Posted on 10/06/2005 11:59:06 PM PDT by Mighty_Quinn
In an initial chat with Miers, according to several people with knowledge of the exchange, Leahy asked her to name her favorite Supreme Court justices. Miers responded with "Warren" -- which led Leahy to ask her whether she meant former Chief Justice Earl Warren, a liberal icon, or former Chief Justice Warren Burger, a conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade . Miers said she meant Warren Burger, the sources said.
A Republican member of the committee, Lindsey O. Graham (S.C.), said after meeting with Miers: "I think the hearings matter in her case probably more than others."
Graham said Miers's challenge will be to "create a comfort level" with conservatives that she shares their strict-constructionist approach to interpreting the Constitution, while convincing the public that she is not biased by her evangelical Christian faith and is qualified for the lifetime post, despite her lack of judicial experience.
Graham said he was "very impressed" by Miers and said the two had discussed her work history and how she had dealt with various types of conflict throughout her career. He described her as a "consensus builder" and a "task-oriented" person.
Brownback said his biggest concern is not knowing where she stands on "key issues of the day," such as abortion, same-sex marriage and property rights. He said that during the meeting, he brought up the Roe v. Wade decision on abortion in the context of another case, and said Miers "did not and would not" articulate a position -- presumably, the senator said, because Roe remains a "live issue" before the court.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You're assuming he has one.
Let's see, an anonymous source, the Washington Post...somebody's being played like a fiddle, and it's not Harriet Miers. I can't believe anyone would base a judgement on what tha WaPo said, especially since their source cited was "nameless."
Let the woman answer for herself at the hearings, on TV, in front of the nation. Don't second guess her based on an anonymous source as reported in the WaPo...it's about as realiable as Dan Rather's anonymous source.
No, we don't, but if it was what you suggested, then that would be downright ditzy of her to answer for that reason. What I find surprising is that she evidently didn't give it more thought, because SC nominees are always asked that question.
And since there's a good chance this "leak" came from you-know-who's staff, I don't think it's wrist slitting time.
Fine, if it's not true, then I'm sure Miers will see to it that the record is corrected in short order.
Who'll volunteer to hold her breath?
In 1991, former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger referred to the Second Amendment as "the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word ‘fraud,' on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime...[the NRA] ha(s) misled the American people and they, I regret to say, they have had far too much influence on the Congress of the United States than as a citizen I would like to see - and I am a gun man." Burger also wrote, "The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon...[S]urely the Second Amendment does not remotely guarantee every person the constitutional right to have a ‘Saturday Night Special' or a machine gun without any regulation whatever. There is no support in the Constitution for the argument that federal and state governments are powerless to regulate the purchase of such firearms..."
Yup, you're right. Dunno what I was thinking! (There's a lot of that going around these days..)
Ouch..
Like I said, we really don't know the CONTEXT, do we?
For all we know, he said, "How many have you met and which one did you like the best?"
Leahy for asking it. (if in fact he did)
Yup. I got that far and "skip-read" the rest. Earlier today a freeper (CongressmanBillyBob, I think) refered to it as "pigpen" journalism. It sure fits.
Yeah. Warren Burger was also the great legal mind who argued that the word "all" in the Sixth Amendment doesn't really mean "all". Personally, I don't know any other way to interpret, "in all criminal prosecutions" than to conclude that it damn well means *all* criminal prosecutions, but Burger somehow managed to justify his ruling that *not* all criminal prosecutions need to be tried by a jury, even though the Sixth Amendment says they must be.
Piece of cake.
LOL
If she doesn't, she's a poor ignorant fool.
Well, Warren Burger is one of my least favorite justices in any case, so you hardly need to persuade me! I would've thought her answer pretty awful even if I did think it was well-considered.
I prefer Frankfurter to Burger....
(Not necessarily, but it was fun to say.)
It's sheer puffery for him to define "Mier's challenge".
He should stick to spit-shining McCain's shoes. . .without using his hands.
Did the anonymous sources elaborate on what it was that made her favorite her favorite? Voting record? Work ethic/style? Judicial philosophy?
I think it's clearly Miers for tanking on it. Seems a quite respectable question to ask a potential Supreme Court justice, and I'd expect all of them would have an answer.
Ditto on that. It's probably Burger's single most famous vote.
My are we trusting of the WaPo and it's anonymous sources are we?
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.