Posted on 10/26/2005 11:40:46 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
The Last Line of Defense
By: Leon H · Section: SCOTUS
Much hay is (rightly) being made today about this speech that Harriet Miers gave to the Executive Women of Dallas (EWD) in 1993. The transcript of this speech pounds another nail in the coffin of the hopes that Harriet Miers resembles Scalia or Thomas in the slightest - and gives further credence to the concern that Miers may actually be to the left of Sandra Day O'Connor.
With each passing day, we are asked to discard more and more evidence that this woman is not a conservative, and that the President has violated one of his most important campaign promises. Right now, the only credible defense of Miers that remains is the one being advanced by Paul Mirgenoff and John Hinderaker: that the President has historically had the prerogative to nominate whoever he wants, absent egregious corruption or ethical problems.
To this extent Mirgenoff and Hinderaker are correct. But just as the President has the prerogative to nominate whoever he wants, his constituency likewise has the right to express its displeasure with the President's choice, and to exert pressure on the President to reconsider his choice, or on Senators to reject the President's choice.
Material from the speech and a timeline below the fold:
Here, briefly, is a list of things that we are supposed to ignore as a part of Harriet Miers' past, while simultaneously being told that she will not "change in 15 or 20 years."
* Contributions to various Democrats (AlGore)and the DNC: 17 years ago
* Support for the "affirmative action" redistricting plan on the Dallas City Council: 15-16 years ago
* Support for the Texas Bar Association's Resolution for "hiring goals" (a nice euphemism for "quotas" in the legal community): 13 years ago
* This EWD speech: 12 years ago
This list, of course, says nothing about Miers' purported work on the Bollinger case, in which eyewitnesses have placed her arguing for the "split the baby" position that the Administration eventually adopted in their amicus brief. I was not on the blogger conference call last Friday, but numerous accounts indicate that Mehlman was asked point-blank about her role in this decision, and provided an evasive answer. This was, of course, less than five years ago.
Someone remind us, when did the "political conversion" of Miers into Scalia/Thomasdom actually take place? And if it took place less than fifteen years ago, why exactly should we feel confident that it will not occur again within the next ten years?
To the evidence at hand. The EWD speech is the most damning evidence yet that as recently as 12 years ago, Miers did not have a "strict constructionist" judicial philosophy, or any conservative leanings at all. Now, Rich Lowry has taken issue with the WaPo's characterization of this article (which I haven't read), and tries valiantly to paint Miers as an "ambiguity" in light of the speech. However, while the beginning of her speech was indeed a complaint about legislatures punting difficult issues to the court, toward the end of her speech, she shifted and began discussing some of the problems with the court as she saw them.
In this context, we find the most disturbing words from Miers to date:
We still have all white juries trying cases which significantly impact the rights of minorities. We undeniably still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Bill of Rights.
Hello?? Is it now mandatory that minorities sit on juries in any trial that impact minority rights? As in, the cases don't even have to involve actual minorities, they just have to "impact the rights of minorities"? Do you have any idea how far out in left field this idea is?
Oh, and hey - for all the assurances we've had that she is "personally pro-life" and that she donated $150 ($150!!1!1) to the Texans for Life Commission in 1989, this speech from 1993 doesn't exactly warm the cockles of our hearts when we consider whether she actually thinks that Roe should be overturned:
The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion.
* * *
The law and religion make for an interesting mixture... the underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago.
* * *
Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based on religious belief, then the government should not act.
Officially, I will no longer brook any silly comments about Miers being "personally pro-life." I have heard the last that I will hear about her "deep religious convictions." Until Miers herself is willing to repudiate these statements, she is clearly on the record stating that those considerations do not matter in a legal sense - and further strongly suggesting that the legally right thing to do is uphold Roe. Even Mirgenoff and Hinderaker concede that Miers needs to explain these statements.
