Harriet Miers May Oppose Right to Contraception
Harriet Miers May Oppose Right to Contraception
Sen. Chuck Schumer said yesterday that Harriet Miers told him she was “not ready to give an answer” on whether the 1965 Griswold v Connecticut case was “settled law.” She also said she “had not taken a position” on the case in a letter to Sen. Arlen Specter. Griswold struck down a law that criminalized the use of contraceptives by married couples.
Coupled with her previous support for a constitutional ban on abortion, Miers’ silence on the case is notable. Even John Roberts, who refused to discuss his position on virtually any past decisions during his hearings, did state his support for Griswold:
I agree with the Griswold court’s conclusion that marital privacy extends to contraception and availability of that.
Miers should make her views on this case known. As the Griswold ruling demonstrates, it deals with fundamental issues of privacy and marriage rights:
The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. … Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Uh, what about non-marital relationships?
October 18th, 2005 at 1:35 pmOh now that’s just nuts! What kind of moron is against contraceptives?
October 18th, 2005 at 1:37 pmRick Santorum?
October 18th, 2005 at 1:37 pmSantorum is a nutjob…
Go to The Bullshit Report – a new progressive blog. The website is http://thebullshitreport.blogspot.com/
October 18th, 2005 at 1:42 pmThe sanctity of marriage indeed.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:50 pmIs it possible that Harriet is so clueless
about constitutional law that she has NOT
thought this stuff through?
Maybe this is FUBAR Bush’s plan:
Litmus test each issue without reguard to
constitutional law. Black and white only – don’t
bother with silly legal arguments as they are
sooo confusing.
Oh HELL no. Anybody who votes to confirm her is nuckin futs.
October 18th, 2005 at 1:52 pmThis is the final straw. The secrecy, he past duties with the Bushes, the “attourney-client” stuff, and now THIS? She doesn’t think Griswald is settled law? WTF?!?!?
October 18th, 2005 at 1:54 pmShe must go down, hard.
If this person is allowed to become a Supreme Ct Justice, we are all in alot of very deep shit.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:01 pmThe “flipper” has been identified? Hmmm…
October 18th, 2005 at 2:07 pmAND he’s a Fitz target? Hmmm….
AND he’s a Bolton aide? Hmmm…
There is no way Miers gets confirmed. My guess is that she withdraws, then Bubbleboy sticks Luttig up there and all the conservatives rejoice, Dems buckle, Roe gets overturned anyway. Sorry for the pessimism, but too many influential conservatives are outraged by the Miers nomination and I’m sure as more information becomes available it will solidify the R base against her. She’s not gonna make it.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:08 pmWhy should she answer any question? Schumer just needs to suck it up and either vote yes or no. Miers needs to follow the example of Ginsberg and not answer to anyone.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:08 pmI answered my own question. Only in 2003 did the Court in Lawrence v. Texas declare there was also a right of unmarried consenting adult couples to engage in non-procreative sexual intercourse. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griswold_v._Connecticut
October 18th, 2005 at 2:08 pmComment # 11,
“Why should she answer any question? ”
You’re an idiot.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:13 pmJesus watching me masterbate while wearing a condom is what screwed me up.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:15 pmWhat’s in the water in Texass anyway? These people are all wack jobs. If she gets in, get ready to set your clocks back about 100 years.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:17 pmI’m so old, I can remember when conservatives were for limited governmental interference in a person’s private affairs. They used to also be for fiscal restraint, balanced budgets, State’s Rights, and limited foreign entanglements.
The old “conservative/liberal” labels are pretty meaningless today. I think “criminals” and “the rest of us” is more appropos in describing the Syndicate Politics of the Republican Mob who occupy our government today.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:21 pmGeorge Bush’s Whore! And he’s counting on her to screw the entire nation.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:33 pmBush says he knows her heart and it won’t change in twenty years. Hell, it changed twenty years ago whenshe left one church for another and one political party for another. Either she doesn’t think through her decisions and simply reacts impulsively (according to what man she wants to please) or she is so convicted in her faith that she can’t think straight and can’t even form an opinion on birth control within marriage!
