A Bit Confused
It's really unthinkable in the tragic judical nomination process we go through today, when the mere wiff of opposition to abortion sends most of the Senate into a synchronized mental hacking fit, that news of Harriet Meir's 1989 position against abortion is being met with:
DiFi was more straightforward, apparently accepting the anti-abortion questionaire at face value, and saying, "It will be my intention to question her very carefully about these issues.”
I have to admit, this entire episode confuses me greatly. Looking through her Senatorial questionnaire, yes, I was underwhelmed by her court experience and her publications, which frankly were a bit embarassing. But her intelligence, commitment, work ethic and solid core were evident throughout the filing.
She's no Scalia in terms of published work. She's no Roberts in terms of experience before the court. But looking at the body of evidence, it appears that she would be a strong ally of Scalia and Roberts. And because this is a matter of humans nominating humans, appearances are just about all we get; there are no rock solid guarantees.
The best guarantee we have is that she's worked closely with the President. He's seen her under pressure. He's seen his character. He's said he understands that his most important two jobs are the war on terror and correcting the imbalance in the judiciary by appointing strict constructionists.
That's still enough for me.
Some Republicans said they were not convinced by a 16-year-old promise from her brief foray into local politics; others said that too much uncertainty hovers around her beliefs overall. "That shows where her political views were," Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said of the 10-question form she filled out for the Texas antiabortion group, then called Texans United for Life. "But I don't think it tells us how she would rule on a particular case."Graham, who is also breaking with the GOP in calling for the release of White House documents from Miers, is cowering in fear from the Dem reaction to this news, of course. But in doing so, he's making this woman who counsels our president, who is a born-again Christian with strong commitment to her church's beliefs, to be a ditzy broad, or worse, just another lying politician. And so is Weyrich.
Paul M. Weyrich, founder of the Free Congress Foundation, which is not supporting Miers, said: "There is absolutely no guarantee that she would end up voting that way if given the opportunity."(WaPo)
DiFi was more straightforward, apparently accepting the anti-abortion questionaire at face value, and saying, "It will be my intention to question her very carefully about these issues.”
I have to admit, this entire episode confuses me greatly. Looking through her Senatorial questionnaire, yes, I was underwhelmed by her court experience and her publications, which frankly were a bit embarassing. But her intelligence, commitment, work ethic and solid core were evident throughout the filing.
She's no Scalia in terms of published work. She's no Roberts in terms of experience before the court. But looking at the body of evidence, it appears that she would be a strong ally of Scalia and Roberts. And because this is a matter of humans nominating humans, appearances are just about all we get; there are no rock solid guarantees.
The best guarantee we have is that she's worked closely with the President. He's seen her under pressure. He's seen his character. He's said he understands that his most important two jobs are the war on terror and correcting the imbalance in the judiciary by appointing strict constructionists.
That's still enough for me.
posted by Laer at 5:59 AM
<< Home