October 9, 2005
FROM DISTANT HANOVER, THE SOUND OF AN EXPLODING HEAD
Schlafly: President Bush's Women Are Pro Choice (NewsMax.com, 10/7/05)
President Bush's choice of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court is "a terrible disappointment and a missed opportunity,” Eagle Forum President Phyllis Schlafly told NewsMax.com.It's kind of like an irresistible force and an immovable object. Posted by David Cohen at October 9, 2005 7:26 PM"We were expecting President Bush to move the Court away from an activist, supremacist Court toward a Constitutionalist Court and there is no evidence that Harriet Miers would be any better than Sandra Day O’Connor," said Mrs. Schlafly, widely credited as the woman who single-handedly defeated the Equal Rights Amendment at a time when it was considered certain to be ratified.
Some of those who know Harriet Miers say that she is strongly pro-life, but Mrs. Schlafly questions such assertions, observing that Miers has not taken any pro-life positions that she has heard of. . . .
The real question she said, is "would she be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, and I don’t see any evidence of that. All the women around Bush are opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade – his wife, his mother, his Secretary of State, the [co-chair] of the Republican National Committee ... There is no woman around Bush who is in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade.” . . .
Miers’ lack of a paper trail concerns Mrs. Schlafly. "We should have a paper trail, something she’s written. Nobody knows anything she’s written that shows a strong philosophical commitment to the Constitution the way it was written. The job of a Supreme Court justice is to write opinions and what has she written? So how can we make a judgment?”
Should Miers handle herself well during the Senate confirmation hearings, Mrs. Schlafly considers it possible that it might soften conservative opposition. "It is possible that she might say something during the confirmation hearings that would make us believe she’s well qualified, but the thing is that when Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsberg he knew for sure she was a vote to uphold Roe v. Wade. And I think we were entitled to have a woman who would be the opposite of Ruth Bader Ginsberg. That’s why we elected George Bush.”
Also interesting how the liberal groups are starting to gear up against Miers as they think she is a sure anti-Roe vote looking at her past activities while conservatives plan to oppose her because they think she is pro-Roe. Someone is wrong.
Posted by: AWW at October 9, 2005 8:33 PMMs Miers, of course, has been involved in the picking of all the President's other judges. You'd think they'd be less consistently pro-life if she was anti-life.
Posted by: oj at October 9, 2005 8:47 PMFrom the article:
"Some of those who know Harriet Miers say that she is strongly pro-life, but Mrs. Schlafly questions such assertions, observing that Miers has not taken any pro-life positions that she has heard of. ."
Ms. Schlafly is someone I have admired for a long time, but she spoke without knowledge of all relevant facts. In fact, no nominee has ever come before the Senate Judiciary Committee for confirmation to the S. Ct with a stronger personal pro-life paer trail than Harriet Miers. She has made over a dozen political contributions to pro-life candidates, including, astonishingly, Don Stenberg, Attroney General of Nebraska, who wakes up every day and asks what he can do to torment Planned Parenthood. For all the details of her pro-life perssonal record, see http://presidentaristotle.blogspot.com/
Posted by: Dan at October 9, 2005 9:06 PMExploding head? That's what it feels like when your realize that many, many people are so stupid that they think the best way to put an end to the abortion holocaust is to "overturn Roe v. Wade."
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 9, 2005 9:08 PMLou, when did you turn all soft and liberal on us?
Posted by: pj at October 9, 2005 10:03 PMoj: What makes you think she was meaningfully involved in the President's judicial choices from 2001-2004, before she became White House Counsel?
Posted by: rds at October 9, 2005 10:10 PMI'm not feling too soft and liberal about this. I just like to win and I hate to lose. We can stop almost all elective abortions after the first trimester by leaving the shell of Roe in place while regulating it to pieces, and make the other side look the murderers they are as they try to hang on to this and that tatter of the death machine.
The level of dicussion on this topic has been like something out of Jay Leno's "Jaywalk Allstars," with people on both sides shouting buzzwords at each other. We should be able to steer the whole thing like a radio-controlled model airplane.
Posted by: Lou Gots at October 9, 2005 10:23 PMIs Phyllis Schlafly a neocon?
Posted by: Ali Choudhury at October 10, 2005 8:50 AMLou -- And that's the way it will happen. None of these folks, and particular not a Meirs, is going to rush in there and overrule Roe. It will die on the vine, to the secret satisfaction of the lobbying industries that have arisen on either side.
Posted by: curt at October 10, 2005 10:17 AMI don't know Miers' views on Roe v. Wade but she is on record as favoring affirmative action, which is just as repugnant. This is unacceptable in a supposed Constitutionalist going onto the Supreme Court. Her nomination must be rejected.
Posted by: Mark at October 10, 2005 11:15 AM