Replies

I gave her pro-life position and A+ (it's very impt to me.)

I agree that she personally abhors abortion. But I do not give her an A+ for what I infer her judicial philosophy to be in that area.

She checked off "yes" as to whether she supported using the Constitutional Amendment process to make some abortions illegal.
A Constitutional Amendment takes the matter out of the hands of Courts and the legislature, and that presence of a constitutional amendment would preclude not only legislative activity, but also court activity.
However, if she support a Con amendment, she does for a reason. Once could be impatience with the court in relinquishing control (reversing Planned Parenthood, Roe), the other being a belief that the court could not credibly reverse, i.e. deference to stare decisis as O'Connor did in Planned Parenthood. Interesting historical note, AFAIK, the Dred Scott decision was never reversed, showing that on occasion, an extra-court process comes into play - in that case, the 14th amendment.
So, again, her personal pro-life stance does not illuminate her judicial philosophy at all. And her "check box" for supporting undertaking the Con Amendment process, without further expression of why she made that pick, can go either way.
Another useless data point, that can be spun by Miers supporters as advocating a pro-life legal outcome.
Oh - a parallel in our history is prohibition. A Con Amendment took the decision out of the political process "once and for all" (Hahahahahah). We all know how well the prohibition was respected - it made more than one gangster family rich, Kennedy and Al Capone come to mind. But a Con Amendment is the ultimate "top down" solution. Today, with no such centralized edict, one can still find dry counties in the USA. And that is the way it should be, local control with the ability to make fine grained changes without imposing "my way or the high way " on everybody else in the country.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1505169/posts?page=12#12

The contents of some of her speeches are coming out too, and likewise, they are vague enough that they can be spun either way. However, using the conventional parsing, Ms. Miers appears to advocate "self-determination" regarding abortion, which means absence of legal limitations on obtaining an abortion.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1509389/posts <- Speeches reviewed

I will keep my eyes open for facts.

She did support a Human Life Amendment to the constitution. That also is a positive for me, but I do see your concern. You wonder if she, a pro-life Christian, wants the amendment because she can't think of a "legal" way to rule pro-life, given the weight that precedents are given in our legal system.

I find it hard to believe that Ellen Goodman, Eleanor Smeal, Barbara Mikulski, and Susan Estrich would be rushing to her defense, if they knew her to be firmly anti-Roe.

The problem is that we want to know where she stands... and so does the left. She's being coached to be vague, because if she comes out and says "abortion is the same thing as killing a baby... and mothers who abort should do jail time... and I will absolutely vote to over turn Roe VS Wade..... and I'm going to roll back affirmative action.... and the 2nd ammendment means you can carry a gun anywhere you want and shoot the guy who even looks crossways at you.... and government entitlements are unconstitutional.... and federal income taxes are unconstitutional... and federal loans to foriegn countries with us tax dollars are unconstitutional...."

I mean where does it stop.... and do we really think she can take a definite stand on these topics right now and get confirmed? The WH is giving her the only advice they can... be vague. Just like Roberts was vague. He was just smarter about how he did it.