Posted on 10/18/2005 7:48:37 AM PDT by SoFloFreeper
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.
"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.
Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.
Good to know.
And all the King's horses and all the King's men couldn't put Harriet back together again.
So she supports amendment of the Constitution the way it was intended, i.e., through the amendment process, not by judicial fiat. So what?
Makes her "better" for some, makes her unaceptable as a heretic to liberals.
It will be interesting to see the liberal response -- have any nominally supported her? Will this change?
In that case, she now has my full support.
Well, this puts a new wrinkle in the argument.
I can imagine Chuck Schumer throwing a hissy fit at this very moment.
She's toast.
Maybe we can get Reese Witherspoon nominated next. She was, like, so smart in that Legally Blonde movie!
So why are people surprised?
The insane attacks on Harriet Miers may well have killed our best chance to get a reliably pro-life Supreme Court justice.
MIERS SAYS SHE MADE NO PROMISES ON ABORTION
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told a key Senate Democrat on Monday that she had not promised anyone that she would oppose abortion rights if she is confirmed to the nation's highest court.
After a private meeting with Miers, Sen. Charles Schumer (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., said she had told him that "no one knows how I would rule" on cases involving abortion. That issue is likely to headline Miers' upcoming Senate confirmation hearings because Miers would replace Sandra Day O'Connor, one of six justices on the nine-member court who has backed abortion rights. (Related story: Few ads on either side of debate)
Schumer added that he was unable to squeeze much information from Miers, who is the White House counsel, about her legal views. Schumer said that he was particularly "surprised" that she declined to discuss a ruling in 1923 that helped to establish the concept of personal privacy, the legal foundation for abortion rights.
"I didn't learn answers to so many important questions," said Schumer, who described Miers as much less informative than Chief Justice John Roberts was during similar meetings after Roberts' nomination to the high court in July. "On many, she wouldn't give answers, and on many others, she deferred, saying, 'I need to sort of bone up on this a little more.' "
Miers' trip to Capitol Hill on Monday came hours after an op-ed column in The Wall Street Journal suggested that on Oct. 3, the day Miers was nominated, two Texas judges who are friends of hers told several conservative Christian leaders during a conference call that Miers probably would vote to oppose abortion rights if she were confirmed.
The Journal said Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht and federal Judge Ed Kinkeade of Dallas made the remarks during a call that included James Dobson of Focus on the Family, conservative activist Gary Bauer and others. After that meeting, Dobson suggested that he had received private assurances from the White House that Miers was a nominee who deserved the support of conservative Christians who oppose abortion. Dobson said later that he had received no specific assurance that Miers would oppose abortion.
In interviews, Hecht has said Miers - who belonged to an evangelical church in Dallas that condemns abortion - would follow the law, not her religious beliefs, in her decisions. Kinkeade has praised Miers without speculating on how she might rule in abortion cases.
Schumer said Monday that he asked Miers whether anyone had been given assurances on how she would vote as a justice and that she "disavowed that completely."
Even so, Schumer said there was "a very real possibility" that he would call Hecht and Kinkeade to testify at Miers' confirmation hearings. "You can't have a campaign for a nominee based on whispers and winks," he said.
Miers' meeting with Schumer was part of a series of courtesy calls she is making to members of the Senate Judiciary Committee at a time when her nomination is under attack not from Democrats, but from fellow conservatives such as Pat Buchanan and Weekly Standard editor William Kristol. They have questioned Miers' legal credentials and cited her lack of a record on conservative causes such as opposition to abortion.
Schumer and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., who also met with Miers, cast doubt on Republican hopes to start Miers' confirmation hearings the week of Nov. 7 and vote on her nomination by Thanksgiving.
Feinstein said she had a "very pleasant meeting" with Miers but offered few details. She said her office received about 2,000 pages of documents Friday from Texas, where Miers spent most of her career as a corporate lawyer before working for Bush when he was Texas governor.
Schumer suggested that Miers, who has never been a judge, needs to brush up on constitutional law: "Clearly, she needs some time to learn about these cases and then give the American people her views."
The White House summoned a half-dozen judges who worked with Miers in Texas to defend her legal record and to emphasize Bush's portrayal of her as a corporate lawyer who shattered barriers for women in her field.
"They're trying to relaunch the nominee by focusing on the competency issue, but for most conservatives, the criticism really hasn't been competency," said Bauer, a former presidential candidate and president of the conservative group American Values. "It's ... that there's too little evidence she'll be a reliable vote."
Judge Michael McConnell was/is a supporter of the Life Ammendment too, and he got through the Senate, for the 10th Circuit.
....hummm, I guess that would be HARRIET herself.
Makes sense to me.
Nail in the coffin?
Apparently she did not discuss ROE V. WADE with Chuckie. This is the media remember. They are grasping at straws again. Conflicting reports coming in about her discussion.
There is no conflict. Saying you support an amendment is different then saying how you would rule on cases.
This has to be an intentional taking of a dive. Of course we want someone who will overturn Roe, but not as a single-issue consideration. We want someone who will overturn it on the basis that it - and many other decisions of its type - is not founded in law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.