MORE ON MIERS:The more we learn about Harriet Miers, the scarier things get. Look, I think that
Roe v. Wade was bad law. I think that, given sane reflection and consideration, it will eventually be overturned. (Note to abortion 'fans' - if you want to legalize it, you should have to do it the legislative way like everybody else.)
Miers signed support for the Human Life Amendment back in Texas umpteen years ago does not impress me. Well, la-dee-da. I don't care what legislation she supports. That has minimal bearing on how well she would do as a judge. You see, judges, particularly Supreme Court Justices, aren't supposed to consider prospective laws. They're supposed to consider and rule on laws already on the books, and consider them in the light of the Constitution. And not the laws of
foreign countries, by the way.
If you haven't guessed by now, I have a pretty strict view of the Constitution. It wasn't always that way. I remember going to school and learning that somehow, the Constitution was a
living document - that it's meanings were subject to fresh interpretations given new perspectives and customs. It made perfect sense back then. But then I didn't hear the entire story. No one bothered to tell me about the Federalist Papers.
But it was the Living Document claptrap that made it possible for bad rulings to slip by, like
Griswold v. Connecticut. That case was over a simple matter of the right to buy birth control pills, back in 1965. I don't believe in penumbras and emanations in the Constitution. But I have to tell you, if you twist words just enough, you can do pretty much anything you want. Here they fudged a questionable right to privacy out of a bad ruling, and things have gone downhill ever since.
Anyway, regarding
Griswold v. Connecticut - Miers was in fact asked about that case, and did she think it was a fair ruling. Why, yes, she said, yes it was. At least that's what Sen. Arlen Specter thought he heard. She later said that she really had no position and she was misunderstood.
Back when Roberts was nominated, I recalled that the idea of putting a SCOTUS nominee in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee is a fairly new concept in our nation's history. Only in the last 30 years have nominees been brought before the committee. It simply wasn't considered necessary before. The sad spectacle of Robert Bork was probably the worst, with the Clarence Thomas hearings close behind. I really didn't think it was necessary or prudent to parade John Roberts in front of a committee to see if he was good enough - his background and reputation should be clear enough to anyone. However, Harriet Miers has proved me wrong, I think. Because there is such a thin background, because we don't know what her court persona will be, that we only have Bush's recommendation to commend her, well, we all want to see who this nominee is.
I think she's going to turn out to be an embarrassment. Her 'obvious' pro-life views will penalize her in the eyes of the Democrats, who will have to vote her down, if only to appease the pro-choice people. Senators on the Republican side MIGHT be enough to get her confirmed, but if she doesn't do well in the hearings, she'll go down in flames. If she's half as smart as Bush says she is, she might do all right. But current events don't seem to be in her favor.
