More Regarding Miers...
Yes, we at the Asylum can go a day or two before we head back to our old chew toys. David Frum, in his NRO Diary today, points to something very interesting. He also brings up John Fund’s article in the WSJ today. Both links are below, but I’m going to cite the majority of Fund’s piece.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/10172005.asp#079770
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415
OCT. 17, 2005: SINKING
Survey USA poll today indicates that 44% of self-described conservatives have a "favorable" impression of Harriet Miers as opposed to only 12% who have an "unfavorable" impression. (45% don't have an opinion.)
Good news for the White House?
Not exactly. Two weeks ago, CNN/Gallup's poll showed 58% of self-identified conservatives describing the Miers nomination as "excellent" or "good." (29% thought it "fair" or "poor.")
The CNN/Gallup poll already showed Miers 20 points less popular among conservatives than John Roberts had been. The CNN and Survey USA polls are not exactly comparable of course. But taken together, the two surveys do seem to indicate substantial deterioration of support for the nomination among conservatives.
And John Fund's rather shocking story in today's Wall Street Journal may portend a coming reversal in Senate Democrats' early acceptance of the Miers nomination.
Fund reports that the White House arranged for surrogates to guarantee a group of prominent religious conservatives that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Can we pause to absorb the full magnitude of this catastrophic misjudgment?
1) Conservatives have argued for years that it is utterly improper for senators to probe nominees' personal views on religion and abortion. With this stunt, the White House has not only invited but legitimated a line of questioning that conservatives have opposed for almost two decades.
2) If Fund is right, the White House was acting in such a way as to persuade a group of religious leaders that they were being given more information on a nomination than would be given to the US Senate. Congress - and yes Republicans in Congress - already feel that the White House treats them with contempt. Now congressional-executive relations have been damaged even further, with potentially lethal consequences for everything that remains of the president's legislative agenda.
3) The stunt also threatens Republican relations with religious conservatives. The assurances offered to the Arlington Group were almost certainly empty. Newsweek is reporting that the White House has also recruited New Hampshire politico Tom Rath to threaten to oppose the presidential bids of any senator who opposes Harriet Miers. But Rath is as responsible as anyone for putting David Souter on the court. What on earth did they say to him? And if those assurances were contradictory, why should anybody believe either?
And I would like to include the following from Mr. Fund's piece.
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.
Further along in the piece, the conversation is recalled by both of these friends.
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."
Despite my vehement opposition to Roe I don't want activism overturning it. I want sound jurisprudence, and she seems to be predisposed to oppose Roe or any other sort of support for abortion. I agree that it's an abhorant procedure, and one that should still be illegal; murder is murder. To get the gist of what Mr. Fund is talking about, I highly recommend you read the whole piece.
If the White House truly pulled this stunt, it should be a clear message to the people that are supporting this nominee to seriously question her. Not over this, but question whether she is as qualified as the president claims she is. The White House is only pulling out all the stops because for reasons they can’t comprehend, the party is not 100% in lock-step behind a decision of the president. And to those supporting this nomination, and demonizing us for this apparent "breach of trust," I’d rather be proven wrong on this nominee than proven right if and when she gets to the bench. If I’m proven right, we get a new O’Connor. If I’m proven wrong, then we may have a new Rehnquist. Regardless, if those that are vehemently for this candidate could put aside the petty name calling (Hugh Hewitt called those opposed to Miers "idiots" Monday of last week during his opening monologue) and actually take a look at some of the antics going on behind the scene, they might question this nominee a bit more than they are.
I’m not saying she’s the worst, but she exhibits the signs of a moderate to me, and to a lot of people. I could care less what the president guarantees to religious leaders. Unless she’s taking her marching orders from the White House, she’ll rule on the law, or we hope she will. I warned about this sort of logic early on in the Miers debate. Activism, ladies and gentlemen, is still activism. I don’t care if it’s conservative or liberal activism. It has no place in the rule of law. If the president has given us a conservative activist, she needs to be voted down. This is not a tit-for-tat play here. The infighting between liberals and conservatives need not be escalated, and if Miers ends up being a conservative activist on the court, the fighting is guaranteed to continue.
Publius II
Yes, we at the Asylum can go a day or two before we head back to our old chew toys. David Frum, in his NRO Diary today, points to something very interesting. He also brings up John Fund’s article in the WSJ today. Both links are below, but I’m going to cite the majority of Fund’s piece.
http://frum.nationalreview.com/archives/10172005.asp#079770
http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007415
OCT. 17, 2005: SINKING
Survey USA poll today indicates that 44% of self-described conservatives have a "favorable" impression of Harriet Miers as opposed to only 12% who have an "unfavorable" impression. (45% don't have an opinion.)
