Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Personal v. Judicial Philosophy

Is it me, or am I the only one who thinks the reason Miers was nominated by the W, Rove and Co was that her personal and judicial philosophy match this administrations views on what a good activist judge might be? Aren't personal and judical philosophies inseperable?
Q And you separate the questionnaire as a --

MR. McCLELLAN: I would also -- I think Senator Schumer indicated to you all yesterday that Harriet Miers said that no one knows how she would view on any particular case.

Q So then we should regard this -- or the Senate should regard this just as a personal view, not as an indication of her judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, her judicial philosophy is how I just described it. And she'll be talking more about it as she moves forward on the confirmation process. She's already visited with some 18 senators before today as part of the courtesy visits. She's visiting with an additional two senators today. And she will continue those visits in the coming weeks -- through the remainder of this week, and in the coming weeks as they move forward toward the confirmation hearings. And then at the confirmation hearings, senators will have an opportunity to visit with her and ask her questions about her views and her experience and her judicial philosophy. And she looks forward to the opportunity to answer those questions at that time.

Q Was that document a part of the vetting process and the package of materials that the President reviewed prior to selecting Harriet Miers?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, in terms of the President, they did not discuss this particular issue -- I think we've already indicated that -- or any other issue that may be viewed as controversial. The President doesn't have a litmus test, and that -- what we said before still stands. The President appoints people to the bench based on their qualifications and their experience and their judicial temperament. And that's what he makes the decision on. Now, in terms of the vetting process, there's a very thorough process that goes on for people to the President Supreme Court and people to other judicial vacancies, and it was a thorough vetting process.

Q Would that have included providing that kind of documentation to the President? Whether there was discussion, he could have simply read the --

MR. McCLELLAN: I'll see if there's more information on that. But, no, the President, as we have indicated, doesn't have a litmus test, so those are not questions he discusses with his nominees. And I'll see if there's any additional --

Q But did he read it, is what I'm asking. Was he aware of it prior to --

MR. McCLELLAN: That's what I said -- I'll see if there's any additional information to add.
The whole abortion issue is truly a red herring for those who might oppose Miers' nomination. As, I have said in the past, they don't have a litmus test becuase they already know her "heart." They don't need to ask.

No comments: