Posted on 10/04/2005 3:03:35 PM PDT by new yorker 77
CBN.com – Jay Alan Sekulow is Chief Counsel for the American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), a law firm and educational organization that specializes in constitutional law. He is also chief counsel of the European Center for Law and Justice (ECLJ). Pat Robertson recently asked Sekulow for an evaluation of his colleague, and latest Supreme Court nominee, Harriet Miers.
PAT ROBERTSON: Well, Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice knows Harriet Miers very well. They pulled a fast one and got Souter in, and the cry now is no more Souters. So is Harriet Miers another gamble by a Republican president?
JAY SEKULOW: No Pat, she's not. There's a significant difference in what happened in the appointment of Justice Souter and now the appointment of Harriet Miers. That was George H.W. Bush...did not have a personal or professional relationship with Judge Souter. He was serving as a court of appeals judge at the time. Here you have a different situation. President Bush has worked with Harriet Miers for over a decade. She has served as his personal counsel, and has served as White House counsel. So he knows her and he knows how she thinks. He knows how her judicial philosophy has developed. So you have a difference of personal knowledge of the legal thinking of the nominee. I think that makes a big difference here.
PAT ROBERTSON: Some of the so-called conservative talking class, chattering class, in Washington, is just screaming bloody murder about this appointment. What's their problem?
SEKULOW: Well, you know, they don’t know her, and that's part of the problem. I think you will see that addressed in the next few days. People will get to know her. And no one should sell this woman short either. I have told some of my friends who are part of the talking class, as you said, Pat, that they're underestimating the prowess of this woman.
She is, number one, been on – twice - a very prestigious list put together by the National Law Journal, one of our biggest publications. That is the 100 most influential lawyers in America -- and that's a significant list. You don't get to be on that list unless you do understand the inner workings of the law and how it develops, and what a judicial philosophy is supposed to be. So she has been on that list. She is a thinker in that regard. She is well respected by those who have worked with her and understand -- look, she's been involved heavily in this process of picking judicial nominees. And there's not one nominee that the President has put forward that any of us has objected to, and I think that's in large part because of what her involvement has been.
There's another historical fact. I thought David Brody's piece was very interesting on the history. Do you know the last time there was an evangelical nominated to the Supreme Court? Back in the 1930s. This is a big opportunity for those of us who share an evangelical faith in Christianity to see someone with our positions put on a court. She was a very active member of an evangelical church in Dallas…I think she's going to be a good pick. The fact that she's not a judge, I say thank the Lord for that. We needed somebody who wasn't a judge to be on the Supreme Court, to move things around a little bit.
ROBERTSON: It's amazing that Harry Reid said he thinks really highly of her. She must have won some significant points with the senators when she was talking about other judges.
SEKULOW: She has a very personal demeanor. She’s not confrontive by nature, but as President Bush said, she [can be] a bulldog. She is kind of a steel fist in a velvet glove. She is a tough litigator. She represented big companies, she understands what was at stake when you adjudicate a case in front of the jury. She consistently advocated a strong litigation policy. So I think when she gets into these individual meetings with these senators, much like John Roberts, she does a very, very effective job of conveying her message. And she is somebody of significance, and I think as we get to know her, as the America people get to know her, they're going to like what they see. Look, the criticism is not illegitimate in the sense that people don't know her. But what I'm telling some of our friends, don't judge this woman until you get to know her better. And when you get to know her, you are going to be very impressed.
ROBERTSON: Senator [Arlen] Specter is apparently pushing this nomination. Everybody is talking about how nice it would be, before Thanksgiving. Some are saying the first week or so of December. Do you have any take on how long it will be?
SEKULOW: I certainly hope it will be before Thanksgiving because there are many cases, many of which the American Center for Law and Justice is involved in. We have the Rico case and the parental notification case on November 30. In fact, our second round of briefs will be filed in October. The court is, has with it right now, a petition for review followed by our friend, the solicitor general of the United States, Paul Clement, on the issue of partial-birth abortion. So I think it's realistic now that the court is going to grant review. And, in fact, the ACLJ - we're representing members of the House and Senate who actually wrote the law on partial-birth abortion. So I think we'll have a partial- birth abortion ban case at the Supreme Court this term. So you look at what's at stake. We need her sooner rather than later.
ROBERTSON: What's the chance of passing the word? I mean, it looks like the Democrats, they're holding their fire, it's amazing. She is kind of a little woman, and you cannot imagine these great big old Democrats beating up on a little woman. That does not play well on television, so these hearings could go by quickly.