Good news for the White House?
Not exactly. Two weeks ago, CNN/Gallup's poll showed 58% of self-identified conservatives describing the Miers nomination as "excellent" or "good." (29% thought it "fair" or "poor.")
The CNN/Gallup poll already showed Miers 20 points less popular among conservatives than John Roberts had been. The CNN and Survey USA polls are not exactly comparable of course. But taken together, the two surveys do seem to indicate substantial deterioration of support for the nomination among conservatives.
And John Fund's rather shocking story in today's Wall Street Journal may portend a coming reversal in Senate Democrats' early acceptance of the Miers nomination.
Fund reports that the White House arranged for surrogates to guarantee a group of prominent religious conservatives that Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Can we pause to absorb the full magnitude of this catastrophic misjudgment?
1) Conservatives have argued for years that it is utterly improper for senators to probe nominees' personal views on religion and abortion. With this stunt, the White House has not only invited but legitimated a line of questioning that conservatives have opposed for almost two decades.
2) If Fund is right, the White House was acting in such a way as to persuade a group of religious leaders that they were being given more information on a nomination than would be given to the US Senate. Congress - and yes Republicans in Congress - already feel that the White House treats them with contempt. Now congressional-executive relations have been damaged even further, with potentially lethal consequences for everything that remains of the president's legislative agenda.
3) The stunt also threatens Republican relations with religious conservatives. The assurances offered to the Arlington Group were almost certainly empty. Newsweek is reporting that the White House has also recruited New Hampshire politico Tom Rath to threaten to oppose the presidential bids of any senator who opposes Harriet Miers. But Rath is as responsible as anyone for putting David Souter on the court. What on earth did they say to him? And if those assurances were contradictory, why should anybody believe either?
And I would like to include the following from Mr. Fund's piece.
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.
Further along in the piece, the conversation is recalled by both of these friends.
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."
Despite my vehement opposition to Roe I don't want activism overturning it. I want sound jurisprudence, and she seems to be predisposed to oppose Roe or any other sort of support for abortion. I agree that it's an abhorant procedure, and one that should still be illegal; murder is murder. To get the gist of what Mr. Fund is talking about, I highly recommend you read the whole piece.
If the White House truly pulled this stunt, it should be a clear message to the people that are supporting this nominee to seriously question her. Not over this, but question whether she is as qualified as the president claims she is. The White House is only pulling out all the stops because for reasons they can’t comprehend, the party is not 100% in lock-step behind a decision of the president. And to those supporting this nomination, and demonizing us for this apparent "breach of trust," I’d rather be proven wrong on this nominee than proven right if and when she gets to the bench. If I’m proven right, we get a new O’Connor. If I’m proven wrong, then we may have a new Rehnquist. Regardless, if those that are vehemently for this candidate could put aside the petty name calling (Hugh Hewitt called those opposed to Miers "idiots" Monday of last week during his opening monologue) and actually take a look at some of the antics going on behind the scene, they might question this nominee a bit more than they are.
I’m not saying she’s the worst, but she exhibits the signs of a moderate to me, and to a lot of people. I could care less what the president guarantees to religious leaders. Unless she’s taking her marching orders from the White House, she’ll rule on the law, or we hope she will. I warned about this sort of logic early on in the Miers debate. Activism, ladies and gentlemen, is still activism. I don’t care if it’s conservative or liberal activism. It has no place in the rule of law. If the president has given us a conservative activist, she needs to be voted down. This is not a tit-for-tat play here. The infighting between liberals and conservatives need not be escalated, and if Miers ends up being a conservative activist on the court, the fighting is guaranteed to continue.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 1:26 PM
7 Comments:
well, word came down today that Miers would support a BAN on all abortions unless the pregnancy threatened the mother's life. Let's explore this a sec......ban all abortions....including those women who are impregnated due to molestation or rape..... that really frelling ingenious. And, to beat all, this comes from a woman who probably has never been threatened in her life in a sexual manner. I am no advocate of abortions, but a full ban of that nature is going to threaten more lives when those women go to the back-alleys pre-roe-style and get more frelled up than what is really deemed necessary. Miers is starting to look less like a good choice to someone who really doesn't know all the intricate details involved here.
Nytelz,
Nice try with the "back-alley" abortion argument. However, it doesn't hold water. A Constitutional Amendment wouldn't pass as you need three-fourths of the styates to agree to it. Should Roe be overturned today, I'd wager that about 20-25 states would approve abortion in their states.
