The Disaster Continues

Publius at Res Publica et Cetera and Hyphen at Excessive Catholicism both highlight the latest news about the Miers nomination which reinforces what those of us opposing the Miers nomination have always known: this is an unmitigated disaster.

Here's what Publius has to say:

Oh my, the Miers nomination actually just got worse. A whole lot worse, by the look of it. The Miers nomination is the gift that keeps on giving. For Democrats that is.

And here's Hyphen's take:

Just when you thought it couldn't get any worse... There is now officially no reason to support Harriet Miers' confirmation. The Washington Post reports on a number of incoherent speeches Harriet Miers made in 1993. In those speeches, she reveals herself to have libertarian sympathies. Bush told us that he picked her because he knows that she won't change, but in fact it appears that she's vascillated dramatically over the years between a number of mutually exclusive political opinions. Who knows which ones she's settled on now?

***
There is not one shred of evidence to suggest that Miers would be the type of principled justice Bush says she would be. Miers' views are volatile, mutually contradictory, and extraconstitutional. She does not have the temperament, proper jurisprudence, or experience required for the Supreme Court. There is every reason to believe that she will be another fickle justice like O'Connor or Kennedy.

And just what has these bloggers so up in arms this fine morning? Why, as alluded to in Hyphen's remarks, it's the latest from today's Washington Post:

In a 1993 speech to a Dallas women's group, Miers talked about abortion, the separation of church and state, and how the issues play out in the legal system. "The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination," she said. "And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes sense."

In that speech and others in the early 1990s when she was president of the Texas Bar Association, Miers also defended judges who order lawmakers to address social concerns. While judicial activism is derided by many conservatives, Miers said that sometimes "officials would rather abandon to the courts the hard questions so they can respond to constituents: I did not want to do that -- the court is making me."

***
In an undated speech given in the spring of 1993 to the Executive Women of Dallas, Miers appeared to offer a libertarian view of several topics in which the law and religious beliefs were colliding in court.

"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's [sic] right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion," Miers said.

Those seeking to resolve such disputes would do well to remember that "we gave up" a long time ago on "legislating religion or morality," she said. And "when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."

(emphasis added)

Yep. That's pretty much the definition of "DISASTER", at least if you were hoping for a principled jurist in the mold of Scalia and Thomas to be nominated to the Court. Instead, those quotes from Miers make her sound remarkably like another Supreme Court disappointment, Justice Anthony Kennedy:

At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life. Beliefs about these matters could not define the attributes of personhood were they formed under compulsion of the State.
- Kennedy's concurring opinion reaffirming the "right" to abortion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey

Freedom extends beyond spatial bounds. Liberty presumes an autonomy of self that includes freedom of thought, belief, expression, and certain intimate conduct. The instant case involves liberty of the person both in its spatial and more transcendent dimensions... It is a promise of the Constitution that there is a realm of personal liberty which the government may not enter.
- Kennedy's majority opinion constitutionalizing homosexual sodomy in Lawrence v. Texas

None of which, I might add, appears anywhere in the Constitution. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced that Harriet Miers isn't more likely to agree with Justice Kennedy's take than with that of Justice Scalia or Justice Thomas. Not sure what else I can say, so I'll conclude with Hyphen's exhortation to take action:

This nomination has been a colossal mistake and it must be stopped now. Go to WithdrawMiers.org and call your senators to pressure them to oppose this nomination. Senators will listen if they're deluged with calls. Let's not let missed opportunity become permanent regret.