Replies

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 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)?

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.

Besides, Brownback is showboating here. Do you think he asked Roberts his view on Roe v. Wade? If he did, do you think Roberts actually gave it?

This is for 'O8. Brownback knows Miers is not going to discuss Roe v. Wade with him or any other Senator.

Bush said he had no litmus test on abortion. He said that in 2000, and in 2004. You didn't think he was lying to get elected, did you?

Yes, I am saying that the senator would be out of line to ask how she would rule on an abortion case.

He can ask her what her views are on privacy rights and the constitution; and then he could try to devine what she would do in an abortion case based on those views.

But asking a justice to guarantee a certain vote on a case in exchange for confirmation is most surely NOT what the advise and consent is supposed to do. It is there to verify that the nominee is qualified, not give 100 senators a shot at getting favorable supreme court rulings.

That said, if Miers answers questions in a way that suggests she find a privacy right in the constitution such as would justify Roe V. Wade, I would urge all senators to vote against her. Problem is, there are more than 50 senators who are pro-choice, and our side can't filibuster without looking like total hypocrits.

So I can only hope that she is questioned completely and in detail on her judicial philosophy, rather than have this posturing over specific cases like it LOOKS happened here.