issue is the latter part of what Bush said. He seeks to restore what he sees as an imbalance of power between the branches. To me the question is does he seek a balance of powers, or, as I suspect, an imbalanced shift of even more centralized power in the presidency? You've got to be wary of that for you really have no way of predicting who might sit in the Oval Office after Bush--Hillary!?!?!? Jeb?!?!?!?

I sense Roberts is liberal enough to lead such a shift. Not sure about Miers yet.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PRT
Member
Well, Miers has less of a paper trail (if any) than Roberts and that did surprise me a bit.

The one bone I would pick with the Bloomberg snippet above is the order of the statements.

I listened to the news conference and the reporter who asked the abortion question really tried to skewer GWB to give her an answer. His first response, repeated more than once, was that there was no "litmus test" that he applied. Later, still the same questioner and same question, he finally said he had not discussed abortion.

Should be interesting hearings.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply