I strongly suspect that she would like to see *Roe *overturned, but you really never know what she’ll do once she gets on the court and really digs into the idea of stare decisis, and is under the direct influence of other justices. I don’t expect that Roberts would overturn Roe, and he’d certainly have a significant influence on her.
Not all the Democratic senators have a litmus test like Feinstein. Some who are up for re-election in “red” states need to be careful about that. As long as she doesn’t come out and say she’d overturn *Roe *(which she absolutely won’t do), those Senators will have the cover they need to justify a “yes” vote.
Still, I don’t expect her to get many Democratic votes. A handful probably, but not many. Remember that if they reject Miers, Bush is just going to throw someone more hardline at them.
I like my odds that 5 out of 9 justices won’t be this far out of whack with the will of the people. If by some bizzare circumstance that this does happen its likely that it won’t be more than 5-10 years before one of them dies and a Justice that will bring the court back to something resembling the will of the people. Even if that doesn’t happen Congress can impeach some of the Justices or an amendment can be passed enlarging the court. I realize that Justices are only impeachable for bad behavior but at the end of the day bad behavior is whatever congress and the people say.
Perhaps but as far as I am aware none of the founding fathers wrote extensively about whether wiretaps constituted searches or any of the countless other instances like that. In cases like that how do you propose that the Court interpet the words that are written?
If we want to bar what is currently understood as cruel and unusual punishment do we have to pass a new amendment every few years to keep the definition up to date? How specific does each amendment need to be? Do we need a thousand page document defining speech or unreasonable search and seizure?
You can kick out a Judge at anytime you want although I will grant you its harder than voting an elected official out of office. Just pass an amendment saying Justice Renegade may be removed from the Court and he is as good as gone. Unsuprisingly we haven’t gotten anywhere close to this point becuase Justice’s are appointed by elected officials and vetted thoughorly by an elected body.
True, and I agree about Roberts. You’re not wrong about the litmus test either. But given the other questions around the nomination - her qualifications, lack of a record - I think there was already justification for some no votes. Even pro-life Dems like Reid will have to weigh some things here. It’s not just the question of “would she vote to overturn Roe?” but the question of the assurances Dobson and others have been given. That’s an excuse for some Democratic umbrage.
I said that myself on a number of occasions. But at the moment I’m a little less sure that’s the case.
There was a news piece yesterday on NPR, where they talked about how Meirs’ responses on a survey from the Judicial committee had answers that were often incomplete and / or very poorly done. IIRC this was coming from both sides of the aisle. But I didn’t find anything to back this up in the online press. Has anyone seen more on this?
I agree with this statement 100%. Nominating your own personal attorney to the highest court in the land is the height of hubris. If Harriet Miers was not a worshipper of GWB, she would not be on the edges of his radar.
It smacks of an essay in which someone went “Oh Shit, whats Judicial Activism” and just started talking about a lot of crap that they think is something close. In three pages of writing I’d say she wrote maybe a half a page about her opinion of judicial activism. Look at the meat of her essay. It consists of her talking about making sure plantiffs have proper standing and jursidiction, respect for stare decisis and when its proper to overturn precident, about her time as a legislature and about not worrying about reaction to a ruling. None of which is really relevent to the question about judicial activism. For example look at this statement:
Do you have any idea what she means by this statement? It sounds to me that she is saying the courts overstepped their bounds in this case. But I have no clue becuase she didn’t explain at all what she meant. For a potential Supreme Court Justice that is just an unacceptable lack of detail in an answer. Shoot, I think as just an arm-chair legal beagle I could have written a better answer than her.
Invading Iraq may well have gotten Bush elected to his second term; what’s so stupid about that? (You may not like his priorities - I sure don’t - but that’s different.) But nominating Miers doesn’t do a blessed thing for him, but it does a great job of getting assorted GOP constituencies feuding with each other, which is going to make everything else a bit harder for him.
I think you’re right. Her essay would have been more impressive if she could have cited several court cases that are (at least in her mind) text book examples of judicial activism and then supported her beliefs with persuasive legal arguments. But she did none of that. All she did was define judicial activism, stated that it was wrong and bad, and then pointed to times in her life where she learned to appreciate the wrongness and badness of judicial activism.
Harriet Meiers
Law 101, Prof. Mather
Essay Question: Judicial Activism.
Judicial activism is an issue that has vexed legal scholars for some time. Judicial (from the Latin judy:judge) activity is, of course, the primary concern of legal scholars, but judicial activism is another matter altogether. And so we are given to ponder: what is judicial activism? And what relevence does it have for the complex legal issues of our time?
(Good start! Another 730 words, and I’m outa here, doin’ lines with Georgie, skeet shooting Willy Nelson records!..)
Ms. Meiers will fold. She will blindfold herself, tie her arms behind her and attach a cannonball to her ankle, and prod herself with a cutlass until she reaches the end of the plank. She will do so bravely, like the spunky little trooper she is. She won’t even hint about the brutal and vicious smear campaign waged upon her by the cruel and vindictive liberal cabal. Squeels of porcine rage will emanate from Hannity, O’Reilly et. al. GeeDubya will then nominate someone just to the left of Torquemada.
She did provide one example: Brown. But then she proclaimed that she *approved * of it.
But don’t be too hard on her - the finest legal minds the SDMB has to offer have not been able to provide any clear examples of this mythical creature, either. But, like Potter Stewart and pornography, somehow they know it when they see it.
As for Miers, this questionnaire is a political statement intended for a political audience for the political purpose of gaining confirmation. She has to meet the RW litmus test of being against judicial activism, this document satisfies that requirement (in a political way by using political litmus-test definitions, of course), and there is simply no political necessity on anyone’s part to ponder the matter further. I do agree she’s doomed, not because of the level of her abilities, but because the dirty laundry from Texas is starting to pile up and Rove isn’t able to give the problem adequate attention just now. The next nominee, if another RW/loyalist, is similarly doomed unless the ship somehow rights itself.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) is probably not the most unbiased source out there, but he claimed today that Ms. Meirs right now would be lucky to get more than a couple of yes votes from the Senate Judiciary Committee. I am sure that the White House will attempt to play hardball with those Republicans who are considering going off the reservation, but this nomination is looking more and more like a dog that won’t hunt.
My question is - doesn’t this woman have any self respect? I’d guess most candidates would have withdrawn themselves by now. Or does she just not get that she’s disqualified? Wait Wait Don’t Tell Me this week started off by comparing her nomination to the dream about taking a test you never studied for. It seems an apt comparison.
I agree that this is the stupidest thing Bush has done. It gives Democrats cover to vote against her without using ideology as a reason. A no vote due to lack of qualifications is hardly indefensible.
Uh, beg your pardon? Have you nodded off to sleep in virtually every discussion of judicial activism on these boards? Cases that embody judicial activism have, in fact, been cited on the SDMB, in copious quantity.
Tell you what, I won’t even reach for controversial modern examples like Griswold or Roe or Lawrence. Let’s keep things as dispassionate as possible: I’ll stick with an old reliable standby: Lochner v. New York.
Behold, activism from the pen of Mr. Justice Peckham.