Replies

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?

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?

No, you are not wrong.

But by same token I'm disturbed by people citing she is supposedly a "pro-Life" Christian, and so, will overturn R v W and the like as reason to nominate her.

I'm a pro-Life Christian but that should not be the center of this discussion at either end. As Supreme Court Justice her allegiance is to the Constitution. Not to Bush and not to personal beliefs. So her thoughts of the Constitution and the process the Founders went through to craft it means far more to me than whether she is a "yes" or "no" vote for causes I care for. I want the proper verdict because it's constitutionally correct, I don't want a Ginsburg activist. Even if for my side, though we have no real proof it would be for our side either.

You might want to forward this post that to some of the other pro-Miers people on this board so they can see what a reasoned argument looks like. So far all they can muster is to accuse anti-Myers senators with unsubstantiated charges of elitism, being RINOs, or threating our national security for questioning our President in a time of war. Good point.

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.

You are speculating and the problem is we dont know what the Brownback and Miers exchange was. Just as we really dont know what interaction Bush and Miers have had.

I think it *is* a fair question to ask: "Do you believe the court is right to say there is a concept of "substantive due process"? Were they right to extend it to abortion?"

This is not about a specific case, but about what one sees in the Constitution. If Brownback cant get an answer on even this, then he has no basis to vote on her, especially if the basis we want them to vote on is - "A Justice who will interpret the Constitution and its text in a way that reflects its true meaning and the meaning intended by its authors, and respect it and the law as something judges should interpret and not invent."

How can he validate that judgement without asking concrete questions about how she views certain constitutional issues?

"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."

The clause 'in exchange for votes' is the key phrase. NO Judicial candidate is 'disqualified' for offering views on the Constitution, whether in speeches, in judicial rulings, or in writings of books. They *are* disqualified if they sell their power as a judge to the highest bidder, either in the Senate or in a courtroom corridor. These are 2 dramatcially different things.

I agree. Brownback is actually killing his own cause by demanding that Miers tell him that she'd limit, reverse, or otherwise lessen Roe's status as precedent.

In essence the message he is sending out is that he will not vote for her unless she tells him how she'll rule on a case that is bound to be before the court as early as her first few weeks on the bench. If she gave Brownback what he wanted, she'd be entirely at his mercy to not leak that information, thereby giving ammo to people who want to defeat her confirmation, but she'd also be violating the principle of coming to the court without any favors owed or without having to vote the way she let on that she'd vote.

I'll say it again, Brownback, as much as I admire his pro-life commitment, is hurting his cause by imposing this standard on Miers.