Advertisement

Interpretations Differ After Talks With Miers

Specter reports that the high court nominee believes in the right to privacy. But later the White House says he misunderstood her.

The Nation

October 18, 2005|Maura Reynolds and Edwin Chen, Times Staff Writers

WASHINGTON — Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter emerged from a lengthy meeting Monday with Supreme Court nominee Harriet E. Miers saying she told him she believed that the Constitution includes a right to privacy -- an account of the meeting that was later disputed.

"She said she believes there is a right to privacy in the Constitution," the Pennsylvania Republican told reporters after a meeting with Miers that lasted 1 hour and 40 minutes. He said in particular that she supported the Supreme Court's decisions in Griswold vs. Connecticut and Eisenstadt vs. Baird, two cases that established a right of privacy for married and unmarried couples to use contraception.


Advertisement

The right to privacy enshrined in those cases was the foundation for the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade, which established a woman's right to end a pregnancy. Since then, legal discussions of privacy rights often have served as a proxy for the constitutionality of a right to abortion.

Specter said he considered Miers' comments "relevant but not determinative" of how she might rule on abortion issues should she win confirmation to the high court.

Later Monday evening, White House officials said that Specter had misunderstood Miers and that a statement would be issued.

"In their meeting this afternoon Sen. Specter thought Ms. Harriet Miers said she agreed with Griswold v. Connecticut and there was a right to privacy in the Constitution," Specter spokesman William Reynolds wrote in an e-mail to reporters. "After Sen. Specter commented on that to the news media, Ms. Miers called him to say that he misunderstood her and that she had not taken a position on Griswold or the privacy issue. Sen. Specter accepts Ms. Miers' statement that he misunderstood what she said."

The Constitution does not contain an explicit protection for privacy, and scholars differ over whether a privacy protection is implicit in other rights. In recent years, most have said they believe the Constitution does protect privacy.

All the same, Specter's initial assertion was expected to raise new alarms among social conservatives who have mounted unexpectedly fierce opposition to Miers' nomination, saying they would prefer a nominee with a clearer antiabortion record.

White House officials launched a new strategy Monday to overcome opposition to Miers by trying to take the focus off her past -- and her lack of judicial experience -- and draw attention instead to her qualifications.

Los Angeles Times Articles
|