John Kerry on the Miers Nomination for Supreme Court

[kerrygoddess]

John Kerry on the Miers Nomination for Supreme Court

Little is known about Harriet Miers legal philosophy, she has never served as a judge, we have so little to go on aside from her position as Bush’s lawyer.

Senator John Kerry released the following statement on the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States, reiterating the importance of the release of all documents requested by the Judiciary Committee:

“We know next to nothing about the legal philosophy of the person President Bush has selected to replace Justice O’Connor casting the deciding votes on the most difficult issues confronting our nation. America can’t afford a replay of the unrevealing confirmation process that preceded Chief Justice Roberts’ confirmation.”

MORE - http://blog.thedemocraticdaily.com/?p=747

[Mass]

1. Kennedy's statement.

Seems the two MA senators have questions on this confirmation.

http://kennedy.senate.gov/~kennedy/statements/05/09/2005A03451.html

KENNEDY STATEMENT ON NOMINATION OF HARRIET MIERS TO SUPREME COURT


FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT: Laura Capps/Melissa Wagoner [phone]

President Bush has nominated his long-time friend, adviser and current White House counsel Harriet Miers to replace Justice O'Connor as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. We look forward to the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings to learn more about Ms. Miers, her qualifications, her ability to be independent from President Bush, and her views on the role of the Court in protecting fundamental rights and liberties.

As far as we know at this point, Ms. Miers does not have a public record of writings or speeches that would give the Senators and the American people an insight into the kind of justice she would be. Therefore, we urge President Bush to make available to the Committee documents and information relating to Ms. Miers's service in the White House during both terms of the George W. Bush Presidential Administration and for Mr. Bush during his terms as Governor of the State of Texas. Although the Administration did not provide the Committee with files relating to John Roberts's service as Deputy Solicitor General of the United States, we were able to receive from the Reagan Library extensive memoranda and files relating to John Roberts's White House service in the Reagan Administration. The American people are entitled -- at a minimum -- to the same kind of memoranda and files relating to Ms. Miers.

The record we have so far is simply insufficient to assess the qualifications of this nominee. While her resume lists impressive qualifications as a practicing attorney, it simply does not give the Senate -- or the public -- sufficient information to determine her qualifications to be a Supreme Court Justice and her commitment to core constitutional values.

Under the Constitution, no Supreme Court appointment can be made until and unless the Senate gives its advice and consent and the Senate -- and the American people -- must have the same amount and quality of information in approving the nomination as the Executive had in making it. I look forward to meeting Ms. Miers and hearing from her at the Senate Judiciary hearings, and receiving the documents necessary for us meet our joint constitutional role with the President in the appointment of Supreme Court Justices.

[DakotaDemocrat]

2. Interesting tact...

Kennedy wanting documents within the Administration. Her writings on Gitmo, Bush's National Guard "experience", Plamegate and other Bush events would shine a light on her opinions, but also on the inner-workings of the Administration...

I'm not holding my breath for those documents. They withhold the e-mails from the football office pool becuase of "National Security"...

[Mass]

3. It seems to be the general feeling.

I think that Leahy, Schumer, Kennedy, Kerry, ... are all asking for more documents.

I agree that it is unlikely to happen, though.

[AlphaCat]

4. Does anybody here...

...know ANYTHING about this woman? She's from Texas? Does anyone know what she did there? (And if she hasn't been a judge, on what basis has she been picked for SCOTUS???)

[Drifter]

5. Isn't this just another case ...

of AWOL picking people based on their loyalty to him rather than their qualifications. Roberts is a Judge for 2 years, and he becomes CJ (Scalia must be steaming). Miers has never been a Judge, and she becomes an Associate on the SC.

Lets face it, both of these nominations is like making a new hire at the local McDonalds, the CEO of the company ?

The difference is that these picks are life time appointments. When AWOL leaves, the damage will continue long after.

Cheers
Drifter

[Dr Fate]

6. Is his powder dry or wet?

???

[papau]

7. WSJ implies she is anti-abortion and a Scalia "orginalist"

So is Ms. Miers's not just a judicial restraint/limited role of the court/judicial conservative, she is a Scalia anti-abortion "orginalist" with no respect for precedent?

http://online.wsj.com/public/article/SB1128351923853585...

<snip>Marvin Olasky, a journalism professor and the father of the "compassionate conservative" movement, posted a series of excerpts from interviews with friends and acquaintances of Harriet Miers he conducted before the official nomination. One of the interviews was with Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who said he has known Ms. Miers for 30 years and described their relationship as "very close friends."

Quoting Mr. Hecht on Ms. Miers's judicial philosophy: "She's an originalist -- that's the way she takes the Bible," and that's her approach to the Constitution as well -- "Originalist -- it means what it says."

Mr. Hecht says he and Ms. Miers "went to two or three pro-life dinners in the late 80s or early 90s."<snip>


http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa022701a.htm
Scalia on the Constitution


U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia explained and defended his "originalist" approach to constitutional interpretation in a closing address to a Princeton University conference on James Madison, fourth president and framer of the Constitution.

Speaking on Feb. 23, 2001, Justice Scalia explained that he, like Madison, interprets the Constitution according to the "common sense" meaning and definition of the document's words at the time they were written. An opposite approach, Scalia suggested from that applied by Justices who believe the Constitution "changes from age to age in order to meet the needs of a changing society."

Scalia criticized the second approach, saying that it too often results in crafting subjective interpretations of the Constitution to address issues that could and should be handled by Congress.

Calling his view of the Constitution an "originalist" view, Scalia conceded it often places him in a position of supporting laws that do not seem to make sense.

"It may well be stupid, but if it's stupid, pass a law!" he said. "Don't think the originalist interpretation constrains you. To the contrary. My Constitution is a very flexible Constitution. You want a right to abortion? Create it the way all rights are created in a democracy, pass a law. The death penalty? Pass a law. That's flexibility

<snip>

[texpatriot2004]

8. Thank you Kerry Goddess for this. I love that blog. n/t