Vanity: She Has Spoken, and . . . I Was Wrong.

self | 1026/05 | LS

[mrsmith]

"I think Miers deserved her say"
And now she doesn't? That doesn't make any sense.

Oh well, she'll have her say anyway. I expect most minds will be set only after that happens.

[trubluolyguy]

I shall therefore work to oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers as best I can.

---

Welcome to the darkside.

In all seriousness, I know you aren't the only one. Just one of the few with the guts to admit a mistake.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

I really respect that.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

welcome to the dark side

flash, you crack me up.

[Huck]

Well, well.

[caryatid]

Elitist sexist DU troll!

Ah! You damn him with faint praise!

But, don't hold back ... let us know how your really feel!

P.S. He is not alone.

L O L

[Pharmboy]

Yep.

[SerpentDove]

Now if only you can help convince the five or so remaining pro-Miers FReepers...

[Soul Seeker]

The difference is that I based my assessment on Roberts from, yes, instinct partially but as well three decades of work product largely centered around the Constitution itself. While I do not know how he'll vote, I do feel a degree of comfort in how he'll approach arriving at a decision for that case. That, and small glimpses into his mindset such as tracing a Republican appointed to the Court to R v W when it was suggested a Republican appointee could be trusted inspire confidence. As well, In Roberts case, I feel I have a good fix on why he remained relately quiet. Young ambitious man working in the Reagan W.H. with an eye to being a Supreme Court Justice. Witnessed what occured to Bork. To Ginsburg. To Thomas late on. Even what happened to candidates that did go Left that the Left attacked initially. As well, Roberts was denied elevation to the Appellate Court for 13 years by the Democrats. I can understand how a young man learns to keep his mouth shut with those experiences if he aspires to elevation by a Republican.

Miers' work product is scant, and what is known, is not comforting at all.

Yes, there is a degree of Trust with Roberts, but only to a slight more degree than a Known name, as even known names are not infallible to causing disappointment.

[PjhCPA]

welcome to the dark side...

LOL. I think misread a post by you and gave you some crap for it. Sorry. I'm part of the dark side too.

[jdhljc169]

Most of you have already made up your minds and have been busy unearthing whatever supports your position. Big difference.
***
No, we were very disappointed. We watched the evidence unfold, and unlike with John Roberts, the evidence was d*mning. Every little bit added more & more to our disappointment until I/we believed that it was more likely she was liberal than not.

[jdhljc169]

Great post, LS! I applaud you for having the guts to post this.

[Cboldt]

Now if only you can help convince the five or so remaining pro-Miers FReepers...

Aawwww ... That would take the challenge out of composing cogent arguments.

I am curious though, if there was any fallout in LS's mind, in the area of "trust" of GWB. I know I was hit hard by the nomination. It really rattled me because it seemed so out of character from his past promise/action pairs.

[jdm]

Good post. I extracted a key Miers quote from your PDF file.

John Roberts says...

"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."

Harriet Miers says...

"We (have) one justice for the rich, one justice for the poor. One justice sometimes for minorities, one for whites."

I have to conclude from the above quote that she'll forever be looking out for the "little guy" of which Roberts speaks; versus remaining obligated to the Constitution.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/documents/miers/EWDSpeech.pdf

[counterpunch]

Welcome aboard... we've been expecting you.
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.

 

[Jalapeno]

Miers yes or Miers no, I think what should be obvious at this point is that the Bush Team made a political miscalculation in this nomination.

[JmyBryan]

Welcome to the 'Bush is an idiot" or "I really wanted to vote for the conservative candidate." wing of FR.

[BadAndy]

" Yes, the dark world of slithering malcontents and unappeasables, troll like creatures, all desperately trying to undermine the President."

Another Koolaid drinking jack@ss.

[PjhCPA]

Those moderates among us (i.e., uncommitted conservatives, lukewarm Jim Jeffords, and RINOs)=FRINO....Freeper in Name Only

[WestVirginiaRebel]

I have been against this pick from the beginning, simply on the basis that cronyism is never good politics. I would never support the President's choices simply on his say so or because they were close friends of his.