The nomination of Harriet Miers continues to suffer one setback after another, and for good reason. Yesterday, both Republican and Democratic leaders of the Senate Judiciary Committee asked her to resubmit parts of her judicial questionnaire, saying various members had found her responses "inadequate," "insufficient" and "insulting."
Legal conservatives, upon reviewing the questionnaire, have responded with increasing concerns. Michelle Malkin has a summary and is skeptical that Miers will make it the Nov. 7 Senate hearing.
Among the most embarrassing mistakes is the following blunder reported by the Washington Post and cited by Malkin:
Several constitutional law scholars said they were surprised and puzzled by Miers's response to the committee's request for information on cases she has handled dealing with constitutional issues. In describing one matter on the Dallas City Council, Miers referred to "the proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause" as it relates to the Voting Rights Act.Captain Ed suggests that "anyone who thinks that the Constitution has a requirement for proportional representation has spent little time in its study.""There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago.
And herein lies the problem. Miers may be "pro-life". Based upon her recent responses to the Senate Judiciary Committee�s questions she certainly represents herself in this manner. However, this does not mean that she finds legal fault with Roe v. Wade or has the necessary legal fire power to convincingly oppose it. In fact, she has made it clear that no one knows her position on this constitutional travesty.
Yet, and I've said it before, Miers has a more traceable pro-life record than Chief Justice John Roberts.
