CWA Calls for Miers' Withdrawal

Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, is calling for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ name to be withdrawn.

“CWA was founded to provide an alternative to radical feminists – who claim to speak for all women – and who seek to impose policies that do not respect unborn babies, family or God. Too often these radical feminists found success, not through democratic means, but through activist courts,” said Wendy Wright, executive vice president.

“Harriet Miers has shown respect for Christian values by attending an Evangelical church. But her professional and civic life leaves us questioning whether she chooses to reflect and advance the views of the group she’s with at the moment. Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family,” said Wendy Wright. “This drives us to rely upon her actions, her deeds, her words as opposed to the endorsements of those who have worked with and known her.

“We believe that far better qualified candidates were overlooked and that Miss Miers’ record fails to answer our questions about her qualifications and constitutional philosophy,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “In fact, we find several aspects troubling, particularly her views on abortion and a woman’s ‘self-determination,’ quotas, feminism and the role of judges as social activists. We do not believe that our concerns will be satisfied during her hearing."

“Every time she quotes or cites women she admires, they’re to the left of Betty Freidan. We desire role models who have a strong record of promoting and advancing constitutional principles. Miss Miers’ record, as reflected in her speeches, is of promoting a leftist agenda that relies upon the courts to impose their views,” LaRue commented. “We’d prefer to have someone fond of quoting Margaret Thatcher or Antonin Scalia rather than Barbra Streisand and Gloria Steinem. Some of Miss Miers’ own comments border on male-bashing.”

“The record we know is a record that convinces us that Miers is not even close to being in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as the President promised the American people,” LaRue noted.

“We wanted to back the President, and sought evidence to support this nomination, but we find this Supreme Court nominee unqualified and her record troubling. However, we look forward to a nomination that we can whole-heartedly endorse,” said Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America.

Compare Harriet Miers's answer to question #28 on the Senate Judiciary Committee's questionnaire paraphrasing the wording of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and expanded abortion rights:

"Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to the question. Thus, whether a prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling."

—Harriet Miers

"So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed."

U.S. Supreme Court
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable
So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable

whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent
whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism

whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling
whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it

Miers parroted Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy's exact reasons for not overturning Roe v. Wade while professing her deep abiding respect for stare decisis.

Miers says "Judicial activism can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent"

Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy refer to the stare decisis of Roe no less than 11 times in their opinion, making sure to cement it as Court precedent. Miers's answer binds her to deference.

We have now learned that Miers plagiarized part of her 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas directly from PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, when she used the unattributed words of Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in support of abortion, saying, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."

None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from her that she will not vote to overturn Roe.

“In fact, we find several aspects troubling, particularly her views on abortion and a woman’s ‘self-determination,’

Miers "self-determination" comment on abortion and school prayer, I view as a signal that the she beliees Roe is wrong, and that Fedgov has no buisness legislating in this area, That is consistent with the Tenth Amendment which reserves unspecified powers to the states or to the people, respectively.

I personally believe abortion law should be, as compared to Roe, a matter of self-determination that belongs at the State level.

"Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to the question. Thus, whether a prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling."

—Harriet Miers

Sounds like she's open to change those things which, when revisited turn out to be unworkable. I believe she would consider reversing Roe quite seriously, but whether she pulls the trigger, I don't know. Bush, though his lieutenants, says yes.

wow, the spin, my head hurts.

This is the most important part though, which for some reason you didn't really address:

The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling.

So basically, anything that is blatantly unconstitutional, like CFR or gun control, could be thought to be unconstitutional, but if we've come to rely on them, we have to keep them in place.

Do you really think she's going to be the judge who will help roll back decades of liberal judicial activism???

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.