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.
No, he doesn't. He deserves to nominate people - after that, the bright lights of scrutiny come on. In this case, it looks like Bush boofed it again.
And we're going to be "at war" forever; it enables Big Stupid Government to grow endlessly and gives Party-Uber-Alles hacks an excuse to coerce mindless uniformity. Until the whole mess falls apart.
War Is the Health of the State - Randolph Bourne
EXCELLENT point that bears repeating!!!
Who was reponsible for all those good judges Bush has appointed up to now? MIERS you say??????
Confirmed at conservatives expense???? Not hardly.
Paul Mirengoff at Powerline blog thinks the Miers nomination may cost up to two Senate seats. I'll take his word over yours.
So you believe there should be an abortion litmus test, and that a candidate for the court should tell senators how they will rule on abortion cases before they can get their votes?
I'm just trying to make sure I understand your position.
Sen. Sam Brownback, as we are seeing here, is one of the few DC politicians with principles. I knew he would have many a question re: Miers, and I am glad he is pursuing their answers.
Sen. Sam Brownback, as we are seeing here, is one of the few DC politicians with principles. I knew he would have many a question re: Miers, and I am glad he is pursuing their answers.
Yeah, and I'm the guy in my family responsible for choosing which car to buy and drive. Does that make me an automotive engineer????
I am non-elitist and pro-life, but I ain't gonna accept someone just because someone says trust me. I can think for myself and something about this stinks. I'm backing Brownback in his opposition. If the judiciary committee does not recommend her confirmation, she's dead in the water.
yikes! sorry for the double-post!
Two reasons why I don't like this pick, without even going into "cronyism." One, it tells the left that they did the right thing in opposing Robert Bork in '87, because now, even with a Republican majority in the Senate, a Republican president feels that he has to nominate a "stealth candidate" that has no long paper trail of decisions or a record of constitutional law to to review.
Secondly, what does this tell young conservative judges and attorneys who might someday aspire to the court? That they better keep a low profile, because anything they do or say that would indicate a belief in the Constitution the way the founders intended can be used against you.
I thought Roberts was an inspired pick, but Miers is looking to be just not qualified. With Brownback expressing reservations, I am beginning to doubt that she will make it out of the judiciary committee hearings.
Good post. I completely agree.
I believe the Constitution gives the Senate and its members the power---the obligation---to advise and consent on SCOTUS nominations. Agreed?
Now is abortion a matter of constitutional law? Answer: it shouldn't be, but it is. Are you saying no Senator has the right to know a nominee's views on this issue, particularly one of absolutely crucial importance to the base (though apparently not even on Bush's radar screen)?
who is he and what is his track record in predicting such things? i think it is BS. by and large, the electorate is NOT FOLLOWING THIS. real everyday people who vote are going about their daily lives completely unaware that there is this life and death struggle going on among conservatives over the Miers nomination. political junkies tend to ascribe their passions to the rank and file and it rarely translates.
It is entirely possible that this nomination could fizzle. It's a shame, because she seems like a nice lady. But the stakes are just too high.
By GWB?????
Great post. I've agreed with you all week.
Did you see this?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1498195/posts?q=1&&page=201
"Miers' time on Dallas City Council provides some insight"
It is very interesting. Which goes hand in hand with this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1498109/posts
"Today's Chronicle of Higher Education has a story that describes Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' involvement with a lecture series at her alma mater, SMU Law School. The inaugural lecturer? Gloria Steinem."
In the late 1990s, as a member of the advisory board for Southern Methodist University's law school, Ms. Miers pushed for the creation of an endowed lecture series in women's studies named for Louise B. Raggio, one of the first women to rise to prominence in the Texas legal community ...Ms. Miers, whom President Bush announced on Monday as his choice to fill the Supreme Court seat being vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, not only advocated for the lecture series, but also gave money and solicited donations to help get it off the ground ... A feminist icon, Gloria Steinem, delivered the series's first lecture, in 1998.
You're really comparing the expertise of buying a car for one family with that of choosing judges for the whole country?
That's the weakest one I've heard yet.
You make an excellent point here; if Bush doesn't have the guts to nominate and fight for a clearly-defined conservative jurist, none will be clearly defined in the future.
I think she's a goner in committee too, unless she bails out on her own - which is the usual face-saving move.
Then the question becomes: with Bush Jr. in a snit over his screwup, will he just go with his other crony Gonzales (that's Spanish for "Souter") and hang tough on an even worse pick, while Luttig, Rogers Brown and Owen continue to gather dust?
See #57
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.