For an administration that claimed it didn’t have a litmus test for judges, there have been too many secret assurances about Harriet Miers’ nomination. Slowly but surely, as the president struggles to quell a revolt among conservatives, her anti-choice views are coming into focus.
Until yesterday, Miers’ stance was basically unknown.Then documents were provided to the Senate from her 1989 run for the Dallas City Council in which candidate Miers told Texans United for Life she would “actively support” a proposed constitutional amendment to ban abortion except when necessary to prevent the death of the mother. She also opposed the use of public funds for abortion and said she would use her influence to keep “pro-abortion” people off of city boards and commissions dealing with health issues. That’s an ominous act of exclusion coming from a would-be justice.
Some believe Bush nominated Miers largely because she had no judicial record on issues such as right to life or Oregon’s right to die statute. But her stance on abortion, circa 1989, seems increasingly clear.
Even so, an anxious White House wants to have it both ways.
Press Secretary Scott McClelland says the president knew of Miers’ views from 1989 but doesn’t know if she still holds them. He was quick to point out that Miers’ 16-year-old declaration was a political, not a judicial statement, and as such offers no guarantee as to how she would vote as a justice on any particular case.
That assurance was meant for pro-choice senators who are getting increasinly cautious about Miers nomination. However, to calm anti-choice advocates, the White House summoned two Texas judges to vouch for Miers before a group of 16 evangelical leaders. When asked during a conference call if Miers would vote to overturn Roe vs. Wade, the 1972 abortion rights decisions, her longtime friend U.S. District Judge Ed Kinkeade of Dallas replied: “Absolutely.”
Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht chimed in, “I agree with that,” according to someone on the call whose notes were provided to The Wall Street Journal.
Hecht now says that’s not how he remembers the conversation, saying Miers is “pro-life” but her beliefs don’t translate into an automatic court vote.
We’re supposed to believe that? The point of the Kinkeade-Hecht phone call was to assure the anti-choice group that Miers was one of them. Still, these assurances reek of bias, and pro-choice senators were quick to express unease. When the story came to light, Miers told Sen. Charles E. Schumer, D-N.Y., that “no one knows how I would rule on Roe vs. Wade.”
The mixed messages didn’t end there. After meeting with Miers, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said she “backs Griswold,” a 1965 case on privacy rights that helped clear the way for Roe.
But late Monday night, after a call from Miers, the senator’s spokesperson said he may have misunderstood her.
Since Miers has no judicial record, we’re left trying to read tea leaves and 1989 candidate questionnaires. That was Bush’s goal in selecting someone without a track record. However, neither conservatives nor liberals seem to want to buy a justice without a warranty.