October 18th, 2005 at 2:36 pmIn either case, she surely doesn’t belong on the highest court. I realize that the next candidate could be even worse, but with this one, the nation is being asked to buy a pig in a poke, and judging from the little we are able to learn about her, she is either a fanatic or a nut case.
Jay,
It must take a lot of intelligence and thought for you to come up with something that profound. Go take a nap now and rest your remaining brain cells.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:36 pmLHSUTC,
Jay’s speculation makes more sense than any of the tripe and snips you’ve made. You clearly don’t have anything to contribute, and you’re boring to read. Move along please.
October 18th, 2005 at 2:52 pmWell of COURSE Ms. Miers can’t answer any questions…her mouth is constantly full of the White House staff…
October 18th, 2005 at 3:24 pm“Why should she answer any question?” That was the standard Republican line during the Roberts nomination but now all of the sudden their tune changes when Miers comes along! The R’s are the ones asking all the questions now! “Trust but Verify”.
Please pick one and stick with instead of flip flopping back and forth.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:26 pmafterthought – my brain just doesn’t want to work today…please explain “FUBAR†…i’ll probably be emabarrassed that i didn’t already know that…thanks…
October 18th, 2005 at 3:30 pmProhibiting contraception, teaching creationism in schools, sounds like the dark ages.
October 18th, 2005 at 3:33 pmKaty #24: old Army term — “F***ed up beyond all recognition”. I had a college roommate who named his car FUBAR; it worked just as well as Bushie…
October 18th, 2005 at 3:33 pmthanks! that is a new one for me…one i remember and use fondly is SNAFU – Situation Normal, All F___ed Up…appropo also…
October 18th, 2005 at 3:42 pmI don’t think any clear thinking conservative would limit the Filthy Left’s constitutional right to not procreate. I say throw her to the sharks. Use Ryan for bait first.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:22 pmI’m surprised no one has commented on this. Saw it on CNN.com this morning. Thought it would hit this site or crooksandliars.com. Full story at http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/18/miers/index.html
Excerpt:
After their meeting (on Monday), Specter told reporters that Miers said she believed the 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut — a landmark ruling establishing the right to privacy — was “rightly decided.”
But when the White House took exception to Specter’s comments, the Pennsylvania Republican released a statement saying Miers later called him to tell him he had “misunderstood” her answer.
Specter said Miers, in the later phone call, told him she had not taken a position on either Griswold or the right to privacy, the legal underpinning for the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion.
The article goes on to point out that Specter “accepted Miers’ contention ‘that he misunderstood what she said.’”
The words “rightly decided” sound pretty darn specific to me. Misunderstood? Hmmmm…
October 18th, 2005 at 4:52 pmOh…and what do you bet that Sen. Specter was not the only person to be contacted by the White House [wink]? I’d say Harriet got a lecture, too.
October 18th, 2005 at 4:58 pm“Miers should make her views on this case known.”
Miers WILL make her views on this case known in due course. To suggest that she “may oppose [the] right to contraception” is a ludicrous example of crying wolf by the left.
The left always assumes the worst of any nominee who is not safely known to be an extreme liberal on this issue. Increasingly the American people have begun to stop listening to their false alarms.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:12 pm“The left always assumes the worst of any nominee who is not safely known to be an extreme liberal on this issue. Increasingly the American people have begun to stop listening to their false alarms.”
Thomas and Scalie have taught us that not only are the alarms real, they’re worse than people feared. Then again, I’m basing this on FACTS, and EXPERIENCE. However I seem to recall outlandish fear mongering about supreme court justices that liberals would appoint. Look under every republican lie, and it points back at their own psychosis – as predictable as sunrise!
