Posted on 10/12/2005 9:40:01 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative
President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.
"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts." He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.
If true, is this thin ice re: Article VI, clause 3 of the Constitution ?
So is it appropriate to pick or trash a nominee based upon a nominee's religious beliefs or not?
This oughta kill it.
Apparently neither party has the capacity to comprehend the simple term "religious test".
Now that is irksome. Her qualifications should be the first
consideration. The fact that she is a Christian does not
prove a thing about anything.
That is a disservice to Chritstians, if she turns out to be
a moron, that is the end of Evangelicals being placed on the
court. Perhaps GWB should have said "She has a great legal
mind and she shares my values".
Heck, why not nominate Jimmy Carter. He's an Evangelical, too!
This is a nightmare. The Dems' will hang us with this quote. The White House insisted that Roberts' Catholicism was irrelevant. Now evangelicial Christianity is a criterion for the nominee.
While I can find nothing wrong with President Bush considering the religious beliefs of Miers, this is likely to raise some questions among opponents of her nomination...at least from those on the left.
It was not a bright thing for President Bush to do, and is going to come back and bite him on the butt.
In-friggin'-ept. No matter which side you fall on the question of the widsom of the pick. This latest front is a two-fer. Guaranteed to cause the Left to perk up its ears and howl at the moon; and as an added bonus, do nothing to reassure the conservative critics who are concerned that she isn't the best available person for the job.
ugh.
I am starting to think that the RATS may be right about his NOT being the sharpest knife in the drawer.
He says this to cool the Christian conservatives but it also heats up the Left so that anything he gains he looses.
You may be right, the opposition of both sides combined may be too much but at this point it may still be too soon to say.
What are the dems gonna say? You're a Christian so we don't want you on the SC?
sheer stupidity....
sheer stupidity....
Well said.
It is not appropriate, in my opinion, to pick a SC candidate based on their religion.
I came to thatconclusion during the 2000 debates. When asked what political philosopher he regarded as being the most influential, GWB said "Jesus Christ".
At best, that response is shameless pandering. At worst, well...
"just to explain the facts."
Mere innuendo that facts aren't being explained.
Oh, and only to select individuals. Why Dobson and not the public?
Kind of like the mysteriously Rovian Social Sec. Plan. Not much details of the plan were given but "facts" were given why we should not oppose it. Same Rove M.O. here.
Maybe a good thing if he gets indicted.
DANGER WILL ROBINSON!! DANGER!!!
So what is my retort. We all know he was hoping that by saying that it would quell some of the conservative base, it doesnt make Bush stupid or anything and it says nothing about her qualifications it was a political move. Plain and simple. It shows me that Bush knew that there was going to be problems and that one of his guns was the religion ofg her, not for the Senates sake,but for his bases sake. He still should never have nominated her, but things are what they are so he sticks to his guns.
Essentially, they will accuse the President of using a religious test, which is strictly against the constitution. Whether or not this holds water, the words are coming from W's own mouth, so they will be free to raise a firestorm.
Is this a deliberate attempt to sink this nomination?
Perhaps using Miers as a way to soften the attack on the next nominee?
Yeah, that's a flip-flop if I ever heard one.
I believe I watched this response on television and from what I recall there are some words left out of this news report.This would not be unusual for the media.If someone could get the complete exchange between Bush and the reporter,that might be very useful.If I am in error would someone please correct me.Thanks
"What are the dems gonna say? You're a Christian so we don't want you on the SC?"
No, they're not going to say that. They're going to refer to the section of the Constitution that says that no religious test may be applied to anyone taking a position of responsibility in the government. They're further going to quote President Bush saying, "There is no litmus test."
Myself? I don't care what her religious beliefs are. I want to know her position on Constitutional issues. She could be a Quaker or a Buddhist or a dispensationalist. That does not matter to me one whit. But I do want to know her positions on the Constitution.
I am sure that is not why he picked her, but that is what he decided was going to be one of her saling points, due to lack of history.To assume otherwise I believe is rather foolish.
Would you expect Bush to nominate an atheist?
