Tuesday, October 18, 2005

More Speculation About John Fund's Article

Yesterday Power Line had two posts on the John Fun article that I posted about yesterday. First, Paul Mirengoff wrote about how Fund's article might make a Democrat filibuster more likely.

In political terms, Fund's information increases the likelihood of solid Democratic opposition to Miers and maybe a filibuster. I've always thought that, in the end, Democrats might well come down hard against Miers. First, quite apart from any assurances Dobson and others may have received, many liberals distrust nominees with deeply held traditional religious beliefs. Second, Miers was never going to testify in way that would give the Dems (and the influential interest groups that support them) comfort about Roe. Third, Miers is vulnerable in ways that Roberts was not, making it less risky to oppose her. Now, the likelihood of unified, forceful Democratic opposition is somewhat greater.

Then in response to Paul's piece, John Hinderaker considered what might happen if Miers testified that she believed Roe was wrongly decided.
Mightn't that approach solve a number of problems? Miers would immediately become a heroine to nearly everyone on the right; most members of the public who follow the nomination process only casually would find her acknowledgement that she has indeed discussed Roe refreshing; it would be a good opportunity to confront the Democratic Senators on Roe, not in terms of abortion, but in terms of judicial activism; and it would put the Democrats in a box. Can they allow a nominee to be confirmed who admits that she thinks Roe was wrong? If they do, they've opened the floodgates, and they have no basis to object to, say, Judge Michael McConnell, who authored an article titled Roe v. Wade at 25: Still illegitimate.

Both Paul and John's posts are must reads, especially in regards to the "new" information brought forth in Fund's piece.