[Mb-civic] Miers's Autonomy Will Be at Issue - Washington Post

[William Swiggard]

Miers's Autonomy Will Be at Issue
Panel to Question Her Judicial Reasoning

By Amy Goldstein and Charles Babington
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, October 27, 2005; Page A01

The chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee warned Supreme Court 
nominee Harriet Miers yesterday that he intends during confirmation 
hearings to probe her views of the Bush administration's detention of 
suspected terrorists in the military prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 
making clear he remains uncertain of her command of complex 
constitutional issues.

Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) dispatched a letter to Miers, the White 
House's top lawyer, saying that she must also convince the Senate that 
as a justice she would be independent of President Bush and would not 
give him "any special deference" on cases before the court.

In particular, Specter said, he will press her to disclose her personal 
views of three recent Supreme Court rulings that detainees in the 
terrorism fight have somewhat greater rights than the administration has 
wanted to give them.

The new pressure from Specter, who will preside over the hearings that 
are to begin on Nov. 7, came as Republican senators and conservative 
groups voicing qualms about the Miers nomination grew louder. Her visits 
to senators on and off the judiciary panel are so far failing to win 
commitments of support, senators and their aides said.

Adding to Miers's burden, some opinion leaders and grass-roots 
organizations on the right said yesterday that they are troubled by her 
writings and speeches from a short-lived political career in Dallas and 
years as a leader of Texas's legal community. Disclosure this week of 
some of Miers's words from the 1990s suggest a liberal tinge and 
inconsistent thinking on social issues, they said.

Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) emerged from a meeting with Miers yesterday to 
say that he is uncertain whether he could support her. Calling her 
engaging, Vitter said in a statement, "My central question still remains 
to be answered, however: Is there objective, written evidence from prior 
to her nomination that fully shows that she has a truly consistent and 
well-grounded conservative judicial philosophy?"

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/26/AR2005102600895.html?referrer=email