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.
There has never been any doubt on Bush's position on CAFTA. He has supported it loudly from the beginning,
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.
Where's that pic of the Cleaning Lady? :D
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.
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!
I only kick kittens.
;-)
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.
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.
Yes, and some have far different standards than others.
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?)
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.
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.
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.
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.
They can make a fuss, but they know they have no right to them.
That's exactly what I've been trying to alert people to.
Kennedy and Dean have both already come out demanding the documents.
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?
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.