CWA Calls for Miers' Withdrawal

Concerned Women of America ^ | 10/26/05 | Stacey Holliday

[higgmeister]

CWA is a big union.

They should have picked a better acronym.

[counterpunch]

Even William Rehnquist indicated that he'd lay off Roe.

Rehnquist dissented in the original decision of Roe, and he continued to oppose it, dissenting against the reaffirmation of Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

 

[uncbob]

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.

Just like the Naive ones on tis site who were PRAYING for Clinton during his operation ( They can't recognize PURE EVIL when they see it )

[Cboldt]

Whether she thinks she's strikng down Roe to send the "self-determination" to the individual, or thinks she's striking down Roe to give the States the power to legislate it, I think she is signalling Roe must go.

Roe and Casey enhance personal self-determination.

Reversing Casey and Roe would diminish personal self-determination.

You are free to interpret her speech as giving self-determination to the states, so the states can make laws diminishing personal self-determination regarding abortion. I put the words up (and a link to the entire speech so you can make sure I didn't make some contextual error that introduces unfair bias) so you (and others) can make up your own mind with more complete information than you had when you first adopted that position.

[Cboldt]

Are you in favor of outlaeing abortions or striking down Roe which sends it back to the states?

If you've read my posts on the Miers threads, you know the answer to that.

[JCEccles]

Rehnquist dissented in the original decision of Roe, and he continued to oppose it, dissenting against the reaffirmation of Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey.

Thank you for setting the record straight. Miers advocates are so stressed to find evidence to support the Maven of Mediocrity they have resorted to blatant revisionist history in a desperate attempt to artificially level the playing field.

Planned Parenthood v. Casey was a a badly fractured 5-4 decision, which hardly indicates that Roe v. Wade is impervious to challenge.

I find it interesting that many Miers have shifted tactics in light of the new revelations which strongly indicate Miers will leave Roe v. Wade in place and untouched. Before, they were using her supposed anti-Roe sentiments as the centerpiece of their support for her. Now they've shrugged their shoulders and are saying, "Well, it's not like she could overturn it anyway."

[Dog Gone]

Rehnquist also disagreed with Miranda, but opposed overturning it because it had become part of the national culture.

[msnimje]

WOW! That borders on plagiarism.

If you are going to plagiarize a SCOTUS Justice, why not the brilliant NINO?

[Cicero]

Even for those Freepers who may love abortion, Roe v. Wade is a constitutional atrocity that needs to be reversed. It and Casey are probably the two worst instances of arbitrary judicial constructionism that have ever been produced by the Supreme Court. Not even the Dred Scott decision can compete with them for inventing a constitutional right out of whole cloth.

Let the abortion lovers fight it out in the court of public opinion and in the legislatures, if they are so eager to keep baby killing legal.

[flashbunny]

This thread is two hours older than the ann coulter thread.

This thread has 49 posts, the ann coulter thread has 370.

The harpies are buzzing over on the other thread with their usual attacks on coulter (well, usual since she came out against this nomination). On this thread, they can't be bothered to respond.

Is it because on this thread they'd have to take on CWA and not rely on childish insults?

[Cboldt]

Is it because on this thread they'd have to take on CWA and not rely on childish insults?

Speaking of not relying on insults ... found this at confirmthem.com ...

WASHINGTON - Sen. Norm Coleman said Wednesday that he will ask Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers about her former law firm's work in providing legal opinions supporting a controversial tax shelter.

Coleman, who will meet with Miers on Thursday, said that if he learns that Miers was directly involved in the tax shelter, he will vote against her. ...

Asked for comment Wednesday evening, White House spokesman Allen Abney said, "It's my understanding that she had no part in that transaction and was not working with those clients, nor did she have any part of any of that."

Coleman to press Miers about work on tax shelter

I don't think Miers supplemental is out yet either.

[freespirited]

http://www.iwf.org/articles/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=832

That was an interesting read from the Independent Women's Forum. When Miers was first nominated, they endorsed her. After reading the article, I checked out the rest of their website. Looks like the endorsement has quietly been removed.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

It would appear so.

IWF Statement Regarding the Nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court

10/17/2005

The Independent Women's Forum released the following statement regarding the nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court:

"Since the President nominated Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court, there has been much discussion about her qualifications and background. We look forward to the upcoming hearings, during which she will have an opportunity to provide more information about her judicial philosophy and qualifications for this important position."

Charlotte Allen's defensive statement in support of Miers-which had occupied a pretty prominent spot on their corresponding weblog, i.e. the IWF Inkwell, is nowhere to be found.

Instead, we get the aforementioned (ambiguous) statement located at the bottom of the page.

MIER'S REMORSE???