Miers's Muddle

National Review Online ^ | 10/26/05 | Ed Whelen

[ALWAYSWELDING]

Retraction accepted

[Jim Noble]

There is one question that Harriet Miers must be asked which will resolve this entire matter.

Margaret Marshall, Chief Justice of Massachusetts, was quoted in an interview as saying, "our society has decided that it is better for these controversial issues to be decided in a court...", speaking about gay marriage after making reference to abortion.

The question Miers must be asked is, "Miss Miers: Do you agree that society has decided that controversial issues are better decided in courts than through the legislative process?"

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Baggage...what baggage???

[ALWAYSWELDING]

Nice stiff

[counterpunch]

One year earlier, five justices in Planned Parenthood v. Casey had absurdly declared that “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” and had thereby claimed for themselves a roving mandate to determine which particular interests should be beyond the bounds of American citizens to address through legislation.

I just got around to reading the whole article now.
You should have read this passage better yourself.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

I corrected myself in post #12.

[Stellar Dendrite]

holy crap

[Stellar Dendrite]

OMG did you see this:

"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." Harriet Miers, 1993.

Um.....she plagiarized this.

"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the meaning of human life." Anthony Kennedy, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa.v.Casey, 1992.

[Stellar Dendrite]

oops LOL i just saw your retraction marcus....oh well...what counterpunch posted is damning enough

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

I was mistaken. Read post 12 where I retracted it. I misread the article I was reading where they compared her belief in self-determination and the article quoted Kennedy's Casey opinion. I thought they had attributed it to Harriet Miers, which they didn't. She still believes it, but she didn't plagiarize it.

[MarcusTulliusCicero]

The following, however, I just took directly from the speech: "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's (sic) right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."

How many pro-life evangelicals would prefer the phrasing "to once again criminalize abortions" over "guaranteeing the sanctity of life from conception"? Judging from the meager defenses of Ms. Miers on FR, a siginificant proportion of that number are doing it solely on the abortion issue. They are basing this assumption on her evangelicalism and assurances of the White House. Her own words in this speech as well as her reverence for stare decisis don't seem to indicate strong pro-life leanings. And the White House can't use the defense that it was from a 1993 speech since the President himself has said that Harriet will be the same in 20 years as she is today. For that argument to work, it has to work in both directions.

[JCEccles]

Ed Whelan is a smart, insightful, and cautious critic. He's a former law clerk for Justice Scalia and has the kind of background that is most useful for making these assessments.

[ellery]

"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." Harriet Miers, 1993.

WOW -- where did Miers say this???

[drlevy88]

Please hit 'abuse' on those postings and ask the moderator to delete them. We have enough confusion as it is.

[drlevy88]

And the White House can't use the defense that it was from a 1993 speech since the President himself has said that Harriet will be the same in 20 years as she is today. For that argument to work, it has to work in both directions.

If Bush believes she has found an anchor point that she was lacking in 1993, then his claim makes sense.

[Hank Rearden]

You need to call in the mods for a whole lot of deletin' - before this error runs out of control here.

[Gelato]

How do you like this lucidity?

"We undeniable [sic] still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance." -- Harriet Miers

Good enough for a high school essay contest, I'd wager.

P.S. Nice to see you, Richard! ;-)

[Gelato]

For those who want the context to #37:

We still have all white juries trying cases which significantly impacts the rights of minorities. We undeniable [sic] still have a justice system that does not provide justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance. One justice for the rich, one justice for the poor. One justice sometimes for minorities, one for whites. We had a telling conversation this week about whether to have a debate about whether the justice systems in this nation have two standards for publication in a national legal magazine. The consensus of the group considering this issue with little discussion was that such a debate would spark little interest. Why? Because most people who look at the statistics concede -- justice for all does not exist.

Issues of discrimination are near and dear to the hearts of women executives like yourself-- the sense that glass ceilings still exist, that sexual harassment continues, that networks which by their nature are not friendly to women are real. No question improvement is occurring. I was told yesterday that the California Bar will this year most likely elect a woman president for the first time ever. The state that supposedly stands for equal rights. But I have been proud that Texas jumped that hurdle first and that Florida and California, the first and third largest bars in the nation, Texas being number two, have followed close behind. Times are improving but issues still remain. Achievement for women at the highest ranks is still not the norm but the exception. And again issues of discrimination are more and more recognized as seated in economic concerns--minimizing the number who are able to participate in the slicing of the pie. -- Harriet Miers

[Mind-numbed Robot]

You are referencing an obvious typo in a speech delivered to a group. Do you think she actually said that? The delivery was most likely much more cogent, using pauses and inflections, than the written word, which I would consider notes more than a transcript. Do you really think she considers the pledge of allegiance a source of law? Do you think she could have risen to the status she has and accomplished all she has, were she that ill informed? Many very intelligent and successful lawyers and judges back her. Do you think they would if she were a dunce?

The ploy here is for the Democrats to pretend to back her while their surrogates in the MSM dig up and circulate anything they can to disparage her in hopes that the Republicans will do their dirty work for them. Why are you willing to be a part of that? It only hurts us all.

[Gelato]

This is all moot now, but the post was not meant to highlight a typo (it's obviously a transcript), but rather to give another example of the muddied judicial philosophy of Ms. Miers. She clearly said, and meant to say, "justice for all as provided by the Pledge of Allegiance," and meant to attach that to a superficial equality, such as whether juries are black and whether women are promoted to high positions and paid enough ("the pie").

The entire context of the poorly-worded speech is full of liberal-speak. The above is just a small sampling. No conservative would use such jargon: abortion protestors = terrorists; abortion = a woman's right to choose; abortion = an emotional religious question which the courts judge according to "self-determination"; equal rights = getting women into high positions; etc.