Posted on 10/27/2005 12:13:27 AM PDT by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
WASHINGTON - The mystery over what Supreme Court Harriet Miers believes deepened Wednesday as conservative Republican senators grappled with phrases from a 1993 speech in which she endorsed “self determination” in matters such as abortion.
In the speech, Miers also said, “Abortion clinic protestors have become synonymous with terrorists and the courts have been the refuge for the besieged.”
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Yet another miers ping
If she hasn't wised up considerably in the last 12 years about this, then it's time for the big flush.
Have you seen any *REAL PROOF* that she no longer holds these views? I have not run into any.
That does it. She's toast.
Thanks for the ping.
If confirmed, this news will ensure the collapse of this ridiculous nomination (that should have never happened in the first place). Better late than never......
Flush this social clymer.
Get the rope.
Have you seen any *REAL PROOF* that she continues to do so?
This is an appropriate topic for the hearings.
And, you expect the hearings to reveal much? I have not seen much revealed at these hearings, other than the Foolishness of Dummy DEM senators.
Once again we are getting inconsistant information. I am beginning to think that people are working too hard to find something that would cast doubt on Miss Miers' suitability. It is getting to be on the level of reading tea leaves. I say wait for the confirmation hearings. It will be then we will see the Harriet Miers the same way President Bush sees her. We will not hear Miss Miers the way she spoke ten years ago.
If she won't shed any light then, it would be more than fair to say nix on her at that point.
("Denny Crane: Gun Control? For Communists. She's a liberal. Can't hunt.")
We were pointed to her questionaire she filled out years before this speech that 'proved' she was pro-life.
We were told she 'evolved' after donating to the DNC. Years before this speech.
We were told by the president that harriet miers is a person that 'will not change' and is steadfast in her belief.
All of that seems to be a big, stinky load.
If she was properly vetted, all of this would have been discovered. Instead, they had the person next in line to replace her has white house counsel do the vetting - the same person who recommended her for the job.
"Once again we are getting inconsistant information. "
No, we are not. Not from her actual writings and actions. Those have revealed all sorts of facts.
The only inconsistancy comes when you add the 'trust me' happy talk coming from the miers spin team. Those are the things that are not backed up by evidence and are inconsistant.
Can I get on that ping list?
Ditto! :)
The problem is, there is so little to go on, that everything is significant. I also don't buy the argument that what she said 10 years ago is much less relevant--that she could have changed. Unless there is compelling evidence that she changed (which is difficult considering how little evidence there is at all), it would be insane to take a great leap of faith and confirm her to the Supreme Court, where we would have no recourse if we were mistaken.
I'll add you both to my copy - I'll let the person who maintains the master list know too.
You are being dishonest about the claims that were made.
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.