harriet miers

[photosynthesis]

So President Bush just nominated a new Supreme Court justice to fill Sandra Day O'Conner's seat. What's the deal? is she pro-life? pro-choice?

[zwergel88]

I have no idea if she is pro-life or not. The fact that she was appointed by you know who makes me think that I will probably disagree with her on pretty much everything because thats the way it ususally goes.

[Cow of Shame]

the fact that she's never been a judge worries me

[Theoketos]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 4 2005, 11:32 PM']the fact that she's never been a judge worries me
[right][snapback]746520[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

...

[photosynthesis]

I hope she's pro-life.

[popestpiusx]

I don't care that she was never a judge, except for the fact that we now have no idea what to expect. I'm witholding judgment for now.

[dspen2005]

[quote name='Cow of Shame' date='Oct 5 2005, 12:32 AM']the fact that she's never been a judge worries me
[right][snapback]746520[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

nominees for a the SC who haven't been judges is not new... Rhenquist was never a judge prior to his term on the court. I do think bush could have chosen a better candidate -- Priscilla Owens, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Williams (I think that's her name)

[jasJis]

Bush picked someone who is pro-life and he has known for more than 20 years so he would be sure of her stances and opinion. She is pro-life and a strict constructionalist interpreter of the Constitution. She is what we want, but Bush has to sell what he knows about her to us. Listening to TV and talk radio, those who know her well, have glowing reports about her. I think she is one of the best picks Bush could make. "Not knowing much about her" is a fantastic strategy to not give ammo to the Dems who would attack with anything. (ie, John Roberts being from the South, adopting a "foreign" kid, etc.) You don't think Bush's opposition has made files to attack people that Bush may likely nominate? Bush refuses to be a lame duck President for his entire 2nd term. Save the fights and ramming things through the oppostion for the last year. He's got 3 more to go.

Edited October 5, 2005 by jasJis

[Cam42]

jas,

Can you show me a link where it says that she is pro-life? I have been looking all over the place for hard proof of this and have not been able to find any.

I would appreciate it and I am sure that others here would as well.

Thanks.

[jasJis]

It was on Rush Limbaugh and the Schnitt show. They were interviewing people on air and both had people who said she was anti-abortion (and an evangelical Christian). Also, while as President for the Texas Bar, she attempted to have the ABA (American Bar Association) rescind it's policy statement of being pro-abortion since it's not the universal opinion of all lawyers. She failed in her attempt.

It was in Johnsonville brat Cheney's interview that it was said that she was during her major work in checking out the possible nominees that Bush (who has known her for more than 20 years) chose her because he knew her so well and the discussions/answers she had in discussion w/ the Pres regarding the other candidates. I also think that Bush will have a 3rd opportunity to appoint to the SC latter in his term. Depending on whether the Dems show their azz with Miers (as they did with Roberts) Bush would have a convincing arguemnt to appoint while Congress is in Recess and pick one of the 'known' names.

[Lounge Daddy]

check Matt Drudge for the good stuff:
[url="http://www.drudgereport.com/"]DrudgeReport.com[/url]

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote] Decade-old writings, a 1989 campaign questionnaire _ even a ticket purchase from years past _ are getting closer scrutiny as Republicans and Democrats furiously try to figure out where President Bush's choice stands on the most contentious issues.

Miers' tenure as White House counsel, corporate lawyer and Dallas city council member provide several clues. The question is whether years- old material still reflects her views and could serve as an accurate guide to how she might decide constitutional matters.

"I don't know where her life journey has taken her since 1989," said Louise Young, a founding member of the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas. "She never did anything anti-gay. But you never know where people go in the political spectrum over the years."

Miers filled out a survey from the group in her successful campaign for the city council in which she favored equal civil rights for gays and said the city had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services. She opposed repeal of the Texas sodomy statute _ a law later overturned by the court on which she will sit if confirmed.

A decade before the 2001 terrorist attacks, Miers defended constitutional freedoms in a time of danger, with words that would hearten two groups of activists in the post-Sept. 11 world of added police powers _ civil libertarians and the gun lobby.

"The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts," she wrote in Texas Lawyer when she was president of the state bar. "Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble ... access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance.

"We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs." [/quote]

[quote] In an interview with The Washington Post, Hecht recalled Miers emerging from a lecture at the church in the 1980s and saying, "I'm convinced that life begins at conception."

