Posted on 10/05/2005 7:12:52 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
(AgapePress) - During a heartfelt and compassionate broadcast this morning (Wednesday), Dr. James Dobson explained why he believes Harriett Miers -- President Bush's pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the U.S. Supreme Court -- deserves the support of Christians and other family advocates.
The Focus on the Family founder took all of his daily broadcast today to share why he believes the relatively unknown attorney from Texas who has served as White House counsel under the current Bush administration will be a good addition to the high court. He said he knows and has spoken to people who have known Miers for years, and that he has confidence in those people's opinions.
Those individuals, says Dobson, have confirmed reports that the 60-year-old nominee is an active and dedicated Christian who serves in her nondenominational, evangelical Dallas church -- Valley View Christian Church. "She is a deeply committed Christian," said Dobson, "and a tithe-paying member" of her church, according to those conversations. LifeNews.com reported this week that Miers has taught Sunday school and served on the church's mission board for years. And the pastor of her church, according to that report, is a staunch pro-lifer.
According to a New York Times article yesterday, Miers made a profession of faith in Jesus Christ in 1979 and was baptized soon thereafter at Valley View Christian Church. Her longtime friend, Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan L. Hecht -- who prayed with Miers when she accepted the Lord -- told the Times he knows where she stands on abortion. "Yes, she goes to a pro-life church," he said, adding, "I know Harriet is, too."
Dobson also took time during his broadcast to address recent allegations that Miss Miers, in the late 1980s, had voiced support for homosexual rights and financially supported the presidential campaign of Democrat Al Gore. Dobson noted that in a 1989 survey Miers said she supported equal, not special, rights for homosexuals -- a stand consistent with his own beliefs, said Dobson; and in the same survey also state she did not support repeal of the Texas sodomy law, a statute that was later overturned by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas.
And regarding the Gore campaign contribution, Dobson pointed out that in 1988 Al Gore was pro-life -- a stand the vice president-to-be would ultimately change, perhaps for political expediency, Dobson suggested.
But aside from Miers' apparent stand on hot-button social issues, Dr. Dobson spent ample time explaining why he believes President Bush ought to be trusted on his selection of the former head of the Texas State Bar. Thus far, he said, the president has been true to his campaign promise to place conservative, strict constructionist judges on the federal bench. So the ministry founder wonders why -- with his political legacy hinging so heavily on his judicial appointments -- would the president "sabotage" that legacy with an appointment inconsistent with his own tenets.
"It would contradict his basic philosophical beliefs," said Dobson. And lest he be accused of being a "shill" for the president, Dobson noted that he does not agree with every policy coming out of the White House, such as how to deal with illegal immigration. But as far as the Miers nomination is concerned, he said, "I believe in trusting this president at this time."
Dobson concluded by saying that if he is wrong on the nomination of Harriett Miers, he will come before the microphone and "repent."
Reports Distorted, Says AIM Meanwhile, the watchdog group Accuracy in Media says some members of the conservative media are distorting portions of Harriett Mier's record. AIM says reports that the Supreme Court nominee is on record supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court and homosexual adoptions are erroneous.
"There's no evidence for the charge," says AIM's Cliff Kincaid, adding that the "documents" allegedly supporting the reports have been "seriously distorted by WorldNetDaily and other outlets."
AIM also says a Chicago Sun-Times columnist is guilty of perpetuating the inaccurate reports. The columnist, Robert Novak, wrote that Miers chaired a panel the "recommended legalization of gay adoption and establishment of an International Criminal Court." But Kincaid says Miers was chair of a panel that simply passed along recommendations from various entities in the American Bar Association for consideration by members of the ABA.
AIM says "there's no evidence that [Miers] put her personal stamp of approval on those controversial positions."
OK I am sold. I will support President Bush's pick for SCOTUS based on trust alone - how bad could Souter really be?
I heard Dobson on the radio. He knows something. I suspect he's talked to Harriet's pastor :)
I'm sure she is a commited christian, but that is not in and of itself qualification to be on the supreme court, and it certainly doesn't make her the best choice for conservatives. The fact that she's over 60 should bother people more than it is. That fact alone indicates to me that Bush is not looking to change the supreme court long-term. Seems like a placeholder.
"support President Bush's pick for SCOTUS based on trust alone - how bad could Souter really be?"
