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.
Well, he sent up a "Thomas" and you all want a "Scalia."
It seems as though she has principles and will not kiss his ring.
Another forty years in the wilderness?
---The "Bush can do no wrong and is a small Government Conservative" brigade will be here soon to accuse you of being a communist, wanting to run for President, wanting to be loved by Hollywood and the Media and for kicking puppies.---
I've got nothing to say, especially about whatever it was.
THe disturbing thing about this report, if true, is that Brownback is NOT saying he won't vote for her because she is unqualified, instead he said he would oppose her because she refused to give him enough information for him to know how she would vote on a Roe V. Wade case.
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.
DOes that apply ONLY if we already KNOW the candidate will vote the "right" way, so we can keep the democrats from asking the question?
Regardless of how you feel about Miers, is it appropriate for Brownback to specifically ask her about her "willingness" to re-address Roe-V-Wade, and then to vote against her simply because she won't give him an answer?
I'd feel better if he had come out and said that after questioning her, he didn't believe she really understood judicial restraint, or would be a strict constructionist.
But either she gave him good answers on that subject, or he was so busy trying to find a way to get her to promise a vote in a case in exchange for his vote that he didn't get around to asking the proper question.
Am I wrong? Are we comfortable with a process where the nominee is asked how they will vote, and if they say 'for your position' the senator will give them a yea vote, but if they say "i won't answer" the senator then says if she doesn't come up with a better answer he'll vote no?
And we don't deserve to have promises made by Bush honored?
This is the straw that broke the camel's back for conservatives---that made them realize, after CFR, after prescription drug benefit, after open borders, after CAFTA, after the public fisc is floated away on a sea of debt---that Bush is going to do exactly ~0~ for them. And it's not going to make things better to taunt them that Bush isn't facing re-election----they got that, and it makes them realize more than ever how Bush snookered all of them.
Maybe Bush won't pay the price---although not facing re-election, i.e., being a "lame duck," is a two-edged sword for Bush and his acolytes---but other Republicans will. This story is evidence that the rest of the GOP is waking up to that fact.
If Brownback is against her she may not get out of the Judiciary Committee. I predict that before that she'll ask Bush to withdraw her nomination.
So we'll get a more qualified, conservative nominee. Who will be filibustered. Will Frist then go for the Nuclear Option and will there be the 50 votes for it?
Since Roe v Wade was passed, which Supreme Court justice nominees have openly stated their opinion of it? Any? Did Thomas? And what kind of precedent do we open if we start demanding that nominees state how they will rule in cases that might end up in the court?
Thomas Sowell got it right. Senate Republicans are a bunch of weenies.
Blumenthal was demonstrably partisan journalist. Don't think that would have happened.
He has to fill the seat. If 45 democrats and 15 republicans will block his moderate nominee, and if 45 democrats and 7 republicans will block his conservative nominee, he'll have to send up another Ginsberg: who got all but 3 votes.
---Senators facing re-election in 06 and 08 will have some serious considerations to make -- alientate their base or support the nominee.---
Yep, people are going to vote their Senators out for voting for Miers. You betcha.
Harriett Miers was the person whom President Bush charged with finding suitable strict constructionists for the courts. But, she is not a nerds from elite law schools and it is important is that all non-elitist pro-lifers recognize Harriet as one of their own and rally behind her and President Bush.
.
Grow up. Brownback is a US Senator with "advise and consent" constitutional authority to demand the answers he's not getting from this boon companion of Bush.
fyi ping
W is known for lining up his cards before laying down his hand. He understands the importance of having GOP backing in the Senate for any candidate he nominates for confirmation to any post. This requires the cooperation of a lot of Senators, many of whom are male prima donnas, some of whom are posturing to run for his own job. He consults with both sides of the political spectrum in the Senate before making a choice. It is very possible he could not foresee the splintering now occurring. It is very possible Miers was a sixth-rung nominee because W's first five couldn't make it past the Honorables on the GOP side.
What party are you talkin' about?
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.