Posted on 10/26/2005 3:14:48 PM PDT by jdhljc169
Washington, D.C. – Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation’s largest public policy women’s organization, is calling for Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers’ name to be withdrawn.
“CWA was founded to provide an alternative to radical feminists – who claim to speak for all women – and who seek to impose policies that do not respect unborn babies, family or God. Too often these radical feminists found success, not through democratic means, but through activist courts,” said Wendy Wright, executive vice president.
“Harriet Miers has shown respect for Christian values by attending an Evangelical church. But her professional and civic life leaves us questioning whether she chooses to reflect and advance the views of the group she’s with at the moment. Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family,” said Wendy Wright. “This drives us to rely upon her actions, her deeds, her words as opposed to the endorsements of those who have worked with and known her.
“We believe that far better qualified candidates were overlooked and that Miss Miers’ record fails to answer our questions about her qualifications and constitutional philosophy,” said Jan LaRue, CWA’s chief counsel. “In fact, we find several aspects troubling, particularly her views on abortion and a woman’s ‘self-determination,’ quotas, feminism and the role of judges as social activists. We do not believe that our concerns will be satisfied during her hearing."
“Every time she quotes or cites women she admires, they’re to the left of Betty Freidan. We desire role models who have a strong record of promoting and advancing constitutional principles. Miss Miers’ record, as reflected in her speeches, is of promoting a leftist agenda that relies upon the courts to impose their views,” LaRue commented. “We’d prefer to have someone fond of quoting Margaret Thatcher or Antonin Scalia rather than Barbra Streisand and Gloria Steinem. Some of Miss Miers’ own comments border on male-bashing.”
“The record we know is a record that convinces us that Miers is not even close to being in the mold of Scalia or Thomas, as the President promised the American people,” LaRue noted.
“We wanted to back the President, and sought evidence to support this nomination, but we find this Supreme Court nominee unqualified and her record troubling. However, we look forward to a nomination that we can whole-heartedly endorse,” said Beverly LaHaye, founder and chairman of Concerned Women for America.
They should have picked a better acronym.
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.
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.
If you've read my posts on the Miers threads, you know the answer to that.
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."
Rehnquist also disagreed with Miranda, but opposed overturning it because it had become part of the national culture.
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.
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."
I don't think Miers supplemental is out yet either.
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.
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.
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.