I had already come to the conclusion that Miers would more than likely turn out to be no friend of women’s reproductive rights and privacy a few of weeks ago. Given all the blurbs in the MSM and the blogosphere of her donating to anti-choice groups, and some conservative leaders and pundits coming out and saying they “know” what she believes, and are happy with it. But now after she has turned in a candidate questionnaire (from back in 1989, while she was a candidate for Dallas city council) to the Judiciary Committee, I believe my conclusion and serious concerns over the Miers’ nomination have been re-affirmed. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “remember the eighties?” Just one more reason for me to forget them.
WASHINGTON (AP) — 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 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, but unsigned, although the Bush administration affirmed its authenticity.
“The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and only woman on the Judiciary Committee. “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.”[…]
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,” he said. “Your role as a judge is to look at all the facts and look at the law and apply the law to that case.”[…]
And on that little questionnaire, Miers had to answer this interesting yet very disturbing question….
“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 swing vote
[…]The Texans United for Life questionnaire is additional evidence of how Miers feels about abortion, with some of her supporters assuring conservatives that they believe she would overturn the Supreme Court’s landmark Roe v. Wade ruling.
Miers also bought a $150 ticket to a Texans United for Life dinner in 1989 and took a leadership role in trying to get the American Bar Association to reconsider its abortion-rights position in 1993.
No assurances on Roe
Senators say Miers has insisted that she has not given anyone any assurances that she would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the chance.
“She said nobody knows my views on Roe v. Wade. Nobody can speak for me on Roe v. Wade,” said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-New York, on Monday, referring to the case that guaranteed women’s constitutional right to an abortion, setting a legal precedent that abortion foes have been trying to overturn ever since.
In the questionnaire that she turned in the Judiciary Committee, Miers answered “no” to questions asking whether anyone during the nomination process discussed specific cases or legal issues with her to get an assurance on her positions. She also answered “no” to whether she told anyone how she might rule if confirmed.[…]
This questionnaire may have been filled out back in 1989, but this still raises some issues (and worries) concerning the future of Roe and even Griswold once Miers takes O’Connor’s place–the precious “swing-vote” seat. Here’s a copy of the questionnaire from RedState.Org. Perhaps this was an attempt by the Bush White House to soothe some of the concerns of its anti-choice conservative base and it’s leaders. And yet with things like this coming out about Miers’ past anti-choice activism, some anti-choice conservative-wingnut leaders and pundits are still pissed about her nomination. Weird. But maybe some will now be slap-happy about her nomination, while I and others will continue to worry about the future of the SCOTUS, and reproductive rights and privacy. Sigh…
**Responses from pro-reproductive-rights groups: Here’s NARAL Pro-Choice America’s statement, along with Feminist Majority’s, and Planned Parenthood’s on Miers and the 1989 questionnaire.
I find it unconscionable Bush would choose someone with no experience at the bench to serve on SCOTUS, and even more objectionable that he made this choice based on the candidate’s religious affiliation and personal ties to the Oval Office. More appalling still is that many prominent voices in the organized Right are willing to support this boondoggle of a nomination merely because Miers agrees with them on a couple of talking points.
I’m far less concerned about Miers’ personal opposition to abortion – and that includes her 16-year-old answers to a political questionnaire – than I am about her inability to separate individual sentiment from her duties as a jurist. She hasn’t paid her dues, nor has she demonstrated a grasp of the law sufficient to justify her elevation.
People like James Dobson – one of those afore-mentioned voices – are simply unwilling to admit the emperor has no clothes.
I am not a lawyer. However, several very intelligent lawyers I have spoken with seem to fully support abortion, but are opposed to Roe on legal grounds. That is, they simply believe it was a bad ruling. They seemed convincing. Of course, I’m likely easy to convince on the subject since, as I said before, I have no background in law.
Clearly, someone nominated by a Republican candidate could very well be actively opposed to abortion. But I think we do both Miers, and Roberts before her, a grave disservice by assuming that their political affiliation will substantially get in the way of their job.
All that said, I’m utterly unimpressed with Miers on a host of other issues. I wouldn’t be the least bit disappointed to see her go.
http://www.keepyourlawsoffmybody.org/hottopicarticles/12/index.html
I rather liked this bit in particular:
Oh, and I hate to say ‘Told You So,’ but the article also claims that Harry Reid recommended Miers to Bush as a nominee, and we know for a fact that he has publically praised her. So, are we now ready to admit that it’s no mere coinkydink that Reid was elevated to his exalted post in the first place ? Are we now ready to admit that the Democratic leadership is ready, willing, and able to dump Roe for their own fucked-up sense of political expediency ?
Just wondering. >:
The theory is that Reid pulled off a partisan bank-shot: he fooled Bush into nominating someone who would go down in flames and destroy Bush’s political rapport with his base.
Atrios’s reaction to the nomination was that the wingnuts were genuinely upset because they didn’t want a stealth nominee. They wanted an over-the-top wingnut with “I will reverse Roe” tattooed on his forehead and a ticker-tape parade to in-your-face it to the left. And they didn’t get that and they never will.
