Patterico's Pontifications

10/13/2005

Miers: NAACP Not “Politically Charged”

Filed under: Judiciary — Patterico @ 2:58 pm



If you were surprised to read on Drudge that Harriet Miers once called the Federalist Society too “politically charged” for her to become a member, then you haven’t been reading Patterico. I told you about that six days ago.

At the time, I was amused (and distressed) that she didn’t find the ABA “politically charged.” Now I’m further amused (and distressed) that she thought the same about the NAACP.

UPDATE: Reporters suck. Even though it’s a week-old story,they’re just now asking Scott McClellan about Miers’s views of the Federalist Society. Why? Because Drudge reported it.

8 Responses to “Miers: NAACP Not “Politically Charged””

  1. Patterico,

    If you haven’t already, have a look at Peggy Noonan’s article, she’s got it right. http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
    If the link fails, Drudge has it.

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  2. On Topic:

    So what? On at least one occasion Harriet Miers dismissed the Federalist Society as too “politically charged,” to consider participation, and seemingly in the same breath excluded the NAACP from the same category.

    Later, it has recently been revealed, when she spoke before the FS, she not only failed to register her complaint, she praised the Society and, in effect sucked up.

    Each time she told her audience just what they wanted to hear. You can’t hold that against her, can you?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)

  3. http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5hmn.htm

    [Stuart: which Drudge story do you think reflects her real opinions, and which is staged political theater? Put another way, did she take an oath before giving that speech? — Patterico]

    Stuart Buck (be7e4f)

  4. Why? Because Drudge reported it.

    Don’t hate the player….

    Come to think of it, that’s probably the thought that’s going through Harriet Miers’ mind these days…

    Anyway, if she had any respect for the Supreme Court, she’d withdraw. We already know Bush has no respect for it.

    SoCalJustice (0cef0a)

  5. You mean, as a Councilperson elected at-large in a city with a substantial African-American population, she spoke in less-than-harsh terms about a civil rights organization that represented the interests of that (and her) constituency? Acting like an elected politician while actually…an elected polician?

    Horrors.

    And as a Bar Association (first Dallas, then Texas) President, not picking a fight with her national organization, (except for when she worked to overturn the national organization’s endorsement of abortion rights)? Acting like a bureaucratic functionary while serving as…a bureaucratic functionary?

    Shocking.

    –furious

    furious (3681f5)

  6. Furious,

    One only hopes she brings that sort of steadfast commitment to principle to the court…

    Christopher Cross (354863)

  7. X-cross:

    You mean, doing the jobs she was elected (I assume Bar Associations elect their presidents) to do?

    Thank you for simultanously missing my point and making it for me! Really!

    –furious

    furious (2aee6d)

  8. Patterico: My guess is that the more recent speech is more representative of her current attitude than whatever she said in 1989. True, she wasn’t under oath in the 2005 speech, but she didn’t have to make a speech to the Federalist Society at all if she didn’t want to.

    Stuart Buck (ed523d)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0669 secs.