Literally the last line of defense left for the Miers supporters is the "Presidential prerogative" defense. Certainly, the Constitution allows a President to disregard the plain wishes of those who elected him to office, but the political process allows those electors to push back at him in the most effective way they know how - including exercising their Constitutional prerogative to vote or not vote in the manner they wish. And when the President violates his explicit campaign promises in such a blatant manner, he should expect nothing less.
And if Republican Senators expect to receive my support and/or votes in the next election, they will reject this nominee, if she makes it to committee.
We have known she's probably to the left of O'Connor for a while now. The only question was Roe.
Now we need to start asking if she's to the left of Kennedy; that's the real question.
Stop the worry. GWB knows her heart, and she's very pious.
That's enough...isn't it? (sound of crickets chirping...)
Hmm. I find this use of a favorite code phrase of the leftists deeply disturbing. How many times have they told us "We mustn't legislate morality"? By which they mean, we mustn't legislate your morality, only ours.
If the law shouldn't be based on moral judgments, what should it be based on?
No, it isn't the job of the Supreme Court to legislate morality. But neither is it their job to constantly strike down perfectly valid laws on the basis that they "legislate morality." The recent decision finding a constitutional right to buggery was one such instance.
Which makes you ask (oh please forgive me everyone, but it is too obvious to not say), what did he know about Miers and when did he know it.
That was a professional courtesy decision made so that David Souter and his boyfriend wouldn't be arrested for sodomy when vacationing in the South.
BTW, do you see Kennedy as being to the left of O'Connor? I'm not sure, but I always thought they were about equal, only they got there differently. O'Connor found liberalism through appeasement. Split the baby! Kennedy found it through authoritarian libertarianism. What do you think of that theory?
BUMP, Now I'm really starting to worry...
It would help if someone who has access to Lexis-Nexus could retrieve recent speeches she has given. FOX quoted from one the other day. She said something like "none of us can rest until there is no difference in pay between men and women." The occasion was Law Day. I thought FOX said she gave it last year but a post by someone else indicated the year was 1997.
Can anyone retrieve the speech? It is not on the net best I can tell. Any speech she has given recently is likely to help everyone--pro, con, or undecided--understand where she currently stands.
Some of the Miers defenders have been making the case that conservatives shouldn't worry that Miers was a Democrat for so many years because Texas Democrats were conservatives.
Many Texas Democrats were conservatives, but this speech proves that Harriet wasn't one of them.
With the revelation of this speech, I think that those who try to pretend that Miers is a judicial conservative are going to be in about the same position as those who argued that the Rather memo wasn't written with Microsoft Word.
"She's a witch I tells ya! Burn her! Burn her!"
Roe vs Wade is not my ONE and ONLY issue..
& For Miers supporters to fling that around like a bone to Miers critics is quite frankly insulting.
no doubt...let's not EVEN get started on why one "might" not trust Bush. We'd be here all day....
Actually, it is mandatory. Pick an all-white jury for a civil rights case involving minorities, and a verdict against said rights will be thrown out on appeal due to the makeup of the jury.
May as well seek out a couple of minorities in the original jury pool.
"Roe vs Wade is not my ONE and ONLY issue.. "
That is exactly right!
Moreover, you could even add that in the truest sense RvW is not an issue at all...though the WH thinks that it is an issue and want to treat it like that...which is just a roundabout way of accepting the left's view that the SC is really just a super-legislature.
What we want is to know that a GWB nominee understands the constitutional role of the judiciary and the traiditonal police powers of the states. We want to know she understands enumerated powers. Basically, we want her to believe in and enforce the Constitution.
If someone follows the Constitution, then the political questions are left to we the people, as it should be.
And if one understands and follows the Constitution, then, we don't actually need to know where they are on RvW. Obviously if someone is completely sold out to the constitution, then RvW would be history....and even non-Christians could reason to that conclusion.
To just tell us she is a pro life Christian and expect us to support her on those grounds makes it seem like she is running for Congress. Which is precisely the problem...and which is why we are so angry at this President for this particular nomination (especially in light of his C of A appointments).
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.