I agree with . . .
Judge Bork and Professor Bradley (one of my law school professors at Notre Dame). Miers should step aside or be withdrawn.
From Judge Bork:
"By passing over the many clearly qualified persons, male and female, to pick a stealth candidate, George W. Bush has sent a message to aspiring young originalists that it is better not to say anything remotely controversial, a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" admonition to would-be judges. It is a blow in particular to the Federalist Society, most of whose members endorse originalism. The society, unlike the ACLU, takes no public positions, engages in no litigation, and includes people of differing views in its programs. It performs the invaluable function of making law students, in the heavily left-leaning schools, aware that there are respectable perspectives on law other than liberal activism. Yet the society has been defamed in McCarthyite fashion by liberals; and it appears to have been important to the White House that neither the new chief justice nor Ms. Miers had much to do with the Federalists."
From Prof. Bradley:
"The reason why I oppose her confirmation — even if she still believes what she said in 1989 [in response to a Texans United for Life survey, Miers answered "yes" to the following question: "If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?"] — is this: now we are going to have the fight within the Senate and in the media which conservatives such as myself have all along called for. Unless Miers repudiates her 1989 answers — and, in that case, see above — Schumer & Co. are going to treat her as if she will overrule Roe. Very well. But if we are going to have a climactic battle in the Senate over Roe, we need to have it on considerably better ground. Miers is scarcely the person anyone would choose to make the long awaited case against Roe, with the whole pro-choice phalanx put up against her. I mean no insult whatsoever in saying that Harriet Miers she (sic) simply is not up to the job of cogently describing, defending, and justifying before the world what will go into the history books as the most important constitutional law decision since 1954. John Roberts could have done it, as could Edith Jones, to name one available replacement."
These two arguments blow out of the water any deference to Miers' nomination because she'll "vote right." Try to prove me (and Judge Brok and Prof. Bradley) wrong.
From Judge Bork:
"By passing over the many clearly qualified persons, male and female, to pick a stealth candidate, George W. Bush has sent a message to aspiring young originalists that it is better not to say anything remotely controversial, a sort of "Don't ask, don't tell" admonition to would-be judges. It is a blow in particular to the Federalist Society, most of whose members endorse originalism. The society, unlike the ACLU, takes no public positions, engages in no litigation, and includes people of differing views in its programs. It performs the invaluable function of making law students, in the heavily left-leaning schools, aware that there are respectable perspectives on law other than liberal activism. Yet the society has been defamed in McCarthyite fashion by liberals; and it appears to have been important to the White House that neither the new chief justice nor Ms. Miers had much to do with the Federalists."
From Prof. Bradley:
"The reason why I oppose her confirmation — even if she still believes what she said in 1989 [in response to a Texans United for Life survey, Miers answered "yes" to the following question: "If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature?"] — is this: now we are going to have the fight within the Senate and in the media which conservatives such as myself have all along called for. Unless Miers repudiates her 1989 answers — and, in that case, see above — Schumer & Co. are going to treat her as if she will overrule Roe. Very well. But if we are going to have a climactic battle in the Senate over Roe, we need to have it on considerably better ground. Miers is scarcely the person anyone would choose to make the long awaited case against Roe, with the whole pro-choice phalanx put up against her. I mean no insult whatsoever in saying that Harriet Miers she (sic) simply is not up to the job of cogently describing, defending, and justifying before the world what will go into the history books as the most important constitutional law decision since 1954. John Roberts could have done it, as could Edith Jones, to name one available replacement."
These two arguments blow out of the water any deference to Miers' nomination because she'll "vote right." Try to prove me (and Judge Brok and Prof. Bradley) wrong.
posted by Ben at 2:06 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home