A 1989 survey presented to the Senate Judiciary Committee
Tuesday may answer one major question that surfaced earlier this
month when Harriet Miers was nominated to the Supreme Court
”“ how the former White House counsel will come down on
the issue of abortion.
On the single-sheet questionnaire sent out by Texans United for
Life, to which Miers responded when she was a candidate for public
office, the Supreme Court nominee answered all 10 questions in a
manner that expressed her opposition to abortion, including
statements that she would support a ban on abortion except when
necessary to save a woman’s life and oppose public spending
for the operations.
On other questions on the same survey, Miers said she would
appear at “pro-life rallies and special events” and use
her influence as an elected official to “promote the pro-life
cause.”
The information caused concern that Miers’ strong views on
abortion would influence how she votes when the topic comes before
the Supreme Court.
“This raises very serious concerns about her ability to
fairly apply the law without bias in this regard,” said Sen.
Diane Feinstein, D-Calif.
And with abortion such a controversial issue that many expect
will come before the Supreme Court in the near future, this
information has the potential to affect Miers’
confirmation.
Miers’ stance against abortion may take on particular
importance because she is set to replace a justice who consistently
voted to uphold Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court case that ruled
that abortion was a constitutional right.
“It’s not so much Harriet Miers as a person, but the
position that she has been nominated for. She’s been
nominated to replace Sandra Day O’Connor (who) has voted to
uphold abortion in many instances. We’re not sure Harriet
Miers would do the same,” said Miriam Gerace, a spokeswoman
for Los Angeles Planned Parenthood.
Even though Miers’ confirmation would mean that an
abortion rights justice was being replaced with an anti-abortion
one, UCLA Law Professor Jonathan Varat said he doubted there would
be a major change in abortion law in the near future, due to the
appointment of one or two judges.
One factor that Varat said is likely to prevent the Supreme
Court from overturning Roe v. Wade is precedent: the ruling has
been upheld repeatedly, which makes it less likely that a new
justice will reverse the decision.
And even if both Miers and Chief Justice John Roberts vote to
change abortion law, other members of the Supreme Court who have
voted to uphold the 1973 ruling would still comprise a majority,
Varat said.
The information revealing Miers’ anti-abortion stance may
raise more questions about the nominee than it answers. Varat
warned against placing too much importance on statements she made
as a candidate for an elected position.
“She wasn’t acting as a judge interpreting the
Constitution,” he said.
Her views on abortion, as well as how far she will be able to
set these aside when voting, will almost undoubtably be a prime
subject in the upcoming Senate confirmation hearings.
Feinstein has already said she will question the nominee
“very carefully about these issues,” and experts
predict others will do the same.
But the chief White House spokesman Scott McClellan emphasized
that the role of a Supreme Court Justice is to interpret the
Constitution, not to make moral or political judgements.
“The role of a judge is to apply the law in a fair and
open-minded way,” McClellan said. “Harriet Miers, just
like Chief Justice Roberts, recognizes that personal views and
ideology and religion have no role to play when it comes to making
decisions on the bench.”
With reports from the Bruin wire services.