The Malcontent

Uh Huh

Now that Harriet has committed a bit of seppuku for her liege, gay rights groups are hopeful about the next pick.

Sorry, did I say hopeful? I meant transparent.

(Washington) The withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court is being met by LGBT civil rights activists with both a sense of relief and new concerns.

Yes, concerns. Such as a Republican president appointing a Supreme Court justice in the first place. That is pretty much the one and only concern involved here.

“Her withdrawal today demonstrates that the President is beholden to extremist groups rather than to the American people, said HRC President Joe Solmonese.

A man who frequently carries water for The Taskforce and NARAL doesn't get to call anyone else extreme. Sorry, Joe. Lovely parting gifts, etc.

I'll go out on a real creaky limb here and predict no matter who the next nominee is, the usual suspects will vigorously oppose them. When gay rights groups couldn't get behind a moderate constructionist like John Roberts, it is endlessly predictable surprising to watch them labor under the impression they have any credibility to speak on these issues whatsoever.

The Swamp Claims Another Victim

If George W. Bush is anything, he is a man who reads the papers.

Or at least he reads Krauthammer, because the WaPo columnist last Friday laid out the precise scenario of retreat on the Miers nomination that the President followed today: a concocted impasse over executive privilege.  (Indeed, some are suggesting the Krauthammer column was a trial balloon floated by the White House itself.)

So what was initially viewed as the ace up Miers' sleeve – lack of a paper trail – is now being presented as her undoing.  But if you're going to put forward a nominee because they don't have numerous controversial opinions in writing, make sure that they don't, you know, have numerous controversial opinions in writing.

Breaking News

A Rare "Bleg"

I just did Logo TV, and it was a blast!  I hope they have me back again soon.

Cutiepie Jason was out today (and I can confirm that it was definitely not the "bottle flu"), so equally cute Itay took the anchor chair.  Thanks to him and to Court for making me feel at home.  (Wearing a pink striped shirt in Logo headquarters didn't hurt, either.)

I rarely ask anything of readers except to keep reading and to tell us when we're jackasses, but I do need to ask if someone could see it in their heart to record and digitize the segment for me.  (Time Warner Cable is on my shitlist for this in a big way.)  And if doing it out of the goodness of your heart isn't enough, I can make it up to you some other way.

Here is the schedule for my segment (all times EDT):

Tonight:
8:49p
11:57p

Saturday, 10/15/05:
2:00a           10/14/05
12:56p          10/14/05

Sunday, 10/16/05:
5:52a           10/14/05
7:15a           10/14/05
9:26p           10/14/05

Gay Bits

Continuing the meme of indivisibility between gay-rights groups and Democrats, the activists go looking for fire, but still can't even find much smoke on Harriet Miers.

Despite growing acceptance of gays among youth, there is still a long way to go.

NYC is the top U.S. city for lesbians.  Must be all the leftover Fashion Week flannel.  [HT: Queerty]

Talk about self-loathing.  [HT: Andy]

Thin Ice, George

  This bothers me:

WASHINGTON Oct 12, 2005 — President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

A Huge Point in Her Favor

From the Kansas City Star (reg. req.):

U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback, a Republican from Kansas and a conservative weathervane on Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court, did little to disguise his disappointment Thursday after their hourlong meeting. [...]

He said he and Miers discussed Roe v. Wade, which granted women the right to an abortion, but in the context of the Griswold v. Connecticut case. That was an earlier ruling in which the court said the Constitution essentially contains a right to privacy. Conservatives disagree.

“She did not take a position on it,” Brownback said, referring to the Griswold case, “nor did she say she would take a position on it, nor did she think it appropriate to have a position on it.”

And this differs from virtually any other Supreme Court nominee in the past two decades ... how?

The petty, unfunny remark of the day comes via the eternally classless Tom Harkin, from the same news story:

As he walked by reporters and was told that Brownback and Miers were meeting in private, U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin, a Democrat from Iowa, said with a chuckle, “That’s a come-to-Jesus meeting.”

Knowing Tom Harkin, it was less joke than it was a bias revealed.

Miers and the Gays

Log Cabin can stop its equivocating and hesitating.  The views of Harriet Miers on gay issues are starting to come out, and they should give the GLBT community no reason for pause whatsoever.  Especially the views of someone running for office in Texas 16 years ago.  (Robbie touched on this last night.)

In 1989, while running for Dallas City Council, Miers filled out a questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas, which I have reprinted:

1. Do you believe that gay men and lesbians should have the same civil rights as non-gay men and women?

Yes.

2a. Do you, as an individual citizen, support repeal of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code which criminalizes the private sexual behavior of consenting adult lesbians and gay men?

No.

2b. Do you support the inclusion of the repeal of Section 21.06 of the Texas Penal Code as a part of the City of Dallas's legislative agenda?

No.

3a. Do you believe that the City of Dallas has a responsibility to fund AIDS education and patient support services?

