Tuesday, October 18, 2005
Guessing Games
This is why I’m scared. Back in 1989, Miers ticked a box on a pro-life organization’s questionnaire confirming that she would support an amendment to the constitution banning abortion except when necessary to save the mother’s life. She also ticked boxes indicating her stance that public money should not be used for abortions and, most frighteningly, that she would be willing to use her influence to keep pro-choice candidates off of city health boards.
Now, all of this might actually be a good thing for liberals. If she supports an amendment to the constitution, she probably already believes that abortion is constitutional – otherwise, why go to dramatic and improbable lengths trying to actually amend the constitution? Then, if she believes that an amendment is needed, once sitting on the bench, she will be forced to rule that abortion is constitutional and only plead in her concurring opinion that someone amend the constitution. If she were an ideal justice she would not let her own opinions on what is morally right influence what is or is not constitutional.
However, now we must take a trip back to previous posts in which I struggled through her sometimes unsatisfying, sometimes downright frightening political and professional record. Having never served as a justice, but only a lawyer and political professional, she has spent her life trying to convince judges to bend the law or understand nuances and facets of the law that may or may not have actually been there – and she’s good at it. Miers likely knows that, if confirmed to the bench she must uphold the constitution, not what she thinks the constitution should say, but in the absence of any experience or judicial record to confirm this, the gamble grows increasingly risky.
Under the assumption that she understands upholding the constitution versus warping the constitution into what she thinks it should be, she is still the most moderate judge Bush is likely to appoint. Still, I am not convinced she understands or is ready to commit to such a dramatic change in job description.
With the verification of her pro-life beliefs, confirming her under the pretense that she is the most moderate justice Bush is likely to appoint grows paler and paler as a viable justification for a ‘yes’ vote. Pardon the cliché, but this has certainly “upped the ante.” Simply from a perspective of risk analysis, liberals may not be able to afford to confirm her if they aren’t absolutely sure she understands and is willing to accept the constraints of her new job.
Now, all of this might actually be a good thing for liberals. If she supports an amendment to the constitution, she probably already believes that abortion is constitutional – otherwise, why go to dramatic and improbable lengths trying to actually amend the constitution? Then, if she believes that an amendment is needed, once sitting on the bench, she will be forced to rule that abortion is constitutional and only plead in her concurring opinion that someone amend the constitution. If she were an ideal justice she would not let her own opinions on what is morally right influence what is or is not constitutional.
However, now we must take a trip back to previous posts in which I struggled through her sometimes unsatisfying, sometimes downright frightening political and professional record. Having never served as a justice, but only a lawyer and political professional, she has spent her life trying to convince judges to bend the law or understand nuances and facets of the law that may or may not have actually been there – and she’s good at it. Miers likely knows that, if confirmed to the bench she must uphold the constitution, not what she thinks the constitution should say, but in the absence of any experience or judicial record to confirm this, the gamble grows increasingly risky.
Under the assumption that she understands upholding the constitution versus warping the constitution into what she thinks it should be, she is still the most moderate judge Bush is likely to appoint. Still, I am not convinced she understands or is ready to commit to such a dramatic change in job description.
With the verification of her pro-life beliefs, confirming her under the pretense that she is the most moderate justice Bush is likely to appoint grows paler and paler as a viable justification for a ‘yes’ vote. Pardon the cliché, but this has certainly “upped the ante.” Simply from a perspective of risk analysis, liberals may not be able to afford to confirm her if they aren’t absolutely sure she understands and is willing to accept the constraints of her new job.
