Miers’ not-so-conservative work in Dallas

As if it weren’t bad enough for the right that Harriet Miers helped create a women’s-issues lecture series at SMU — generally not the kind of thing the right likes because it just screams “feminism” — Knight Ridder has looked into Miers’ one term on the Dallas City Council. In particular, KR reviewed her work on a lawsuit involving race and diversity. I don’t imagine conservatives are going to like the fact that article referred to her views as “progressive.”

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 sound you hear is William Kristol calling Paul Weyrich. They’re both crying.

I have thought almost from the start that Miers is not an ideologue. Rather, she is a careerist who has fawned her way up the ladder. It is important to remember that if her appointment is confirmed, then there are no more rungs left on the ladder.

This situtation reminds me of an old cartoon, possibily from Playboy.(Warning: adult content follows.) A bride and groom are standing before a priest,each gazing into the other’s eyes with large smiles on their faces. There is a thought balloon over each ones head. The man is thinking: Finally, blow jobs every night. The woman is thinking: At last, I’ll never have to give another blow job.

It’s hard to predict human behavior, but it is possible,as that cartoon illlustrates, that once she has achieved the pinnacle of lawyerly success she will become her own woman.Let me be clear. This possibility is not a reason for Democrats to support her; it does not trump her lack of experience. However, it is a reason for rightwing Republicans to oppose her. Democrats should stoke the fears of the unknown, embers of which, are already in the minds of the rightwing. The divisions within the Republican coalition, which would result, would invaluable to the Democrats.

  • The Republicans do not want Roe vs. Wade overturned. the reason being
    that would then fall to the states to make abortion legal. And the population in the states that favor abortion will have the most votes.and thereby elected president. the Republicans and everyone else for that matter realize that the presidency must be held at all costs.

  • Rege is absolutely right. I really think that
    over time she’d return to her progressive
    inclinations on the Court.

    But the problem is, she simply is not
    qualified. We can’t be like them, and
    overlook her lack of competence for
    political reasons.

  • Why is the right so upset? They keep saying htere’s no litmus test. Have they been pullin’ my string?

  • That was all in 1990, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but didn’t she become born-again after that? If so, then I don’t think we should look to her “record” prior to her conversion for any clues to how she’ll rule.

    Also, FWIW, I think Rege is right that once she reaches the pinnacle of her career she may “she will become her own woman”. However, despite her clear lack of qualifications, this would be a reason for Dems to support her, not fight her. If her nomination fails, W almost certianly will nominate a true wing nut which despite many filibuster dreams of the left, will be confirmed and we’ll have a solid base of 4 ultra conservative votes against progressiveness. That leaves an awfully slim margin for our hopes to move this country forward.

  • Nah, this was a good decade after she was born-again.

    And here’s something else–her church in Dallas, Valley View Christian Church, is part of the Christian Churches/Churches of Christ–a pretty conservative cluster of evangelical churches.

    More and more, she sounds like John McCain in a skirt. I still say place a hold on her until we find out what Dr. Dobson knows about her that was so “confidential.”

  • Comments are closed.