October 18th, 2005 at 5:14 pmSaying it over and over doesn’t make it so, BS. You repubs can only be happy if everyone thinks the way you do. What does that say about you? Can’t you stand alone with a thought of your own? Why are trolls like this? Why do they only feel comfortable if they think their views are shared by many?
Crazy zealots.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:15 pmI thought it was the Cheney administration
October 18th, 2005 at 5:16 pmalarms we were ignoring.
What is the color today? Magenta? Crawford brown?
bsr – can you read? Did you read the link? Miers called Specter back informing him she did not say that she thought that there was a constitutional right to privacy. This is going back to the 50’s Conneticut case which initially legalized contraceptives for married adults.
She didn’t say yes, she didn’t say no, she said she didn’t say.
Reading between the lines, it clearly states she DOESN’T think there is any constitutional right to privacy. From there is Roe v Wade and a whole host of things we’ve taken for granted since the 60’s.
douchebag.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:20 pm“Can’t you stand alone with a thought of your own?”
I do just that when I post on this site. Usually the responses I get are full of name-calling and abuse from the so-called “progressives” around here. Rarely does anyone on the left engage in an open exchange of facts and figures.
I am at least critical of my party and President Bush from time to time. The left seems incapable of facing the truth, especially when the truth involves facts that are unfavorable to the Clintons.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:47 pm“Did you read the link?”
This is what the link says:
“. . . last night, a spokesman for Specter issued a statement saying that Miers had called him after his public comments ‘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,’ the statement said.”
Miers also told Sen. Schumer that no on knows how she might vote on Roe v. Wade. In other words, there is no basis in this report for saying that Miers “may oppose [the] right of contraception.” That is just crying wolf.
October 18th, 2005 at 5:55 pmAt least that is what the regular public is supposed
October 18th, 2005 at 5:58 pmto think BSR. The wingnuts seem to get a different
story from the “chosen” spinners.
I hope they ALL get to testify.
“I do just that when I post on this site. Usually the responses I get are full of name-calling and abuse from the so-called “progressives†around here. Rarely does anyone on the left engage in an open exchange of facts and figures.”
First of all, you have nothing for us to discuss with you. You post lies and talking points, nothing more. Post some facts. Here’s one. Posts some facts that the country is on your side. And by facts I mean links to articles written by people other than right wingers.
Second anybody that has a color in their name is a wingnut. You are clearly stating with your screen name that you are red through and through. You never question Bush. NEVER.
You have nothing to debate, so go the fvck away.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:06 pmbsr – you are dancing around a point without saying it.
Miers has indicated by her not saying outright, as Roberts did say, that Griswald is settled precident. By making the point to Specter, she signaled she doesn’t agree.
Do you think she believes in a right to privacy?
Do you believe she will vot to overturn Roe v Wade if given the chance?
Tell us what you think on these 2…Yes or No. No dancing.
I believe she is a no,yes.
Dish.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:39 pm“And by facts I mean links to articles written by people other than right wingers.”
This is another favorite tactic of the left: ‘I won’t debate you unless you agree to use information I already agree with.’ The fact that information comes from a conservative, or from a conservative news source, does not invalidate the information. The question is not whether you agree with it, but instead whether it is true. The left usually refuses to face that question.
Want an example?
Most of the lefties on this site have never questioned the left’s propaganda on Katrina – that it was all somehow FEMA’s fault that people weren’t properly evacuated and provided for. Some even stateed that Mayor Nagin should be absolved of responsibility because FEMA “failed to take control” in New Orleans.
The problem is FEMA has no power to “take control” over state or local governments in a disaster. Its mission is to coordinate federal resources with state and local disaster response resources. We have seen this work well in other jurisdictions: in Texas, during Hurricane Rita, in New Jersey, during the flooding there, and in Massachusetts, with the Mill River dam situation.
