<-------- Visit Stingray blogsite for conservative Christian commentary
Posted on 10/03/2005 8:00:28 AM PDT by pkajj
There's not a lot out there in the major news services, but three clues do exist:
1. In a Feb. 2, 2002 AP Article, Harriet Myers, as an ABA panelist, was asked if a potential Supreme Court justice should be asked how he or she would vote in abortion-related cases. She responded "Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it.."
2. In an August 12, 1992 article from the Wall Street Journal, it was reported that the ABA policy-making body had taken a pro-abortion rights position (by a 276 - 168 vote). Harriet Miers argued against the pro-abortion endorsement, and instead supported a resolution that would require the full memebership of the ABA to be polled before the ABA could go on record supporting either side of the issue.
3. In a July 24, 2002 article from the Austin American Statesman, Harriet Myers was a reported to be a prominent supporter of Priscilla Owen (pro-life), and was in attendance at the contentious hearings where Democrats subjected Owen to their predictable grilling.
Funny, my copy of the Constitution doesn't appear to say any such thing. I gotta get a more modern version, I guess.
"Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it.."
That would be a great response for Sweaty Teddy and his fellow senators as well. I am not up on what is allowed in those hearings, what is allowed to be asked etc, but who else would pay to see that response?
So you are saying that constitutionally, a judicial nominee is supposed to lock him/herself into a ruling before being presented with a case on the court?
It's called an "impartial judiciary".
Try reading this from polipundit
http://polipundit.com/wp-comments-popup.php?p=10264&c=1#comments
isn't this the same kind of spurious tea leaf reading that led to Souter being nominated
I would argue that clearly stating your principles is not the same as locking one's self into a ruling.
No. Miers is not a Souter
"Harriet Miers isn't a Justice Souter pick, so don't be silly. It is a solid, B+ pick. The first President Bush didn't know David Souter, but trusted Chief of Staff Sunnunu and Senator Rudman. The first President Bush got burned badly because he trusted the enthusiams of others.
The second President Bush knows Harriet Miers, and knows her well. The White House Counsel is an unknown to most SCOTUS observors, but not to the president, who has seen her at work for great lengths of years and in very different situations, including as an advisor in wartime. Leonard Leo is very happy with the choice, which ought to be enough for most Conservatives"
Hugh Hewitt
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1495695/posts
Souter's nomination arose from H.W. Bush accepting the enthusiasm of others for a person he had no knowledge of.
This Bush at least knows exactly who he's nominating.
One difference, W. has worked CLOSELY with this person for YEARS. He must believe he knows her heart and mind pretty well.
Not very good hints, if you ask me. The second one may be the most compelling since she wasn't representing the President at that time, but even that one's pretty shallow when you consider that the ABA membership is very pro-abortion. She wanted six of one instead of a half dozen.
Thank you for providing actual information for debate.
It's a thin reed.
Does anyone have info as to whether she attends the cocktail party circuit in DC?
<-------- Visit Stingray blogsite for conservative Christian commentary
(She)was asked if a potential Supreme Court justice should be asked how he or she would vote in abortion-related cases. She responded "Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it.."
She was commenting on if a candidate should be allowed to be asked on how one would VOTE on an abortion related case. That is not principle, that is voting on a potential case.
Please do try to spell the nominee's name correctly, OK. I'm sure it was spelled correctly in the stories you paraphrased.
If he wants an all-out fight, Mr Bush could name Edith Jones, Michael McConnell or Priscilla Owen, all pro-life judges. Another name in the mix is Harriet Miers, Mr Bush’s White House counsel. She has never been a judge but is also firmly anti-abortion.
I have no idea what this is based on and I still don't like the pick.
Being a strict constructionist of the Constitution does not mean you must ignore the essential concepts and philosophies that give rise to its words.
It would violate the separation of powers doctrine for a Supreme Court nominee to pledge that he or she would rule a certain way on a certain issue. The pro-abortionists are way out of line when they insist that a nominee state his or her position on "reproductive rights." It would be equally wrong for the President to exact any pledge on that point, although obviously he is free to appoint someone whom he knows to be anti-abortion if he wants to do that.
It is in the same clause on the right to privacy for killing unborn children. You just did not know where to look. S\
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.