Miers Gains My Qualified Support
Look, the speculation about Miers does not enlighten. There is simply no way to ascertain how she’ll rule from the bench. My political instincts indicate Bush is sending a very clear message to conservatives, that on their principal issue - abortion - she’ll take the first real opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade.
But that does not mean the first time an abortion issue reaches the docket. The Supremes rarely lead the country to fresh positions. But should support for abortion nationally decline to near 50%, Miers - and Roberts - will use that opening to eliminate legal abortion.
While I consider abortion a women’s rights issue that should be preserved for the health and safety of people already fully cognizant, I maintain that it’s optimal use should be rare. Towards that end, I think it incumbent that the dissemination of accurate health and reproductive information must be advanced, as well as access to contraceptive info and devices.
Maintaining that and keeping the public educated honestly about abortion will be our ongoing task. In doing so, we can expect support for women’s rights to continue on this issue, to a sufficient degree that the Supremes will not dare reverse without fear of popular rebellion.
On the other issue dear to conservative hearts - gay rights - I anticipate Miers will neither advance nor diminish them. So gays in the military will only gain protection when the military grants it and gay marriage only when a sizeable majority supports it.
But again, my instincts remain just another form of speculation. There is no correct way to judge how this nominee or any nominee will vote.
Thus, my criteria is to pursue a court more representative of the American populace, which means 4 or 5 justices should be women, with minority representation present as well.
Based on all that, my inclination - unless fresh info* changes it - is to support the Miers nomination. As a woman, and a single woman, she can add a badly underrepresented perspective to a court that remains white male dominant.
She is not the best choice, but she is an acceptable one.
(* Fresh info like this and this, which deserves a thorough investigation).
October 5th, 2005 at 6:40 am
Kevin, I cannot address this giant furball here at the moment. But there is a huge, surprisingly anti-Miers discussion over at MyDD, in which I have been involved.
Miers definitely appears to have helped Bush stay out of Vietnam. (As I pointed out here before.)
Among the more salient MyDD threads is this one.
October 5th, 2005 at 7:12 am
Let’s ask ourselves one simple question, Kevin. If we were Senators, would we ask Miers if, since she has been one of Bush’s closest lawyers since he missed out on his trip to Vietnam, she would be willing to testify in the event that RICO charges, or any other charges, are eventually brought against people in the White House? Even if she was a Supreme Court panelist?
Note that, as Bush’s lawyer, she could claim the right to attorney-client privilege. But not, but not if she herself was a co-conspirator.
Would we ask her that question?
October 5th, 2005 at 7:38 am
Some may say “if she was a co-conspirator , she could take the 5th.” Well, but she can aways be granted immunity if she makes a deal.
Would she take the 5th?
Would she make a deal?
Would we ask her those things, Senator?
October 5th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Let them make abortion illegal. We’ll see a replay of prohibition, with the equivilant of the speakeasy blooming everywhere. The Feds will have to arrest thousands, doctors and patients will be shamed, fined and sometimes jailed. The ensuing revolt will cost Republicans offices as voters in Blue states (and even some Red) elect ever more progressives committed to enacting laws allowing the procedure. Gay rights and public education (evolution/creationism/ID) will go through much the same convulsions, with states forced to protect their citizens with laws forced on them by doing battle with the oppressive jackboots in D.C. One day the Balkinization will be complete, with Blue states bastions of sanity and progressivity and Red states havens to theocratic, anti-intellectual populaces mostly resembling the porch scene from “Deliverance”.
October 5th, 2005 at 11:49 am
Sorry, Kevin, I disagree. This is another crony who believes she is doing god’s work by keeping this President out of court. Brought up a Catholic, she converted as an adult to her E. christianity, both churches that hold conception as the start of human life and abortion as murder. At first I would have been easily convinced that she converted in Texas for much the same reasons businesses give money to Republicans and Democrats, to cover all bases and to be kept in the room (Texas and SMU tending to the evangelical). But to listen to friends of Ms. Meirs, that is beside the point.
As far as Roe v Wade, that specific case (being male) doesn’t directly affect me…except that if overturned, it takes away the right of privacy to my own body, a right I want to see broadened so that if I choose to I can smoke anything, drink anything, have anything I want taken from or installed into my body. I even want the right to end my life. I don’t want the government prescribing or proscribing anything for my body.
She is also someone who will be taking a Scalia/Cheney hunting trip as soon as they go again (although she won’t have a gun, but will be cleaning and cooking the kill for the boys).
If you examine her boyfriend’s ethics, if she follows his lead, you better get your checkbook out if you are going to have a case before the supremes….
I don’t like the fact that she is a crony, I don’t like that she doesn’t think a person has a right to their own body, I don’t like that she has never married and has no children, I don’t like that she is the 6th supreme brought up Catholic, I don’t like the ethics of her friends, I don’t think she should be confirmed….
October 5th, 2005 at 2:47 pm
Don’t rush to judgment! We know nothing about this woman–that’s why there’s a confirmation process. She may be good, she may be bad, but no one has any idea. We need a lot more info first.
October 5th, 2005 at 4:11 pm
Please note that I made my support ‘qualified’ based on all that remains to be researched. As Blues (and Hesiod, in the next post) note, there remains a potential for recusal on matters related to Bush and cronies.
Yet I don’t think her loyalty is to the cronies. And I seriously doubt Bush will be indicted for anything. So my conditional support rests on the belief that Bush could have chosen far, far worse and none of his choices would kindle enthusiasm in me.
I don’t find any reason to worry that her unmarried or childless status will impact anything in her judicial outlook, beyond what I previously stated.
Our task remains keeping up public support for all the rights of women, not to rely on obstructionism when elimination of ignorance can do the job.
October 6th, 2005 at 10:19 am
Well, in my mind issues are secondary to the normalization of criminality in the top levels of the US government–including the Supreme Court–and its impact on our society. Given Miers’ documented participation in money-laundering and fraud, I think this–rather than ideology–should be our focus.
October 6th, 2005 at 2:35 pm
Oh, please! Even the idea of debating on the merits of Harriet Miers is just plain wrong. Bush can’t seem to nominate anyone qualified or anyone not a crony.
Her positions on anything are completely irrelevant. She could be an advocate for gay marriage and universal health care and she’d still not be qualified for the position.
Harriet Miers views are irrelevant