10/05/2005

Link to article

A questionnaire filled out in 1989 by U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is being promoted as an insight into her views on gay rights and the law.

I absolutely can't believe that this is grounds for speculation. Just because there isn't enough public "evidence" of this person's views, we have to go dig up every conceivable document that could be used to interpret said views? Don't we have congressional hearings to determine the qualifications of potential Supreme Court justices?

You'll want to read the article, though. There's a real winner of a quote from Scalia. (I know at least one person will bite. Someone who is more than slightly anti-duck. Someone who should watch out, because hey, in 30 years you might be in the middle of a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, and Senator What's-His-Face will suddenly ask you how you feel about duck's rights ...)

# posted by Brandon at 3:29 AM 1 comments Home

1 Comments:

Blogger Rachel said...

Of course I'll bite. My response is four-fold:

1) Yeah, we do theoretically have Senate hearings to determine a justice's qualifications, but Roberts showed us that nominees don't necessarily have to really answer the questions they are asked in such hearings.

And even if such silence is justified, that's not going to stop the public from wanting to know what people think. And as referenced in my response to your post a few days again, the First Amendment gloriously lets the public, in this case especially the media, dig up, publicize, and criticize whatever previous statements they want (which previous statements of course are also broadly protected by the First Amendment.

2) You shouldn't be surprised that such surveys are being relied on to speculate about her views. Especially not this one, which it seems was specifically DESIGNED to figure out what Ms. Miers' views are on gay rights and the law. (I do grant you, however, that it's pretty outdated so it's relevancy is pretty slight (in fact, it was completed just one year after Ms. Miers contributed to Al Gore's 1988 campaign...gee, wasn't that the same election in which another Mr. George Bush was running as well, and didn't get her monetary support? I digress) But we all know by now that gay rights and abortion have been made into such hot-button topics that the media feels the need to make anything related to them relevant.

3) I hardly think it is fair to classify me as "anti-duck". I don't quite think ducks are a suspect class entitled to special protection of the Constitution (though I am sure a few originalists will be glad to attempt to argue that my living constitution viewpoint will lead me down the slippery slope in a few years).

I do like the little fellas, though. Ducks, that is.

4) I think the chance of me ending up in a Supreme Court confirmation hearing is significantly small enough that I can promise that if I end up there, I will make it a point to be aggressively pro-duck in all my answers. But don't go relying on campaign promises. ;)

BTW if you go with that Halloween costume for our party you just might win a prize.

2:39 PM  

Post a Comment