Miers' 1993 Speech Draws Fire from Pro-Life Groups

Prolifeblogs.com ^ | October 26, 2005 | Tim from Prolifeblogs

[FreeRep]

I don't understand why anyone would think she's a conservative.

Because the President said so! and Jimmy Carter is an Evangelical as much as John Kerry is Catholic.

[Cboldt]

I don't think he knew.

Ummmm. A bit irresponsible there, if he didn't have something to hang his hat on. He knows the difference between personal and judicial philosophy. He knew she was a blank slate on the latter, and he knew he promised a nominee who was a strict constructionist - benchmark = Thomas or Scalia.

He didn't want a fight with the moderates and the DEMs, and collaborated with Senate leadership to circumscribe his menu of picks.

[SerpentDove]

So if Harriet Miers is pro-abort, you're okay with it? Doesn't surprise me.

There is nothing, and I mean NOTHING, Harriet Miers could do to get you to to oppose her nomination.

However, if you care to open your eyes, and pull your head out of...uh..the clouds...you will notice that many conservatives do care, and this is a very important issue to them.

Dare I say, a "deal-breaker."

[Sometimes A River]

Does her own record she she's a conservative?

I don't think so.

She's the Presidents personal lawyer.

It's a crony pick.

[Mr Rogers]

This goes well beyond abortion. She also favors government forcing affluent neighborhoods to have low income housing included. I was in Texas at the time of this speech - we had a lazy welfare slug living next door at taxpayer expense, while I worked 12+ hour days to make ends meet. Apparently it didn't occur to Harriet that the taxpayer shouldn't be forced to buy housing for slugs (in 2 years, he never worked a day) in nice neighborhoods - or that it simply isn't a matter for government involvement at all!

She also said Texas could no longer afford to NOT have an income tax - the needs of the poor outweigh the interests of the taxpayer in keeping their own money.

I would defy anyone to read this speech without concluding she is somewhere to the left of Jimmy Carter. I'm Southern Baptist myself, but she is one of those who would argue that Jesus would have us give to the poor (I agree) - and that if we don't do it voluntarily, then the government should help Jesus collect the cash.

I've opposed Harriet since the sart - but Good Grief! She'll be worse than O'Connor ever was!

[ALWAYSWELDING]

If Mr. Pres. didn't know about this, it's gonna cause some problems. However, she apparently has The Pres. pretty bamboozled.

She'll just tell him..."oh, that was a youthful indiscretion. I'm all for you now, all for you."

[SerpentDove]

>>Agreed, but Miers' pro-choice statements are so extreme that I have to believe that the WH was unaware of them at the time they made the representations to Dobson et. al about Miers' supposedly pro-life views.

It would just boggle the mind to think the Bush administration would have said what it apparently did while knowing she had made these statements. Like they say, not only would it have been wrongm, it would have been stupid.<<

If the White House called with glowing recommendations to both Sekulow and Dobson, which they did, since both these good men took their word on good faith and endorsed Miers....and the White House did NOT do any research and find out about these views, it shows glaring incompetence and recklessness on the part of the administration.

And it blows the whole "I'm just gonna trust the President" theory to smithereens.

[Always Right]

drip, drip, drip...

[presidentsfriend]

I`m also a pro life Christian that was trying to support Miers,until today.I/we have been praying to THE LORD,that if she does not stand for the things of God, then may she not be the one.This is 1993,long after her conversion to Christ!

IT`S OVER FOR HER,I HOPE.

[Gelato]

I believe the speech in question was submitted by the White House to the Senate, as a supplement to the questionnaire.

Or not?

[no dems]

I am in the same boat as you and up until today, I was leaning toward her. Read the following and that will seal the deal for you; NO TO HARRIET!!

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.

None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from Miers that she will turn to stare decisis and not vote to overturn Roe.

[governsleastgovernsbest]

If the White House called with glowing recommendations to both Sekulow and Dobson, and the White House did NOT do any research and find out about these views, it shows glaring incompetence and recklessness on the part of the administration.

And it blows the whole "I'm just gonna trust the President" theory to smithereens.

Excellent points. If either Dobson or Sekulow were to make a statement tomorrow pulling their support, the nomination would be withdrawn within 24 hours. I hope it happens.

[Dane]

You earlier said that you think that Jay Seukelow has been used.

You do know that Mr. Seukelow has worked professionally with Ms. Miers in the last 10 years and I believe his comments were genuine, due to his knowing her in a professional work atmosphere.

[SerpentDove]

Jay Sekulow said on Laura Ingraham that he supported Miers based in part on his reassurances from the White House.

Whoops, that has been blown to smithereens.

Oh well, back to the drawing board.

But back to the point I made before: if Miers is pro-choice, you're okay with that. Not surprising.

[Dane]

Jay Sekulow said on Laura Ingraham that he supported Miers based in part on his reassurances from the White House

And on TV I saw him say he has worked with Miers professionally and knows her.

[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.

None of this should give anyone comfort in the least.
It is all a very strong signal from Miers that she will turn to stare decisis and not vote to overturn Roe.

 

[SerpentDove]

So what? Why did he say his decision was influenced by the call from the administration, if it was not?

And answer the question: does it matter to you whether Miers is pro-choice?

[ALWAYSWELDING]

I've noticed that over the last week the replies by the Pro-Miers crowd have become less and less and less.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a good thing. It's just Freepers coming to their senses.

I have seen some post that they've changed their mind, others will just stop defending her. There will always be the few who will go to the mat out of stubbornness.

I knew us Freepers would come around. We're a smart bunch.

[counterpunch]

And on TV I saw him say he has worked with Miers professionally and knows her.

And Senator Rudman of Rhode Island recommended David Souter to George H.W. Bush. Rudman knew Souter and worked with him professionally for 5 years. Rudman also gave assurances that Souter was pro-life and would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

 

[SerpentDove]

I agree. The tide has LONG SINCE turned on this nomination. There will always be the token Bushbots on this board who drink the Kool-Aid down to the last drop. We keep them around just for laughs.

I secretly suspect they are conservative FReepers under another screenname. I mean, how can anybody really be that delusional?

Okay, that was mean.