From Bush’s nomination speech:
She led by example. She put in long hours of pro bono work. Harriet Miers has given generously of her time and talent by serving as a leader with more than a dozen community groups and charities, including the Young Women’s Christian Association, Childcare Dallas, Goodwill Industries, Exodus Ministries, Meals on Wheels and the Legal Aid Society.
It’s ok if your heart stopped there for a second, mine did too. But I was still in my underwear this morning calling every non-exgay “Exodus Ministries” I could google when HRC came to the rescue:
During the announcement, President Bush referenced Miers’ affiliation with Exodus Ministry. This is not the so called “ex-gay” group, but is “a non-denominational Christian organization established to assist ex-offenders and their families become productive members of society by meeting both their spiritual and physical needs.”
Addendum from Mike A.:
1. Exodus International confirms no connection to Miers, but withholds further comment on her qualifications.
2. Wayne Besen views Miers with caution.
Whew!
I heard them talking about her being on the board of “Exodus Ministries” on the Stephanie Miller Show this morning on my way into work. I nearly spit coffee all over my windshield.
Steph did do a pretty funny bit on Exodus after mentioning that but the original thought of a 60 year old, never married former Exodus board member scared the pants off of me.
Glad it isn’t that Exodus…..
CNN is still trying to claim she works with ex-gays. Whatever.
Anyway, this item (the one I’m linking to) is good news, if she still feels this way.
https://www.tnr.com/etc.mhtml?pid=2832
” Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child. …
Recommends the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court.”
Eugene Delgaudio of Public Advocate, a conservative anti-gay activist, has opposed Meirs’ confirmation:
“The President’s nomination of Miers is a betrayal of the conservative, pro-family voters whose support put Bush in the White House in both the 2000 and 2004 elections and who were promised Supreme Court appointments in the mold of Thomas and Scalia. Instead we were given ‘stealth nominees,’ who have never ruled on controversial issues, more in the mold of the disastrous choice of David Souter by this President’s father.”
https://www.earnedmedia.org/paus1003.htm
Delgaudio also opposed John Roberts because of his assistance on Romer v. Evans.
He fears that once on the bench, Roberts and Meirs will not be adequately anti-gay. Let’s hope that Delgaudio’s fears are justified.
Timothy there’s a fascinating dilemma here for conservatives, because both Roberts and Miers have some record or ties to anti-abortion groups, but few if any to anti-gay groups. They could (not that it’s likely but still) be anti-abortion but moderate towards gays. How would the social conservatives react to that kind of Supreme Court? It could split the GOP wide open.
The Southern Voice has an article claiming that Miers has met with gay groups in Dallas and that they did not find her to be hostile.
https://www.sovo.com/thelatest/thelatest.cfm?blog_id=2742
James, you raise a good point.
John McCain would be an example of someone who could be considered anti-abortion and moderate on gay issues. (While he favors an anti-gay marriage amendment in New Mexico, he has a history of being supportive on other issues, including opposing a Federal marriage amendment).
I think, however, that the Republican Party already is split in two. The rifts are just now becoming more visible.
I believe it is Harriet Miers.
Her only claim to fame is that she was involved with the TX lottery commission while Bush II was governor of TX. This is a joke. She has never had any experience on the bench.
I’m would that they could find a woman on an appeals court that has a track record. It’s obvious that they don’t want anyone that has a track record. Roberts had a minimal track record. Miers has no track record.
They might be surprised. Souter had a minimal track record, too. He was nominated by Bush I, after Bork was borked. Bush I was surprised at how Souter turned out. Not the first time: Eisenhower was surprised at how Earl Warren turned out.
Concerning Ms. Mier’s stance on gays, you might want to look at this (be sure to look at the PDF file itself) and this.
raj, I think you mean Kennedy. Kennedy was the replacement for Bork.
Here is the questionnaire she filled out in 1989.
https://images.dailykos.com/images/user/3/miersquest.pdf
It really isn’t that supportive, although that was not atypical for Texas politicans then (or now). I don’t think we should get our hopes up. It’s a shame that some of the progressive blogs are using this to try to make Republicans turn against her. Whoever replaces her will be just as bad, or worse.
I’m of the opinion that she is probably the best that we can hope for from this president. Yet the whole cronyism aspect of it has me disgusted more than anything.
James:
Your post just reminded me of plagal. If how you describe those candidates has pro-life and pro-gay, then obviously these are their ideal candidates. Oddly enough they haven’t made a single comment about John Robert’s appointment as chief justice or Meir’s candidacy, considereing how much influence the US Supreme Court has on abortion issues.
I certainly hope it’s the case (even though I’m more neutral on abortion issues), because like you said it may cause serious friction among socons while plagal and like minded organizations form a post-socon scene. That would definately be a breath of fresh air.
I must say, a curious choice given the U.S. isn’t a corrupted third-World dictatorship /gagGiven one of the key roles of the Supreme Court is to be the levy banks of the Constitution…I’m hoping this isn’t FEMA all over again.
James at October 3, 2005 08:06 PM
Could have been Kennedy. I was working from fallible memory. Bork made the mistake of having a “big mouth”: saying and writing too much. Souter did not: he was a relatively obscure New Hampshire SupCt justice, with little paper trail, and that’s one reason why he got confirmed.
On the broader question of Mier’s nomination, the only thing I can figure about it is that it merely provides more confirm that the Bush II malAdministration is contemptuous of the judiciary branch. That they would nominate someone whose only claim to fame is that she headed the TX state lottery commission to the US SupCt is telling.