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.
Yes, mommy. :)
good boy. now go and take your nap, you surely must be all cried out by now. : )
Bush and his 'zoids are playing a double-dealing game. On the one hand, they're putting out the "word" that Miers is pro-life and will be a reliable vote against Roe. On the other hand, they're defending her refusal to answer questions about it. Brownback called their bluff. Good for him!
Yeah, I just love finding out the score after it's too late to do anything about it. Sorry for the sarcasm, but this is too important an appointment to just "wait and see" about it.
Attribute whatever dishonorable motivation you want to Brownback. He is asking questions that a lot of us in the base want answered ASAP.
Great catch---excellent point!!! File under "What was Bush thinking????"
---Paul Mirengoff at Powerline blog thinks the Miers nomination may cost up to two Senate seats. I'll take his word over yours.---
Let me get this straight. Are you saying consevatives are going to vote for Democratic challengers to sitting Republican Senators because those Senators voted for Miers' confirmation?
No, you're not "getting it straight." Conservatives don't have to go "vote for Democratic challengers" for Republicans to lose. Think about it. And read Mirengoff on the Powerline blog---he made the claim, not me.
Well, your the one pushing it here. I think it's become your creature. You might at least explain yourself rather than shooing me off to some other site.
OK, I'll spell it out for you: decreased turnout by demoralized conservatives means greater risk for Republican candidates. That is not the same as demoralized conservatives going and voting for Democrats, but the effect on Republican re-election chances is about as dire. Mirengoff gets that. Have you got it? 'Bye now.
Ok. Thanks. I see now. Conservatives will be so demoralized over a Miers' confirmation that they will abandon their civic responsibility to vote. Got it.
The same things being said about Miers were said about Sandra Day O'Connor:
United Press International
July 8, 1981, Wednesday, AM cycle
SECTION: Washington News
BYLINE: By WESLEY G. PIPPERT
DATELINE: WASHINGTON
In Texas, television evangelist James Robison expressed his support for Mrs. [Sandra Day] O'Connor based on a conversation Tuesday with presidential counselor Edwin Meese.
A Robison aide said Meese told the evangelist:
''Sandra O'Connor thinks abortion is abhorrent and is not in favor of it. She agrees with the president on abortion. There was a time when she was sympathetic toward the ERA (Equal Rights Amendment) movement, but the more she studied and found out about it, the more she changed her mind.
''She is very conservative ... Sandra O'Connor assured the president that she was in agreement with him and she totally supports pro-family issues and the Republican platform.''
Yeah, bad, BAD conservatives!! Gotta vote, no matter what the choice! Let's make it a law!!!
By the way, chuckles, here's a link to your gal Harriet new blog! She sounds really cute and feminine and qualified! Just like President Bush told you she'd be! Don't wait till she's confirmed---find out now what she's like!!
The Senate Republicans will have to be the ones to pay the price if Miers gets onto the Supreme Court and isn't a female Scalia. Every member of the Republican gang of 14 and George Voinovich need to be targeted by conservatives.
This nomination can be withdrawn or defeated if Senate Republicans become convinced she is too big a gamble and the price of her not being in the Scalia mold is too high.
I agree, however, President Bush known Miers. That counts!
---By the way, chuckles---
Resorting to personel insult already? And the night is so young! What is this "cute and feminine" stuff? Are these new qualifications for SCOTUS?
---Yeah, bad, BAD conservatives!! Gotta vote, no matter what the choice! Let's make it a law!!!---
You don't see it as an honor and sacred responsibility to vote?
---Every member of the Republican gang of 14 and George Voinovich need to be targeted by conservatives.---
What is the chance of defeating them in a primary? Replacing them with Democrats is not a good option.
"Chuckles" is insulting? You're thin-skinned. You're the one who opened with heavy sarcasm. I just wanted to lighten the mood.
You don't see it as an honor and sacred responsibility to vote?
Off topic. You think whether or not I believe voting is "an honor and sacred responsibility" has anything to do with whether or not conservatives will be motivated enough in 2006 to turn out and vote to maintain a Republican Congress? If you think conservatives nationwide can be scolded by platitudes about "honor and sacred responsibility" into turning out and voting anyway for a Republican Party they justifiably think has taken them for granted, you're in for a nasty surprise Nov. 2006.
---If you think conservatives nationwide can be scolded by platitudes about "honor and sacred responsibility" into turning out and voting anyway for a Republican Party they justifiably think has taken them for granted, you're in for a nasty surprise Nov. 2006.---
I don't think Harriet Miers is going to make a dimes worth of difference in 2006.
I for one, plan never to miss a chance to vote against a Democrat. Who's with me?
If Bush is forced to withdraw the nomination it will be due to pressure from Republicans in Congress and Karl Rove due to fear of the damage done to the Republican party. Thus, I can only imagine the replacement would be known originalist as only such a nominee would undo the damage done thus far and the far greater potential damage to the GOP's election hopes in 2006.
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.