Yes.

3b. Would you support increasing the level of city funding for the above services (currently $550,000 per year)?

Yes, assuming need and resources.  I do consider the AIDS illness as a serious and total community problem.  [emphasis hers]

4a. Do you support a city ordinance that prohibits discrimination in housing and public accommodations based on AIDS/HIV status?

I prefer a legislative solution to the issues raised by these questions a and b.  I do not have all the facts on the significance of these ordinances; however, I am willing to discuss the need and make an appropriate decision when fully advised.

4b. Would you support passage of a city ordinance prohibiting discrimination in employment based on race, religion, age, sex, national origin, AIDS/HIV status, or handicapped condition?  (Currently, Dallas has no city ordinance dealing with employment discrimination.)

(see a)

5. Do you believe that qualified gays or lesbians should be denied employment (including employment by the police or fire departments) by the City of Dallas solely because of sexual orientation?

I believe that employers should be able to pick the best qualified person for any position to be filled considering all relevant factors.

The pinkist ideologues will have a hey-day with answer 2, but the fact is that in 1989, the ink was barely dry on Bowers v Hardwick.  It would have been nice for a local Texas official to strike out against the unequivocal (and mean-spirited) Supreme Court ruling of just three years prior, but it also would not have been very realistic.

Over to you, HRC, NGLTF, et al.  That is, if you are still gay-rights organizations and not fronts for abortion rights.

Plugging the Dyke

You are woman, hear you roar. You need no man. Men are a crutch. Who needs the male species for validation? Not you. You've set children aside. No modern woman needs them for fulfillment. Do what stirs your soul. Learn. Live. Explore. Love. Dedicate your life to your career if it is your passion.

It's just . . . you realize you're a HUGE lesbian, right?

Just sayin'.

No Souter

Hugh Hewitt provides a welcome counterpoint to conservatives who are howling mad about Harriet Miers.  [Hat tip: GPW]

The Rawng Story

Sometimes the Bush-haters are so willing to believe the worst that it overrides everything else, even their journalistic sobriety.

Take the always-charming Mike Rogers.  A self-styled "journalist," he is so blinkered by leftist bloodlust that he sallied forth with a story about Harriet Miers that was egregiously incorrect from the headline forward, which was later retracted without comment.  The screen grab at right reflects the retraction, but I saved the text here:

Bush nominee Miers steered group aimed at deprogramming gays

Bush's nominee to the Supreme Court is a former board member of EXODUS Ministries, perhaps the world's largest organization that seeks to "save" men and women from a life of same-sex relationships, RAW STORY has discovered.

"Live-in" ministries don't just focus on deprogramming gays -- they also train transvestites and transsexuals how to become "normal."

Exodus promises the "fullness of redemption found in Jesus Christ, a gift which is available to all who commit their life and their sexuality to Him."

From their website:

Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of "Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ."

Since 1976, Exodus has grown to include over 120 local ministries in the USA and Canada. We are also linked with other Exodus world regions outside of North America, totaling over 150 ministries in 17 countries.

Within both the Christian and secular communities, Exodus has challenged those who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear, and those who uphold homosexuality as a valid orientation. These extremes fail to convey the fullness of redemption found in Jesus Christ, a gift which is available to all who commit their life and their sexuality to Him.

It's OK, Mikey, your fellow Bush-bashing traveler Andrew Sullivan was just as wrong as you were.

More Sully: Blinded With Rage

Two impulses in Andrew Sullivan collide head-on today: his leftward trot, which would argue in favor of Harriet Miers, and his mindless loathing of George Bush, which would argue against.

Guess which one wins?

Miers at First Blush

Even though the name of Harriet Miers last week began to rocket up the list of possible Supreme Court nominees, her nomination this morning still has me a little bit shocked.  I thought it was a forgone conclusion that the President would shore up his right flank with a Michael Luttig or an Edith Jones.

Not only has the President avoided nominating a polarizing conservative, but he has chosen the Senate Minority Leader's supposed favorite.  The best liberals have been able to muster in terms of carping is this from Chuck Schumer:

"We know even less about Harriet Miers than we did about John Roberts ..."

When they start comparing you to John Roberts, you might as well start measuring the drapes.  Gay Patriot tries to predict a few more lines of attack from the left.

Malkin sums up conservatives' initial reactions: OK, but "underwhelmed."  She also pokes at "cronyism" and Miers' lack of judicial experience. It is true that Miers has never been a judge.  But then, neither were many of the court's past luminaries, a total of 20 that includes John Marshall, Earl Warren, Warren Berger, Byron White and William Rehnquist.

Meanwhile, Drudge and RedState are highlighting her previous financial contributions to Al Gore (don't forget that he also ran for President in 1988) and Lloyd Bentsen.

If conservatives and liberals have at least something good to say about Harriet Miers, that is OK with me.  It would seem that there is still more than a little bit of a "uniter" left in this President.