The Volokh Conspiracy

Given Bush's linguistic skills, he probably misquoted her after she told him she (a) likes to construct art out of sticks, and (b) won't insist he watch Judy Dench.

"You are the best!"

I assume that questions about that conversation will draw a privilege objection, but I wonder if the privliege applies here. Anybody know?

How 'bout the "cringe test"? I'd like to know whether Miers cringed when W said that she shares his "judicial philosophy" and is a "strict constructionist."

Can anyone look me straight in the eyes (at least to the extent possible over the internet) and tell me they honestly believe Bush did not ask Miers flat out "Will you vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?" and that Miers did not answer with a resounding, unequivocal "Yes I will."? Surely nobody out there honestly believes this exchange didn't take place before Bush nominated her.

Very unconvincing, Keith. The dems get just as much mileage out of Roe as the Repubs do, and the fact that it's there keeps Dem candidate for elected office from having to stand up in front of their constituents or would-be constituents and defend the preferred policy of NARAL and other pro-choice activists -- that of abortion on demand at any time during pregnancy, without parental notification in cases involving minors, or any other restriction, other than the requirement that one must find a physician willing to perform the procedure. That wouldn't play any better with voters than banning abortion except to save the mother's life.

If the Dems are really pro-choice, then they're acting against their own interest in opposing originalist judges. Roe is likely to be overruled or modified at some point, so I would think pro-choice Dems and Republicans alike would rather see Roe overruled by a Court having an originalist majority -- you know, a Court that would take it out of the Constitution and leave the issue up to state legislators -- than see a pro-life activist court hold that at some point a fetus is a person and not just permit the states to impose restrictions on abortion, but require that they do so. The Dems should be careful what they wish for.

BruceM:

I do not think the exchange you posit happened. Can you look me straight in the metaphorical eyes and say that you wouldn't have made the same assertion about Souter &Bush senior?

I think Bush has bigger fish to fry than Roe. It has always been my opinion that the primary goal of the Bush administration has been to expand executive power (or if you listen to the bushies undo the errosion of executive power). At this goal they have been remarkably successful, and looked at in this light both of the supreme court appointees make perfect sense.

In the long term there are much more important issuse than the culture war, the Bush administration understands this. I don't agree with the goals they have but they are most assuredly long term and achieving them would have real and significant impact.

I don't know what conversations Bush and Miers have had, but, given that they've known each other a decade or more, I would not be surprised to learn they've had several conversations on the proper role of the courts. What would be more topical for an attorney and client to discuss than a recent Supreme Court opinion -- particularly with a client who's interested in politics? I would be surprised if, over a decade, they did not have several such discussions and that, from them, the President has a very good idea of what Miers thinks on the topic.

Technically, there's no evidence she said it to Bush, either. He just says she won't do it. Whether she ever told him that, or that is his own estimate, is anyone's guess.

Go to google.com

Type in the word Failure

hit the button, I'm feeling lucky