SEKULOW: You know, I think it will be like the old days where they do go by quickly. This is one smart woman. You don't get to be the head of the Texas bar without being tough. You don't get to be the managing partner of your almost 300-person law firm without being smart. And remember something that is being overlooked by some. In the middle 1990s -- you’ll remember this -- in the 1990s, there was a huge controversy within the ABA because they took a pro-abortion position for the first time in history. And do you know who led the charge against the ABA? She was an ABA delegate - Harriet Miers. She thought they should not be doing that. Ultimately and unfortunately, the position that she advocated, and we supported, did not prevail on the ABA delegates, but she led the charge to get the ABA to reverse its position on this. I'm quite optimistic that we have the right nominee here. A little bit different because she’s not a judge, but again, I think that's a plus.
ROBERTSON: Well, thank you, Jay, for being with us. Ladies and gentlemen, no more Souters. And I applaud the President. I think on this one, so far, every single pick of the President of judicial nominees has been superb. Every single one. And I think he deserves our trust on this one. He knows this woman. He promised the American electorate, if you elect me, I'm going to put in strict constructionist judges, and he's going to fulfill that vow to the American people. And this pick is in keeping with that vow.
Do his comments help?
"Well, you know, they don’t know her, and that's part of the problem."
That's the ENTIRE problem.
The Miers nomination was a complete surprise to the conservative chattering classes, and the chattering classes, liberal or conservative, don't LIKE it when they're shown to be arrogant, know-nothing blowhards.
If this woman will decide cases based on her personal opinion or her personal faith, then she doesn't belong on the Court. Her criteria must be the Constitution. If that agrees with her faith, fine and dandy. If not, it's just judicial activism, which is unacceptable whether coming from the Right or from the Left.
I'm perplexed by it ... somebody is seriously wrong.
Absolutely. You have nailed it.
Sekulow had better be right or he's going to look like a fool.
I don't need help, as I am fine with her, but I am glad to see that Jay is in such favor of her. It is also great to see she is a Christian woman, which is perhaps part of the reason there is such a big fuss.
For what it's worth, Robertson is on board as well.
I think Jay Sekulow would be happy with anyone that Bush put forth. Kind of puts him on the "team" to always have pleasant things to say about the President.
How is it "arrogant" to say one doesn't know much about this nominee?
Your comments, on the other hand..
Should but I suspect a lot of the angst about Meirs comes from Moveon.org "consveratives" who will be mad no matter who Bush picked. They are mad it's a Bush that is doing the picking and wills stay mad no matter what.
"How is it "arrogant" to say one doesn't know much about this nominee?"
Followed immediately by trashing the nominee for unknown sins, it's pretty damn arrogant. But my comment was aimed at those members of the chattering class that like to pretend that they REALLY have an inside scoop on the comings and goings of the Bush Administration.
"Your comments, on the other hand.."
I've read her statement on the 2nd Amendment. The last nominee to say anything positive on the 2nd Amendment and the individual right to keep and bear arms was Louis Brandeis...who also had zero judicial experience when he was nominated to the Supreme Court.
I feel much better now.
Obviously the President has looked into her eyes and seen her soul.
I suspect you are right. Lots of the "Establishment Conservatives" have the same problem with President Bush for the same reason. Never have understood why that ticks them off. I always though the 1st Amendment meant it did not matter WHAT the person's religious views were. That is appearing to be naive on my part these days. Apparently having certain religious views is now taboo in political America.
I suspect you are right. Lots of the "Establishment Conservatives" have the same problem with President Bush for the same reason. Never have understood why that ticks them off. I always though the 1st Amendment meant it did not matter WHAT the person's religious views were. That is appearing to be naive on my part these days. Apparently having certain religious views is now taboo in political America.
Harry Reid is excited because he doesn't have to put up a big fight a year before the mid term elections that would fire up the GOP !
I will be absolutely shocked and awed if Roe/Wade is overturned under President Bush's Supreme Court, or any gay rights.
I don't know how "prestigious" this list could be as Hillary Clinton was on it when she was in that corrupt enterprise known as The Rose Law Firm.
That said, I have the same sense I had when I found out that President Bush selected Dick Cheney as his running mate. My initial thought was that he was too old, too much of a has-been, would be unable to attract a single voter, and a total disappointment. I WAS TOTALLY WRONG!!!!!
I think history has repeated itself with the Meirs selection.
Well it ain't Jay!!!!!!!
[dripping with sarcasm...]
Hmm. Let's play "Who's Da Liar"
On the Left: Harry Reid
On the Right: Jay Sekulow
Hmm. Who COULD it possibly be??
Wanna use a LifeLine, here??
Yeesh.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.