L.A. Times on Miers and Abortion
In the L.A. Times today we have more fake but accurate reportage on the significance of replacing O’Connor, in the front-page story titled Bush Selects Close Ally for Court:
Yet it was not clear whether Bush had picked someone who would push the nine-member court further to the right on key issues such as abortion and assisted suicide, as some conservative groups have sought. The question is key because Miers would replace O’Connor, a swing vote who supported abortion rights.
This language suggests that Miers could be the swing vote to overturn Roe.
Yet it’s technically accurate. O’Connor was a swing vote, and she did support abortion rights. And she was a swing vote on some abortion restrictions, such as partial-birth abortion. But (as I have said before) she was not the swing vote on the basic “right” to abortion, which will still be 5-4 even if Miers turns out to be well to the right of Scalia and Thomas.
The story is otherwise pretty laudatory of Miers, calling her relatively undistinguished resume “distinguished.” It highlights some analysts’ predictions that her confirmation will be “less contentious” than others, because she “could turn out to be more of a centrist, like O’Connor.” And there is a graphic inside that lists a number of famous judges with no previous experience on the bench. Would this graphic have appeared in the paper had the nominee been Miguel Estrada? Pardon me while I snicker.
The L.A. Times‘s reaction reminds me of Chuck Schumer’s reaction: they’re puzzled, but they think that (as Schumer said yesterday) “it could have been a lot worse.”
I’m of a mind to play up her anti-abortion credentials. Let’s even get her a photo-op with Dobson. Nearly anything that will derail this putrid nomination is acceptable.
Kevin Murphy (6a7945) — 10/4/2005 @ 9:02 amLook, I don’t like Roe v. Wade, but if the only way to get it reversed is to put up someone unqualified for the position who is going to vote on the basis of politics rather than the law, I’m not signing on. I’m not saying that’s necessarily what’s going on here, but that appears to be the argument of some — and those are her supporters.
I’m not reassured by someone saying she’s pro-life. Show me some evidence that she is smart.
Patterico (a09eaf) — 10/4/2005 @ 9:06 amNow that I see all those “smart” people running around in circles screaming like the end times were coming, I wonder if you shouldn’t add grownup to the list of qualifications?
chuck (2ce8d6) — 10/4/2005 @ 11:08 amI really don’t get the social conservative outrage over her. She has a long history of donating to anti-abortion activists and has gone on the record as supporting the criminalization of homosexuality.
This makes her a Souter?
Geek, Esq. (5dd2be) — 10/4/2005 @ 11:18 amKevin – please let me note that, as a liberal, i’m highly amused at the concept of the conservative movement and the liberal movement uniting to derail this nomination.
aphrael (e0cdc9) — 10/4/2005 @ 11:27 amhas gone on the record as supporting the criminalization of homosexuality.
Sullivan screwed up in his research and has apologised. You might consider the same.
chuck (2ce8d6) — 10/4/2005 @ 11:30 amYes indeed, it could have been worse. It might have been Janice Rogers Brown. One uppit–I mean radical — justice on the court is enough, dontcha think?
Chuck S. (58efde) — 10/4/2005 @ 11:48 amOh please. As if I get my information from Mr. Bi-Polar.
Miers went on the record as opposing the repeal of the very statute found unconstitutional in Lawrence. In other words, she endorsed the criminalization of homosexuality.
Geek, Esq. (5dd2be) — 10/4/2005 @ 12:00 pmI really don’t get the social conservative outrage over her. She has a long history of donating to anti-abortion activists and has gone on the record as supporting the criminalization of homosexuality.
This makes her a Souter?
As I already said, my concern is not so much that she will prove to be non-conservative (though that is a concern) as it is that she won’t have the candlepower necessary. (And the latter issue can raise the former.)
I keep seeing her compared to Powell. Well, have you guys read the Brethren? Powell was scared to death when he came on the job, because he suspected he wasn’t qualified. And he ended up being a split-the-baby results-oriented swing-vote Justice who made mishmash out of a good chunk of controversial law. The O’Connor of his day. I don’t want another Justice like that. Enough already.
