Miers' Religious views

[howard gillman]

Rick is thrilled, now that he knows more about Miers' religion affiliations and practices.  Ilya is not sure.  Of course, everyone is guessing, and I suppose the best evidence would be if there was a clear record of judicial decision making one way or the other.  But of course, as Bush understands, a clear judicial record is what would trigger the nuclear option.  The only way to get a conservative Evangelical sensibility on the Court is this way.  

Ilya notes that Cuomo was personally pro-life but politically pro-choice.  Then again, Cuomo had a clear public record as a liberal, and it is a person's political ideology that drives judicial decision making.  It's true that some conservatives vouched for Souter, but at the time all the evidence suggested that he was a moderate New England Republican (cf. Susan Collins, Olympia Snowe), which is what he still is.  (See http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195159330/002-3230159-7390402?v=glance&n=283155&n=507846&s=books&v=glance.)  By contrast, Miers is a pro-life Evangelical conservative. 

It's true she was endorsed by Reid.  Maybe he knows something Bush doesn't know.  Extremely unlikely, of course, but anything is possible.  Still, I don't think it is an accurate assessment of the politics of SC nominations to assume that Bush checked his swing and picked a moderate.  He's swinging for the fences.

H

----- Original Message -----
From: isomin at gmu.edu
Date: Wednesday, October 5, 2005 11:52 am
Subject: Miers' Religious views

> Prof. Gillman raises some good points, but I don't think they are 
> as probative of Miers' philosophy as he concludes they are.
> 
> Yes, Miers is a "long-practicing pro-life evangelical." But there 
> are lots of jurists with pro-life personal views who voted for 
> Roe. Consider the fact Mario Cuomo also has pro-life personal 
> religious views, as for that matter does Harry Reid. But even if 
> Miers' religious views would lead her to vote to overturn Roe, 
> that does not show how she would vote on other crucial issues.
> 
> As to her having conservative friends that are willing to vouch 
> for her, the same could also be said of David Souter (vouched for 
> by Sununu and Sen. Humphrey) and Blackmun, among others. 
> 
> Finally, the fact that she was preemptively endorsed by Harry Reid 
> also tells against the likelihood of her being highly 
> conservative. Reid would not have given such an endorsement if he 
> (and his advisers)  thought that she would vote like another 
> Scalia or Thomas, perhaps not even if they thought she would be 
> another Rehnquist.
> 
> Therefore, we have to conclude that either Reid or the pro-Miers 
> conservatives are wrong in their forecasts of what she is likely 
> to do on the Court. Prof. Gillman implicitly argues that Reid must 
> be wrong. In my view, we simply don't have enough information to 
> be able to tell.
> 
> None of this is to say that Miers has been proven to be another 
> Souter. And, unlike in the case of Souter, the president probably 
> DOES know where this nominee stands, thanks to his close 
> association with her. The rest of us, however, do not have the 
> same luxury.
>