Bush is in a fog. Sharpton, Kerry, Jesse Jackson are all Christians as are millions of others who support abortion. Bush should withdraw the nomination.
I do not see this as a religious test, I see it as a attempt to sell her to the base, where does it say her qualifications are that she is an Evangelical Christin and therefore is qualified for the SC?
Bush is a fool.
What a complete and utter moron to say this.
Oops I didnt read the whole news report, I was going off what I watched on TV, two different things and two different contexts ,my bad.
"Would you expect Bush to nominate an atheist?"
Of course not. You're not getting the problem here. It is not that President Bush considered her religious beliefs in the nomination. It is that he said what he said, giving further ammunition to the opposition.
Forget her religion. That's not the problem. It is Bush's words that are the problem.
First, he told us that she was a powerful woman, who broke through the "glass ceiling." That evokes feminism, and feminists are not going to be for any nominee he proposes, so that's useless.
Basically, President Bush has nothing he can say that is a real recommendation for Miers, so he's punting. This punt didn't carry very far, and is likely going to be returned by the opposition, which is going to get pretty good field position.
It's not about religion.
This is so stupid. Here we are decrying the Liberals' illegitimate attempts to apply a religious test to public office, and here the President practically admits to one himself. Her religion should have nothing to do with it. It should be her qualifications, character and judicial philosophy, full stop.
This just gets worse and worse.
President Bush has single handedly discredited 40 years of intellectually developed conservative judicial philosophy.
We're laughing stocks now.
Gee. Ya think? Congratulations to you for being the first person on this thread to actually exercise the intelligence that normally is the hallmark of this site. That so many "Freepers" on this thread are so quick to ram their heads deeply into their own behinds and take this article as anything more than the MSM usual attempt to create a false story, is just amazing.
It truly amazes me that people smart enough to find this site are stupid enough to trust the press to report ANYTHING accurately.
People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."
----------
It is rather troubling that in the last two days, all we have heard from the WH is that we should (a) focus on her role as a woman and (b) focus on her religion.
Seems to me that there is nothing that would placate you anyways, and therefore its futile in any attempt to convince you.
that=than
No, I personally wouldn't expect it. But that doesn't mean he should give the democrats obvious fodder and go on the record with it.
I would HOPE that if, theoretically, a better candidate was atheist, he would go with the better candidate. We're appointing a jurist, not a pope - and I'm a practicing Catholic, so that's not a swipe at Christianity.
Maybe we should wait for the hearings to see how this will all play out. Nobody Bush nominated would be acceptable to the liberals. If they vote her down (which I doubt), he can start all over with even a more conservative nominee.
Everyone knows he would never nominate an atheist.
I never thought losing the House and Senate in '06 were real possibilities.
The way Pres. Bush has been acting recently makes me think it is a real possibility.
Yeah, but the fact remains that President Bush and the WH allude to her religious beliefs too often, as if it was one of her qualifications. Unwise IMO. Her religious beliefs should be (or at least should have been) irrelevant to this nomination.
"It is rather troubling that in the last two days, all we have heard from the WH is that we should (a) focus on her role as a woman and (b) focus on her religion.
"
Sadly, there's little else to know. She's not a Constitutional scholar, so she doesn't have a paper trail that shows her to be an originalist or a strict constructionist or any other sort of constitutionalist. We don't know.
She practiced business law, primarily. While business law issues come up occasionally at the SCOTUS, they don't make up much of the calendar.
She's an adminstrator, primarily, in her career, which has been quite successful.
So, all President Bush has is her success at breaking through barriers for women and a hint that her religious beliefs will make her likely to overturn Roe v. Wade. There's nothing else to say, really.
Sadly, Miers is simply not qualified to be a SCOTUS justice. That requires some background in constitutional law, in my opinion, whether in front of the court, as in Robert's case, or on the federal bench. She has none of this.
This is an important and powerful position. We should be looking for the very best qualified people to fill it. Guesswork just won't do.
I believe the Miers nomination is doomed.
In five words why do you oppose Harriet Miers nomination?
That is all well and good, BUT he should use the political victories to advance the Republican agenda. So far, he is flunking lunch with Mier's nomination.
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.