[counterpunch]

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 unworkable
So in this case, we may enquire whether Roe's central rule has been found unworkable

whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent
whether the law's growth in the intervening years has left Roe's central rule a doctrinal anachronism

whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling
whether 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.

 

[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.

[ez]

"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.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

whether legitimate reliance interests mitigate against overruling whether the rule's limitation on state power could be removed without serious inequity to those who have relied upon it

Does this mean they have to consider whether the loss of revenue to abortion doctors and pro-abortion groups will be too hard or unfair to them?

[Clintonfatigued]

You're overreacting and reading too much into her statement. If you read her comment "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,", she's saying "to each individual according to his or her own concience." But that does not, by any stretch of the imagination, amount to an endorsement of Roe vs. Wade, which was issued by judicial fiat rather than public support.

The Constitution is neutral on the position of abortion. It's clearly up to the will of the citizens of individual states, as expressed through their elected representatives. And Miers' remarks are fully constitant with that.

The CWA should have stayed out of this, or at least taken a "wait and see" approach. Conservatives who can't bring themselves to support her should at least give her a chance to explain her general views in the confirmation hearings.

[msnimje]

WOW! That borders on plagiarism.

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