Skip to comments.
Speeches by Miers Scrutinized for Insights (Said Abortion was a Matter of "Self-Determination")
Seattle Times ^
| 10/26/2005
| Jo Becker
Posted on 10/26/2005 12:58:16 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Edited on 10/26/2005 6:21:13 AM PDT by Admin Moderator.
[history]
WASHINGTON
(Excerpt) Read more at seattletimes.nwsource.com ...
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; conservativebase; harrietmiers; miers; scotus; supremecourt
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
To: over3Owithabrain
That is their MO. Remember they piled on Bennett without knowing or caring about the context.
What they did to Bennett was pathetic. The same is true with the Minutemen - calling them "vigilantes" was disgusting. And the White House wants people to give Miers the benefit of the doubt. Right.
Add to that the White House hosting of the bag-man for the Munich massacre (Mahmoud Abbas) and having the unmitigated gall to say Israel should do more; and you know that this Administration is getting what they deserve.
21
posted on
10/26/2005 6:26:41 AM PDT
by
safisoft
(Give me Torah!)
To: line drive to right
Yes, exactly right, and all those millions pushed into gas chambers and then thrown into ovens--deal with it. I'm always grateful for folks who stand on principle and take a stand regardless, their reward will be great.
The appeasers, apologists and go-along-to-get-along types are the ruination of this country; their legacy is death, dishonesty and selfishness, of which we have an overabundance.
22
posted on
10/26/2005 6:32:36 AM PDT
by
brushcop
(We lift up our military serving in harm's way and pray for total victory and a safe return.)
To: brushcop
I agree with you 100%. Those who espouse evil openly are not as dangerous as the mealy mouthed supporters who try to appear to be moderate fence sitters.
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
It's looking more and more as if the White House intended a tried to find an exact ideological match for Sandra Day O'Connor (as Justice O'Connor is today) when they nominated Harriet Miers. How can even "religious conservatives" (read: "one issue: abortion") trust this woman now?
To: TXBSAFH; Conservative Coulter Fan; Sam the Sham; Soul Seeker; TAdams8591; Pharmboy; Das Outsider; ..
25
posted on
10/26/2005 2:43:25 PM PDT
by
Stellar Dendrite
( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
It seems as though this is a Neoconservative rather than a traditional Conservative appointment. Its damned weird.
26
posted on
10/26/2005 2:47:31 PM PDT
by
NixonsAngryGhost
(Free Republic Offers SCOTUS Vetting at No Charge)
To: SteveH
Uhh, in case you didn't know, Souter is gay.
27
posted on
10/26/2005 2:53:34 PM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: peyton randolph
28
posted on
10/26/2005 2:53:50 PM PDT
by
Rodney King
(No, we can't all just get along.)
To: brushcop
Thanks for you, too, taking a stand.
To: KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
The problem is, 40 million murdered babies haven't had much of a chance at "self determination."
I understand that the Bush defense of this speech is that it's OK, because she didn't say "individual autonomy."
Well, the babies are just as dead, whatever word you use to describe it.
30
posted on
10/26/2005 3:07:41 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: coconutt2000
Compare Harriet Miers's answer to question #28 on the Senate Judiciary Committee's
questionnaire paraphrasing the wording of the majority opinion in
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the 1992 case which reaffirmed Roe v. Wade and expanded abortion rights:
"Any decision to revisit a precedent should follow only the most careful consideration of the factors that courts have deemed relevant to the question. Thus, whether a prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling."
—Harriet Miers
"So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable; whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it or significant damage to the stability of the society governed by it; whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism discounted by society; and whether Roe's premises of fact have so far changed in the ensuing two decades as to render its central holding somehow irrelevant or unjustifiable in dealing with the issue it addressed."
U.S. Supreme Court
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkableSo in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable
whether developments in the law have undermined the precedentwhether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism
whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overrulingwhether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it
Miers parroted Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy's exact reasons for not overturning Roe v. Wade while professing her deep abiding respect for stare decisis.
Miers says
"Judicial activism can occur when a judge ignores the principles of precedent and stare decisis. Humility and self-restraint require the judiciary to adhere to its limited role and recognize that where applicable precedent exists, courts are not free to ignore it. Mere disagreement with a result is insufficient to justify ignoring applicable precedent"
Souter, O'Connor, and Kennedy refer to the stare decisis of Roe no less than 11 times in their opinion, making sure to cement it as Court precedent. Miers's answer binds her to deference.
We have now learned that Miers plagiarized part of her 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas directly from PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, when she used the unattributed words of Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in support of abortion, saying,
"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."
None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from her that she will not vote to overturn Roe.
31
posted on
10/26/2005 3:23:06 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
To: Keith in Iowa; Stellar Dendrite; brushcop
I can't believe we're still discussing this nomination.
How long will it take for the president to realize that he's made a blunder of colossal proportions?
32
posted on
10/26/2005 3:34:13 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: counterpunch
I need to retract the part about 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas.
She didn't actually echo those words, apparently... only their sentiment.
33
posted on
10/26/2005 3:36:13 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
To: counterpunch
I need to retract the part about the 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas.
Apparently Miers did not actually echo those exact words, only their sentiment.
My bad.
34
posted on
10/26/2005 3:40:19 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
To: billclintonwillrotinhell
Oh, great. This is exactly what I wanted to hear. Sounds like Miers thinks Chelsea Clinton's parents are, as she might say, "COOL!""""
She sounds like that woman general who was a favorite of Clinton's -- was it Gen. Kennedy? I don't remember her name, but it seemed all she talked about was womens issues and glass ceilings.
To: churchillbuff
Claudia Kennedy.
Would-be opponent of intrepid Republican visionary John Warner.
(Prolonged eye roll.)
36
posted on
10/26/2005 3:54:08 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: over3Owithabrain
I liked your comment: "Makes you wonder what the WH is really about..." I concede that I don't know what the inhabitants of the WH are really all about but I am certain of one thing: they are not supportive of the cultural conservatives, and likely never were.
The comments in response to my other posting were exactly what I expected from the anti abortion fanatics. Way to go guys, you proved me right. 40 million babies, death, blah, blah, blah. Such impassioned rhetoric really moves me. How very Christian. You are justified to blow up a clinic or deny a woman something she needs to do and is the right thing to do if the circumstance calls for it. I am just as conservative as you but never on this issue. A fetus is not a baby. Guys have no business even discussing the self determination of a woman's body. As I said, abortion is never going away, it's time to move on.
To: Rodney King
Uhh, in case you didn't know, Souter is gay. Well, ... sorry, now I do ... Maybe they could have a "Platonic" relationship...
Oh well ;-)
39
posted on
10/26/2005 10:44:00 PM PDT
by
SteveH
(First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-39 last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson