Posted on 10/19/2005 5:57:14 AM PDT by Brilliant
WASHINGTON -- The hazy profile of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers sharpened with disclosures on her opposition to abortion and her personal finances that could comfort disgruntled social conservatives while pressuring Democrats to oppose her.
...Ms. Miers included a 1989 document from her successful campaign for Dallas City Council in which she backed a constitutional amendment outlawing nearly all abortions.
Her position -- contained in a questionnaire she filled out for the antiabortion group Texans United for Life -- doesn't prove Ms. Miers would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. But it could reassure a core constituency of President Bush's political base, social conservatives, some of whom have vocally opposed Ms. Miers as an unknown quantity.
"I think this is critically important," said Kyleen Wright, president of the Texans for Life Coalition, which initially refused to endorse the nomination. In 1989, opposing abortion rights "was not the predominant mainstream position," Ms. Wright said. "It took courage for her to take that position."
Additional information shows Ms. Miers's net worth to be less than $700,000, notwithstanding her years of lucrative work at a large Dallas law firm. One explanation: Ms. Miers's former pastor at the evangelical Valley View Church says she long has tithed a portion of income to the church -- "probably more" than the traditional 10% that is often considered standard...
Abortion-rights activists likely will raise pressure on prominent Democrats to oppose her, despite earlier qualified praise from Minority Leader Harry Reid.
"The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein a member of the Judiciary Committee, in a statement. The California Democrat added that they raise "very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard."...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Being anti Roe v Wade is constitutionally conservative, not 'socially conservative'.
SCOTUS determines whether the LAW is or is NOT constitutional. They apply the Constitution..........
If she believed in overturning RvW there would be no need for a Constitutional amendment. However the same failings of the court that gave us RvW could hand down some future decision based on the concept of a "living interpretation of the document". This is why a Constitutional amendment is necessary. One day future generations will look down on us the way we look down on America during the years of slavery.
The big question is how is she on Constitutional law?
Boost??? I dont think so.
Think a little. No US Senator lost his job when he voted Bork down. Bet that any Pubbie Senator (Like Santorum) will not make it past the next election if they have voted Miers down.
The President didn't become President without great abilities. It is just those who want the country ruled by "philosopher kings" cannot see his strengths.
This can't be true. Haven't John Fund and David Frum told us she is incompetent at best and possibly corrupt?
You wrote "The Bush detractors believe he is either venal, dumb or both."
Where do you get this? Isn't it possible to believe that she's simply a bad pick. Surely you'd agree that she is not "the most qualified" person to sit on the highest court in the land. She was chosen because she's his lawyer AND Harry Reid reccommended her.
Bush tried to avoid a fight with the Democrats - and got one with his own party. That doesn't make him venal or dumb, it means he didn't want to fight for this nomination.
Another thing, what has been released that makes you believe that Meirs is an "originalist" or "true constructionist"? You have nothing but faith. W says "trust me" and you say "yes sir". Bad Move. When W packs his bags and heads back to Crawford - Harriet stays.
P.S. - Democrats controlled the Senate when Bork was nominated, and it took some time, but quite a few have been replaced by Republicans.
She isn't described as "anti Roe", but in favor of an amendment to overturn Roe.
That isn't the same thing. A judge can be anti-abortion and still uphold Roe (in the lower courts it happens all the time).
There are people who think we should not own guns who recognize that the Constitution currently protects such ownership. If they wish to change that by amendment rather than by appointing activist judges to ignore the Constitution... then they could still be "originalists" or "literalists".
The Senate hearings are going to be a full blown circus. All we need are dancing bears and clowns shot out of cannons. Ooops! We will be able to see many Dim clowns live on television. But no cannons.
We shouldn't need an ammendment to overturn a ruling which found on the basis of a non-existant right to privacy a coallary right to conceal murder between consenting doctor and patient.
A Constitutional Amendment takes the matter out of the hands of Courts and the legislature, and that presence of a constitutional amendment would preclude not only legislative activity, but also court activity.
However, if she support a Con amendment, she does for a reason. Once could be impatience with the court in relinquishing control (reversing Planned Parenthood, Roe), the other being a belief that the court could not credibly reverse, i.e. deference to stare decisis as O'Connor did in Planned Parenthood. Interesting historical note, AFAIK, the Dred Scott decision was never reversed, showing that on occasion, an extra-court process comes into play - in that case, the 14th amendment.
So, again, her personal pro-life stance does not illuminate her judicial philosophy at all. And her "check box" for supporting undertaking the Con Amendment process, without further expression of why she made that pick, can go either way.
Another useless data point, that will be spun by the GOP and the WH.
Oh - a parallel in our history is prohibition. A Con Amendment took the decision out of the political process "once and for all" (Hahahahahah). We all know how well the prohibition was respected - it made more than one gangster family rich, Kennedy and Al Capone come to mind. But a COn Amendment is the ultimate "top down" solution. Today, with no such cenralized edict, one can still find dry counties in the USA. And that is the way it should be, local control with the ability to make fine grained changes without imposing "my way or the high way " on everybody else in the country.
".S. - Democrats controlled the Senate when Bork was nominated, and it took some time, but quite a few have been replaced by Republicans
Question 1: I trust the President since he has worked with her for almost a decade. I trust her because she has a lifetime of being trustworthy.
