Would Miers have Voted to Overturn Roe?

CouNTeRPuNcH

[rdb3]

And if his first name is Pine, probably not.

I see we're both quick to turn a phrase today. Roger that!

If you want a Google GMail account, FReepmail me.

[jwalsh07]

He will not nominate Gonzales. If "executive privilege" over documents was a problem with Miers, it will be a problem-squared with Gonzales.

That's right Gonzales is out. The politics of the situation however demands another woman. Which might be a very good thing. I want a conservative originalist on the court and I want one of the fairer sex. Edith Jones or Janice Rogers Brown will do quite nicely.

Moreover, the resistance met by Bush on Harriet Miers by the senate should lead him to conclude that the republican senators have been grown a pair.

That may or may not be true but nobody could blame Bush for assuming they have. Personally I have my doubts but what the hey, nothing ventured nothing gained.

[det dweller too]

Your post is well researched, carefully presented, throughly documented, and about as useful as yesterdays toiletpaper.

She is history!

[timydnuc]

Roe v. Wade...let's not be a one trick pony here people. I want a strict constitutionalist. The abortion issue, even if struck down federally, could be approved by the individual states. I really get tired of our side v. their side on one single issue. While we worry about Roe here came McCain/Finegold, and the emminent domain case. We have better things to do than get all hot and bothered about ONE thing. We should keep our eye on the prize, a strict constitutionalist that would assure our liberty.

[ex-snook]

Miers never heard of Roe. Only Democrats have heard of Roe.

[silent_jonny]

What's the point?

[fox0566]

I am 39 years old, never married, no children and am saving myself for my husband when I eventually do marry one day. I am 100% pro-life and would overturn Roe V. Wade in a hot second if given a chance. Heck, there are plenty of pro-abortion women out there who have children. That being said, I had plenty of reservations about Miers, but her not having children was not one of my concerns.

[FreeRep]

Would Miers have Voted to Overturn Roe? YES

I agree, believe me, I think that Miers would have been the only evangelical on the court. I've been supportive of the Miers nomination because I support President Bush in this time of war and I think it's time for a prolife conservative evangelical on the Supreme Court. However, I was very concern about what she said about abortion in the 1993 speech, and if it were so, it was a grievous fault, and I will not support someone who is pro-choice or pro-abortion.
Some good conservative societies, they are all honorable groups, they consciously or unconsciously oppose her because they don't trust her being an evangelical. And they are great conservative people, so it is now important to note the relative proportion of membership in various religious group these conservative societies are and who is their choice. One religious conservative group or men can not be overly proportion on the court. I support President Bush and think he is great! President Bush cares and has done so much for us.

[Racehorse]

Hey, people are still discussing Bork's view of the 2nd amendment and such.
It is not moot when you consider this is something we cannot allow our selves to get deceived on with the next pick.

Early withdrawal anxiety?  :-)

[counterpunch]

I think it's time for a prolife conservative evangelical on the Supreme Court.
[...]
they consciously or unconsciously oppose her because they don't trust her being an evangelical.

Maybe people distrust an evangelical on the Court for the same reason you want one -- because they fear, just as you hope, that her religion would have shaded her view of the law.

 

[Brilliant]

It's a moot issue.

[Torie]

The reliance prong is particularly weak. I don't know how relationships have been fashioned differently because state limitations on abortion are unconstitutional. Unworkable means more than it can't be applied or enforced. It also means that the decision has been divisive and is not accepted by large parts of the public square, and has poisoned the public square. Finally, you ignore as new developments, the development in the understanding of the fetus and the development in medical technology, and the development that it has been discovered that Roe was grounded about fraudulent facts fraudulently manufactured in a conspiracy to defraud the court.

And then you ignored the 4th factor, that constitutional interpretations deserve less deference than statutory ones, because nobody but SCOTUS or a constitutional amendment can clean up SCOTUS's own mess.

Back to the drawing board.

[JohnnyZ]

It's also beside the point. Miers is gone. Now you're just showing off.

Poor Sinky.

Have a kleenex.

Hopefully the next nominee won't be another turkey.

[sinkspur]

Johnny, please stop posting to me. I'm sick to death of your juvenile nonsense.

Are you still in high school?

[Edit35]

I think she would have voted to maintain Roe v Wade.

[JohnnyZ]

Johnny, please stop posting to me. I'm sick to death of your juvenile nonsense.

That's funny. You never had a problem posting to me when you were gloating about how Miers was going to be confirmed, when you were supporting heretic Catholics, when .....

Poor baby, dry your tears and get over it. I'm sure there will be some liberal victories for you to gloat over in due time.

[Stellar Dendrite]

lol!!!!!

[alnick]

The obvious answer to the question posed is: WE'LL NEVER KNOW.