Posted on 10/23/2005 12:17:19 PM PDT by freespirited
Harriet Miers has filled out a Senate Questionnaire that gives more evidence that she was personally against abortion. In that same questionnaire, she also said that she opposes judicial activism.
Should that change anyone's mind? No, not one iota. Wondering why? Well, let me tell you a little story about a name that strikes terror into the heart of conservatives who care deeply about the Supreme Court: David Souter.
Souter was a stealth nominee, nominated by George Bush's father. There were some initial grumbles about his nomination, but Republicans came out of the woodwork to assure the base that David Souter would be fine and that they should trust the President. Sound familiar? It should, because in essence, conservatives were given the exact same snow job back then that they're being given today. Here's a little background on the man that many conservatives, myself included, fear that Harriet Miers will emulate when she gets on the bench:
"As New Hampshire attorney general in 1977, Souter opposed the repeal of an 1848 state law that made abortion a crime even though Roe v. Wade had made it irrelevant, predicting that if the law were repealed, New Hampshire "would become the abortion mill of the United States."
At this point the only people more opposed to abortion than Souter were still in vitro.
He filed a brief arguing that the state should not have to pay for poor women to have abortions – or, as the brief called it, "the killing of unborn children" and the "destruction of fetuses."
Also as state attorney general, Souter defended the governor's practice of lowering the flag to half-staff on Good Friday, arguing that "lowering of the flag to commemorate the death of Christ no more establishes a religious position on the part of the state or promotes a religion than the lowering of the flag for the death of Hubert Humphrey promotes the cause of the Democratic Party in New Hampshire."
Wait, seriously – who is that guy on the Supreme Court and what has he done with the real David Souter?
Souter vowed in a newspaper interview to "do everything we can to uphold the law" allowing public school children to recite the Lord's Prayer every day.
As a justice on the New Hampshire Supreme Court, Souter dismissively referred to abortion as something "necessarily permitted under Roe v. Wade" – not exactly the "fundamental right" he seems to think it is now.
In a private speech – not a brief on behalf of a client – Souter attacked affirmative action, calling it "affirmative discrimination."
Souter openly proclaimed his support for the "original intent" in interpreting the Constitution."
Note that Souter, who was also a stealth nominee, had a CONSIDERABLY more reassuring resume than Harriet Miers does. However, what Souter -- and for that matter Sandra Day O'Connor and Andrew Kennedy -- did not have, was a long track record on the bench that showed an originalist bent. Harriet Miers, who has never been a judge, also lacks that record.
You heard that old saying, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me?" Well, conservatives know that they have already been fooled three times with the exact same pitch. So, how gullible do we have to be to fall for it a fourth time (and maybe a 5th if Roberts turns out to be less conservative than expected)?
Keep in mind, folks, even if you don't think having a track record as an originalist is important, Miers is pro-Affirmative Action, helped set up a feminist lecture series, was a Democrat less than 20 years ago, and gave money to her company's PAC in 1999, even though she knew that PAC gave money to Democrats like Hillary Clinton. Harriet Miers may be a lot of things, but she doesn't seem to be a conservative.
Furthermore, it's great that Miers is -- today -- a pro-life, Christian, Republican, but that shouldn't allay anyone's fears. Harry Reid is pro-life. Jesse Jackson is a Christian. Lincoln Chafee is a Republican. Would you want any of them on the Supreme Court?
Folks, this nomination may turn out to be the most important domestic decision of Bush's Presidency and because of the power of the Supreme Court, the lives of every American will be affected by the judge who fills Sandra Day O'Connor's slot on the SCOTUS. This is a nomination that may have an impact on freedom of speech, freedom of religion, Affirmative Action, Kelo, Roe v. Wade, privacy, the war on terror, and on and on and on. That's why this is not the time to just roll over and allow a squishy, 4th rate crony like Harriet Miers to get a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court.
We're playing for enormous stakes here and that's why conservatives should fight tooth and nail, with everything they have in the political arsenal, to stop Harriet Miers from being confirmed to the Supreme Court.
I quoted then-candidate Bush from his campaign in 2000. He didn't say terrorists, and the topic was illegal immigration, (not terrorism). As evidenced by recordings, he said, "we've got to protect our borders!"
Just how many terrrorists have gotten through our borders to do an attack on the American people since Bush said he would protect our borders?
We don't know, and the government doesn't, either, because they are unwilling/unable to prevent unknown aliens entering unofficial border crossings.
If our borders are not safe then why aren't the terrorists killing those of those us in America like they are killing Americans in Iraq? The truth is Bush has made our borders safe.
Many violent crimes are committed by illegal aliens, not all of whom belong to MS-13 or known terrorist organizations, and many people may feel terrorized by these criminals. Terrorists may enter illegally or legally, but they might not commit crimes the first day after they enter.
Is Miers less qualified than Justice Goldberg appointed by John F. Kennedy. Goldbergs entire experience in the law was as an employee of the AFL/CIO.
I was referring to some of President Bush's nominees to lower courts whom Senate Democrats threatened to filibuster. Several of these nominees were never confirmed, and some took years to confirm. Some may have been better qualified than Miers, and hopefully some voters will see that.
Do you think selling a supremec court position to a Union lawyer Embarrassed Teddy or Jack Kennedy? Get a Clue!!!!
I never said anything about Democrats being embarassed (if that's even possible).
If you think Democrats were embarrassed ... you are a lot dumber than I think you are.
Thank you for your high regard.
Don't try to feed me garbage about embarrassed Democrats. Only people as ignorant of the past and Democrats as you are, would believe you.
I didn't. Why do you bring up straw men arguments?
embarassed = embarrassed
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.