The Miers nomination continues to unravel as the buzz grows about a speech she gave to the Executive Women of Dallas in 1993. There are several criticisms, both of the substance and the form.
1. The grammar and writing are awful. They are worse than her questionaire responses. Captain Ed has the examples and they alone bolster the argument that she is simply does not have the attention to detail (or maybe the intellect?) to be sit on the SCOTUS.
2. The substance on abortion is concerning. Again, Ed:
She doesn’t seem to share much of Bush’s political views at this time, which belies the notion that she represents some rock, impervious to prevailing winds. For instance, on abortion, we get this declaration:
“The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual woman’s right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion.”
Does that sound to anyone like someone committed to opposing abortion, or even allowing the issues to be decided by the legislatures?
And to that, Patterico, from his ledge, quoting from the WaPo, adds:
Those seeking to resolve such disputes would do well to remember that “we gave up” a long time ago on “legislating religion or morality,” she said. And “when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act.”
Does she still sound like a stealth anti-Roe candidate to you??
On her comments racial issues or property rights, Ed opines:
She gets even more incoherent on racial issues, declaring that “[t]here is no question that Dallas is basically a segregated city and that there is a great need for the development of housing around the city where amenities exist. However, the placement of low income housing around the city is very difficult.” In other words, she wanted to have government force desegregation through confiscation — think Kelo — and the building of low-income housing. She never questions that government should force a solution on people through public takings; she merely questions whether that should be done by the legislature or the courts, but sounds as if she’s prepared to have either one do it.
And on Judicial Activism, Patterico:
She also had an interesting view on judicial activism — i.e., sometimes we need it:
“My basic message here is that when you hear the courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong, stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue,” she said.
Read the whole thing, and weep.
Is Paul Deignan right after all?
Even Hugh thinks the speech was lousy, but cautions:
Is change possible over a dozen years, five of which are spent in a White House at war? Does Miers deserve a hearing? Are you open to being persuaded? What are the minimum qualifications for a SCOTUS nominee? Does a dashed off speech from a dozen years and a different life ago provide a sound basis for judging Harriet Miers?
Kathryn Jean Lopez over at Bench Memos received an email that makes a really interesting observation:
appears to be responding to RECENT cases that her audience would have known. That means she was talking about Casey (1992) (reaffirming Roe) and Lee v. Weisman (1992) (striking down graduation prayer), and trying to put them in an understandable intellectual context. When you read the article with this in mind, it becomes painfully obvious that she’s offering an intellectual justification for the outcomes in those cases — both of which are anathema to conservatives.
NZ continues to track blog positions. Concerned Women for America have also now called for the nomination to be withdrawn, and has a blistering critique of the speech.
Others continue to come off the fence and voice opposition to Miers, including Ed Whelan (a former Scalia law clerk and the head of the Ethics and Public Policy Center) and Pejman Yousefzadeh. (Via Prof B and Matt Franck). Tapscott today voices his opposition for what I believe is the first time.
Tim posting at ProLifeBlogs has quotes from major conservative organizations reacting to the speech. These include Operation Rescue, the Liberty Council and the Family Research Council, in addition to CWA which we mentioned above.
Frum also adds:
This sounds very much like the reasoning that led Anthony Kennedy to reaffirm the Roe v. Wade precedent in his decision in Casey v. Planned Parenthood the previous year, 1992:
And Paul Mirengoff points out:
This is not the speech of a centrist (the worst case plausible scenario, I thought); it’s the speech of a liberal. The behavior of liberal Senate Democrats over recent years relieves conservative Republican Senators of any obligation to vote for the confirmation of nominees who take positions like the ones Miers sets forth in this speech.
BlogsForBush writer Matt notes NARAL’s response.
In the context of the abortion debate, “self-determination” sounds like a more technical term for “choice.” Evidently, so does Kate Michelman, former president of the pro-abortion group NARAL. “If you take what she said at face value, you would conclude that she recognizes the right of a woman to choose an abortion as a matter of self-determination.” Let me say I hardly find this comforting.
And Paul Diegnan adds, The jig is up, though Carol over at ConfirmThem is not quite so adamant.
John Fund, via Frum, wonders if she really was a last option desparate affirmative action pick.
Given Mr. Bush’s idée fixe that the nominee had to be a woman, it’s possible the White House allowed itself to be pushed into a corner in which Ms. Miers was literally the only female left.
MSNBC has picked up the story also, and has this to say:
In the speech, Miers also said, “Abortion clinic protestors have become synonymous with terrorists and the courts have been the refuge for the besieged.”
It isn’t clear from the text of the speech whether Miers herself thought anti-abortion clinic protestors were “synonymous with terrorists.”
Michelle reminds us about BetterJustice.com and WithdrawMiers.org
Ruminate This thinks that Harry Reid is the big winner here.
The only obvious conclusion is that Reid is simply doing this on purpose, giving hopeful signs of approval to Miers’ nomination and then scampering off to his office bathroom to laugh his guts out, knowing that his bland friendly statements are contributing to the increasing panic amongst Gee Dub’s core supporters. Reid is doing this on purpose just to stir up the Republican troops…
…that’s mean.
…and it’s hilarious…
Baseball Crank has 22 questions for Hugh Hewitt. Decision ‘08 is not happy about the infighting, but is missing the big picture. It’s not about keeping RINOs in power (after all, where has that gotten us), it’s about conservative principles and appropriate judicial humility on the Supreme Court. It’s bigger than the 2006 elections. ITA has more on this whole “protect the party” line.
Hewitt thinks that failing to back the president on Miers will hurt congressional Republicans next year and the party in 2008. I think the opposite is more plausible, and that Republicans in the legislature will increasingly try to distance themselves from a White House that is not tremendously popular, with even its base showing diminishing enthusiasm.
As I mentioned in my earlier post, Hewitt thinks the Republican Party is the proper subject of analysis. But electorally, the Republican Party doesn’t exist.
Instead, there are hundreds of Republican candidates who have to win election on their own (as opposed to the party-list of other democracies, like Italy and Israel, or the party-centric elections of the Westminster model). And given the choice between jeopardizing their own jobs or breaking with the president, I can’t think of any senators who would not choose the latter unless the president was acting out of some deeply-held principle the senator happened to share.
Linking/Trackbacks: OTB Traffic Jam, Stop the ACLU, TMH
You'll love Woods' Edge at Salt Creek Golf Retreat, Brown County, Indiana.
