Eeesh: Harriet Miers Blows An Easy Question

She seems to think "proportional voting" -- seemingly based on race -- is mandated by the Equal Protection Clause.

Okay... Lani Guinnear, the Clinton nominee whose name he wisely withdrew after her writings revealed her to be a race-obsessed leftist -- also believed in proportional voting for minority voters.

Now, this may just be a mistake, an error in language... but really, come on. Even if it is just an error -- even if she's just getting the "republican form of government" clause (interpreted as requiring almost equal Congressional voting districts) with the Equal Protection Clause, this was a written response on a questionnaire. The woman had time to reflect upon and compose her answer.

I don't want to be too nitpicky -- I make a lot of mistakes myself, of course -- but she's either very, very liberal or else utterly confused about what the Constitution says.

Sorry to lose another buck from Monty.

Like I Said... I make a lot of mistakes. I meant Equal Protection Clause, not Equal Rights Clause. Thanks for the correction.

That was MY error, not Harriet Miers. She said "Equal Protection Clause," which is the right terminology.

It's just the right clause to cite when talking about the one-man, one-vote thingee. That's the republican form of government clause.

I guess a case could be made that the EPC sort of implicates that idea too. Still.

posted by Ace at 01:33 PM

| Access Comments