Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Miers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
The New Republic's fine &c blog points to a 1992 article she wrote for the Texas Lawyer. In the article, she points to three infamous multiple homicides in Texas: the 1966 Texas Tower Shooting, in which a man climbed the clock tower at the University of Texas, and shot 14 people. (He was finally stopped when two policemen and a civilian rushed the building.) The second was the 1991 Killeen massacre, where a man entered a Luby's Cafeteria, and methodically slaughtered unarmed 23 people. (The incident played a major role in Texas rescinding its ban on carrying concealed handguns, and enacting a Shall Issue permit law.) The third incident in Miers' article had taken place recently; a man murdered two judges and two lawyers in a Fort Worth courthouse.
"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:
The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.
It's technically possible that she was referring only to the Texas Constitutional arms right, which clearly is individual, rather than to the Second Amendment. However, the context of the quote does not seem so constricted, and even to describe the Texas right a precious liberty says a good deal about Ms. Miers' thinking.
She then explained the true solution to crime:
We will be successful in solving our massive crime problems only when we attack the root causes....
We all can be active in some way to address the social issues that foster criminal behavior, such as: lack of self-esteem or hope in some segments of our society, poverty, lack of health care (particularly mental health care), lack of education, and family dysfunction.
I agree, and have argued in the Barry Law Review that much-improved pre-school programs for at-risk boys would be far more effective, in the long run, at reducing violent crime than would gun control or even more draconian "conservative" federal criminal laws.
As far as I know, you have to go back to Louis Brandeis to find a Supreme Court nominee whose pre-nomination writing extolled the right of armed self-defense. (I'll fill in the details on him in a subsquent post.) And even Brandeis had not specicially mentioned "the right to bear arms" as one of the "precious liberties" that "We are not willing to sacrifice."
Many web writers have raised legitimate questions about Miers. In terms of the right to arms, however, Americans who love their precious liberties need not hope about the unknown, but need only expect her to be consistent with what she has already said.
Related Posts (on one page):
1. Miers on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms:
2. My Take on Miers:
3. Andrew Cohen on Miers:
4. A Quick Response to Todd:
5. The Court and the Legal Culture:
6. Dick Cheney Defends Miers Pick:
7. Daily Kos on the Miers Nomination:
8. The Website Formerly Known as ConfirmThem.com:
9. White Meets Powell Meets O'Connor?
10. Liberal Advocacy Groups Quiet So Far:
11. Reactions from the Conservative Blogosphere:
12. Who Was the Last Supreme Court Justice Born in Texas?
13. Miers on the War on Terror:
14. Frum on Miers:
15. Harriett Miers?:
16. Miers Nomination--Well, My Prediction Was Right:
17. It's Miers:
Kathianne said:Links at site, including the litany at the bottom.
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2005_10_02-2005_10_08.shtml#1128378033
Federalist No. 76
In Number 76 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton wrote:
To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment, or from a view to popularity. In addition to this, it would be an efficacious source of stability in the administration.And thanks to Randy Barnett for reminding me about 76!
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
Posted by Lawrence Solum at 10/03/2005 09:01:00 AM
UPDATE: Harriet Miers Is Nominee & BDP Reacts (UGH!-Is This What We Fought For?)
Posted by H-Bomb on Monday, 03 October 2005 (07:30:35) EDT
Contributed by H-Bomb
UPDATED: As we reported at 7:30 am, White House insider Harriet Miers has been picked by President Bush to serve on the Supreme Court in replace of the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor.
BDP for one, is far from thrilled.
Click READ MORE for BDP's not-so-happy reaction
BDP Instant Reaction - Somewhere Ann Coulter is rightly saying "I Told You So".
I'm highly disappointed. Now Harriet Miers may turn out to be a fine Justice on the Supreme Court. The problem is that we don't know that. Had the nominee been Janice Rogers Brown, Prescilla Owen, Michael Luttig or Miguel Estrada we'd be dealing with a known quantity. But this selection requires too much "hope". Further, it's not like anyone can defend her as being the "best qualified" person for the job. I'm trying to think how someone who doesn't follow this stuff 24/7 like we do is going to react. I think their first reaction will be "Huh?"
Politically it's not good because it just opens the President up to charges of "cronyism". If they thought her lack of a paper trail would deny the liberals ammunition with which to attack her, they're sadly mistaken. The talking points were out 5 years ago, and just waiting for a name to be inserted. This nomination was a chance to turn the tide a bit from the recent spate of bad news, and I don't think they took advantage of it.
Here's another question - when Miers comes under the inevitable attack by the left, why should conservatives go to the mat for her? What has she ever done to convince us she'd be in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas? Is Harriet Miers why the base was out knocking on doors and making phone calls? I don't think so. To use a phrase, conservatives really have no "skin" in this game, and quite frankly many likely wouldn't be disappointed if she's rejected, which will at least give the President a chance to nominate someone that could fire up conservatives.
SCOTUS nominations don't come along often. I don't think this is what the base had in mind. Again, she may turn out to be another Antonin Scalia, and may be impressive in her confirmation hearings, but for now I'm disappointed. My greatest wish is that my initial gut reaction is proven wrong.
UPDATE John Hawkins of RightWingNews goes further than me and calls Miers a "disaster"
Michelle Malkin is "utterly underwhelmed"
Powerline is also disappointed.
Confirm Them is underwhelmed.
John Podhoretz calls it dumb.
Mike Krepasky at Red State rightly says the President has some explaining to do.
Polipundit isn't exactly thrilled but is willing to give her a chance.
Andrew Sullivan is going the "Crony" route. But can we say he's wrong?
Mark Levin says that the President "flinched"
Betsy Newmark has a hard time putting an adjective on just how disappointed she is and says the President bowed to pressure.
Gerry Daly is in the "Anger" stage (#2 of the 5 stages)
Captain Ed is "mystified", and not in a good way.
Anchoress tells us all to calm down and opines that this may be a part of a bigger plan.
Glenn Reynolds says that Bush may have accomplished the impossible - gotten Republicans and Democrats to agree that his nominee isn't qualified for the job.
Alexander McClure is taking the view that conservatives should chill out for a bit and examines what this means for the 2006 Senate races.
Lorie Byrd wonders if Miers is tough enough for the nomination fight but is willing, at this point, to trust the President.
Kathianne said:Lots of links around the web:
http://www.anklebitingpundits.com/i...=article&sid=2403&mode=nested&order=1&thold=0
Kathianne said:Hmmm, I just remember him mixing with Hillary a couple months back.
Avatar4321 said:As for Reid's statements concerning her, I don't doubt she has treated him nicely. And remember Reid is one of the few Democrats who is pro life. I doubt he wants Roe v Wade to stay the law of the land any more than any conservative. The Problem is as the Democrat minority leader in the second he has to look like an idiot supporting alot of their stupid ideas and agendas. He is not a real leader, just follows where others go.
