Posted on 10/19/2005 5:57:14 AM PDT by Brilliant
WASHINGTON -- The hazy profile of Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers sharpened with disclosures on her opposition to abortion and her personal finances that could comfort disgruntled social conservatives while pressuring Democrats to oppose her.
...Ms. Miers included a 1989 document from her successful campaign for Dallas City Council in which she backed a constitutional amendment outlawing nearly all abortions.
Her position -- contained in a questionnaire she filled out for the antiabortion group Texans United for Life -- doesn't prove Ms. Miers would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling that legalized abortion. But it could reassure a core constituency of President Bush's political base, social conservatives, some of whom have vocally opposed Ms. Miers as an unknown quantity.
"I think this is critically important," said Kyleen Wright, president of the Texans for Life Coalition, which initially refused to endorse the nomination. In 1989, opposing abortion rights "was not the predominant mainstream position," Ms. Wright said. "It took courage for her to take that position."
Additional information shows Ms. Miers's net worth to be less than $700,000, notwithstanding her years of lucrative work at a large Dallas law firm. One explanation: Ms. Miers's former pastor at the evangelical Valley View Church says she long has tithed a portion of income to the church -- "probably more" than the traditional 10% that is often considered standard...
Abortion-rights activists likely will raise pressure on prominent Democrats to oppose her, despite earlier qualified praise from Minority Leader Harry Reid.
"The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein a member of the Judiciary Committee, in a statement. The California Democrat added that they raise "very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard."...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Apologies for my nasty remark...
And you're correct, I want her to withdraw before the hearings begin. Consider these scenarios:
1) At the hearings she is brilliant and receives overwhelming partisan support which leads to confirmation in the Senate.
2) At the hearings she invokes the Ginsberg rule and does'nt answer any questions. The blowhard senators (Spectre, Biden, Kennedy, etc) make her look unqualified by asking questions about complicated supreme court precedent that will probably never come up in her tenure on the court. She advances out of committee with NO vote or a negative vote, just as Robert Bork did. She loses.
If (1) happens, great. If (2) happens, what does Bush do now? You are never as strong after a defeat. Can he now win the fight with a Janice Rogers Brown? Doubtful.
P.S. I hope you're right about her.
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.