What Would a 'Life Strictly Construed' Mean for the High Court?

Legal Times via Law.com ^ | 17 October 2005 | T.R. Goldman

[Racehorse]

"Harriet's is a life that adheres to fundamental tenets of good behavior and right conduct, whether drawn from the Bible or the rules of work," says Stuart Bowen, who worked directly under Miers as deputy staff secretary at the White House for almost two years. "She is wedded to stare decisis, wedded to the text of a statute. She lives her life strictly construed."

[. . .]

"The way Harriet would be [on the Court], she would try to interpret the Constitution according to [the idea that] it says what it means and means what it says," Key says. "And I assume that's how she interprets the Bible. I would imagine she would think that."

[. . .]

Beyond those beliefs, Miers is a person of integrity, intelligence, and discipline, someone whose work ethic gets her into the office before anyone else, keeps her there later, say those who know her well. These traits, among others, helped Miers break glass ceilings in Dallas.

She is also fastidious -- "ultra-fastidious," Bowen calls her -- and it is this trait that he believes would define her Supreme Court tenure. "Ultra-fastidiousness means strict constructionist," he says. "She would defer to what the legislature wanted. She's a literalist when it comes to the laws. That's how I would see her executing the rules in the White House," adds Bowen, now the special inspector general for Iraq reconstruction.

[. . .]

Miers, says Sparks, has spent her life following the law. "How do you function in a secular society if you take the Bible at its word? By respecting and believing, and, in Harriet's case, by devoting your life to maintaining the rule of law. What that means for her is not that much different from the founding fathers."

[Racehorse]

". . . two weeks into the tumult surrounding her nomination, some things about Miers are clear: She is scrupulous, deferential to authority, and follows the rules -- not just in law but in life. And that, more than anything else, say those who know her, will determine how Miers interprets the Constitution and how she will judge."

[Rudder]

She is also fastidious -- "ultra-fastidious,"

Anal retentive

[coconutt2000]

I wonder if perhaps Miers would be the Mother Hen of the Constitution, seeking to protect it and preserve it from liberal reinterpretation.

It is something to think about it.

[Rudder]

Yeah, likely. As put by some famous figure (whom I forget): "I rather have her inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."

[GarySpFc]

I wonder if perhaps Miers would be the Mother Hen of the Constitution, seeking to protect it and preserve it from liberal reinterpretation.

That is highly a certainty. When she was first nominated I contacted my buddy in Dallas to see if I could uncover anything. His father has known her since she was on the city council. He said at that time she would often state, "We need to go back and see what the city charter has to say," and "Our courts have departed from the original intent of the Founders."

I am likewise a member of the same churches of Christ/Christian Churches as her Valley View Christian Church. My mentor and best friend for 10 years was in the same churches, and had 5 earned doctorates; law, literature, psychology, and 2 in theology. He read the Bible as an originalist, and was very literal in interpreting it. Mind you, while he applied a literal interpretation a majority of the time, he also called for seeking the author's intent. Examples of a departure from strict literalism would be; Jesus never meant He was literally "the door," or that you are to actually "pluck out your eye" or "cut off your hand." However, the literal interpretation is to be applied unless it is very obvious that was not the author's original intent.

[GarySpFc]

Correction. The above, "That is highly a certainty" should read, "That is almost a certainty."

[GarySpFc]

Valley View is technically nondenominational, but that's because it is a so-called independent Christian church and is not beholden to a governing body. Its theological doctrines, however, are closely related to two American denominations, the slightly more conservative Church of Christ and the more liberal Disciples of Christ, both of which trace their roots to just after the Revolutionary War.

One could receive a wrong impression from this paragraph. The independent Christian Churches and the liberal Christian Churches (Disciples of Christ) went their separate ways during the fifties. Miers is a member of the more conservative Christian Churches.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

"She is wedded to stare decisis..."

So in other words, she's committed to upholding precedent.

Such as Griswold, Roe, Engel, Kelo, and other decisions that run afoul of the original intent of the U.S. Constitution.

Good to know.

