Replies

If Miers supports Griswold, then she accepts the role of judge as super-legislator. That, or else she didn't know what Griswold is about. I'd like to give her the benefit of the doubt, but I'm not sure which interpretation of her comment is more accurate: is she an idiot? Or a judicial activist? I don't know. But it's one or the other.

Um, no. There's yet another possibility beyond Miers's being either an "idiot" or a "judicial activist."

And that possibility is that Specter got it WRONG.

Are you aware that Specter had to retract his claim that Miers told him in their private meeting that she endorsed Griswold ???

Specter told reporters that beyond stating that constitution includes a right to privacy, Miers had voiced support for two privacy-related rulings handed down a generation ago in which the court affirmed a right for couples to use contraceptives.
But former Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., who is shepherding Miers' nomination, said in a telephone interview that the Pennsylvania Republican was mistaken. "When asked about the Griswold case, Harriet Miers said what she has consistently said all along, and that is ... she is not commenting on specific cases," he said in reference to a 1965 ruling involving the use of contraceptives by married couples.
An aide to Specter, William Reynolds, subsequently issued a statement saying the senator "accepts Ms. Miers statement that he misunderstood what she said."

(Reminds me of Dickie Durbin's little caper with his claim about what happened in his private meeting with John Roberts. Seems to be SOP for liberal senators -- like Specter.)

So I'd like to present you with two other possibilities:

1. Either Ann Coulter is unaware of Specter's retraction;
2. Or, she is deliberately ignoring it and is misinforming the public because of animus against Miers.

Not exactly responsible of Ann, is it?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101800715_pf.html

Shortly after the 100-minute session, Specter told reporters that Miers had embraced two Supreme Court rulings -- including the 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut -- that are considered important predecessors to the 1973 Roe ruling. Miers phoned Specter on Monday night to say she had not endorsed Griswold, and the senator's office later that night issued an e-mail saying Specter "accepts Ms. Miers's statement that he misunderstood what she said."

Yesterday, however, Specter told reporters that his recollection of the conversation remains "the one I gave you" Monday. Specter, a moderate who supports abortion rights, portrayed the confirmation process as among the most chaotic and contradictory of his 25 years in the Senate. "I can't think of one where a disagreement arose in quite this way," he said. Specter said he will revisit his Monday conversation with Miers but only at the hearing, when cameras and tape recorders will be rolling. "I may meet with her again on other subjects," he said. "But not on this conversation. We've had it. I've had it."

"So I'd like to present you with two other possibilities:

1. Either Ann Coulter is unaware of Specter's retraction;
2. Or, she is deliberately ignoring it and is misinforming the public because of animus against Miers.

Not exactly responsible of Ann, is it?"

I'll accept that clarification, but of course we would just (still) be accepting hearsay and in addition to your two possibilities, there could be a third, and that is that everyone is sort of running for cover here and the truth may be getting lost.

I'm curious about the "Warren" episode, also, though. What's the inside skinny on that? Has Specter cleared that up?

Another thing though is disturbing here. I thought this was the stealth nominee that was supposed to sail by people like Specter and Leahy? At the minimum, it seems that not everything is going according to a master plan.

Actually Specter's statement is a polite way of saying she's a liar without saying it. It doesn't retract what he said, it just says "we'll accept your new version about what you said". What almost certainly appears to have happened with Specter, and what seems to have happened with Schumer earlier regarding Griswold, is that she forgot what she was told to say during her cramming sessions. She's woefully unprepared (or just plain clueless) regarding even basic Constitutional questions. Also, after reading her responses to the Senate questionnaire, the White House needs to drop the "she's a detail-oriented person" talking point.