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.
"Harriett Miers was the person whom President Bush charged with finding suitable strict constructionists for the courts
EXCELLENT point that bears repeating!!!"
Yeah, and why didn't she stick to doing her job, instead of letting herself get sucked into becoming a nominee when better candidates were out there.
Neither she nor President Bush has sufficient objectivity of the situation to realize the downside of this selection.
you are absolutely correct and she is indeed a moderate.
She has principles because she won't take a position. How conradictory.
By GWB?????
GHWB is long into his retirement, and we are still getting burned every session by this example of "trust me." If FR existed in 1990 we could go back and look at the threads and find backers of Bush urging we trust Bush on this choice.
No how no way do we trust any politician, even GWB, to put a mediocrity with a "trust me" label on the Supreme Court. We need a proven conservative performer, and if it takes a Senate fight, then let it start here and now.
"Blumenthal was demonstrably partisan journalist. Don't think that would have happened."
You are right. Clinton USSC nominations were reserved for demonstrably partisan lawyers like Ginzburg.
As Bush's personal friend and personal lawyer, not to mention holding the same position in the Bush White House that John Dean held in the Nixon White House, Miers is just the person Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer would just love to interrogate for hours on end.
By the time its all over, the public won't be able to tell if they just watched a confirmation hearing or an impeachment trial. What did Bush know and when did he know it? We're about to find out.
The guy was talking about nominating someone from the White House. Ginsberg was not.
Too bad that Republicans can't be as forgiving to their leaders as Democrats are. What President Bush has done is not to pick a fight with his base, but to sidestep the members of the senate Republican caucus that are not part of the base. He has brilliantly chosen a nominee to whom no rational senator can reasonably object, but senator Brownback has proven that it isn't about a conservative victory, it's about flexing the muscles of the caucus; his feelings have been hurt. Sad!
There are things to be said on both sides of the Miers debate, and it doesn't help the conservative cause simply to hurl insults and ad hominem attacks at the other side.
"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)?"
"No. He has no right to ask a candidate about a topic on which it is likely she will have to make a decision."
Baloney. The Senator has every right to ask any question about topics that will relate to her work. This was not about a pending specific case, but was asking about what constitution principles she will stand up for. Imagine a job interview where every question is answered "Well, that will come up in my work, so I can't answer it."
She has every right to refuse to answer, or be vague, or give some general parameters, but even Chuckie Schumer has the "right" to ask whatever meddlesome questions he wants to get a sense of what kind of a judge she will be.
" Do you think he asked Roberts his view on Roe v. Wade? If he did, do you think Roberts actually gave it?"
He and many other Senators *did*, in the hearings.
You gotta read between many lines, but it was asked and it was answered.
uh, not quite.
He deserves to have his qualified nominees confirmed. And even then with the advice and consent of the senate.
Furthermore, at no time since HST tried to get his 'cronies' on SCOTUS has what Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #76 about the role of the senate in it's function in the nomination process been so pertinent:
"It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration."
This descibes Miers nomination to a tee. And if Billy Jeff tried this stunt with his lawyer, we'd be at the gates of the WH with pitchforks!
I agree that his reasons are inconsistent with his position on Roberts. I wish he had articulated a different reason, but right now I am so disgusted by this nomination (mostly because of her lack of credentials), I will support any Senator who opposes her.
One course of inquiry might be to enquire about a nominee's views on stare decisis. I have heard that Mr. Justice Thomas, for example, is not too closely aligned with it, but that Mr. Justice Scalia adheres.
A second course is to enquire into decisions which are more or less settled, but which touch up some or most of the same points.
So unless she falls on your sword, she has no right to be appointed? Ignorant, arrogant, and totally illogical! No wonder we're called the stupid party.
Are you familiar with her history? In each of those capacities, she largely went against the grain--proposing, for instance, that the ABA drop its blanket pro-choice support.
I'd say she is LESS susceptible to pressure, especially if she survives this beltway attempt to derail her nomination.
If you think Harriett Miers is going to betray George W. Bush about ANYTHING, you're hopelessly naive.
Nonsequiter. - "brilliant legal scolars" are exactly what we have to keep off the court. Souter, and Breyer were considered brilliant legal scolars. That's where extra-constitutional decisions come from. We need some ordinary people with ordinary minds to read the plain language of the constitution and make decisions based therein.
Gingrich on Hannity's radio program: Miers could turn out to be a good SC Justice.
That is a typical talking point. The trouble is, she could just as much turn out to be another Ginsberg.
Shoulda, woulda, coulda is a poor criteria of qualifications.
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.