Harriet Miers on Abortion

As reported by JivenJ, the disclosure has alarmed abortion rights extremists who were quick to denounce Miers’ nomination.

On the other hand, we have not seen a change in the opinion of those who are concerned about Mier’s stance on the rights of the unborn. The Times reports,

Senator Sam Brownback, a Kansas Republican on the [Senate Judiciary] committee who has threatened to vote against Ms. Miers if he fears that she might uphold abortion rights, said the survey did not resolve his concerns. "It is a piece of evidence," Mr. Brownback said, adding that it is not as indicative of her legal views as a judicial opinion or a law review article might have been.

Robert Bork, in a scathing opinion piece for the Wall Street Journal, writes

The administration's defense of the nomination is pathetic: Ms. Miers was a bar association president (a nonqualification for anyone familiar with the bureaucratic service that leads to such presidencies); she shares Mr. Bush's judicial philosophy (which seems to consist of bromides about "strict construction" and the like); and she is, as an evangelical Christian, deeply religious. That last, along with her contributions to pro-life causes, is designed to suggest that she does not like Roe v. Wade, though it certainly does not necessarily mean that she would vote to overturn that constitutional travesty.

The fear among some who objected to her nomination was that she would be a "squish" on abortion, but it was unlikely that Bush would have selected someone with that viewpoint. The question will be whether she has the constitutional erudition to dismantle a precedent like Roe, if she is even so inclined to do so.

The answer to what she is capable of doing from the bench will most likely become evident during the confirmation hearings although many respected conservatives, such as Robert Bork, have already reached their own conclusions.

While conservatives, who are disappointed Miers, call for her to withdraw and threaten to vote down her nomination, David Limbaugh makes an interesting point regarding the corner they have painted themselves into:

If Republicans thought they could properly reject the president's judicial nominees for political reasons alone, or on the basis of judicial philosophy, they've certainly done their best to prove otherwise. How else do you explain their overwhelming affirmation of the radically liberal and activist Ruth Bader Ginsburg?

If so, this reformation should include an examination of the seven Republican defectors**, who handed abortion advocates in the Senate the filibuster earlier this year, and helped set the stage for a stealth nominee.

** John McCain (Arizona), John Warner (Virginia), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Lindsay Graham (South Carolina), Susan Collins (Maine), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Lincoln Chaffee (Rhode Island)

Update:

The Family Resource Council writes,

This is the most promising information that we have received about the current Supreme Court nominee. Those who are jumping up and down because of Miers' stated opposition to the rite of abortion should read her words closely. She said she would support legislative action to protect life. She thereby acknowledged it is not the role of the court to set public policy, but rather the elected representatives of the people. Because the abortion decisions are the epitome of judicial activism this gives us some insight, and I would say evidence, that she does hold a philosophy of judicial restraint. We will continue to follow this nomination closely. In the meantime, expect the attacks from single- minded pro-abortion Senators and activists to intensify against this nominee.