Posted on 10/26/2005 3:48:00 PM PDT by Conservative Coulter Fan
Miers' Views Labeled "Activist," Supportive of Abortion Rights in Washington Post
In the latest blow to the pro-Miers contingency, the Washington Post provides copy of a 1993 speech Miers gave which exposes the first insight into her judicial philosophy. As one conservative constitutional attorney said:
"This is going to be very disturbing to conservatives because I think it shows that she is a judicial activist," said Mathew D. Staver, president and general counsel for the Liberty Counsel, which frequently argues constitutional cases from the conservative perspective. "This concept of self-determination could clearly be read in support for things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and it's a philosophy that cuts a judge loose from the Constitution." [emphasis added]
The article contains a link to Miers' speech. Some of Miers' conservative supporters offer the "anti-Roe" defense, that is, we should support her because she will vote the "right" way on abortion. Without addressing the problematic nature of this line of thinking here (see the exchange between Ramesh Ponnuru and Rich Lowry at NRO Corner for a decent primer), this report should at last serve to stifle one of the weaker Miers' defenses.
LEXIS/NEXIS: Miers Less Experienced Than Dozens of Others Set to Replace O'Connor on Court
An "exhaustive search" conducted by LEXIS/NEXIS analysts concludes that dozens of potential conservative Supreme Court nominees possess vastly more experience than Harriet Miers. LexisNexis is a leader in comprehensive and authoritative legal, news and business information. You can view their report here.
GOP Senators Finally Begin to Show Life - Are We At the Tipping Point?
The New York Times reports that Judiciary Committee Member Jeff Sessions is "uneasy" and fellow Republicans John Thune and Norm Coleman begin to express doubts about Miers' nomination. The Times explains:
Coming less than two weeks before confirmation hearings, the public questioning by Republican senators may be an ominous sign. Of the 10 Republicans on the 18-member Judiciary Committee, Mr. Sessions joins two others who have publicly raised concerns: Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas has questioned her legal views on abortion rights, and the committee chairman, Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, has said Ms. Miers could benefit from a "crash course in constitutional law."
Among the Senators mentioned above, the Times also notes that Coburn, Kyl and Graham are concerned about the nomination. This is a must read. Now is a good time to email each of the Senators and tell them to OPPOSE Miers' nomination.
Seattle Times: Miers not qualified for Supreme Court
White House Buying Into Krauthammer Plan for Exit Strategy?
Tuesday's New York Times reports that the President is being very adamant in his refusal to release Harriet Miers' papers in resistance to mounting pressure. As the Times explains:
Ms. Miers's nomination has grown increasingly troubled as Republicans and Democrats have criticized her as having no judicial experience. Mr. Bush has continued to give her strong public support, although he did not directly answer a question on Monday about whether the White House had a contingency plan if she withdrew her nomination.
Meanwhile, Senators are not backing down... could this be the first stage of Krauthammer's exit strategy? Or shall we now say Bill Buckley's Lady Godiva strategy?
We sure hope so...
Conservative opposition to the Miers nomination escalates:
Americans for Better Justice launches its website and announces plans for radio and television advertising. The Washington Post reports:
Conservative stalwarts David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, and Linda Chavez, meanwhile, are among those supporting BetterJustice.com, another site seeking Miers's withdrawal. The group also has promised to launch radio and television ads to support their call.
"The sense is that she is not well versed in constitutional law. It is not to say she is not a good lawyer, a smart woman or had good careers," said Chavez, president of the Center for Equal Opportunity, which opposes race-conscious affirmative action programs. "But she is not someone who has spent time in the world of ideas." [source]
Miers falls flat with scholars:
Experts cite basic misunderstanding of constitutional law or perhaps a "brain freeze." [source]
Miers Endorsed Race and Sex-Based Quotas:
We may not know much about Harriet Miers, but one thing we do know is that she is no conservative when it comes to race preferences –- yet another major issue where the Supreme Court controversially sets nationwide policy. As President of the Texas Bar Association Harriet Miers backed policies calling for quotas that rewarded people based on their race and gender. As The Washington Post reports:
As president of the State Bar of Texas, Harriet Miers wrote that "our legal community must reflect our population as a whole," and under her leadership the organization embraced racial and gender set-asides and set numerical targets to achieve that goal.
The Supreme Court nominee's words and actions from the early 1990s, when she held key leadership positions as president-elect and president of the state bar, provide the first window into her personal views on affirmative action, an area in which the Supreme Court is closely divided and where Miers could tip the court's balance. [source]
As The Post reports, Sandra Day O'Connor -– the justice Miers is set to replace -– was the swing vote on the Supreme Court and she endorsed racial preferences in Grutter v. Bollinger
Which GOP Senator Will Take the Lead for 2008 by Opposing Miers' Nomination?
An excellent piece by the editors at National Review, asks the following questions of our leaders in the Senate:
Will Sen. George Allen cross the White House, when it still has the juice to threaten him? Will Sen. Sam Brownback, a key member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, show the leadership his admirers expect? Can Sen. Bill Frist break with the White House on something highly important and controversial besides stem cells? Can Sens. John McCain and Chuck Hagel be mavericks when it might do their party and one of its most important causes some good? [source]
George Will goes further in his Sunday commentary:
As for [Senate] Republicans, any who vote for Miers will thereafter be ineligible to argue that it is important to elect Republicans because they are conscientious conservers of the judicial branch's invaluable dignity. Finally, any Republican senator who supinely acquiesces in President Bush's reckless abuse of presidential discretion -- or who does not recognize the Miers nomination as such -- can never be considered presidential material. [source]
Indeed. This just reinforces the need to get our message to the Senators on the Judiciary Committee – send your letter now if you haven't done so already.
