Not necessarily...
And yes, there are jurists with the exact same attitude.
However, I've yet to see a judge who believes in overturning Roe v. Wade who is otherwise a bleeding-heart, loose constructionist lib.
Posted on 10/08/2005 10:44:49 AM PDT by quidnunc
Even if we concede that those are exemplary, it still doesn't yield any concrete information that might tell us what her overriding judicial philosophy is.
All we have to go by are, as you mentioned, "clues."
For me, that's just not satisfactory.
I would think a White House counsel would have a lot of philosophical paper trail. We just can't see it because of attorney-client privilege. A stealth candidate indeed.
It really boils down to whether you think Bush would keep his promise. Now, he has been pretty good about doing exactly what he has said he was going to do, although I am not happy about the stuff he hasn't talked about but has done or failed to do (like spending, and failing to deal with the border issue). But up until now he has by and large kept his express promises.
And if she's worked for him for years, and helped him with the judicial nominating process, it's highly likely that he knows what her judicial philosophy is, even if we don't.
[Stanley Kurtz]
This article “Miers espoused progressive views as elected official, record shows,” about Miers’ testimony in a 1990 voting rights lawsuit directly suggests that she would vote like O’Connor on affirmative action. Put that together with Miers’ reported advice on the Michigan Supreme Court case, and the feminist lecture series, and I think we begin to build up a substantive picture of her views.
The most telling thing about this article may be Miers’ comment that she “wouldn’t belong to the Federalist Society” or other “politically charged” groups because they “seem to color your view one way or another.”
From a conversation I’ve had with someone who knows Miers well, I think Miers statement on the Federalist Society reveals her true feelings, and not simply political caution.
Credit: d2e
For me, that in itself should have been a disqualifying factor.
Well said.
I wouldn't worry too much about testimony in a voting rights lawsuit. I'd like to know which side she was on - I've only been a witness a couple of times, lawyers hate it because they know the possible consequences, and my testimony was extremely guarded and calculated to help my side. (I'm not a member of the Federalist Society because I'm just not a "joiner", but if that became an issue in a lawsuit . . . )
On the other hand, she seems to be a Second Amendment absolutist, from an article I read yesterday about her statements in a debate over gun control. THAT is something that even Robert Bork was definitely NOT.
I likewise am a 2A absolutist, have represented gun rights groups (which drove my partners crazy - worried about political fallout in the City of Atlanta - they needn't have worried, we won.)
However, the 2nd Amendment-as such-is pretty much nonexistent where I happen to reside, i.e. Kings County, New York.
And to be perfectly honest, there's nothing much that Miers-or anyone else on the Supreme Court, no matter how opposed they are to the notion of bearing arms being a collective right-could or will do to change that.
If the 2nd Amendment is under assault, I'd much prefer that we do battle in state legislatures-and in public opinion-than to leave this decision to unelected judges, no matter how favorably they may be predisposed to our cause.
Seeing as how Bork is the antithesis of an activist judge-and most likely looks no more favorably upon spurious liability lawsuits filed against gun manufacturers than he does on those launched against cigarette makers-I would much rather put my trust and faith in him than in an unknown quantity, however good she may be on one particularly vital aspect of the Bill of Rights.
I doubt it. The upshot of a gambit like that would be a more conservative nominee.
Maybe so. But also maybe no. It would depend on if the right case came before the court.
They had one recently that could have been good but they hung it on the wrong peg, inter-state commerce clause rather then second amendment.
My problem with Bork is the way he reasoned himself into it.
He "Couldn't imagine" so it couldn't say what it clearly said.
This is exactly the kind of man who would find penumbras and all sorts of things if allowed to do so. Bork would have been better then Souter but based on his writing I think we would have been very disappointed in him.
You have shed a lot of light without arcing. Nice job.
However, I'm convinced that Bork would have been one of the greatest justices of the 20th-and 21st-century, if only given the opportunity to serve.
I'm not saying that I don't completely agree that his stances on antitrust issues and the 2nd Amendment are confounding, but I don't think that necessarily raises questions about his devotion to original intent.
It tends to cloud your reasoning. I think those things are key to understanding why he would not have been a good choice.
Like I said it was the way he reasoned himself into them. Once you can convince yourself that because you can not imagine something it can not be so then you have opened the door to convincing yourself that other bits don't mean what they say either.
I can see him as a man more swayed by a clever argument rather then underlying truth.
But Bork is not the issue. It is over and done with and we will never know for sure one way or the other.
I am going to watch the hearings with as much of an open mind as I can muster. Mainly I am going to be looking at how she thinks. Does she understand the idea of fundamental founding truths that should not be tampered with? Or does she try to twist them to fit what she wants to think?
If it is the first then bravo. If it is the latter then thumbs down.
Keep your fingers crossed.
Good night.
:7)
Night!
-good times, G.J.P. (Jr.)
Some ambulance chasers don't chase ambulances..
They hire people to do that.. The founders almost to a man were NOT lawyers.. being a lawyer should not qualify you to be a judge.. but it does.. The Constitution is a document very simple to understand unless confused with sophistry.. which is what lawyers DO..
Meirs is no doubt a decent woman and capabile of being a Supreme, in my book.. its just the one the selected her that tars her as suspicious.. also Roberts.. Bush might be a good man on the conservative team IF he didn't run to the opposite/wrong goal and score touchdowns.. I say pull him AND HER before we lose the freepin game.. and maybe the damned coach(Rove) too..
I have also found that 2A absolutists tend to be conservative right down the line. If you have the guts to hew to a conservative interpretation of the most reviled section of the Bill of Rights, you usually have the guts to stick with almost anything. I was very suspicious of Bork because of his collectivist view.
. . . and that seems to be a major problem. Souter's record, for example, was quite conservative until he apparently got his head turned.
Seriously, I don't think we know enough yet to make a judgment on Miers. I will be watching the hearings attentively.
Like I said, you did a nice job.
Not necessarily...
And yes, there are jurists with the exact same attitude.
However, I've yet to see a judge who believes in overturning Roe v. Wade who is otherwise a bleeding-heart, loose constructionist lib.
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.