Posted on 10/07/2005 12:18:33 PM PDT by Map Kernow
Kansas Republican Sen. Sam Brownback has said he would consider voting against the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court even if President Bush made a personal plea for his support.
NewsMax reported Thursday that Brownback, a key member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, was reserving judgment on the nomination until he had a chance to meet with Miers.
He did meet with the nominee that afternoon – and evidently was less than thrilled about what he heard.
Brownback complained that he was left trying "to gather little pieces of shreds of evidence” about Miers’ views on abortion and other issues, including gay marriage and the role of religion in public life, the New York Times reports.
He told reporters after the hour-long meeting that Miers had avoided a discussion of Roe v. Wade and "had done little to assure him that she would be open to revisiting or overturning the case,” according to the Times.
Brownback, an ardent opponent of abortion, said he tried to initiate a discussion of abortion law by citing the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, a decision that established a married couple’s right to use contraceptives, and later served as a basis for the Roe v. Wade decision.
According to Brownback, Miers said she would not discuss the case because related cases could come before the Court.
Brownback, a potential presidential candidate in 2008, is a leading voice of conservatives in the Senate, and a vote against Miers’ confirmation could lead other possible GOP candidates to follow.
What this lacks is the demonstration that the ability to recognize sound judicial candidates also makes one a similar candidate.
If Ms. Miers has had a hand in selecting the judges nominated by the current administration, then she can recognize good judges. And I would have been happy with many, if not most of them, for the current opening. There is, however, the fact that there is more evidence of their expertise, experience,and committment than of her's, although, with the exception of Mr. Roberts, their nominations were for lesser positions.
This background of picking constructionist judges is certainly a point in her favor.
What about the same talking point he had about "elitism"? (Give me a break)
Hmm, Im surprised he didnt make the same charge that Ed Gillespie made about "sexism".
Brilliant legal scholars who refuse to limit themselves are what must be kept off the court. Brilliant legal scholars with constructionist principles are badly needed.
The idea that Joe Six-pack can write an opinion that will stand, let alone influence the legal climate of the nation, is so very, very naive.
"These two persons, the President and Harriet Miers, are from the Bible belt that includes Texas. "
So is Ann Richard, Molly Ivins, Jim Hightower, and Ronnie Earle.
"I trust the President and that brings me to trust his choice"
Ah, a Faith-based nomination process. Wonderful.
Looks like you've got this bunch figured out; that's exactly what they seem to want. They're doing a Ginrich: pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.
"Then the question becomes: with Bush Jr. in a snit over his screwup, will he just go with his other crony Gonzales (that's Spanish for "Souter") and hang tough on an even worse pick, while Luttig, Rogers Brown and Owen continue to gather dust?"
Bump for another Souter joke.
I love false pedantry.
That's called "damning someone with faint praise." A woefully thin recommendation for a lifetime appointment to the high court, especially when there are candidate with far more significant qualifications.
I like Texas and sometimes all we have is trust and faith. So, I trust the President and that brings me to trust his choice of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court.
Additonal information from Infoplease.com
he graduated (1974) from the Yale Law School and became a prominent black conservative active in Republican causes.
My senator Senator Philip Uster is against her!
Did he come right out and say so? And is he Dem or Rep?
BTW, I just found out last night that 30% of all SC Justices never served on a bench.
She's in good company.
No, by Gumby (no offense meant). Yes, of course - by GWB, who else is sitting in the WH, that is besides 'genius' Karl Rove.
You can start almost from day one with that MASSIVE Education Bill while playing kissy-face with Ted Kennedy. Budgets blown to hell thanks to entitlements - all without a hint of a Veto. Telling the DOJ to back off on all the Clinton Crimes. Vowing to sign the AWB. Signing the unconstitutional CFR. PROMOTING Affirmative Action in the Univ of Michigan case. Ignoring the BORDERS and the Invasion we are under (Congress funds 20,000 agents HE hires 200). The LOS Treaty. AMNESTY and vote pandering. Calling Patriots Vigilantes. And the 'Medicare drugs for granny' bill.
Need any more?
Discussions between a lawyer and her client are privileged. The Senators know this, and Miers knows it.
You don't seem to know it.
Winning an election and being the President is not sufficient reason to blindly accept Supreme Court nominees. That's why the Constitution requires that the Senate confirm the nominee.
Read my tagline please.
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.