Miers Runs Silent, Runs Deep

Everyone's guessing. Which way does she run on Roe?

My Way News has the story here.

Take a closer look:

The abortion issue hangs over Miers' nomination much as it did over the appointment of Chief Justice John Roberts earlier this year. The situations are different, however - Roberts replaced the late William Rehnquist, who voted to overturn the 1973 abortion ruling. Miers would succeed retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who has voted to uphold it.

Additionally, Roberts won a ready embrace from conservatives, given a resume that included stints in three separate Republican administrations as well as two years as a federal appeals court judge.

Not so Miers, who has spent much of her professional life at a Texas law firm, served one term on the Dallas city council, and has little by way of a record to establish her views on abortion, affirmative action and other issues.

"She said nobody knows my views on Roe v. Wade. Nobody can speak for me on Roe v. Wade," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., referring to the case that set a legal precedent that abortion foes have been trying to overturn ever since.

While Miers has yet to draw opposition from any Republican senators, many have been reluctant to come to her defense.

"I don't want to be complicit in another Souter or another Kennedy," said Sen. George Allen, R-Va., adding he wants to satisfy himself about Miers' judicial philosophy before deciding how to vote on her nomination.

That's the trouble. Will she become a "Souter in a dress?" No one knows, not even the President, who has "seen her heart." Whatever that means.

The entire nomination process has become corrupted by two unfortunate circumstances. One has been the juggernaut of cultural indoctrination that is the national pro-abort movement. They have effectively enshrined Roe v. Wade in the minds of many Americans as the gurantee of a woman's freedom. They've managed to convince Jane six-pack, and many Joe six-packs as well, that today's Plessy v. Fergeson is actually the latest Brown v. Board of Education. The result is a passionately embraced myth that the "right to choose" ensures women of equality, and that overturning Roe will shred this right.

The other unfortunate circumstance emerged from this great deception. That would be the collapse of SCOTUS nominee Robert Bork, which has given the English language the new verb, to "Bork." The far left at the time of Judge Bork's nomination attacked the Reagan nominee so vehemently that no President since has nominated anyone with as clear a record for or against Roe, or many other issues.

These unfortunate circumstances have led to the current climate in which only Judicial stealth bombers may enter the fray. The trouble is that the Senate becomes handicapped in exercising its constitutional role to advise and consent to a sitting president's nominee. In fact, even a President may not know what he's getting. Ask the Republican presidents that nominated Justices Blackman, Souter and Kennedy.

We the people should know whether a nominee will be a Justice or a Judiciarator? Will they sit on the Supreme Court or the Supreme Judiciarium? Will they interprete law or pass it down from on high? Until we demand an end to stealth, we'll never know for sure whether any nominee is one or the other.