Posted on 10/26/2005 5:18:51 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Miers' 1993 Speech Draws Fire from Pro-Life Groups
Pro-life organizations are expressing concern over statements made by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers in 1993 to the Executive Women of Dallas in 1993.
During the speech, which was recently provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miers gave several examples of contentious issues, including abortion, which she said involved religion and law. She stated,
"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual womens right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."
"The law and religion make for [an] interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."The Family Research Council, a widely respected national conservative and pro-life organization, called Miers statements "disturbing":
... Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act.
[Miers'] words are a close paraphrase of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Her use of terms like criminalize abortion to characterize the pro-life position and guarantee freedom to describe the pro-choice position should have sounded alarms in the White House during the vetting process.
When we defend the right to life, we hearken back to the Declaration of Independence, not to some strictly sectarian view. Science has long ago answered the question of when human life begins. The constitutional and legal question is whether we are going to defend innocent human life from lethal assault.
This speech raises very troubling questions about Miss Miers' views of constitutional matters. Operation Rescue reacted strongly, promising to "actively oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States if she refuses to withdraw her name from consideration."
Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation's largest public and pro-life policy women's organization, also called for Miers' nomination to be withdrawn.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.
Matt Staver, Liberty Counsel president, told the Washington Post, "This concept of self-determination could clearly be read in support for things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and it's a philosophy that cuts a judge loose from the Constitution."
Kyleen Wright, president of the Texans for Life Coalition, called Miers's principle of self-determination "troubling" and was concerned about Miers's choice of words in characterizing the abortion debate. "In the pro-life movement, we don't recognize a right to decide who lives or dies," Wright told the Post.
Additional reactions from pro-life bloggers: click here.
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.
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."
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.
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!
She'll just tell him..."oh, that was a youthful indiscretion. I'm all for you now, all for you."
>>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.
drip, drip, drip...
Or not?
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.
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.
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.
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.
And on TV I saw him say he has worked with Miers professionally and knows her.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.