Question 2: No RAT lost his or her seat because of Bork. Bet that several or more of those voting against Miers will lose theirs. In many States 10% of the voters are Evangelicals and in others proportionately more. No politician will knowingly alienate a block of voters without hope of gaining others. Can you imagine RATS voting for a Pubbie because he or she voted Miers down?
I think not. And that brings me to the final point. The President has put his opponents both RAT and Pubbie in a box--vote her down at your own peril. Just the kind of maneuver a political genius would take. No one is going to vote for Bork, Will, Frum, Krystal, Noonan, or even Limbaugh. The President isn't running again. It is all on the Senator's shoulders. Bet their hearts and minds will follow actual voters not trash type polls or self-important pundits.
I beginning to think that bringing out Reid's recommendation to the forefront was a ploy to bring all the GOP haters out in the open.
I guess you missed the fact that all ten Republicans on the Senate Judiciary committee came out almost immediately after her nomination to state that she deserved a hearing and some gave endorsements for her confirmation.
Selective memory eh?
She understands that the role of a supreme court justice is NOT to determine what the constitution *should* say, but what it says.
Miers could turn out to be the most strict constructionist that we have ever had.
She does not have to cite a ton of precedent. She does not have to argue flawlessly in legal terms to support a particular position. All she has to say is "The constitution does not address this issue, take it back to the legislature"
Her position on abortion, as being reported, is that she thought a constitutional amendment banning abortion should be done. This is *much* different than taking the position "The court should rule abortion is illegal", although I suspect one could determine that the right to life is protected by the constitution as it exists today, and the right to "privacy" is only protected against unreasonable search and seizure, but not to the point that it allows the killing of another human being.
We should embrace her.
Correct! We "shouldn't" need it. But we do.
There are point is that there are two possible legal motivations behind such an amendment. 1) To use the power the Constitution gives to the people to overturn an unconstitutional decision on the part of an out-of-control judiciary. Or 2) to change what you agree the Constitution says. i.e. Roe is correctly decided, but you want change the rules - as with an amendment undoing prohibition... you agree that the constitution says you can't drink and you want to change that.... so you amend the constitution.
If Miers falls into the first camp I'll be pleased. If she falls into the second camp I will be pleased to have her by my side in a fight to amend the Constitution... but I don't want her on my court.
What a stupid post ...
"and some gave endorsements for her confirmation"
Big Damn Deal. Some gave endorsements! Some! You nominate someone for the SUPREME COURT and all you get is SOME endorsements?
Of course they said she deserved a hearing, what did you expect them to say?
No, I don't have a selective memory. Eh?
1) This is enough for you. For some it's not. I simply don't think she's QUALIFIED. She may have been a faithful friend for ten years, but HE PROMISED A SCALIA, AND I WANTED A SCALIA.
2) You argue that "No RAT lost his or her seat because of Bork". I think you're wrong. I think the Republican base was motivated by the activism of the court and the "borking" of conservative nominees. Surely you'd agree that John Thune holds office today partly because of Tom Daschle's treatment of Bush's judicial nominees.
3) You argue that the evangelicals will punish any Republican senator who dares vote against Meirs. If Meirs is replaced by Williams, Brown, or Luttig - don't you think the evangelical base would be satisfied?
4) Your final point, opponents in a box. Since when are men like Brownback opponents? You're right, Bush isn't running again - but Brownback is. And what happens to Brownback if Meirs upholds ROE? Nothing happens to Bush, he's gone. But every republican senator who supported her is left hanging.
"Of course they said she deserved a hearing, what did you expect them to say? "
First, I'll overlook your above nasty remarks..
Second, I don't know what planet you have been on, but I have been in this discussion for three weeks and most if not all the Freepers here who are against Miers have been trying to put pressure on the Senators to suggest that she withdraw before the hearings.
Do you think that is the right thing to do?
My post only reflects that the Senators want to give Miers a fair hearing.
I believe that the following advise given by DJ Drummond of Polipundit still holds and it would be well for conservatives to follow them :
[] No, it’s not just accepting “trust me” from President Bush, to say we should consider his nomination of Miers in the light of his past picks. We do the same thing when we consider our legal, investment and medical advice, or when we consider the input from a co-worker. Bush has a good solid record, and it just makes sense to consider it now. Past performance is not an exact indicator of future results BUT SHOULD be a consideration nonetheless. This is especially true when we consider the fact that Miers herself gave significant input to Bush's judicial picks.
[] EVERY source is biased; the only question is how to measure the extent of it and see whether it’s overboard. The simple fact is, if we look long enough we can find flaws in any candidate, and it should be noted that while it is entirely reasonable to ask how Harriet Miers is qualified, it is unconscionable to spread rumors or assume she is unqualified, simply because she is not what you expected.
[] Republicans overwhelmingly supported President Clinton’s right to present his own nominees ( which resulted in Ginsburg and Breyer). No reasonable person can now claim Bush deserves less.
[] For many years, Republicans fought to make sure candidates were considered on their qualifications, not on the basis of idealogy. We will put a dagger into Liberal hands if we abandon that sound practice now.
[] There will be hearings for Miers. The very purpose of these hearings is for the Senate to decide where they will stand on her. Premature verdicts are foolish verdicts.
Choose wisely. This is about far more than one pick at one time.
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.