In fact, I believe Reid was pulling a bank-shot, and that it may work. Miers is drawing fire from both the left and the right. If Dems stick together, a few defectors from the right kill her nomination even on an up-or-down vote.
If Dems stick together…
What’s the old saying ? Ah, yes. “Wish in one hand, shit in the other. See which piles up the fastest.”
He’s a fucking pro-lifer. She’s a fucking pro-lifer. Do the damn math already.
Is there really any doubt that she’ll be confirmed? Seems to me that Miers will be confirmed with, maybe, a little fuss. At least she’s 60.
Yeah, keep voting for the Democrats. To quote my favorite Simpsons episode, “Go ahead. Throoow your vote away! Ha ha ha ha!”
“The answers clearly reflect that Harriet Miers is opposed to Roe v. Wade,” said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat and only woman on the Judiciary Committee. “This raises very serious concerns about her ability to fairly apply the law without bias in this regard.”
Is it to be a standard, then, that nominees to the Supremes must be in agreement with all existing laws and judicial decisions? How about current laws and judicial decisions upholding bans on same-sex marriage? Must nominees be in agreement with those, too? Or only the laws and judicial decisions that certain people favor?
It seems to me that it would be impossible to find any people (never mind lawyers) who would be in agreement with all existing laws and judicial decisions, so it would be impossible to replace any vacancies on the Supremes.
It also seems to me that Sen. Feinstein believes that people are incapable of separating their personal feelings from their professional obligations. Of course, given some recent Supreme Court decisions, I can see why she might think so. Perhaps this is the way that she approaches her job? But in any case it’s not the way that most people do, and certainly not people who have a high degree of proficiency in a profession. She apparently thinks that personal opinions invariably translate to judicial bias. That is an injustice to every judge in this country. If that’s true then there’s no basis to expect that we can ever put together an impartial judicial system and have a rule of law instead of people.
Legalized abortion is an issue that very few people are ambivalent about. It’s ingenuous at best to figure that a President who opposes it will appoint people who favor it to the Supreme Court. It’s quite unlikely to find anyone who’s neutral on it. And it’s harmful to expect that anyone who might be qualified to be on the Supreme Court should never express a public opinion on that topic or any other.
Monkey Testicle writes:
I find it unconscionable Bush would choose someone with no experience at the bench to serve on SCOTUS
Why? She would be about the 40th justice to serve with no judicial experience, including the late Chief Justice.
and even more objectionable that he made this choice based on the candidate’s religious affiliation
I had not known that the President had mentioned that this was one of the criteria. It does not seem to have been an issue in his previous appointment. What evidence do you have to back up this assertion?
and personal ties to the Oval Office.
This, OTOH, does seem fairly apparent. Mark me down as not particularly pleased about it either.
More appalling still is that many prominent voices in the organized Right are willing to support this boondoggle of a nomination merely because Miers agrees with them on a couple of talking points.
Fair enough as well, although there are equally prominent conservative voices who have opposed her. Too many people support Bush because he’s a Republican than because they think he’s correct. I am certainly not one of them. This nomination could definitely blow up.
I’m far less concerned about Miers’ personal opposition to abortion – and that includes her 16-year-old answers to a political questionnaire – than I am about her inability to separate individual sentiment from her duties as a jurist.
Given that she’s never served as a judge, how on earth can you assert that she has an inability to separate her personal opinion from her judicial duties? Are you making an assumption based on a belief that her opinions don’t agree with yours?
She hasn’t paid her dues
As I stated, plenty of Supremes have never served as a justice. This doesn’t seem to be a requirement.
nor has she demonstrated a grasp of the law sufficient to justify her elevation.
Given her legal career so far, she must know something of the law. Whether or not it’s sufficient to serve as a Justice will hopefully be illumed by her confirmation hearings. I think we have to mark this question down as currently undecided.
RonF, when conservatives criticized Miers for not being conservative enough, Bush said:
(That’s from CNN)
In addition to that, the White House organized a conference call in which Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht (apparently Miers’ sometime boyfriend) and another judge reassured Rev. Donald Wildmon and other conservatives both that Miers was personally deeply religious (Hecht got her to convert from Catholic to Evangelical in 1979) and committed to reversing Roe v. Wade. Miers has since denied that Hecht or anyone else knows her view on Roe.
In my view, the White House clearly either 1) used her religion as a criteria for selection; or 2) is using it as a dog-whistle to tell the far right that she’s guaranteed to vote to overturn Roe without making it so clear that it jeopardizes her confirmation.
As to her qualifications, even David Brooks and Robert Bork have said that her writing from her tenure on the Texas Bar Association shows that she lacks the talent to do the job. The function of the Supreme Court is to hand down opinions on the law that shape and guide the development of law and provide direction. Her writing is a muddled collection of platitudes — and that’s not just my view. That’s what conservatives say, too.
