No on Roe

John Fund has just thrown fuel on an already raging fire.

Fund writes:

On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers's close friends--both sitting judges--said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.

...Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson's in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers's for decades.

Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, "Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think."

What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, "Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?"

"Absolutely," said Judge Kinkeade.

"I agree with that," said Justice Hecht. "I concur."

...Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter. Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can't recollect who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that Ms. Miers was "pro-life," a characterization he has repeated in public. But he says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he answered, "I don't know." He doesn't recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe.

The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.

The conference call will no doubt prove controversial on Capitol Hill, always a tinderbox for rumors that any judicial nominee has taken a stand on Roe v. Wade.

Dems, like Howard Dean, have been vocal in their support, or at least non-rejection, of Harriet Miers. For instance, during his appearance on Late Night with David Letterman, Dean called Miers "extremely qualified."

I predict that he will no longer be going around espousing the attributes of Harriet Miers.

When Dean was on Hardball, October 5, 2005, he was somewhat reserved, saying that he wanted to learn more about her.

DEAN: ...I think with a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, you can't play, you know, hide the salami, or whatever it's called. He's got to go out there and say something about this woman who's going to a 20 or 30-year appointment, a 20 or 30-year appointment to influence America. We deserve to know something about her.

Dr. Dean made it clear that although there should be no "hiding the salami," he was not about to attack Miers in the manner of conservatives like Bill Kristol.
DEAN: ...We don't know Ms. Miers. I've always believed people ought to begin with the benefit of the doubt....Until I know something about her, I'm not willing to condemn her.

Regarding Miers and her stance on abortion, Dean sidestepped the issue a bit, wanting to avoid being critical of her.
MATTHEWS: Does it bother that she's been to a pro-life event?

DEAN: No. I mean, you know, I'm a strong believer that the government ought not to tell women what kind of health care they ought to have. But I don't mind what her religious convictions are, as long she's upholding the law.

Later in the interview, discussion turned to Miers again.
MATTHEWS: ...Do you think it's important that the new justice be a person who supports abortion rights down the line, supports Roe v. Wade?

DEAN: I think it's important that the justice is willing to grant individual freedom to all Americans, not just on the issue of abortion, but the individual freedoms that make up — for voting rights, for example. I think they ought to defend people's ability to vote unharassed....Those are the kinds of things I really care about. I want people that defend the individual freedoms and rights of Americans. And so far, we haven't seen that happen from the right wing.

MATTHEWS: Dr. Dean, you've been very cautious here, and I think a lot of Democrats have, you're not alone. Why are the right-wing people, the people on the radio all day, Rush Limbaugh, Laura Ingraham, people like Bill Kristol, who was mentally important in knocking Hillary Clinton's health care plan, he has a big power in this country. Why are they out there with the blunderbuss, going at this nomination, and you're so cool about it?

DEAN: Well, I don't know. They can say whatever they want, that's what they do. Sometimes the people who talk the most know the least.

After this October 3, conference call becomes common knowledge, I highly doubt that Dean will be as relaxed about Harriet Miers.

I think the NARAL, radical, ultra-lib, extremist Dems will dive into the fray and loudly proclaim opposition to Miers. Since the far Leftists have the Democrat Party by the throat, I think Dean and other Dems who have remained restrained in their criticism of Miers will now speak out against her. They have no choice.

Harry Reid was thrilled when Bush announced Miers as his nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

He said:
I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.

In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer.

He'll have to backtrack on those comments. The special interest Dem groups will demand nothing less than total opposition to Miers.

Chuck Schumer, like Reid, was initially pleased with her nomination.

On the October 3, PBS Newshour, he said:
Of the ten or twelve names bandied about, a large number were very hard right by their past history. Harriet Miers has no past history in terms of judicial philosophy so we don't know. But overall, that's a positive sign because there were only two or three people on that long list the president had that would have the chance to be moderate. She's one of them.

If he gives any credence to the conference call that Fund details, Chuckie can no longer consider Miers to be moderate. All previous bets are off. He'll have to turn his back on her. Like all good Dems, he really has no choice when it comes to defending the legality of destroying an unborn child.

For two weeks, Dems have been noncommittal on Miers for the most part. They have not gone on the offensive to derail her nomination. I suppose that's because they believed conservatives were imploding over Miers. The Dems felt they could comfortably step back and watch. I think that's about to change.

Dems must oppose Miers now. There is no way they can continue their current game plan. At the slightest hint that she may vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, Dems are required to speak out against her. It's automatic. It's mandatory.

Many on the Right are already outraged. Now, the Left has reason to play to their radical base and express outrage. Very, very few on the Right or the Left remain in the non-outraged camp.

At this point, it's difficult to envision any scenario under which Miers will be confirmed.