Miers' Views Labeled "Activist," Supportive of Abortion Rights in Washington Post

BetterJustice.com ^

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

We can learn that you have more in common with liberals and the left when you use pejorative warning labels like “far right” and “ultra right.” Needless to say, if having a commitment to Jeffersonian Decentralization, the Reagan Revolution, believing in the free market, opposing an all powerful centralized government, unflinching support for tradition values, etc. makes me “far right” or “ultra right” – then so be it, but your terminology is simply based on your inability to answer the criticisms of Miers without resorting to dishonesty or simply sidestepping the issue to attack the characters of others.

[jec41]

P.S., I suppose you're going to tell Phyllis Schlafly, Cal Thomas, George Will, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Bill Kristol, Charles Krauthammer, Alan Keyes, Laura Ingraham, Jonah Goldberg, John Fund, David Frum, Ann Coulter, Linda Chavez, Mona Charen, David Brooks, Judge Robert Bork, Bill Bennett, at least 44.8% of FreeRepublic.com (OPPOSE MIERS), and countless other conservatives should just "be quiet" & "shut up" according to the likes of you...I'm sure we don't need to check into your history of ruthlessly thrashing and posting (the only posting you allow and praise) in support of Miers. You're an ankle biter, period!


Hate to tell you pal but if you put all of these people together they would not get 5% of the nations vote. Has the 44% against Miers on FR reached 2000 Yet?

[jdm]

"Now they can predict her future thoughts and actions"

That's the problem. The basis for supporting the nominee is dependent on PREDICTING her FUTURE thoughts and actions........no thanks. I can't support a potential SCJ whose ideology I have to PREDICT.

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

I don't know...was Bush's nomination of a loyalist and friend, dare I say, elitist or is the criticism coming from his base?

[JCEccles]

The Miers crowd has been reduced to labeling such insightful and highly respected conservatives as Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, George Will, Robert Bork, Laura Ingraham, Michele Malkin, and Peggy Noonan as right wing extremists and nuts.

Then again, it's far easier to bash these honest and thoughtful critics than it is to promote Miers on the strength of her lackluster and mediocre resume.

[JCEccles]

Are we holding a junior high school popularity contest or are we trying to get a qualified person on the Supreme Court?

My guess is if you were to poll the American public and ask them who was more qualified for SCOTUS head-to-head, Miers versus each of the above-listed critics, Miers would come out on the losing end of all but two or three (and then only because she has a law degree and a few of the critics do not).

[Conservative Coulter Fan]

As opposed to the Clinton, ACLU, NARAL majority - recent polls show a majority of Americans oppose Miers, and the FR poll on Miers reveals that 5,279 (composite) & 2,434 (member).

[FreeRep]

I agree, as a very conservative prolife evangelical conservative, I've been supportive of the Miers nomination because I support President Bush in this time of war and I think it's time for a conservative evangelical on the Supreme Court. However, now I am very concern about what she said on abortion in the 1993 speech, and I will not support someone who is pro-choice or pro-abortion.

[counterpunch]

Roberts's answer during his appeals court hearing was similar in substance to "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."

And yes, that is extremely standard for an appeals court judge, since they are bound by stare decisis. But I was only using that to establish her deference to stare decisis, because Supreme Court Justices are not bound by anything.

What is significant here is where I pointed out line for line in red and blue how Miers painstakingly paraphrased each point laid out in Casey for upholding of Roe. That is unique to Miers, and was deliberate. She was signaling in no uncertain terms that she will not overturn Roe.

Because all of her criteria for revisiting a decision is addressed in Casey -- alas, plucked directly from Casey -- it is thus already enshrined in case law, and therefore a non-starter for Miers due to stare decisis. What she has done in her questionnaire is to make it painstakingly clear in a substantive way that she believes Roe v. Wade is "settled law".

 

[jec41]

My guess is if you were to poll the American public and ask them who was more qualified for SCOTUS head-to-head, Miers versus each of the above-listed critics, Miers would come out on the losing end of all but two or three (and then only because she has a law degree and a few of the critics do not).

Most of the critics have a law degree but that would be a minus for some. Now if you took everyone of the above critics and dissected every period of their life, examined every writing and speech that any of them have ever made and then put all the political spin possible on each of them most would be lucky to escape taring and feathering. Most people would think it was a joke and it would be.

[JusticeForAll76]

I think it is the other way around. This is a standard answer, and that standard answer was then used in Casey.

Campare Robert's response at his CJ hearing:

"The principles of stare decisis look at a number of factors. Settled expectations is one of them, as you mentioned. Whether or not particular precedents have proven to be unworkable is another consideration on the other side -- whether the doctrinal bases of a decision had been eroded by subsequent developments"