Posted on 10/26/2005 11:40:46 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
I'm going to wait for the hearings.
I'll be contacting my Senators, Specter and Santorum, to let them know what I think.
www.betterjustice.com
an excellent site for any with concerns over Miers!
please visit it! and take an action.
Fake, but accurate.
Liberal, but strict constructionist.
Plus, this is the best that can be had with this Senate. Vote GOP!!
There is evidence Miers changed parties, but there is no evidence she changed beliefs.
I would disagree that the EWD speech shows her to not be a conservative.
The state constitution of Texas requires that the state provide free public schooling. He stance appeared to be it was not simply a matter of the Judicary jumping in and legislating. It was the legislature that had failed to create legislation that created a school system that fulfilled the state's responsibilities under the constitution.
That does end up placing the burden on the courts to force the state to live up to it's constitutional responsibilities. The solution is for the legislature to fix the problem. If a court tries to impose a solution, the legislature has the power to change that implementation through legislation as long as their changes pass constitutional muster.
In most all cases of judicial activism, the proper response is legislative, but our legislatures rarely rise to the occasion, which is deplorable.
Her comments about white juries deciding cases of important issues for minorities does raise some questions that should be asked at her confirmation hearing. If there is an emotionally charged racial issue why try it with an all white jury? There doesn't need to be minorities on a jury for it to be a fair jury in such a case, but racism does still exist in the US, and people do have a right to a jury of their peers.
This issue depends very much on the circumstance, so I'd like to hear her address her opinions on this much more clearly.
Her self determination comments mentioned in relation to abortion among other things scare the crap out of me. People have a right to self determination as long as their actions don't harm others. That is a very conservative stance. However, when dealing with abortion, the mother would be taking the life of her unborn child, which means that the State must step in and protect the life of the child. If she does not recognize the unborn child as a living human being with rights of it's own, then I definately do not want her on the Supreme Court.
However, since this would appear to be inconsistent with pretty much all the other evidence on her stance on abortion, I think it's absurd to say that she was clearly supporting a woman's right to choose to abort her unborn child in this speech.
It looks like there are some things that should definately raise some concerns, but it still looks like the anti-Miers crown is cherry picking a few items out of what is known about Miers. There's abundant evidence that Miers is pro-life, yet when they find this one tidbit that looks questionable, they start screaming I told you so, it's all been a farce! She's really a Nazi baby killer at heart!
I also want to comment on Ramesh's response to Lowery.
"Rich: I think you're giving Miers too much credit here, and the Post too little. There are a lot of ways to connect the themes of judicial usurpation and legislative abdication. You could adopt the argument that legislatures are to blame for not reining in the courts (an argument which I think is generally sound). You could go on to note that legislatures have not sought to reclaim their powers because they are perfectly happy to see the courts get the blame for tough decisions.
That's not the argument Miers makes. The argument she makes is that the courts can't be blamed when they are forced to step in to resolve problems that elected officials have failed to resolve (e.g., the problems of school funding and low-income housing siting). That is a very standard argument, usually associated with liberals. Eliot Spitzer, for example, often argues that it is necessary to pursue anti-gun policies through the courts because legislatures have failed to act. But it's hard to see how the courts are to distinguish between a) a legislative "failure to act," b) a legislative decision that there is no problem demanding solution, or c) a legislative decision that solving any problem would create new and greater problems. Any act of judicial usurpation can be described as a reluctant response to the legislature's failure to enact what the judges wanted them to enact."
In my opinion Ramesh is missing an important point. Miers speech talks mainly about Judicial activism with the school system. The difference between that and persuing gun control through the courts is that the State of Texas has a constitutional responisbility to provde "an efficient system of public free schools".
Gun control is not required by the state constitution, nor has gun control been shown to be effective crime prevention.
It is the responsibility of the judicary to make sure the State is abiding by the constitution. Ramesh's argument ignores that and compares it to something that is not a state responsibility under the constitution.
As a side note, the federal govenment does not have a responsibility to provide public education and should keep it's noses out of the states' business on that issue.
Ramesh never supports his assertion that Mier's stance is other than that the courts are often put in the position of having to force the government to act because the legislature isn't enacting legislation that fulfills their constitutional duties.
Pity the poor students, mostly women who become immersed in this crap. They require our constant prayers.
Then count how many of them include the phrase "LGBT" in their introductions.
Call me crazy, but when I think of textualism, original intent, or fiercely penetrating Bork-like conservatism, "transgendered" isn't the first term that comes to mind.
ping
Unfortuntely, go along get-along is not the kind of person you want on the Supreme Court when there is massive social pressure to "make a difference" in the lives of the poor, etc.
"Some explaining to do
"Ed Whelan, a former Scalia law clerk and the head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, argues that Harriet Miers should withdraw. Until now, Ed has been giving the White House "the benefit of the doubt" on this nomination. However, a 1993 speech by Miers, reported on in today's Washington Post, moved Ed into the "withdraw" column.
"I'd be happy to see Miers withdraw. However, the speech is 12 years old, and Miers should be given the opportunity, if she wants it, to say whether or to what extent she agrees with the views she expressed in 1993. If her views have changed, she should describe her current position and explain what caused the conversion.
"UPDATE: Here is the speech. Whelan's analysis of the speech for NRO is here.
"FURTHER UPDATE: I've found the time to read Miers' speech carefully. This is not the speech of a centrist (the worst case plausible scenario, I thought); it's the speech of a liberal. The behavior of liberal Senate Democrats over recent years relieves conservative Republican Senators of any obligation to vote for the confirmation of nominees who take positions like the ones Miers sets forth in this speech (e.g., "abortion clinic protesters have become synonymous with terrorists" or, in the context of the abortion debate, "where science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act").
"Miers should withdraw. If she doesn't then, absent convincing evidence that her positions today are completely different from the liberal ones contained in the 1993 speech, the Senate should not confirm her."
Posted by Paul at 10:29 AM | Permalink
Paul at Powerlineblog is decorous to not to mention just how poorly composed and constructed the speech was, and how lacking it was in argumentation, as opposed to sweeping generalized superficial sometimes cliched and usually errant conclusions. I however think Miers should have her hearings if she wants them. But if I were a senator, the scenarios under which I would vote for her are becoming quite remote at this point.
lol!
I love it how you people are selectively choosing some evidence while ignoring other bits.
She is pro-life.
I note this article ignores completely that Miers donated to the NE AG who argued the abortion case in the SCOTUS.
That was the only person outside of Texas she donated to. Why would she do that if she was pro-choice!
As for this:
"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?"
How stupid. All she said was that a jury of one's peers should be that way. If you are black, you should actually have a black person on your jury, not an all-white jury. What is wrong with that?
Now, I DO want to hear her explain the abortion quote.
I am not saying it does not concern me. But, most of the evidence points to her being strongly pro-life, even donating to a extremely obscure person that only the most adament pro-lifer would have thought to donate to.
If she still believes that quote though, she should withdraw. And withdraw now.
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.