Is this the WH Miers strategy: Soften opposition from ALL fronts by confusing everyone? “But she said … no, but she voted … yes, but she gave money to” … and (my favorite from last night’s Specter story — with emphatic intonation) “SHE DID NOT say what she said!”
Via MSNBC, a “potential bombshell”: “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.” Precise quotes below the fold.
Last night, Senate Judiciary chair Arlen Specter told reporters that, when he interviewed her yesterday, Miers said she supports “two privacy-related rulings [incl. Griswold], regarding contraceptives …” After Miers said Specter got it wrong, the office for the constitutional expert issued a non-denial denial. A CNN reporter said on air that he’s sure that the meticulous Specter got it right.
ED HENRY, CNN REPORTER: It was stunning that she would talk about a specific case, as you suggest. Now, of course, the White House is insisting she did not talk about a specific case. But I can tell you, I was standing there with Arlen Specter. He — this is his ninth or 10th Supreme Court battle. Unequivocally, twice, he said that she believes that Griswold was rightly decided. He said it twice. … More excerpts below fold:
Update [2005-10-18 11:54:13 by susanhu]: “U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers told the U.S. Senate on Tuesday her ability to practice law in the District of Columbia was briefly suspended this year because of nonpayment of bar association dues.” (Reuters/Yahoo)
More from MSNBC:
“If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature,” asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.
Miers checked “yes” to that question, and all of the group’s questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep “pro-abortion” people off city health boards and commissions.
Update [2005-10-18 11:36:28 by susanhu]: I strongly suggest you read this transcript segment from last night’s CNN/Aaron Brown show:
ED HENRY, CNN CONGRESSIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, the White House tonight is denying this claim by Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter that Harriet Miers told him in a private meeting this afternoon that the 1965 ruling in Griswold vs. Connecticut was — quote — “rightly decided.”
That’s significant, because the Griswold case was the underpinning for legalized abortion in America, with the subsequent Roe v. Wade decision. So, Miers suggesting it was the correct decision could further erode her support with conservatives.
Now, Specter, who supports abortion rights, was unequivocal in telling me and several other reporters — quote — “She said she believes there’s a right to privacy in the constitution and she believes Griswold was rightly decided.”
A White House official tonight told me this was not true. Miers did not discuss the Griswold case with Specter, and the senator would, quote, “correct the comments. But Specter put out an official statement that did not exactly correct his comments. He revealed that Miers called him tonight to declare that the senator had, quote, “misunderstood what she said.”
That explanation is raising some eyebrows among conservatives I spoke to tonight, like Jan Larou (ph) of Concerned Women for America. She’s puzzled that Specter, known for being meticulous about Constitutional law, would have a miscommunication about such a seminal case.
More interesting, this controversy comes the same day Miers told another senator, Chuck Schumer, that nobody knows how she’ll vote on abortion. That question sparked by this column in today’s “Wall Street Journal,” alleging that during a conference call with conservatives, two Texas judges declared Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Now, conservatives on that call, like James Dobson, later announced their support for Miers. I spoke tonight as well to David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, who has come out against Miers. And he told me the Specter matter suggests Miers is trying to play this abortion issue both ways. From what he — Frum basically said, quote, “It’s remarkable and disturbing that James Dobson would be left with the impression Harriet Miers completely agrees with his position against Roe, and that Arlen Specter was left with the impression she agrees with his position on Roe.”
The bottom line, this is just yet another cloud in a confirmation battle already stormy, Anderson.
COOPER: Well, a couple questions. Why would Harriet Miers have conversation with Arlen Specter? Because all along, they have been saying, I think what the White House is saying, is that she’s not discussing specifics on any case, or says she hasn’t made up her mind about particular cases. Is that correct?
HENRY: You’re absolutely right. She’s having this meeting because she’s been doing meet-and-greets with lawmakers in both parties. Specter, as chairman, is obviously a key lawmaker on this.
It was stunning that she would talk about a specific case, as you suggest. Now, of course, the White House is insisting she did not talk about a specific case. But I can tell you, I was standing there with Arlen Specter. He — this is his ninth or 10th Supreme Court battle. Unequivocally, twice, he said that she believes that Griswold was rightly decided. He said it twice.
So you have to — you know, who do you believe? A Republican chairman, or the White House? This is going to be a very interesting dispute, and it’s very delicate for the White House, because they don’t want to antagonize Specter, who’s going to be overseeing these big hearings.
COOPER: And I know you said it once, but just repeat it, the White House had said that he was going to come out with a new statement correcting himself, but his new statement doesn’t really correct himself, does it?
HENRY: It doesn’t really correct it. When you read it very closely, he basically says, OK, I’ll take Harriet Miers at her word that I, Arlen Specter, misunderstood what she said.
The White House is saying, She said no such thing. Arlen Specter is saying, I misunderstood what she said, again, indicating that she said Griswold was rightly decided.
So clearly, to me, not a correction, maybe a clarification. But this is not the last you’ve heard of this story, Anderson.
COOPER: A lot more tomorrow. Ed, thanks. Ed Henry.
