Skip to comments.
Miers's Muddle
National Review Online ^
| 10/26/05
| Ed Whelen
Posted on 10/26/2005 2:02:14 PM PDT by jdhljc169
With the understanding that Harriet Miers’s Spring 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas is just part of the evidence that has led me to conclude that she should withdraw her nomination, let me highlight the elements of that speech that I find disturbing.
Much of the first ten pages I find unobjectionable in substance (though certainly not well composed). Indeed, Miers soundly criticizes “a shifting to the judicial system of the responsibility for making all of the hard decisions” and the unwillingness of political leaders to make these decisions:
"My basic message here is that when you hear the Courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong…Stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue and whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is not a too prevalent tactic in today’s world. Politicians who are too concerned about maintaining their jobs."
No quarrel from me on any of this. I would have preferred that she make clear that political abdication does not ipso facto justify judicial intervention, but that could fairly be seen as tangential to her “basic message.” There are propositions in these first ten pages that are sloppily stated or that suggest a failure to make important distinctions (such as the description of Dallas as “basically segregated”) or that would seem to mark Miers as a political liberal, but they don’t speak meaningfully to Miers’s judicial philosophy.
The part of the speech I find disturbing is on two pages near the end (specifically, the pages stamped WH3-05192 and WH3-05193).
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: edwhelan; harrietmiers; miers; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next last
1
posted on
10/26/2005 2:02:16 PM PDT
by
jdhljc169
To: Stellar Dendrite
2
posted on
10/26/2005 2:04:00 PM PDT
by
jdhljc169
To: jdhljc169
On the topic of law and religion, Miers wrote: The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual womens [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion. This tendentious framing of what is at issue in the abortion debate and its utter obscuring of the appropriate roles of the courts and the political branches would appear to come straight from Planned Parenthood. Hmmmm....
3
posted on
10/26/2005 2:06:28 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Protest a democrat -- light your hair on fire -- and the MSM still won't take your picture.)
To: jdhljc169
Harriet Miers shows no signs of lucidity of thought, and her appointment to the Supreme Court is an unacceptable danger.
She should withdraw her name as soon as possible, or, if she will not do so on her own, President Bush should ask her to do it.
Cheers,
Richard F.
4
posted on
10/26/2005 2:06:47 PM PDT
by
rdf
(no sex and race preferences, not now, not ever.)
To: GOPJ
I wonder how Hewitt et. al. will try to spin this one.
5
posted on
10/26/2005 2:10:35 PM PDT
by
muu
To: jdhljc169
Perhaps Miers didnt mean, or no longer means, what she said.Well, we can settle part of this. If she meant what she said she still has to mean it because the President and the White House have told us repeatedly that Harriet Miers doesn't change and that she'll be the same 20 years from now as she is today. The only way out of that is to claim that she has since changed her mind but that one of her New Years resolutions this year was to never change again....oh wait.....she's already changed just this year when, according to her own written answer on the questionnaire that she changed her mind about being considered as a nominee to SCOTUS.
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
HOW....HOW can anyone stand by this nominee??? She has soooo much baggage for conservatives to carry that gets heavier by the day.
Speechless
To: ALWAYSWELDING
"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.
To: muu; Iwo Jima; snugs; joesbucks; Phsstpok; Racehorse; TomGuy
9
posted on
10/26/2005 2:31:23 PM PDT
by
GOPJ
(Protest a democrat -- light your hair on fire -- and the MSM still won't take your picture.)
To: TXBSAFH; Conservative Coulter Fan; Sam the Sham; Soul Seeker; TAdams8591; Pharmboy; Das Outsider; ..
10
posted on
10/26/2005 2:39:49 PM PDT
by
Stellar Dendrite
( Mike Pence for President!!! http://acuf.org/issues/issue34/050415pol.asp)
To: rdf
Why was she nominated? I was hoping for Brown.
11
posted on
10/26/2005 2:43:43 PM PDT
by
Dante3
To: jdhljc169; GOPJ; rdf
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.
This shouldn't be giving anyone comfort.
It is a strong signal that she will turn to that same doctrine and not vote to overturn Roe.
12
posted on
10/26/2005 2:50:59 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
Oops....my mistake...I take back the plagiarism charge. I saw the statement in an article analyzing her speech in which thay compared her muddle-headed concept of self-determination to Casey and they quoted Kennedy's opinion. When I compared it to the opinion itself, of course they matched. Again, my apologies....there are enough reasons to oppose Ms. Miers without putting forward false ones like this.
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
OMG. How are the bots going to explain this one???????????
14
posted on
10/26/2005 2:54:05 PM PDT
by
chris1
("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
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.
Check my post above. (It's pretty hard to miss ; )
Miers has plagiarized
a lot from the pro-abortion arguments of Casey.
This is not good at all.
She is flaunting the fact that she will uphold Roe, hiding it in plain sight.
15
posted on
10/26/2005 2:54:44 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
To: chris1
See my retraction in post 13.
To: rdf
Hi, Richard. Haven't seen anything from you in awhile.
After reading the article I see nothing to frighten me as does the author. What you call "no signs of lucidity of thought" I see as a straight forward statemtent of fact with a minimum of words. She states no conclusions of law, just outlines of the questions and where they fit in the system.
17
posted on
10/26/2005 2:58:32 PM PDT
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all that needs to be done needs to be done by the government.)
To: counterpunch
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
"Our law affords constitutional protection to personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education. Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U.S., at 685 . Our cases recognize the right of the individual, married or single, to be free from unwarranted governmental intrusion into matters so fundamentally affecting a person as the decision whether to bear or beget a child. Eisenstadt v. Baird, supra, 405 U.S., at 453 (emphasis in original). Our precedents "have respected the private realm of family life which the state cannot enter." Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158, 166 (1944). These matters, involving the most intimate and personal choices a person may make in a lifetime, choices central to personal dignity and autonomy, are central to the liberty protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. 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. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State." [505 U.S. 833, 852]
U.S. Supreme Court
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)
19
posted on
10/26/2005 3:01:25 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
To: MarcusTulliusCicero
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40 next 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