That's exactly what I got out of this also. She was recommended to Dobson by people he trusts... SO WHAT?! Why would I trust an anonymous friend of Dobson with a supreme court nomination? This is far less convincing than Bush saying to trust him (which I also don't find sufficiently convincing).
...and she prays, tithes at her Church.
Yep, sounds like another Souter to me.
Wow, now Dobson AND the Democats think she's a good nominee. Thats good enough for me.
\sarc
Well, if GWB thought he could avoid a fight, it's the greatest miscalculation since New Coke.
:D
That's fine for him. But if she turns out to be another disaster, how would that remove her from the court? The lives of millions of unborn children are on the line here.
Wow, and I thought the reaction to Judge Roberts here on FR was bad! It's getting so tiresome reading the replies to these threads on Ms. Miers. Many of the posters who are against her seem stuck on Souter. I am not saying that's not an important consideration, but can we wait a little while longer, when we know much more about her, to wail and gnash our teeth?
Sometimes I think FR has done a "Freaky Friday" thing and transformed itself into DU.
I've been listening to Dr. Dobson for twenty years and he has never let me down.
As I see it, Miers is at best a vote and a place-holder, perhaps for as long as 20 years. She is out of her league. Scalia (and perhaps Roberts) will have to do the heavy lifting for the right for most things. Thomas will continue to knock it out of the park on state-federal issues. Miers will just be along for the ride.
Distorted reports? That's sounds like what the MSM uses. Why are so-called conservatives dealing in misinformation?
And should it escape anybodies attention that here is a clear cut example of a report that uses misinformation to make Mier look like a lefty.
Me too. There are a huge number of people here who aren't particulalry concerned about whether or not his nominee ia a strong originalist constitutional scholar.
Perhaps, but another thing to consider is that Bush's pick here may affect who decides to retire in the next three years. If Bush managed to install a solid conservative, Ginsburg might be more apt to try to outlast Bush than if she sees someone more moderate.
The nomination of Miers was an invitation to a fight in which the President had seized the high ground.
The Democrats lose if they don't fight her, and they lose if they fight her.
For the President it is a win-win situation. The only miscalculation the President made was in the solidarity among conservatives... or rather the lack of it.
Problem with Dobson and too many others are basing their support because she is a Born Again
Roe VS Wade should be overturned because it is an abomination and twisting of the constitution NOT on a religious basis
I could care less if she is a atheist as long as she is a constitutionalist ( though at this point in our history it has been violated so much I really wonder if it matters
Social Security--Medicare--Federal Education etc etc are all outrages but don't look for them to be voided )
"Me too. There are a huge number of people here who aren't particulalry concerned about whether or not his nominee ia a strong originalist constitutional scholar."
And how do we know whether she is or not? All I'm asking, which may be entirely too much for some here, is to give it a rest, give it awhile, get to know more about her, and then we can all jump on that darned ol' President Bush for disappointing us all *once again*.
Document one poster for me on this thread who isn't.
I myself, do think there are some legitimate concerns about Mier. It's hard for me to imagine that a strict constructionist of her present age would have donated to the Gore campaign 16 years ago(Yes I know Gore was anti-bortion back then).
That said, I believe that a lot of the criticism that I've read about Mier, even here on FR, is double propaganda...
He should have seen that coming a mile away. All he had to do was lurk confirmthem.com and redstate.org when the Meirs trial balloon went out last week. Either the white house is too insulated or he figured he'd overcome grassroots conservative opposition.
Just to play devil's advocate, you can't call Consuelo Callahan (9th Circuit) or Ed Prado (5th Circuit) conservative or strict constructionists. We only remember the filibustered 10.
Dobson may be emphasizing religious affiliation a bit much.
This argument may be true but it is meaningless. Currently we have two clear originalist justices--Scalia and Thomas and maybe one more (Roberts). So at best 3. If Bush hits a home run with Miers, that makes it 4. The big difference will be when Stevens or Ginsburg go. That's the fifth key vote.
The point is, Bush HAS to hit a home run with all three appointments or there won't be much change in the court's stance except at the very margins. So trading a moderate today for a conservative tomorrow doesn't change the court much, even if Roberts turns out to be the best justice since sliced bread.
...or maybe he just thought that Mier would be sworn in, she'd start ruling on some cases and it would become balls-to-the-wall obvious that she was a strict constructionist.
Why do you leave out that possibility?