Patterico (079a31) — 10/4/2005 @ 12:42 pmI don’t think Sandra Day has ever been accusd of being limited by her own lack of ego.
How much candlepower does she need to form a bloc with Scalia and Thomas–the latter being no all-Star himself.
Geek, Esq. (5dd2be) — 10/4/2005 @ 12:57 pmI think Thomas is quite bright, though I think Scalia is smarter and generally more forceful and persuasive. Why would you say Thomas is no all-Star? You sound like Harry Reid.
I didn’t say Sandra Day was limited by her lack of ego, but I did say she was a split-the-baby Justice. Why she was, I’m not sure. For Powell, I think part of it was lack of confidence.
Patterico (079a31) — 10/4/2005 @ 1:03 pmThe fact that Thomas never participates in oral arguments can lead one to draw inferences.
While reading Scalia’s or Rehnquist’s opinions, I find myself thinking “He’s wrong, but his arguments need to be addressed.” Thomas, on the other hand, doesn’t provide nearly the same oomph behind his opinions.
Geek, Esq. (5dd2be) — 10/4/2005 @ 1:09 pmI don’t know- most judges I work with/for view oral argument as a huge waste of their time, except to clarify the record.
It’s just the sadists who fiddle with the attorneys.
I mean, let’s consider the Second Circuit- there’s no lack of bright people there, and it’s one of the coldest federal benches in the nation.
Angry Clam (fa7fff) — 10/4/2005 @ 1:14 pmA valid point.
However, I stand by my comments about their opinons. Scalia has a well-articulated theory, albeit one with which I disagree. Thomas gives the appearance of just trying to be conservative for the sake of being conservative–an RNC company man, so to speak.
Geek, Esq. (5dd2be) — 10/4/2005 @ 1:28 pmWith the liberals so bent over the abortion issue, the conservatives should take advantage and “trade” something for conceding the issue again. Allow abortion to be legal (still) in exchange for a 2000 mile border wall, or more tax cuts.
Shredstar (532850) — 10/4/2005 @ 2:31 pmI hate to kick someone when they’re down. ( ok ok I really do enjoy it!!) but religions conservatives should have realized the consequences of making a pact with the devil. Bush lied about Iraq, lied about WMDs, lied about connections between international terrorism and Iraq, staged a fake photo op with a plastic turkey and now you are surprised he lied to you about appointing an anti-abortion justice?? Ha ha ha!!!
Charlie (8ea405) — 10/4/2005 @ 4:02 pmI will take all bets that she will be nominated and abortion will continue. When will you wake up??
Even the LA Times has retracted the fake turkey story.
Shredstar (532850) — 10/4/2005 @ 4:47 pm* * *
STOP YOUR WORRYING EVERYBODY! [Jonah Goldberg]
I have it on good authority Harriet Miers stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. So she’s good to go.
Posted [on “The Corner”] at 09:47 AM
* * *
Ha.
It’s either laugh or cry re: Miers. Might as well laugh.
Note to Edith Jones and Edith Clement: We’re so sorry. We thought he was a conservative when we voted for him.
-demosthenes
demosthenes (5ba388) — 10/4/2005 @ 5:22 pmAs usual, Charlie finds a way to be hopelessly wrong. Abortion-obsessed conservatives seem to be the one Bush constitutency that’s happy with Miers’s appointment – though I doubt any of them have any illusions she and Roberts will persuade Justice Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg or Breyer to reverse their pro-abortion vote.
Xrlq (6c76c4) — 10/4/2005 @ 5:52 pm[…] Who else? Who’s left? Ginsburg, Souter, Kennedy, Breyer, and Stevens. Which one of them is Ivins counting as the fifth solid anti-Roe vote? Maybe she’s still counting Rehnquist. But he’s not a Democrat, so he’s unlikely to vote after his death. She probably just read it in the L.A. Times or had lunch with Margaret Carlson. posted by: The Editors @ 12:52 pm October 6, 2005 […]
The Unalienable Right » The “fifth vote to overturn Roe” myth spreads (7a057a) — 10/6/2005 @ 12:53 pm