These cases involve different political situations, but they all have two things in common: (1) In each case, state and local officials took the lead in executing their respective disater plans, and they coordinated with FEMA to the extent they needed to do so; and (2) In each case, state and local officials took the lead in squelching rumors and horror stories that ad not beenproperly confirmed. If Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco had done half as well in New Orleans, a lot of people would have been a lot better off, and perhaps a few lives would have been saved.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:39 pmGetting back to Harriet Miers, I suggest everyone, including her conservative detractors, take a deep breath and wait for the hearings.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:40 pmBSR,
“This is another favorite tactic of the left: ‘I won’t debate you unless you agree to use information I already agree with.’ The fact that information comes from a conservative, or from a conservative news source, does not invalidate the information. The question is not whether you agree with it, but instead whether it is true. The left usually refuses to face that question.”
There’s an old adage. You can have your own opinions, you can’t have your own facts. The problem is that the reichwing media not only distorts, it fabricates content. Didn’t you catch the faux news reporter recently who spoke out about the wholesale fabrication of stories boy faux news?
We always face the question, we just refuse to play in the frame of a lie you create as the foundation of the argument.
Katrina? Is that the best you can do? That tired line has been debunked so often it’s like watching a yoyo. That might work on the freeper sites where everyone believes the same propaganda – but here you just look like an idiot!
There’s plenty of blame to go around for everyone, but then again you and your kind never accept any of it yourself. For instance, much of the problems occurred because the FEMA guidelines HAD been followed. For instance FEMA refused to allow school buses to be used to evacuate the city because they didn’t have air conditioning – you probably didn’t even know that did you?
You’re conditioned to be an idiot – open your mind and you might learn something!
October 18th, 2005 at 6:54 pm“Getting back to Harriet Miers, I suggest everyone, including her conservative detractors, take a deep breath and wait for the hearings.
Comment by Blue State Red”
She’s a crony idiot, just like you. The only way she’ll get confirmed is if some of the democrats prefer her over someone who’s smarter, hoping she learns something on the court!
October 18th, 2005 at 6:55 pmWHat’s the matter BSR, can’t find any facts to back your position up, so you try and feed us your usual line of bullsh!t?
Come on bitch, make a point or get the fvck out of here. Your a useless person.
October 18th, 2005 at 6:58 pm““Can’t you stand alone with a thought of your own?â€
I do just that when I post on this site. Usually the responses I get are full of name-calling and abuse from the so-called “progressives†around here. Rarely does anyone on the left engage in an open exchange of facts and figures.”
Really? Is that why everything you post is identical the same thing every other republican posts? If you ‘believe’ you have original thoughts – then you’re not only stupid – you’re delusional!
Actually it’s called an ‘adjective’. When a name is descriptive, it ceases being a ‘name calling’ simply becomes a descriptive term. If I called you a ‘dog’, that would be name calling. But calling you an unoriginal idiot who pushes previously debunked propaganda – then that’s merely descriptive.
“I am at least critical of my party and President Bush from time to time. The left seems incapable of facing the truth, especially when the truth involves facts that are unfavorable to the Clintons.”
You are? Are you kidding? I don’t remember you every being critical of your party, and when you were, it’s because you thought the should be more stupid and more rightwing than they already are! You’re a lying bag of crap (now that WAS just a little name calling).
Now as for being critical – you obviously miss the point where we bitch about democrats not screaming louder, or the DLC fvcking with the democratic party, or democrats not fighting the abomination of a bankruptcy bill harder, or even the democrats not having the balls to fight roberts. All of those were in fact us bitching about our party – so what again were you bitching about? Oh right, clinton. Get a life you weasel!
Comment by Blue State Red
October 18th, 2005 at 7:07 pmSadly, if Miers doesn’t make it, Bush will just nominate another clone, someone else who will check all the right boxes. Keep in mind that, with 3+ years still to go with Bush, this country is stuck with long-term indigestion. Perhaps next year’s elections might change that. By the way, why are we still discussing Clinton? He’s been out of office for nearly five years.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:27 pmunmarried AND opposed to contraception? I guess the virginity rumors are true… how can we afford to have a virginal Supreme Court Justice? we need someone who understands, represents and respects our carnal values!
