10/18/2005

Daily Kos: Powerline Proposes Perjury As Miers' Solution on Roe/Dobson; Miers Calls Hecht/Kinkeade Liars

Powerline Proposes Perjury As Miers' Solution on Roe/Dobson; Miers Calls Hecht/Kinkeade Liars
by Armando
Mon Oct 17, 2005 at 04:23:04 PM CDT

Update [2005-10-17 18:47:16 by Armando]: Miers Say Hecht, Kinkeade Are Liars:

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers assured a Senate Democrat Monday that she's never told anyone how she would rule on abortion rights. "Nobody knows how I would rule on Roe v. Wade," Miers said, according to Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. ... Miers told Schumer that she'd never discussed Roe v. Wade with Kinkeade or Hecht, Schumer said, but she refused to say whether she had ever discussed the issue with Rove. Kinkeade declined to comment. In a statement read by his assistant, the judge said he "does not feel it is appropriate to have further discussion about Ms. Miers' nomination in public."Hecht didn't respond to calls for comment.

2 things. Refused to say whether she discussed it with Rove? Say what? I got a subpoena right here for you Rove. And Kinkeade, NOW you should not discuss it? No shit?


And they say these things aloud:

[Assrocket is thinking about] Miers's testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee and how she should respond to the inevitable questions about whether assurances have been given to conservative constituencies on her view of Roe v. Wade. It occurs to me that there may be a simple approach by which both Miers and President Bush can be extricated from the present difficulty.

Suppose Miers testifies to the following: 1) She believes Roe was wrongly decided, and has expressed that view from time to time in conversation. 2) Her disagreement with Roe is not based on her opposition to abortion, but rather on her opposition to judicial usurpation. The Constitution says nothing about abortion, and the idea that the Court suddenly "discovered" the right after nearly 200 years is ridiculous. 3) She doesn't know whether she would vote to overturn Roe, because that would depend on issues relating to stare decisis that she hasn't yet analyzed, and she would not make that kind of decision without hearing the case before her, studying the authorities and the arguments of the parties, and discussing the issues with her colleagues on the Court.

Mightn't that approach solve a number of problems?

Well, it might "solve a number of problems." But it appears that it would almost certainly be perjury, based on the statements of Hecht and Kinkeade. But, hey, what's a little lying to Congress among friends?

I do agree with one thing Assrocket writes:

If she gets confirmed, we will have moved beyond the ridiculous situation we've been in for a number of years, in which anyone who wants to be on the Supreme Court can't say out loud what most of us believe to be true, i.e., that Roe was wrongly decided.

The Wingnut nominees should tell the truth about how they feel on Roe. And it is NOT the Dems' fault that they don't. Or does he not remember how Republicans screamed about how it was not fair play when Dems tried to find out what Roberts thought about Roe?

Daily Kos: Powerline Proposes Perjury As Miers' Solution on Roe/Dobson; Miers Calls Hecht/Kinkeade Liars

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home