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.
Glad to see Brownback is living up to the image I have of him. Hopefully he can do some good in the committee hearings.
Uh....excuse me, but Brownback is being a complete ass. Justice nominees are NOT supposed to pre-judge cases--as any intelligent person knows.
How dare he pull a Chuck Schumer.
Republicans didn't do this with Clinton's nominees, Democrats shouldn't do it with Bush's nominees, and I'm damn certain Republicans shouldn't do it to their own party's leader's nominees.
I am not overwhelmed by any of this. Face it: he got the nomination because of his color and his persuasion. He was a black conservative. NOT among the leading legal lights in the country.
You are speculating and the problem is we dont know what the Brownback and Miers exchange was. Just as we really dont know what interaction Bush and Miers have had.
I think it *is* a fair question to ask: "Do you believe the court is right to say there is a concept of "substantive due process"? Were they right to extend it to abortion?"
This is not about a specific case, but about what one sees in the Constitution. If Brownback cant get an answer on even this, then he has no basis to vote on her, especially if the basis we want them to vote on is - "A Justice who will interpret the Constitution and its text in a way that reflects its true meaning and the meaning intended by its authors, and respect it and the law as something judges should interpret and not invent."
How can he validate that judgement without asking concrete questions about how she views certain constitutional issues?
"Up until now, the principled conservative position was that a candidate would be disqualified if they started offering how they would vote on cases in exchange for votes."
The clause 'in exchange for votes' is the key phrase. NO Judicial candidate is 'disqualified' for offering views on the Constitution, whether in speeches, in judicial rulings, or in writings of books. They *are* disqualified if they sell their power as a judge to the highest bidder, either in the Senate or in a courtroom corridor. These are 2 dramatcially different things.
" "brilliant legal scolars" are exactly what we have to keep off the court."
Hogwash. Scalia is a brilliant legal scholar. So was Bork, and he would have been a great Justice.
"Souter, and Breyer were considered brilliant legal scolars."
ROFL. Souter is considered a goofball even by liberals - he's a bad justice, period. Breyer is the Liberal Justice, who may be 'brilliant', as is Laurence Tribe, but is wrong.
Who Bush really needed to nominate is: "a brilliant legal scholar in the Constitutionalist / original intent mold" ...
"We need some ordinary people with ordinary minds to read the plain language of the constitution and make decisions based therein."
Pathetic what absurdities people contort themselves into to defend a sub-par nominee! 'ordinary minds'??? IQ is a handicap now? That would give us another O'Connor, another Blackmun, another William O Douglas. or worse! (O'Connor was no slouch mind-wise, but was from the 'real world' school of looking at cases; look where that got us!) Even Souter is a mediocre mind, and look where that got us. WE dont need 'ordinary minds' we simply need to put the best *conservative* legal minds we can find out there.
"In each of those capacities, she largely went against the grain-"
What conservative thing did Miers do on the Dallas city council? I heard she raised taxes and supported the single-member district change (a good thing), and touted it for 'diversity' reasons.
"proposing, for instance, that the ABA drop its blanket pro-choice support."
I appreciate that she is not a blithering pro-choice extremist, but you cant spin that into being a vote to overturn anything. that could have been motivated by a desire for the ABA to stay on sidelines.
"I'd say she is LESS susceptible to pressure, especially if she survives this beltway attempt to derail her nomination."
Se the anecdote about the 2001 christmas message for a counterpoint. Posted on FR.
There is no "special prosecutor" law, nor any provision for one unless Bush appoints one. He would never do that.
You continue to concoct these fantasies that are not based in reality. Documents that have to do with conversations between Bush and Miers are privileged. The Democrats know that, and they know they are not going to get these documents and that they have no right to even ask for them.
Miers is not going to break privilege, and the Democrats will look stupid for insisting on documents to which they have no right.
You may as well face it: Miers is going to get her hearings. If she falls on her face, she will have to withdraw (anybody who falls on their face would have to withdraw).
But nobody has "fallen on their face" lately in any hearings, so don't look for Miers to, either.
Isn't that the truth....
It doesn't matter what is "privileged" or isn't.
In politics, perception is everything.
I'm constantly shocked and saddened by people here who have learned nothing over the past 5 years.
You must not forget the ole fav, DU Troll! Blackbird.
From what I've read, people promoting the brilliant stealth "strategery" theory are of the mindset that liberals will be jumping for joy to confirm her because they think she's way better than anything else that could have (and should have) come down the pike - only to find out later that they've made a grave mistake.
Although it would doom her, she could tell Brownback and Schumer to blow it their a**es and it would suit me just fine.
Although it would doom her, she could tell Brownback and Schumer to blow it out their a**es and it would suit me just fine
The President needs somebody to cave in and go along with a nomination. Either the RINOs with a conservative nomination or the conservatives with a "consensus" choice. I think he looked at it and decided that the RINOs have allies whereas the conservatives---well, they always surrender. Witness the Ginsburg nomination.
Plus I think he's a moderate himself, when he's not campaigning.
Agreed.
IMHO, elected officials earn respect through their actions, not because having been elected to begin with means they "deserve" it.
Bush didn't turn over all documents on Roberts. Guess what? Nobody gave a damn.
You think that Americans don't know anything about lawyer-client privilege. They know ALL about it, courtesy of prime-time legal shows, and they know that lawyers do NOT have to be made to reveal their conversations with clients.
Besides, the Democrats have to be very careful to not be perceived as beating up on a woman.
I agree. But we do not know whether she is principled, at least on Constitutional issues.
C'mon, we need to ramp up the pressure and make she Miers never gets out of committee. Easier to get a handful of Republicans to vote against her there, rather than maybe as many as half of them (remember, many Democrats are guaranteed to vote against her) on the full Senate floor.
If Bush's main defense is to "trust him," well, I'm sorry, that isn't good enough. Bush says he will do all he can to protect America, at the same time letting all the illegal immigrants keep rushing in... Iraq has better border security that the United States! Or almost any other country for that matter. This is insane - we're talking about the most powerful country on Earth!
You may trust the President, but the rest of us (who are a little more skeptical of government officials) would like to see a little more to convince us.
Faith and Trust are sometimes important.
Important for what? We're not talking about God here, we're talking about an elected official who has done little to encourage the trust of conservatives in the past.
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.