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.