You think Harriet and the pastor chatted about Roe, the commerce clause, stare decisis, originalism, strict constructionism, the incorporation clause, equal protection and penumbras? If so, what we have here is a very interesting pastor indeed.
Roberts will be more like Justice Harlan, a cautious cerebral conservative, who favors narrow rulings. That is my guess. Harlan by the way is viewed by all sides as one of the 10 most distinguished justices to ever sit on the court.
Yes, No, No, No, No, No, No, No.
I was talking about this year. That will not be apparent until next year, at earliest.
You may be right. :)
Thank you very much.
BTW maybe you should help get Ms. Miers up to speed on the other 7. I fear she may have a Carswell moment.
"Well, her current "church" she started with about 200 others is a hotel room in Dallas."
Yes, it is a church. A church is made of of a group of people no matter where they meet. It is not a building or a room. Break aways happen all the time, so why that made the news is beyond me.
That is a legitimate fear. If she is a mediocrity, I will oppose her on those grounds. She had better study hard for the next month, very hard.
Roe....Should be aborted
the commerce clause.....regulate means make regular, aka 50 state free trade zone and nothing more
stare decisis....is for suckas
originalism...I'm all about orginalism
strict constructionism....strict as heck
the incorporation clause...I'll defer to Judge Thomas on these
equal protection...yes, more than one tax rate is a violation of equal protection
and penumbras.....no one should emenate in a penumbra.
I was talking about this year. That will not be apparent until next year, at earliest.
Yes, I know that. But you called it a miscalculation. To which my point is that maybe the president is more concerned about getting the right judge on the court than he is concerned about the present day polls.
If there were no political calculus involved Judge Michael Luttig would have been nominated.
The people Dobson is speaking to are christians and this is important to us.
Most of them never voted for him in the first place. Some are libertarians, some are Brigadeers (now known as Tancredo supporters). Most have hated Bush as much as the DUers do.
I never said that there wasn't any political calculus involved. If fact there has to be a political calculus. The nomination has to go through the anti-constructionist senate.
Do you approve of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court?
Need more info
38.0%
Yes
32.3%
No
25.3%
I'm voting Hillary!
2.2%
Pass
2.2%
LOUSY DUMMIE TROLLS!!! (/sarc)
The problem is that original intent is so often fuzzy. What did the founders intend about imprecise words in a changing nation, with new issues and problems, a nation that they well knew would change, although not nearly as drastically as it has?
There is no legislative history attending the Constitution's writing, and the Bill of Rights. Much of that is a "riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma." The second amendment is a case in point, along with the 9th and 10th amendments, and the equal protection clause.
Other tools are needed, a lot of them, process issues in voting (a level playing field in the public square), the effects on the economy, expectations, avoiding Constitutional crises, the Constitution is not a suicide pact, changing notions as to what certain words mean in a changing world, such as cruel and unusual. Simple nostrums don't often work in complex cases, or cases with great import on the public square. They just don't.
There is a huge difference between a "Conservative" Justice and a "Constructionist". The Conservative Justices that so many people here seem to want are Justices who want an all-powerful Judiciary, just like the Liberals want. Only they want to ban abortion.
Constructionist Justices want the Fed'l Gov't to be limited to the powers that our Constitution gave it (or at least as close as we can get from the hugely expanded role we have let them take).
GWB promised us Constructionist Justices. So carping about the fact that his picks don't have an abortion ban as their first priority is useless. He never said he'd appoint anyone like that - in fact, he went out of his way to say he wouldn't.
His picks will be Constructionist, not big gov't Conservative.
Fair enough. However others are listening.
The founding fathers took care of that, they gaveus the Ammendment process.
Cruel and unusal is really easy for me, just check the statues of what was allowed by the 13 states and check for any over rulings in the fist 50-100 years. OK, maybe that's a nod to stare decisis, but I'm lazy and stare decisis is for us lazy jurists.
To think how much of the govenment I could invalidate with the 10th ammendment. The entire regulatory apparatus....bwahahahaha
Maybe I should go to law school, hitch myself to a rising star so I can get a judgeship and then write plain vanilla opinions for 20 years until I get on SCOTUS and then let it rip. (/more evil laughter)
Is cruel and usnusal what is deemed such in each generation, or fixed on stone by the morays of a snapshot in time? What did the founders intend? Nobody knows, frankly, and those who suggest otherwise, are dissembling.
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.