Skip to comments.
CWA Calls for Miers' Withdrawal
Concerned Women of America ^
| 10/26/05
| Stacey Holliday
Posted on 10/26/2005 3:14:48 PM PDT by jdhljc169
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 next last
1
posted on
10/26/2005 3:14:49 PM PDT
by
jdhljc169
To: Conservative Coulter Fan; Sam the Sham; Soul Seeker; TAdams8591; Pharmboy; Das Outsider; meema; ...
2
posted on
10/26/2005 3:18:18 PM PDT
by
flashbunny
(What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
To: jdhljc169
This pretty much confirms my own reading of the Miers documents. And it also confirms my belief that the socially conservative Evangelical leaders who warmly recommended her on the first day didn't have the faintest idea what kind of person she really is. They went purely by what the White House told them--which unfortunately lacked any noticeable relationship with the truth.
3
posted on
10/26/2005 3:21:13 PM PDT
by
Cicero
(Marcus Tullius)
To: flashbunny
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.
We have now learned that Miers plagiarized part of her 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas directly from PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF SOUTHEASTERN PA. v. CASEY, when she used the unattributed words of Justice Anthony Kennedy's concurrence in support of abortion, saying,
"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."
None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from her that she will not vote to overturn Roe.
4
posted on
10/26/2005 3:23:31 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
To: jdhljc169; flashbunny
CWA sounds like CYA, and we all know what "W" stands for.
5
posted on
10/26/2005 3:25:05 PM PDT
by
DTogo
(I haven't left the GOP, the GOP left me.)
To: Cicero
We wanted to back the President, and sought evidence to support this nomination"
But none was provided - just attacks against those who questioned her nomination.
6
posted on
10/26/2005 3:36:07 PM PDT
by
flashbunny
(What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
To: DTogo
W stands for "Wretched"
As in, This was a wretched political decision on the part of the president.
7
posted on
10/26/2005 3:36:52 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: counterpunch
I need to retract the part about her 1993 speech to the Executive Women of Dallas.
Apparently she didn't actually echo those words after all, only their sentiment.
My bad.
8
posted on
10/26/2005 3:38:48 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(- SCOTUS interruptus - withdraw Miers before she blows it -)
To: jdhljc169
To: jdhljc169; counterpunch; DTogo; flashbunny; Cicero; Raquel
10
posted on
10/26/2005 3:44:59 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: republicofdavis
For some reason the usual suspects haven't chimed in to bash CWA on this one yet...I suppose they need some time to come up with a new angle of attack on this.
11
posted on
10/26/2005 3:47:40 PM PDT
by
flashbunny
(What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
To: flashbunny
BEVERLY LAHAYE IS CANADIAN????!!!!!!!???Her husband uses a ghostwriter?
12
posted on
10/26/2005 3:52:37 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: flashbunny
"For some reason the usual suspects haven't chimed in to bash CWA on this one yet...I suppose they need some time to come up with a new angle of attack on this."
Here I'll give it a try.
The leader of CWA is publishing a book so she needs the publicity. No? CWA is really a front group for radical lesbianism. Oh wait, they're the opposite? Well then, they're just trying to get their 15 minutes of fame without any concern that they're destroying the President and handing the country over to the libs.
Yeah, that'll do.
To: jdhljc169
Wow. This is quite a blow.
14
posted on
10/26/2005 3:55:02 PM PDT
by
Mamzelle
(.)
To: republicofdavis; sinkspur; maryz; EllaMinnow; mountainfolk; AntiGuv; Txsleuth; nerdgirl; ...
15
posted on
10/26/2005 3:59:58 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: jdhljc169
In fact, we find several aspects troubling, particularly her views on abortion and a womans self-determination,Miers "self-determination" comment on abortion and school prayer, I view as a signal that the she beliees Roe is wrong, and that Fedgov has no buisness legislating in this area, That is consistent with the Tenth Amendment which reserves unspecified powers to the states or to the people, respectively.
I personally believe abortion law should be, as compared to Roe, a matter of self-determination that belongs at the State level.
16
posted on
10/26/2005 4:01:56 PM PDT
by
ez
(I believed Juanita Broaddrick and I believe Harriet Miers.)
To: ez
17
posted on
10/26/2005 4:06:33 PM PDT
by
Do not dub me shapka broham
("We don't want a Supreme Court justice just like George W. Bush. We can do better.")
To: counterpunch
"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
Sounds like she's open to change those things which, when revisited turn out to be unworkable. I believe she would consider reversing Roe quite seriously, but whether she pulls the trigger, I don't know. Bush, though his lieutenants, says yes.
18
posted on
10/26/2005 4:08:15 PM PDT
by
ez
(I believed Juanita Broaddrick and I believe Harriet Miers.)
To: ez
There's the problem with her. She makes an inscrutable comment like something that could have come from the Delphi Oracle, who breathed toxic gas before delivering her greater pears of wisdom. Now we're supposed to accept this woman on nothing but faith when we've been burned eight time in the last fifty years (8 to zip) on similar "trust me" nominations. The old saying is "Once burned, twice smart." In our case it ought, finally, to be, "Burned eight times in succession, eventually smart." Let's get real and flush this worthless nomination.
To: ez
wow, the spin, my head hurts.
This is the most important part though, which for some reason you didn't really address:
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.
So basically, anything that is blatantly unconstitutional, like CFR or gun control, could be thought to be unconstitutional, but if we've come to rely on them, we have to keep them in place.
Do you really think she's going to be the judge who will help roll back decades of liberal judicial activism???
20
posted on
10/26/2005 4:13:24 PM PDT
by
flashbunny
(What is more important: Loyalty to principles, or loyalty to personalities?)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-57 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