Posted on 10/17/2005 11:33:55 PM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - Making the rounds Monday on Capitol Hill, Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers sought to clarify her judicial philosophy but may have wound up sowing more confusion about her views on abortion.
Her position on the contentious topic appeared to gain some clarity when Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., emerged from a nearly two-hour meeting with her, saying she'd affirmed a key underpinning of the Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. But a short time later, his spokesman issued a statement saying the senator had misunderstood the nominee and that she had not taken a position on a constitutional right to privacy.
Hours earlier, Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said the nominee had disputed a Wall Street Journal column that quoted two close judicial friends from Texas as telling leading conservative skeptics that she'd vote to reverse the landmark 1973 ruling.
"She said to me that she couldn't recall discussing the Roe vs. Wade case - and whether she would overturn it - with anybody," Schumer said.
(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...
You are surprised that you can't get the truth from Specter?
"she had not taken a position on"....anything at all, ever.
But a short time later, his spokesman issued a statement saying the senator had misunderstood the nominee and that she had not taken a position on magic bullets or Scottish Law.
Clintonesque. Miers obviously has grasped what the script writers want her to say yet.
It's hard to tell who's lying here. They both should just come out and ask what we want to hear.
The objective is to disclose nothing, and she has been doing that for her entire career.
Good thing for all of us that it is impossible to write persuasively and say nothing. Otherwise she'd be a shoo-in.
I would expect that the mind capacity of the Senate breaks out pretty much like FR. Spooky thought - all those 'bots on the hill.
However, it's fun to watch the few remaining diehards tie themselves in knots defending the indefensible while simultaneously sluicing down the Grape Koolaid.
Why do I get the feeling that I'm watching three card monte?
Yes, for some this Administration and Party have become one of personalities and not principles.
That's so true. As I look ahead to the 2008 GOP primary, I see a lot of charismatic people like Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney and maybe even Condi Rice. But trying to pin them down on issues is gonna be like trying to nail an omelette to the wall.
Please, Please, Please DO NOT LET THIS UNQUALIFIED WOMAN BE CONFIRMED. She is the next nuclear accident to the Constitution waiting to happen. Mark my words - she will turn out to be very liberal on everything - melting down what is left of this once great country. We must do anything to stop her confirmation. Yes, Bork her - all conservatives should realize it is that important to the country to stop her from getting on the high court.
No doubt in my mind. None.
Earlier today, in the Medved/Frum thread, I asked "What do you call it if a DEM president tries to sneak a stealth liberal by the Senate?"
Answer: Clever.
I think it's cheating the process of transparent government, myself. But some seem eager to go down the path of government by surprize, instead of government by reasoned dialog.
Please, Please, Please DO NOT LET THIS UNQUALIFIED WOMAN BE CONFIRMED. She is the next nuclear accident to the Constitution waiting to happen. Mark my words - she will turn out to be very liberal on everything - melting down what is left of this once great country. We must do anything to stop her confirmation. Yes, Bork her - all conservatives should realize it is that important to the country to stop her from getting on the high court.
The issue is bigger than even a single SCOTUS nomination and appointment. What is being advanced is government process by trickery over your opponents. Down that path is rhetorical chaos, wehre words mean nothing, and outcomes are obtained by deception.
"It's okay if we cheat, because the other guys deserve to lose." Adults are too smart to admit this expressly, but it is the path that we are embarking on.
Sorry about the double post. My mistake, I must be as swift as Judge Miers. Oh that's right, she has never even been a judge on any level. Maybe she can start out with traffic court or small claims court and in 50 or 100 years she will be ready for the Supreme Court, assuming she will have read the Constitution. Not a requirement according to Bush's logic - he knows her heart. God help all of us.
If she were a Clinton appointee, we'd know she was Ruth Bader Ginsberg's twin. Your venturing is a given because of the appointer, not the appointee.
FR's new Miers poll shows considerable movement to the negative. Previous poll approved her by around 4 points, this one disapproves by around 8.
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.