Finally, I’m not impressed with her career as a lawyer. Bar associations are meaningless. Managing partners are those whose practices allow them to take the most time away from practicing law to be administrators. I’ll tell you what — when she was in private practice, what area of the law was she one of the top ten lawyers in the nation in? Sure, you don’t know off the top of your head, but isn’t it easy to find her on someone’s top-ten list? National Law Journal? AmLaw? Someone …? (Thank you for playing.)
(Pause while I dump a tiny truckload of cynicism.) I think Miers was nominated because Bush had three main criteria (well, four, if you include gender), and she was the first one as he went down the list who agreed to let her name put in. IMO, Bush wanted a woman who had a squeaky clean past and personal life, someone who was deeply religious, and someone who was or was willing to be loyal to him, and I think the top ones on the list declined to be put through the wringer.
I think I heard a commentator say recently that the sad part about modern public service that the really good candidates rarely want to serve because they know lots of really private stuff will get shown on TV for the world to see. (Of course, this happens even if you happen to be the victim of a really spectacular crime or disaster, so I guess no one can expect a modicum of privacy any more.)
I had not known that the President had mentioned that this was one of the criteria. It does not seem to have been an issue in his previous appointment. What evidence do you have to back up this assertion?
The claim religion played a part in Miers’ SCOTUS nomination spread through the major news sources like a wildfire about a week ago. As Thomas pointed out, this furor was caused by a Bush quote immortalized here, among other places: http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6JRJ07.html
Given that she’s never served as a judge, how on earth can you assert that she has an inability to separate her personal opinion from her judicial duties? Are you making an assumption based on a belief that her opinions don’t agree with yours?
I worded that poorly. My concern in precisely that we don’t know if she can make such a separation, because she doesn’t have any bench experience. Since I’m personally pro-life, her opinion on this one issue does agree with mine – except that, for a variety of reasons, I’m also anti-criminalization.
Given her legal career so far, she must know something of the law. Whether or not it’s sufficient to serve as a Justice will hopefully be illumed by her confirmation hearings. I think we have to mark this question down as currently undecided.
I’m certain she, like any lawyer who has risen to her level of prominence, knows a great deal about her area of the law. It doesn’t follow that she knows enough to warrant an appointment on the Supreme Court.
Ron, I think one item in particular from the questionnaire casts doubt on Meier’s objectivity (as opposed to bias) here:
Now, this wasn’t in response to questions about how she would judge law, and in the last sixteen years she may have changed her mind. But the problem here isn’t just that she’s biased, but that she would be willing to apply that bias in situations where it shouldn’t be.
P.S. that’s a really neat preview feature!
Hm. I asked for evidence that her religion was used as a criteria for her nomination, and you folks have supplied it. Fair enough. Although the question of whether the criteria was because of the philosophical base it gives her or whether it made her useful as a “dog whistle” is a good one.
Her statement about using views on abortion as a criterion for appointment to city health positions is disturbing. But, as you say, there’s a difference between exercising executive power and exercising judicial power. We’ll have to see what she has to say about that – I’d expect she’ll be asked.
I figured that she’d be a good lawyer not on the basis of her bar association links, but because she ended up as the President’s lawyer. Regardless of what you think of the holder of that office at any one time, you’d think that the President of the United States would have a top legal talent as his or her lawyer. But then President Bush hasn’t impressed me with his overall selections for various positions, so maybe I’m wrong.
I have no problem with Bush selecting someone who has views congruent with his own for the Supremes, as long as they judge according to the law. I think we need a lot less of the Supremes injecting their personal views into their jobs. Despite their titles, their job is to interpret the law, not to dispense justice. But you do need someone who can do that, who has a solid grasp of Constitutional law, and who can communicate that to their fellow justices. If she can’t do that, she shouldn’t be confirmed.
I think I heard a commentator say recently that the sad part about modern public service that the really good candidates rarely want to serve because they know lots of really private stuff will get shown on TV for the world to see.
True, and sad, and a blow to democracy. You don’t have to be a deviant or a criminal to not want to have your private life and your family served up for the entertainment of the masses. I suspect that this keeps many good people out of public service, and I also suspect that it increases the number who are so ego-ridden that they figure that whatever they do doesn’t matter.
Is it possible that she supports a constitutional amendment banning abortion, because she thinks banning abortion requires a constitutional amendment? If so, you guys probably want her on the court, as opposed to whoever Bush would pick next.
As to judicial experience, she clerked in federal court for two years. Given her work ethic, look at the opinions of that court at that time – it’s probably largely her writing.
Sure Bork wants her to not be confirmed, so that people will start saying Miered instead of Borked.
Quick question:
Was her vote on the Dallas City Council to ban flag-burning, before or after the Supreme Court decided (Johnson?) flag-burning laws were unconstitutional? If after, that would bother me, that a public offical who had sworn to uphold the constitution would violate that oath. Of course that won’t bve an obstacle for the Senate, since they all do that routinely.