[GarySpFc]

I realize what stare decisis means. That said, Miers has stated the courts have gone too far in departing from the original intent of the Founders. She also believes abortion is murder. No, she will not vote to uphold Roe...NO WAY.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

She also believes abortion is murder.

What does that have to do with either upholding or overturning Roe v. Wade?

Anthony Kennedy is a devout Roman Catholic, but that hasn't prevented him from repeatedly concurring with majority opinions that reaffirm Roe.

[GarySpFc]

Anthony Kennedy is a devout Roman Catholic, but that hasn't prevented him from repeatedly concurring with majority opinions that reaffirm Roe.

What do you mean by devout? Apparently his faith allows him to vote to uphold abortion. I am a member of the same churches of Christ/Christian Churches as Miers. There is no way on God's earth I or anyone teaching in our churches could vote to uphold Roe if they were devout. Apparently devout has an entirely different meaning to us.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You see, that's precisely the problem.

The federal judiciary does not work like that.

Judges don't use the that line of reasoning when they approach a case.

A jurist doesn't say to himself, "I'm a Pentecostal, or an evangelical, so therefore I must have an expansive view of the 'free exercise' clause."

A judge who is a gun-owner won't necessarily be less susceptible to the notion of gun ownership as a collective right than one who has never touched a firearm.

It doesn't matter if someone personally finds abortion to be reprehensible, and viscerally opposes it.

If that person can not find the essential underlying defects of Roe, and explain why it is such a fundamental breach of the Constitution, then her pro-life perspective is irrelevant to the larger cause of eliminating this atrocity, or curtailing it significantly.

[GarySpFc]

A jurist doesn't say to himself, "I'm a Pentecostal, or an evangelical, so therefore I must have an expansive view of the 'free exercise' clause."

I fully realize that. However, you do not seem to grasp Mier's belief system goes to her very core of her being, UNLIKE Kennedy. Her value system is so strong it will demand she see the Constitution through the lens of both the Founders and God.

[The Red Zone]

If that person can not find the essential underlying defects of Roe, and explain why it is such a fundamental breach of the Constitution, then her pro-life perspective is irrelevant to the larger cause of eliminating this atrocity, or curtailing it significantly.

With Scalia, Thomas, and Roberts there, she won't lack for coaching in that. You're beginning to fall back on the lightweight stuff.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

We don't need someone who's in need of "coaching," or remedial courses in Constitutional interpretation, especially when there is a woman-Professor Mary Ann Glendon-who is capable of giving lessons to other members of the Supreme Court in this very subject.

[The Red Zone]

Your shapka is getting threadbare. She will work just fine on the team. It's not like they go off into 9 different solitary monastic cells.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/14/AR2005101401979.html

[curiosity]

So in other words, she's committed to upholding precedent.

That's a bit unfair. I'm anti-Miers like you, but I think it's a good thing that she supports stare decisis. Stare decisis does not mean you always uphold precedent. It just means you that you respect it and not overturn it unless there is a very strong reason to do so. You give it the benefit of the doubt, so to speak.

There's a very good reason for this. There needs to be some predictability and stability in the legal system. A situation where courts were constantly second-guessing and overturning each other would lead to chaos.

Scalia believes in Stare Decisis, but it doesn't stop him from wanting to overturn Roe. In this case, the decision was so bad, and the precident already so erroded, that overturning it is justified and would create minimal disruption in the legal system.

Stare decisis is a fundamental principle of our legal system; it has been since the founding of the republic and goes back to English Common Law.

[Cboldt]

That's a bit unfair. I'm anti-Miers like you, but I think it's a good thing that she supports stare decisis. [good supporting stuff snipped]

Discussing how the law works is all fine and dandy. But I am more that a little miffed that the President has denied the country the ability to have that discussion and speculation in the context of this pick.

[curiosity]

I agree with you completely. I've had it with Bush and his whole family. I will never vote for another Bush as long as I live. I want to see the political ambitions of Jeb and George P. crushed. We should have learned our lesson from our experience with H.W. They're a classic pseudo-conservative family of Rinos.