PDA

View Full Version : Miers Will Overturn Roe V. Wade



Gold9472
10-17-2005, 09:31 AM
Judgment Call
Did Christian conservatives receive assurances that Miers would oppose Roe v. Wade?

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415

Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT

Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers's Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: "When you know some of the things that I know--that I probably shouldn't know--you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House's deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. "I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade," Mr. Dobson said last week. "But even if Karl had known the answer to that--and I'm certain that he didn't because the president himself said he didn't know--Karl would not have told me that. That's the most incendiary information that's out there, and it was never part of our discussion."

It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.

The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.

Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson's in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades.

Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: "That's all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls." (When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was "very possible" he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.)

Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter. Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can't recollect who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that Ms. Miers was "pro-life," a characterization he has repeated in public. But he says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he answered, "I don't know." He doesn't recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe.

The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.

The conference call will no doubt prove controversial on Capitol Hill, always a tinderbox for rumors that any judicial nominee has taken a stand on Roe v. Wade. Ms. Miers meets today with Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York, both stalwart Roe supporters, who surely will be interested to learn more about her views. After Mr. Dobson's initial comments about "things . . . that I probably shouldn't know," Sen. Arlen Specter, the pro-Roe Judiciary Committee chairman, said, "If there are backroom assurances and if there are backroom deals and if there is something that bears on a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known." He and ranking Democrat Pat Leahy of Vermont threatened to subpoena Mr. Dobson as a witness.

Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers's hearings. "If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it," a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. "Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions," one participant told me.

Should hearings begin on Nov. 7 as is now tentatively planned, they would likely turn into a spectacle. Mr. Specter has said he plans to press Ms. Miers "very hard" on whether Roe v. Wade is settled law. "She will have hearings like no nominee has ever had to sit through," Chuck Todd, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline, told radio host John Batchelor. "One slipup on camera and she is toast."

Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. "The nomination is in real trouble," one GOP senator told me. "Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her." Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it's possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright.

There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.

President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a "superstealth" nominee--a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.

Gold9472
10-18-2005, 06:07 PM
Miers Backed Ban on Most Abortions in '89

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051018/ap_on_go_su_co/miers

By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 35 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

As a candidate for the Dallas city council, Miers also signaled support for the overall agenda of Texans United for Life, agreeing that she would support legislation restricting abortions if the Supreme Court ruled that states could ban abortions and would participate in "pro-life rallies and special events."

Miers made her views known in a candidate questionnaire the White House submitted to the Senate Judiciary Committee, which is expected to hold hearings on her Supreme Court nomination next month. The one-page questionnaire was filled out and unsigned, but the Bush administration affirmed its authenticity.

Miers, who came to the Capitol to meet with conservative senators, refused to discuss her answers on the questionnaire. "I really appreciate your questions, and I hope you have a good day," she said.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif., and the only woman on the Judiciary Committee, said the questionnaire shows Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade.

"This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard. It will be my intention to question her very carefully about these issues," Feinstein said.

GOP Sens. Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn of Texas, who support Miers, say the questionnaire was written while Miers was a politician and that she would leave political decisions behind as a judge. "That information is interesting, and some people may draw their own conclusions from it, but I believe that Harriet Miers will be the type of judge who will not attempt to pursue a personal or political agenda from the bench," Cornyn said.

That view was echoed at the White House, where presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said that Miers answered the questions as a candidate during the course of a campaign.

"The role of a judge is very different from the role of a candidate or a political officeholder," McClellan said. "Harriet Miers, just like Chief Justice (John) Roberts, recognizes that personal views and ideology and religion have no role to play when it comes to making decisions on the bench."

A second survey, this one undated and for the Dallas Eagle Forum, shows that Miers was against forcing businesses and property owners to hire and provide lodging for people with AIDS.

Meanwhile, in a 57-page response to a Senate questionnaire, Miers revealed that she had been considered by the White House for the Supreme Court vacancy for which Roberts was originally nominated.

"When Justice Sandra Day O'Connor first announced her desire to retire, I was asked whether my name should be considered," Miers wrote. "I indicated at that time that I did not want to be considered."

