The right’s problematic assurances about Miers

Last week, as pressure mounted about what kind of secrets Karl Rove told James Dobson about Harriet Miers, Dobson took to the airwaves to explain that Miers’ position on Roe v. Wade was not part of his confidential briefing. Dobson said he “would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade,” but he didn’t ask, Bush doesn’t know, and Rove didn’t tell.

Was any of this true? According to John Fund in today’s Wall Street Journal, Dobson and his religious right cohorts were told a great deal more than they’ve admitted. In fact, a conference call with two Miers surrogates shortly after the nomination was announced sought to give leading conservatives insights that have been kept secret from the public.

On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Dr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the Miers nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained, and on which the following account is based. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers’s close friends [Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal district court judge] said that she would vote to overturn Roe. […]

What followed was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he’d never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, “Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?” “Absolutely,” said Judge Kinkeade. “I agree with that,” said Justice Hecht. “I concur.”

Shortly after, Dr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave: “That’s all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls.” When asked later about these comments in the notes I have, he confirmed some of them and said it was “very possible” he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe…. [S]everal who participated in the call confirm that both stated Ms. Miers would overturn Roe.

Miers-related news has been trickling out for a couple of weeks, but this may be the most important development yet.

In context, this conference call was the drive to assure the GOP base with promises about how Miers would vote on hot-button issues. The White House will no doubt argue that it wasn’t responsible for organizing the call, but these conservatives did have a chance to chat privately with two leading Miers surrogates — which raises questions about whether the Bush gang was involved in orchestrating the discussion.

This also renews fears about Miers being the stealth conservative nominee the left has always feared. Publicly, her supporters insist that she’d remain open minded about issues such as abortion; privately, those same supporters insist categorically that she’s made up her mind and she’d vote to overturn Roe.

And for anyone worried about back-room deals and secret assurances, this conference call should be deal-breaker for Miers nomination. Indeed, the call may become the highlight of the confirmation hearings.

Some participants in the conference call fear that they will be called to testify at the Miers hearings. “If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it,” a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. “Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions,” one participant told me.

It’s possible this development might bolster flagging conservative support for Miers’ nomination, but that sound you hear is Dem opposition stiffening.

And the sound of subpoenas thwacking into the hands of Dobson and friends.

  • Why would Fund do this? I guess he’s supporting the nomination based on the assurances given on the call?

    I’ve heard Fund on some AFA radio shows & have assumed he was part of their camp. Maybe I’m wrong, but this admission seems like a real killer for this nomination.

  • I’ve heard Fund on some AFA radio shows & have assumed he was part of their camp.

    In general, he is. But a reporter, even a conservative one, lives for scoops like this one. Fund couldn’t just sit on it.

    Maybe I’m wrong, but this admission seems like a real killer for this nomination.

    It sure does.

  • The D’s should take this opportunity to insist Miers answer questions about specific cases. When she gives the usual dodge that it would be inappropriate to comment or state positions on cases that may come before her on the bench, the D’s should say that even if they had agreed to let that answer suffice in the past, here there have been firm representations made that she has taken positions on such cases, and that if that information is good enough to be shared on secret conference calls with religious operatives, it should be good enough to be shared with the public through the confirmation process.

    I have said before, and feel even more strongly now: whether it is on basic qualifications to uphold the critical place of the Supreme Court, whether it is on Dobson’s earlier comments, or whether it is on this new information, the Dems have an absolutely spin-proof cause to champion in using the filibuster. We are the ones on the side of the public’s right to know, we are on teh side of competence over cronyism. We can filibuster and win.

  • It will be interesting to see how many “wingers” change their mind about her now since they have howled loudly that even if she does prove to fall on the “right” side of this issue, that’s not the only case against her. They have insisted that they feel betrayed by Bush nominating someone with no background, no qualifications vs. the list of open right-wingers with judicial qualifications who have become their due for putting Bush over the top last year. Now, are they going to change their tune on this single issue and do it loudly enough that everyone will forget all their other protestations?

    Even though the mouse seems to keep getting the upperhand in this fight, I feel like a cat at play with the hypocrite charge and the current GOP crop.

  • here there have been firm representations made that she has taken positions on such cases,

    Ahhh…but there’s the rub. She didn’t express positions on those issues. Friends of her’s made the assertions, she didn’t. I don’t think the notes from the conference call will be enough to force her to answer any specific issue questions. However, it damn well better be enough to subpeona the people who did make the assertions and those people listening to them.

    “Judge Kinkeade, we’ve had reports that you are certain Ms. Meirs would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Is that true? On what basis do you assert this?”

    Now that would be an interesting confirmation hearing.

  • Comments are closed.