"'[Harriet Miers] said she believes there is a right to privacy in the Constitution' and that both contraception cases were 'correctly decided,' Specter told reporters in Washington."
But wait, Harriet Myers says she never told Senator Specter that she believes in a constitutional right to privacy. She says she didn't tell the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee that Griswold v. Connecticut, the landmark case that served as the precedent for Roe, was correctly decided.
I'm at a loss to understand how Senator Specter could misunderstood Miers' position on this explosive issue, and misunderstand it to such an extent that he reported it to the press, but according to Sen. Specter's spokesperson:
"In their meeting this afternoon Sen. Specter thought Ms. Harriet Miers said she agreed with Griswold v. Connecticut and there was a right to privacy in the Constitution," Reynolds said in the statement emailed last night.
"Ms. Miers called him to say that he misunderstood her and that she had not taken a position on Griswold or the privacy issue. Sen. Specter accepts Ms. Miers's statement that he misunderstood what she said," Reynolds said in the statement.
Very strange. Josh Marshall calls it "embarrassing for them."
Armando at Kos says "Seems like Ms. Miers is full of "failures to communicate." The blogger reports that the ultra conservative Concerned Women for America also find the alleged misunderstanding pretty darn strange:
...Jan LaRue, chief counsel for the conservative group Concerned Women for America, said she was puzzled because Specter has a reputation for being precise about constitutional law. "It sounds like he's being gracious. I mean, how could he get that wrong? It sounds funny to me," said LaRue, whose group has raised sharp questions about the Miers nomination. "That's artfully worded, isn't it?
LaRue said she was baffled by the idea that there could have a miscommunication over such a seminal privacy case."This is going to be interesting to see how clearly she answers questions before the full committee, if we've already (seen) this kind of misunderstanding over something so simple," she said.
Yet, according to the Associated Press, Miers is rabidly anti-choice. Harriet Miers has gone on record with the view that abortion should only be available to save a woman's life.
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 [sic], 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. [Note: The anti-choice org. since changed its name.]
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.
The long-awaited Miers confirmation hearings are going to be pretty damn interesting. Maybe Miers will have her story straight by then.
Meanwhile, Wonkette reports that Miers has the full support of old white male Texas judges. But with Miers' reputation for obsequiousness and as fawning coffee server, what else could we expect?
"I'd trust her with my wife and with my life," said former Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice John Hill."
High praise indeed, though we wonder what Hill believes to be even the potential risks for his wife in Harriet's presence. Sure, we can hear it now: "Why, Mrs. Hill, you're just the greatest judge's wife ever...."
Perhaps the pro-choice Senator Specter misunderstood Miers because she is so talented at the ancient feminine art of pleasing the men in power.
Hey, that's one way to go from coffee server to Supreme Court Justice.
[The WaPo provides a link to the Texans United for Life Questionaire (pdf) and reports that during the same time period, Miers said "she would oppose an ordinance that would 'force' property owners and businesses to provide accommodations to persons with AIDS." Also, see the Washington Post for Miers's Responses to Senate Judiciary Committee Questions.]
Previous Related Post: Miers Gave Money to Pro Life Org
Harriet Miers Supreme Court Privacy Reproductive Rights Politics cronyism Miers abortion Roe v. Wade Griswald Specter
