Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Sen. Brownback May Nix Miers
Newsmax.com ^ | Oct. 7, 2005

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; US: Kansas
KEYWORDS: 109th; brownback; harrietmiers; miers; miersnomination; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-202 next last
To: Map Kernow

There has never been any doubt on Bush's position on CAFTA. He has supported it loudly from the beginning,


121 posted on 10/07/2005 2:06:14 PM PDT by Truthsayer20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Antoninus

I trust Brownback as well, but there's something that I've been thinking about concerning his having issues with the Miers nomination. I know that John Roberts had some judicial rulings from which the senators could learn of his judicial philosophy, etc.....okay.....but did Roberts have any rulings on abortion, gay marriage, etc. that would have given senators any idea as to how he would rule on those issues. I mean, Roberts wouldn't answer any questions on abortion either, and Brownback ended up voting for him. So if Brownback is considering voting against Miers because he doesn't know where she stands on abortion, it seems that he would also have to admit that he didn't know where Roberts stood on the issue either. I love Senator Brownback and am 100% pro-life, but I don't think that he really knows for sure how Roberts will vote on Roe V. Wade either, yet he still voted in favor.

I'm such a novice on stuff like this, but it's just something that I've been wondering about.


122 posted on 10/07/2005 2:06:44 PM PDT by fox0566
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: TXBSAFH

Where's that pic of the Cleaning Lady? :D


123 posted on 10/07/2005 2:06:53 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite ( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming
BTW, I just found out last night that 30% of all SC Justices never served on a bench.

There is no requirement for prior service on the bench. In fact, there are no qualifications ennumerated at all. This does not, however, mean that demonstrated competence is unneeded. There are, probably, quite a number of ways to attain and demonstrate this competence. The point is, that it is hard to argue that Ms. Miers qualifications, be they from any or all sources, match those of a host of Mr. Bush's other nominees to the federal bench.

124 posted on 10/07/2005 2:07:04 PM PDT by aBootes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: IndyTiger
Secondly, what does this tell young conservative judges and attorneys who might someday aspire to the court? That they better keep a low profile, because anything they do or say that would indicate a belief in the Constitution the way the founders intended can be used against you.

Maybe they could conclude we need more principled conservative senators. Maybe some of them could conclude they should run.

125 posted on 10/07/2005 2:07:23 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: maryz
Maybe they could conclude we need more principled conservative senators. Maybe some of them could conclude they should run.

Hear, hear. I hope they do learn this and decide to run!

126 posted on 10/07/2005 2:09:31 PM PDT by aBootes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Siena Dreaming
30% of all SC Justices never served on a bench.

And she is the only nominee to serve on the Texas Lottery Commission.

Seat her immediately! She has accomplished something no other justice in history has.

[end sarcasm. lol]
127 posted on 10/07/2005 2:10:53 PM PDT by TomGuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Acts 2:38; Map Kernow
I resent that insinuation!

I only kick kittens.

;-)

128 posted on 10/07/2005 2:12:06 PM PDT by Do not dub me shapka broham ("I'm okay with being unimpressive. It helps me sleep better.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
If you were looking for a repeat of the Roberts confirmation hearings, a mostly civil discourse about judicial philosophy, then forget it. This is going to be an inquisition.

Yes, I think the committee hearing will be bloody. I predict that Miers using the Ginsburg/Roberts method of refusing to take a position on some issues will not fly this time with Dems and Pubs alike. If the votes are not there for Miers prior to the hearings, she will probably withdraw. My guess now is she will at least appear before the committee. Whether she makes it out is looking more and more iffy.

129 posted on 10/07/2005 2:14:58 PM PDT by IndyTiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: WOSG

Where do we keep our "cloistered" judges? (Not that it's a bad idea! LOL!) Mark Levin has attributed leftward drift where it occurs to judges who are drawn to the DC social scene.


130 posted on 10/07/2005 2:16:04 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: aBootes
This does not, however, mean that demonstrated competence is unneeded

Yes, and some have far different standards than others.