The point being made on Miers--the point we have drawn--is that she seems less and less like an originalist, and more like a conservative activist. As Thomas is fond of saying, "Activism is activism; either way, no matter which side of the aisle you're on, it's wrong."
We, here, stand for the proper role of the courts, and that role doesn't include any sort of activism. Miers appears to be one. We're originalists here, and we stand for what the Constitution says and means. We don't read extra garbage into it. To reverse Roe on the grounds one feels that it's wrong is improper; there must be jurisprudence to back up the reversal.
Just because the Court in '73 didn't rely on jurisprudence to enact abortion as the "law of the land" doesn't mean that the Court can act that way now to undo it.
Mistress Pundit
I apparently need to re-read the Constitution because even though the Supreme Court is the overall big cheese in the court system, but if I am not mistaken is that there is a checks and balances system in place and if at any time someone else in the court system or the presidency thought that the Supreme Court was overstepping their boundaries, then they can be overruled. I know that sounds REAL simplistic because our presidents are like absentee landlords, both Bushes included, but if I remember my civics classes from eons ago, that is right. apparently, no one else at that time in the system had a problem yet now all the hippies, yuppies, and older parts gen x are all in an uproar about roe v. wade (you and bunny included). you and bunny are so centered around one decision with miers that you really have no clue what is going to go on with her until she gets before that committee, and at that point only will she burn in flames. If she gets in and influences 4 other justices to re-evalutate that decision, and it does get overturned, God help us all. That is a bigger can of worms that I sure as hell don't want to be in the middle of.
Nytelz,
Obviously, you don't read too well. All of us here are concerned about one thing when it comes to Miers. It's not Roe. It's Miers judicial philosophy. I thought I made that clear in the previous comment.
I could give a rip about Roe, aside from the fact that it was wrongly decided, and there was little jurisprudence to back up the case.
My concern--OUR CONCERN--is whether or not she will faithfully interpret the Constitution. Remember this: The White House and her operatives were the first to bring up Roe.
As to your other point about there being a check against the Supreme Court, or any court, for that matter, there are two.
First, state legislatures and Congress may try to "overturn" the decision by enacting laws, as is being done now in several states over the Kelo decision.
Second, should it be judged that an appointed jurist has "misbehaved" while on the bench, they can be impeached. Can you tell me how many federal judges have ever been impeached? I know how many have, and it's not a great track record. To say it's a rarity is an understatement.
This might be why such an emphasis is placed on federally-appointed jurists being appointed for lifetime tenures.
And you bring up the revisting of Roe, and you're incorrect: It isn't her and four others. There needs only be four total justices. If it's revisited, and it's ruled on through the proper interpretation of the laws, then yes, it will be overturned.
If overturned, it's remanded back to the Texas State Courts, and the states may decide what they want. That's the way the Constitution works. I'm sorry if that little fact annoys you, but it annoys me when the Supreme Court usurps the authority--the Constitutionally-protected authority--of a state to make laws governing it's citizens. Remember that from civics? It's called the Tenth Amendment.
Mistress Pundit
The USSC was involved in a power grab when it decided Roe and the decision was a bad one. Let it go back to the states to decide. Same with Kelo. Nytelz, it isn't nice to make assumptions about people you just met.
pundit,
if you really want to make this personal, and I believe you are by insulting me numberous times in your last bit, I can do that. I'll do my research and get dirty about it. A famous TV show, and I quote,"don't make me angry....you won't like me when I'm angry."
I am just as intelligent as you are just not as embroiled in politics as you are. I was just making a point from an average joe. You want me educated so I can throttle you, play ball.
Nytelz,
I wasn't being insulting. You were making assumptions, and bad ones at that. You accused the people here of basing their opposition to Miers on one little issue--an issue that wasn't even brought up by us. It's been brought up by the white House. It's been brought up by Karl Rove. It's been brought up by a lot of people. This post that you keep floating around was a report from Dr. Dobson. Thomas merely reported what Dobson said, and added a bit of commentary.
That's what we all do.
You seem to be the one stuck on Roe. And Thomas put up a clarification post about this yesterday. He was quite clear about Miers, and why we are opposed to her. It has nothing to do with specific cases. It has everything to do with her philosophy.
Oh, and we don't take kindly to threats, so knock 'em off. If you can't engage in debate civily, then find some other site to roam around on.
Mistress Pundit
Post a Comment
<< Home