[b]Miers bought a $150 ticket to a Texas anti-abortion group's fundraising dinner in 1989, the year she won a term on the Dallas city council, the group's president said. Kyleen Wright of the Texans for Life Coalition, then called Texans United for Life, said the dinner drew about 30 other officeholders or candidates as "bronze patrons," the lowest level of financial support.

"One would have to assume she is at least moderately pro-life, but how far that commitment goes, I really don't know," Wright said. "No one I know in the pro-life or pro-family movement knows her, locally or around the state."

In 1992, Miers said presidents have no business asking court nominees to toe their line on abortion.[/b]

"Nominees are clearly prohibited from making such a commitment and presidents are prohibited from asking for it," she said. People who think such inquiries are proper show "a misunderstanding of the separation of powers by proposing that judicial nominees should mirror a president's views."

On gay rights, her responses to the questionnaire are a paradox. Still, a leading gay-rights group credited her Tuesday with an open mind.

"It's only a small window into her thinking," said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, "but it certainly, for me, raises the possibility that she's more fair-minded than our opponents are hoping."

The question on civil rights on the old survey did not pin respondents down on any of the issues typically associated with gay equality today, such as domestic partner benefits or same-sex unions. Kelly Shackelford, president of the socially conservative Free Market Foundation, played down the significance of Miers' answer, saying he, too, could have answered yes to it.

Shackelford credited her with "basic Texas down-home values."

[/quote]

[url="http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/05/D8D1U2B03.html"]from HERE[/url]

looks like everyone is freaking out
it makes me think - what does Bush know that others dont know?
she is, after all, a long time friend of Bush's

the dems are all saying they like her because she was a donating dem for a long time - gave to Gore and Clinton i believe ... and Bush works with Dems ...
but i think they also assume he is stupid - but i assume he is strategic

[philothea]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' date='Oct 5 2005, 10:12 AM']check Matt Drudge for the good stuff:
[url="http://www.drudgereport.com/"]DrudgeReport.com[/url]
[right][snapback]746831[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Oh, I see.

She used to be Catholic, until "She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," and became an evangelical protestant.

Still haven't seen if she's prolife or not.

[Lounge Daddy]

also - what if she IS knocked down - then Bush puts up a heavy hitter - that would be fun to watch!

[Cam42]

So, we don't know if she is pro-life for sure, but we do know that she is fallen away.......

interesting.

[crusader1234]

I just really hope she ends up being pro life, or a heck of a lot of people are going to have to eat their words. And I heard eating your words is hard on the digestion.

[Cam42]

So jas, I am still looking for that hard proof that you have.

I am not convinced that she is pro-life and I want to believe what you are saying.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 5 2005, 05:44 PM']So, we don't know if she is pro-life for sure, but we do know that she is fallen away.......

interesting.
[right][snapback]747517[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
so she was a luke-warm style "cradle Catholic" probably not even going to church
at least she is a church going, practicing Chrisitian today
and if that is a hang up ... pray that Jeb Bush's Catholicism (she IS a friend of the Bush family) rubs off on her

[jasJis]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Oct 6 2005, 07:24 AM']So jas, I am still looking for that hard proof that you have.

I am not convinced that she is pro-life and I want to believe what you are saying.
[right][snapback]748095[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
floopy off Cam. I gave you what I was basing my choice of opinion on. Did I say I had 'hard proof'? She is as pro-life in opinion as far as we can know, based on the interviews. Did I suggest 'other evidence'?. I choose to believe she's pro-life until I see her actions that say otherwise. We don't really know about any of the Judges until they render their opinion. Now that would be hard proof.

Edited October 6, 2005 by jasJis

[Cam42]

[quote name='jasJis' date='Oct 6 2005, 11:00 AM']floopy off Cam.  I gave you what I was basing  my choice of opinion on.  Did I say I had 'hard proof'?  She is as pro-life in opinion as far as we can know, based on the interviews.  Did I suggest 'other evidence'?.  I choose to believe she's pro-life until I see her actions that say otherwise.  We don't really know about any of the Judges until they render their opinion.  Now that would be hard proof.
[right][snapback]748235[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


What the heck is "floopy off?" And this wasn't an attack of any sort....gee whiz....I was looking for the source of your opining.

If you don't have any, that is fine, but why do you choose to believe she is pro-life? Because Bush says so? Heck, Bush isn't even pro-life.

Actually, we do know about most of the Justices, including Roberts.

No, you didn't say you had hard proof or suggested other evidence, but I figured that since you made the statement, it would be more than pure speculation and/or conjecture.

You need to breathe a little, I am not always on the attack......sometimes, I am sincerely inquisitve.