Miers and the Christian Right

Our Lady of the Adoration of Dubya, Harriet Miers, continues to generate controversy with her nomination to the Supreme Court: New questions on Miers' Roe views: She reportedly says she doesn't recall ever discussing case by Carolyn Lochhead San Francisco Chronicle 10/18/05.

Questions about Miers' views on abortion arose after Wall Street Journal columnist John Fund said that two Texas judges told conservatives on a conference call Oct. 3 -- the day Bush announced Miers' nomination -- that they believed she opposed Roe.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, also met on Monday with Miers, 60, the White House counsel and former longtime Dallas corporate attorney who was the first female president of the Texas Bar Association. Feinstein defended Miers' credentials but reiterated that she could not vote for any Supreme Court nominee who would overturn abortion rights.

Feinstein said Miers' nomination is facing skepticism from Republicans and Democrats: "I'd say she has problems with both at this time."

More about her anti-abortion views is coming out: Miers Supported Ban on Most Abortions by Jesse Holland San Francisco Chronicle/AP 10/18/05.

Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.

Joe Conason argues that Miers Must Go Salon 10/15/05:

Preventing the elevation of meagerly qualified job seekers and nominees is among the Senate's most basic responsibilities. The world's oldest deliberative body has clearly neglected this function during the Bush era. Such business as usual might have continued in this case, except that the president and his advisors have now moved beyond cronyism with an even more serious and blunt affront to constitutional standards.

By seeking to convince leaders of the religious right to support Miers because of her religious affiliations, the White House overstepped a boundary that the founders held sacred. Using her conservative evangelical church to persuade James Dobson to back her, as Karl Rove did, was bad enough. But for Bush to suggest to those same theocratic politicos that her religion is among her qualifications is simply unacceptable and indelibly taints her nomination.