How Appealing

Saturday, October 22, 2005

“Miers family received ‘excessive’ sum in land case”: Jack Douglas Jr. and Stephen Henderson of Knight Ridder Newspapers provide a report that begins:

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers collected more than 10 times the market value for a small slice of family-owned land in a large Superfund pollution cleanup site in Dallas where the state wanted to build a highway off-ramp.

The windfall came after a judge who received thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Miers’ law firm appointed a close professional associate of Miers and an outspoken property-rights activist to the three-person panel that determined how much the state should pay.

And in related coverage, The Associated Press provides an article headlined “Report: Texas Overpaid Miers in Land Sale.”

Posted at 10:50 PM by Howard Bashman

“New justices’ stances on schools unknown; Court may soon hear cases on issues including prayer, military recruitment”: The UCLA Daily Bruin published this article earlier this month.

Posted at 8:45 PM by Howard Bashman

“Anti-abortion mother got teacher ousted”: The Sacramento Bee today contains a front page article that begins, “The mother of a Loretto High School student obtained photographs that exposed a drama teacher as a former Planned Parenthood volunteer, a revelation that led to the teacher’s firing last week. It wasn’t the first time Wynette Sills raised her anti-abortion views on the all-female, private Catholic campus.”

Posted at 11:44 AM by Howard Bashman

“Miers falls flat with scholars; Experts cite an error that might be a misunderstanding of constitutional law or perhaps a ‘brain freeze'”: This article appears today in The St. Petersburg Times.

The Chicago Tribune reports today that “Miers’ ex-firm paid in malpractice suits; Law firm she led settled 3 claims for at least $30 million.”

Holly Yeager and Patti Waldmeir of Financial Times report today that “Miers nomination ‘relaunch’ fails to pacify conservatives.”

The Dallas Morning News contains articles headlined “Voting rights fight a Miers highlight; Her stance evolved as she considered new information, circumstances“; “Business leaders say Miers would add new perspective“; and “Ex-Texas bar chiefs back Miers; They travel to D.C. to indicate support for troubled nomination.”

The Houston Chronicle reports that “Former bar chiefs from Texas defend Miers’ attributes; White House denies nominee will end courtesy calls to senators to focus on hearings.”

The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reports that “Texas lawyers travel to D.C. to support Miers.”

The Lafayette (La.) Daily Advertiser reports that “Locals weigh in on Miers.”

The State Journal-Register of Springfield, Illinois reports that “Schlafly speaks to local group, criticizes Miers.”

And The Lawrence (Kan.) Journal-World reports that “Students protest against Miers.”

In commentary, online at OpinionJournal, Melanie Kirkpatrick has an essay entitled “‘I Don’t Think She’s Going to Be Withdrawn’: Arlen Specter talks about the Harriet Miers nomination.”

In The Washington Times, Terence P. Jeffrey has an op-ed entitled “Self-imposed Borking.” And Wesley Pruden has an essay entitled “Maybe it’s time for a little peace.”

And in The Austin American-Statesman, columnist Bruce Hight has an op-ed entitled “If Miers falters, what Texan might step up?

Posted at 11:40 AM by Howard Bashman

“Defending The Indefensible”: Tomorrow in The Washington Post, columnist George F. Will will have an op-ed that begins, “Such is the perfect perversity of the nomination of Harriet Miers that it discredits, and even degrades, all who toil at justifying it. Many of their justifications cannot be dignified as arguments. Of those that can be, some reveal a deficit of constitutional understanding commensurate with that which it is, unfortunately, reasonable to impute to Miers. Other arguments betray a gross misunderstanding of conservatism on the part of persons masquerading as its defenders.”

Posted at 11:38 AM by Howard Bashman

“Harsher gay-sex sentence rejected; ‘Romeo and Juliet’ exemption struck”: This article appears today in The Kansas City Star.

And The Topeka Capital-Journal today contains an article headlined “Court’s ‘Romeo and Juliet’ ruling criticized; Lawmakers want restraints placed on justices” that begins, “The Kansas Supreme Court on Friday continued to receive bad reviews from state lawmakers, fueling more calls to put limits on its power. On the heels of a new decision in a high-profile sodomy case, two high-ranking state lawmakers criticized the court for sending mixed messages over the past year. They also said the justices are infringing on the Legislature’s turf.”

Posted at 10:00 AM by Howard Bashman