October 18th, 2005 at 7:39 pmOf course he will. Maybe it’ll evolve into a 3 year game of T ball. He puts the nominee up on the T & we bang it out of the park.
Thats liberal wishful think. I think Ope’s take is more realistic.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:41 pmbtw, is Miers opposed to coitus interruptus, too? how would she enforce that? oh yes, Scalia and Thomas don’t believe in privacy even in our own bedrooms… don’t get caught making pearls, or you’ll make time in “the pen!”
October 18th, 2005 at 7:42 pmJust heard a good story on NPR. Seems ole girl has split the evangelical base with her ambiguity.
October 18th, 2005 at 7:43 pmYeah, Pete,
October 18th, 2005 at 7:46 pmsounds like ole girl needs to dust off the ugly parts and give the regular people a break.
Pete,
The rumor is that Ms. Miers and Ms. Rice are ‘lunch buddies’. I wonder if they eat at the ‘Y’ very often?
October 18th, 2005 at 8:27 pmIs that the first joke you’ve ever “cracked”, Ryan?
October 18th, 2005 at 8:44 pmBrian,
Yeah, can’t you tell. I’m completely humorless…
October 18th, 2005 at 9:21 pmHere you go, Ryan. This will cheer you up:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/18/AR2005101801549_pf.html
October 18th, 2005 at 11:33 pmApparently Miers isn’t just for overturning Roe v. Wade, she’s also for a constitutional ban.
“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, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.”
So you can be assured that the new reichwing court won’t stop at overturning Roe v. Wade, they’ll find a way to attempt to make it ILLEGAL. Just watch and see if this reichwing government gets is way and appoints these activist judges!
October 19th, 2005 at 12:40 amThis country is is so much danger because of this pigheaded C student, it’s terrifying. The lines between church and State are becoming narrower by the second, terrorism is more rampant than it ever was, privacy issues that had been resolved years ago are now fair game. Corruption is the order of the day throughout the “ruling class” in the halls of Congress… and there’s a laoded gun waiting to go off in ALL of our faces, and will impact on our children for years to come. The hidden surprises buried deep inside the Patriot Act that got rammed through Congress without a SINGLE member of either the House OR the Senate haqving actually read it in its entirety are going to turn this society into an Orwellian nightmare. The “freedoms” we all enjoy now will become nothing but distant memories, plaguing our troubled, sleepless nights waiting for the doors of our homes to burst open. You all are worried about Roe v. Wade? Just wait until some of the nasties in THAT bit of repressive legislation start rearing their ugly heads. JOHN ASHCROFT WAS A TOTAL ZEOLOT of the highest order… and his stint as AG is going to come back to haunt us all. Watch. Prepare. And get ready to rumble, my friends. The worst is yet to come…
October 19th, 2005 at 4:46 pmTHIS WOMAN HAS NEVER BEEN MARRIED. HOW CAN SHE MAKE ANY DECISION ON PRIVACY RIGHTS FOR MARRIED COUPLES? I guess they want all these babies born. Who is going to take care of them? Not these RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS NUTS.
October 19th, 2005 at 5:15 pmAmen, Mary Poppin
October 19th, 2005 at 5:26 pmGriswold is a benchmark case not for what it did (allow the sale of contraceptives in Connecticut) but rather for how it arrived at its decision. The right to privacy is not enumerated in the constitution but rather was imputed by the court on the basis of the ninth and fourteenth amendments among others. Roe v Wade followed this line of reasoning.
Whatever Miers’ opinions are on abortion she should be able to discuss the basis for the Courts decisions and apparantly she can’t.
October 25th, 2005 at 3:39 am[...] There is much in Harriet Miers’ record to suggest she fell to the right of Roberts’ on the question of abortion rights. She does not consider Griswold settled law and had a record of supporting anti-choice causes. [...]
October 27th, 2005 at 2:14 pmConnecticut Us Bankruptcy Court
Thanks for this post!
March 31st, 2008 at 12:49 am