October 07, 2005

Miers Sounded Like O'Connor

A commenter brought this Knight-Ridder story to my attention:

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.

The story went on to say:

Miers agreed that there were too few minorities on the council, and that increasing the number of single-member districts - thus redrawing district lines - would be one way to change that. She said the structure needed to "encourage additional African-American, Mexican-American representation on the council."

She also said that as "one of the ingredients" in remaking the council, a racial balance would be important. Miers was careful not to endorse the idea that race should be the sole or even primary focus on redistricting efforts, saying at one point that "while race is an issue, you have economic diversity, which is really the crux" of the problem.

"To be representative, you've got to deal with more than race," she said.

This sounds a lot like Sandra Day O'Connor. Not reassuring. I have a few questions for Miers: Do you think only blacks and hispanics can best represent their respective races in political offices? Would you treat the Constitution as a color-blind document? What role does pragmatism play in a relatively permanent document like the Constitution? Or do you consider the Constitution to be a "living document?"

Beldar has done a great job defending Miers' nomination. The crux of his argument is she adds "different kinds of smarts to the Court." He lists her accomplished work experience. Great, such perspective would be useful, but none of this displays her judicial philosophy. Going to church, running a big law firm, being on the Texas Lottery Commission doesn't inform us about what she thinks the proper role of government and the courts are. Even if I assume Miers is smarter than all the Justices put together if she's a constitutional liberal she shouldn't be confirmed. My problem with her is we know too little. It's been four days since President Bush announced Miers as his nominee. The White House still hasn't come up with papers or a record of some sort to easy conservatives' concerns. The University of Michigan has done more with some documents collected (via Brain Shavings). (I hope the advice-laden treat-law-as-an-art essay I picked out first [PDF] isn't representative of her public writings.)

"Miers Espoused Progressive Views as Elected Official, Records Show"