Is the White House Finally Listening?
Could the White House really be listening to its conservative base? The Washington Times reports that we are finally making some progress:
The White House has begun making contingency plans for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers as President Bush's choice to fill a seat on the Supreme Court, conservative sources said yesterday.
"White House senior staff are starting to ask outside people, saying, 'We're not discussing pulling out her nomination, but if we were to, do you have any advice as to how we should do it?' " a conservative Republican with ties to the White House told The Washington Times yesterday. [source]
Charles Krauthammer offers one good strategy that allows everyone to save face and allows us to move on quickly and painlessly:
For a nominee who, unlike John Roberts, has practically no record on constitutional issues, such documentation is essential for the Senate to judge her thinking and legal acumen. But there is no way that any president would release this kind of information -- "policy documents" and "legal analysis" -- from such a close confidante. It would forever undermine the ability of any president to get unguarded advice.
That creates a classic conflict, not of personality, not of competence, not of ideology, but of simple constitutional prerogatives: The Senate cannot confirm her unless it has this information. And the White House cannot allow release of this information lest it jeopardize executive privilege.
Hence the perfectly honorable way to solve the conundrum: Miers withdraws out of respect for both the Senate and the executive's prerogatives, the Senate expresses appreciation for this gracious acknowledgment of its needs and responsibilities, and the White House accepts her decision with the deepest regret and with gratitude for Miers's putting preservation of executive prerogative above personal ambition.
Faces saved. And we start again. [source]
On a less optimistic note, The Wall Street Journal reports that Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Spector does not believe she will be withdrawn.
All the more reason to sign the petition, send letters to Senators, and spread the word to everyone you know. We must make our voices heard!
RECENT NEWS
The Bush Administration is considering alternatives for revitalizing the Miers nomination
One unprecedented move that is being considered is the possibility of a major speech, delivered by Miers herself.
The Washington Post, October 25: New Push for Miers Is in the Works
More Republican Senators are beginning to express doubt about the Miers nomination
The New York Times, October 26: Senators in G.O.P. Voice New Doubt on Court Choice
Schumer: Miers Lacks Votes to Get Confirmed
Legal Experts find Miers' misuse of legal terms "terrible," "shocking"
Los Angeles Times, October 22: Miers' Answer Raises Questions
Republican Senators Withhold Support of Miers in Series of Interviews with Human Events
Human Events, October 21: HUMAN EVENTS Asks Senators: Was Miers the ‘Most Qualified’ Nominee?
Human Events, October 14: Conservatives Still Unconvinced Miers Belongs on the Court
Human Events, October 7: GOP Senators Admit They Have No Evidence Miers Fits the Scalia-Thomas Mold
White House Won't Release Miers Documents
President Bush has stated that he will not release White House documents containing legal advice that he received from Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.
Houston Chronicle, October 25: Bush: Records of Miers' legal advice off-limits
Washington Times, October 25: Bush refuses to disclose conversations with Miers
Colleague Sees Miers Support for Racial Preferences
A former Dallas City Council member and Miers colleague argues that Miers, if confirmed, would rule as Sandra Day O'Connor did on racial preference issues.
National Review (The Corner), October 23: MIERS MISSED ON PBS?
Senators Remain Skeptical of Miers' Nomination
USA Today, October 23: Miers fails to sway skeptical senators
Miers displays ignorance of basic constitutional law:
Patterico's Pontifications, October 23: Miers Harriet Miers vs. The United States Supreme Court
Miers Fails to Impress Senators: Chairman Spector Says She Needs a "Crash Course" on Constitutional Law:
Charles Hunt in The Washington Times, October 21: Miers to End Her Visits with Senators
Cheryl Gay Stolberg in The New York Times, October 9, 2005: Bush Works to Reassure G.O.P. Over Nominee for Supreme Court
Few Support Miers Nomination
Rasmussen Reports, October 21: New poll reveals that only 30% of Americans support Miers' confirmation, but most people still believe she will be confirmed
On Conservative Resistance to the Nomination:
Charles Babington in Washington Post, October 21, 2005: After the Home Run, a White House Balk?
They Said They Know Her, But Did the White House Really Know Harriet Miers Before Her Nomination?
Joan Biskupic & Toni Locy in USA Today, Oct. 18, 2005: Miers was vetted by few in administration
John Fund in OpinionJournal.com, October 13: How She Slipped Through: Harriet Miers's nomination resulted from a failed vetting process
On Harriet Miers' Judicial Philosophy – Or Lack Thereof:
Charles Babington and Michael A. Fletcher in Washington Post, October 20: Senators Assail Miers's Replies, Ask for Details
'
Frederic J. Frommer, Associated Press, October 20: Kohl: Miers Downplays Abortion Answer
James Taranto in "Best of the Web Today" on OpinionJournal.com, October 13, 2005: The Miers Testimony
On Harriet Miers’ Lack of Qualifications:
David Frum's Diary, October 10: What the Insiders are Saying
Peter Baker and Dan Balz in The Washington Post, October 6: Conservatives Confront Bush Aides: Anger Over Nomination of Miers Boils Over During Private Meetings
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.
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?
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.
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).
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.
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"
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.