The White House struggled to reassure conservatives who have been critical of Miers' appointment and depicted her as a crony of President Bush who lacks the background to sit on the high court.

There was fresh evidence of trouble for Miers during the day. Sen. David Vitter, R-La., issued a statement saying, "My top questions are: does she have a consistent and well-grounded conservative judicial philosophy and what objective evidence is there of it from her life's work?"

Miers, 60, met privately with senators, part of a round of courtesy calls that precede the opening of confirmation hearings.

"With her conservative judicial philosophy, she understands that judges must not legislate from the bench," said Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the conservative American Center for Law and Justice and a Miers supporter. "And while she may hold personal views that underscore the value of human life, it would be wrong for those views to be used against her in the confirmation process."

The 1989 questionnaire was designed to gauge candidates' views on the drive to ban most abortions, either by constitutional amendment or by state law in the event the Supreme Court overturned a 1973 ruling that established abortion rights.

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.

The abortion issue hangs over Miers' nomination much as it did over the appointment of Roberts earlier this year. The situations are different, however — Roberts replaced the late William Rehnquist, who voted to overturn the 1973 abortion ruling. Miers would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has voted to uphold it.

"A candidate taking a political position in the course of a campaign is different from the role of a judge making a ruling in the judicial process." said Jim Dyke, a White House spokesman.

jetsetlemming
10-18-2005, 06:54 PM
So she herself still hadn't said anything. Just her two judge friends.

Gold9472
10-18-2005, 06:56 PM
So she herself still hadn't said anything. Just her two judge friends.

"Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday."

I give her credit. The exemption to save the life of a mother wasn't even allowed by our President for the Partial Birth Ban abortion law.

jetsetlemming
10-18-2005, 06:58 PM
so, you're basing this instead on something she said as a nominee, trying to get popularity, 16 years ago?

Gold9472
10-18-2005, 07:05 PM
so, you're basing this instead on something she said as a nominee, trying to get popularity, 16 years ago?

So far... I'm basing it on those two "close friends" of hers who said, "that she would vote to overturn Roe".

I'm also basing it on the fact that she supported an, "overall agenda of Texans United for Life, agreeing that she would support legislation restricting abortions if the Supreme Court ruled that states could ban abortions and would participate in "pro-life rallies and special events."

One piece of the puzzle took place 16 years ago, and another took place recently. BOTH pieces tell me more about her beilefs on Roe V. Wade than what she herself will tell us.

Sorry, but it's all I've got to go on. If she says otherwise, than maybe I'll think differently. Until then, she supports overturning Roe V. Wade.

jetsetlemming
10-18-2005, 07:39 PM
So, why's her opinion on limiting abortions worthy of so much speculation?

Gold9472
10-18-2005, 07:43 PM
So, why's her opinion on limiting abortions worthy of so much speculation?

Because for the last 2 decades, we've always been at least 2 votes away from overturning Roe V. Wade. We have no idea how John Roberts is going to vote because he wouldn't answer any questions during his hearings. If he does decide to vote against abortion, and she is also put on the bench, and votes the same way, then women will have to figure out how to unwind a coathanger, and figure out how far they have to shove it up their pussies to kill their unwanted babies.

Sound like fun?

beltman713
10-18-2005, 07:54 PM
Because for the last 2 decades, we've always been at least 2 votes away from overturning Roe V. Wade. We have no idea how John Roberts is going to vote because he wouldn't answer any questions during his hearings. If he does decide to vote against abortion, and she is also put on the bench, and votes the same way, then women will have to figure out how to unwind a coathanger, and figure out how far they have to shove it up their pussies to kill their unwanted babies.

Sound like fun?
Unless they're George Bush's girlfriend.

Gold9472
10-18-2005, 07:55 PM
Unless they're George Bush's girlfriend.

Speaking of which... I have a story to tell you... a good one.

beltman713
10-18-2005, 07:58 PM
Speaking of which... I have a story to tell you... a good one.
Ok.

Gold9472
10-18-2005, 07:59 PM
Ok.

http://www.yourbbsucks.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5563