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.
"A lot of us in the base" don't get to vote on her confirmation. The Senate is the sole body with that responsibility. This is a power struggle, and it shouldn't be happening. The constitution does not require the president to ask the senator's permission to make an appointment. Senator Brownback and his accomplices are putting everything at risk to assuage their own egos. Their questions could have been asked in private, where the answer would not guarantee a filibuster. I once had a much higher opinion of senator Brownback.
More and more, this is looking like an effort to stab a president in the back during wartime. Brownback ought to be ashamed of himself.
Exactly. Brownback is acting like a spoiled Democrat, simply wanting to weaken the president's authority. We voted for President Bush and owe him some loyalty. Unless Brownback can guarantee a cloture vote on a filibuster, he should keep his mouth shut.
Indeed. Thank you so much for your post!
I have no problem with the more conservative Senators bottling up Miers or shooting her down....
But then they better be prepared to use the nuclear option if they 'force' Bush to nominate a more known-conservative nominee.
Thank you for your reply! But, er, the more conservative senators are neither able to prevent a filibuster (it takes 60 votes) nor obtain the nuclear option which requires the RINO's (especially McCain's group) to go along.
Yeah, Charles Ruff or maybe Cheryl Mills are the Clinton analogies. But I doubt either of them have run a lottery or gave money to George HW Bush during the 1988 campaign, so it's not a perfect analogy.
Did Roberts discuss how he would vote on abortion with Brownback? If the answer is NO, then Brownback is being a fraud!!!
The pair’s discussion of Roberts’ judicial philosophy was “cursory, not in-depth,” but Brownback indicated that his concerns were at least partly allayed by the meeting.
“I think he does try to look at what the document says, means and then applies it, not come up with his own thinking on it,” Brownback said. “… This is the very early phases of it. He’s highly qualified, but I still think it’s a time period to look, examine where he is.”
The two did not discuss Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion nationwide. Overturning that decision has long been a goal of social conservatives, with whom Brownback is closely aligned. As a Bush administration lawyer in 1991, however, Roberts had co-written a brief to the Supreme Court saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
But Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003, during confirmation hearings for his current post, that he considered Roe v. Wade “the settled law of the land.”
I'm not so sure. Has Miers written on the subject in a way the article says Roberts had?
That does not apply because Brownback was complaining that Meirs would not discuss abortion in the meeting, something that he gave a 'pass' on to Roberts.
What we will know is whether she can sustain an extended argument on Constitutional issues. I look forward to her demonstration of that skill.
Quite right as you'd then have to argue that Johnny Cochran and F. Lee Baily are good choices. There's not even a shred of evidence Meirs and the U.S. Constitution were ever in the same room.
Bush may have outsmarted himself. The strategery could easily work against him. Why would you give Bush a quick win on this, when you can confidently oppose knowing how unpopular it is within his own supporters. Having handed him a very inexpensive to the left loss and very expensive to Bush, then you can force him to bring a candidate where he will take some bruising from the left.
Regan was not unpopular with his own base for nominating Bork and lost nothing because of it. Bush's nose could well be bloodied.
first, I think Bush shot himself. Second, arguing about a SC nominee has absolutely nothing to do with supporting troops in the field. Nothing, and our troops are not fighting a war to enthrone a King George.
Look at what the article included: Roberts had co-written a brief to the Supreme Court saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Perhaps Roberts got a pass because of his paper trail. Miers had not written on the subject as Roberts had, so Brownback asked her some questions. It does not seem disingenuous given the lack of a paper trail with Miers.
Look at what the article included: Roberts had co-written a brief to the Supreme Court saying Roe v. Wade should be overturned.
Perhaps Roberts got a pass because of his paper trail. Miers had not written on the subject as Roberts had, so Brownback asked her some questions. It does not seem disingenuous given the lack of a paper trail with Miers.
I see, so those Republican Senators who voted FOR Ginsberg and Breyer are now required by conservatives to vote against Miers.
Beam me up Scottie.
Perhaps you could explain this illogical dilemma?
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.