Bush sicks his 'pit bull' Miers on the Supreme Court
WASHINGTON -- Bush's pick of Harriet Miers should come as no surprise. Miers is a hardcore corporate lawyer from Dallas, and part of Bush's inner circle of right-wing fanatics and control freaks. The President has called her 'a pit bull in size 6 shoes'.
She's always fought for corporate rights over human rights. Harriet Miers has never been a judge.
John Roberts said little and wasn't really pressed before he sailed through to the dismay of millions of Americans. Now with Miers grinning with Sen. Harry Reid, the dem leader in the Senate, it appears she may as well. I hope other dems in the Senate, and even a few smart Republicans, will show some backbone and consider voting down Miers. Bush doesn't deserve everything he wants.
Does anyone really doubt that Roberts and Miers are anything but a right turn for an already right wing court? I don't think so, at least not the relatively few Americans who actually pay attention to national affairs.
Dem Senators Pat Leahy (VT) and Chuck Schumer (NY) will be key to asking the tough questions of Miers, and demanding full release of documents from the White House.
If they do their jobs, I predict they will decide to vote against her. People, if you care about your true freedoms in America, don't sit this one out.
She's always fought for corporate rights over human rights. Harriet Miers has never been a judge.
John Roberts said little and wasn't really pressed before he sailed through to the dismay of millions of Americans. Now with Miers grinning with Sen. Harry Reid, the dem leader in the Senate, it appears she may as well. I hope other dems in the Senate, and even a few smart Republicans, will show some backbone and consider voting down Miers. Bush doesn't deserve everything he wants.
Sen. Reid with Miers LAT
The LA Times today provides one of the best views so far of the mysterious Miers. Does anyone really doubt that Roberts and Miers are anything but a right turn for an already right wing court? I don't think so, at least not the relatively few Americans who actually pay attention to national affairs.
Dem Senators Pat Leahy (VT) and Chuck Schumer (NY) will be key to asking the tough questions of Miers, and demanding full release of documents from the White House.
If they do their jobs, I predict they will decide to vote against her. People, if you care about your true freedoms in America, don't sit this one out.
Comments
Too bad you had to cheapen yourself by calling people names, you almost had me in full agreement with you. But then I expect nothing less than a person of your caliber to revert to name calling
"Miers is a hardcore corporate lawyer from Dallas, and part of Bush's inner circle of right-wing fanatics and control freaks"
And it doesnt matter who called who names, the fact is that it is name calling and has no place in rational discussion...In my opinion anyway.
White House counsel Harriet Miers
to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor
on the Supreme Court. Since Miers
has never served as a judge, her views --
that is, how she would rule on ROE V.
WADE if an appeal comes before her
on the bench -- are uncertain.
That's why we can, once again, look
forward to by bias reporters & liberal
congressmen/women hundreds of questions
all designed to elicit the same answer:
What does Miers think of ROE V. WADE?
Talk about a farce!
Given ROE's centrality, not only to the law,
but also to our entire culture, it's worthwhile
to understand what ROE's author, Justice
Harry Blackmun, intended its reach to be.
For most of the thirty-two years since the
ruling, all we had to go on was the written
opinion in ROE itself and its companion
case, DOE V. BOLTON. Then on the
fifth anniversary of Blackmun's death,
the Library of Congress released his
papers to the public.
What these papers show is that, in the
words of the LOS ANGELES TIMES,
Blackmun's goal was to "write a narrow
ruling that would reform abortion laws,
not repeal them."
What's striking about the story that emerges
from these papers is the extent to which
many of the ideas we associate with ROE
were explicitly rejected by Blackmun and
company. For instance, on the day ROE
was announced, Chief Justice Burger said
"plainly, the court today rejects any claim
that the Constitution requires abortion on
demand." In a never-issued news release,
Blackmun made the same point.
What's more, Blackmun saw laws banning
all abortions as infringements on the doctor's
rights, not the woman's. During a private
conference with the other justices, he insisted
that "there is no absolute right to do with one's
body what you like. . . . " To Blackmun, ROE
was about vindicating "the right of the physician
to administer medical treatment according to
his professional judgment. . . . " And at the time,
Chief Justice Burger predicted that ROE
would not have "sweeping consequences."
As history shows, ROE and DOE went far
beyond the author's professed intentions
and his colleagues' predictions. Much of
the blame lies at Blackmun's feet:
In DOE, he included a woman's emotional
health as part of the definition of health,
which, regardless of what he intended,
led directly to abortion-on-demand.
It's difficult to imagine a group of intelligent
men more in the dark about the consequences
of their actions. It only reinforces my conviction
that ROE is not only bad law: It's an embarrassment
to American law, which makes the way that
ROE has come to dominate our public life
especially grotesque.
In nominating Harriet Miers, someone who
has been very visible, publicly trying
to keep the ABA from endorsing ROE V.
WADE, President Bush has obviously
decided that the time has come for a
public debate. And that's a healthy thing
for the country: Expose how this case has
been misinterpreted and misused.
So, instead of turning the confirmation
process into the theater-of-the-absurd,
let's hope the truth will come out. And
maybe some of the senators will see,
as much of the public is beginning to see,
that ROE is a misbegotten, badly
reasoned decision that we are better
off without.