131 posted on 10/07/2005 2:18:14 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: TomGuy
And she is the only nominee to serve on the Texas Lottery Commission.

I think there was only one pro football player who was a Justice.

Did that disqualify him as well?

(BTW...anyone suggesting that she should be seated immediately because she served on the Lottery?)

132 posted on 10/07/2005 2:20:34 PM PDT by Siena Dreaming
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: IndyTiger

It's not going to be the questions about specific cases that gets Miers, its going to be the questions about Bush White House scandals. Bush should have never chosen someone from inside his administration. It leaves him way too vulnerable. The legality of all sorts of Bush controversies will be fair game with Miers.

I highly doubt the Democrats will even ask her much about her judicial philosophy. It's going to be all scandal-mongering all the time, and the national media will be there to see it all... and run with it. Remember the Texas National Guard controversy..? You ain't seen nothin' yet.


133 posted on 10/07/2005 2:22:30 PM PDT by counterpunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: Map Kernow
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.

I somehow doubt that Roberts did this either. Judges are not supposed to be activists - they are supposed to be impartial interpreters of the law. Have we changed our minds about this?

It sounds like Brownback is grandstanding as a presidential candidate. Perhaps he'll be the "Biden" of this nomination.

134 posted on 10/07/2005 2:24:19 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Isn't it illegal or unethical or something (probably not fattening) to promise a vote in exchange for support -- or anything else? Or to try to extract a vote in exchange for support. I don't think what Brownback's doing is ethical. Also not entirely rational: say he extracts a promise to vote to overturn Roe. And publicizes it (incidentally, should he vote for Miers, can we assume she promised her vote?). I don't see that anything good can come of this.


135 posted on 10/07/2005 2:26:17 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
The legality of all sorts of Bush controversies will be fair game with Miers.

You know the Dems on the committee will be demanding memos, briefing papers, etc. that Miers has prepared for Bush. The WH will claim attorney-client privilege or executive privilege, and the donnybrook will begin.

136 posted on 10/07/2005 2:34:05 PM PDT by IndyTiger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 133 | View Replies]

To: IndyTiger
You know the Dems on the committee will be demanding memos, briefing papers, etc. that Miers has prepared for Bush.

They can make a fuss, but they know they have no right to them.

137 posted on 10/07/2005 2:35:26 PM PDT by maryz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: IndyTiger

That's exactly what I've been trying to alert people to.
Kennedy and Dean have both already come out demanding the documents.


138 posted on 10/07/2005 2:40:35 PM PDT by counterpunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: maryz
They may have no right to them, but it won't look good for the Bush administration to refuse to release them, especially when the Dems are accusing the White House of a cover-up.

Remember the media feeding frenzy over the Texas National Guard..?
All because of some accusations from Michael Moore?
Every day the media demanded the documents until finally the White House caved.

That is what is going to happen here.
The Democrats will probably filibuster her until the White House releases the documents. Bush will have to either choose to refuse to release the documents and withdraw her nomination, or release the documents, giving up executive privilege. If Bush refuses, then he will appear guilty, and that will be reason enough for the Democrats to launch an investigation with a special prosecutor. If Bush caves and releases the documents, then they will find something in there that they can turn into a scandal or start a grassfire over an existing one, and then expect calls for impeachment.

This is a lose/lose/lose/lose situation for Bush.
The very best option out of all the really bad choices is to withdraw the Miers nomination NOW.
139 posted on 10/07/2005 2:48:28 PM PDT by counterpunch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 137 | View Replies]

To: FreeRep
She has been identified as an evangelical Christian with deep Christian commitments. This means that Harriet Miers is not a product of the tight and relatively insulated world of legal scholarship and the judiciary.

Being an evangelical Christian may indicate that she can teach a mean Sunday School class. But how does that indicate she will be a good Supreme Court justice?

140 posted on 10/07/2005 2:52:28 PM PDT by Non-Sequitur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160 ... 201-202 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson