Posted on 10/21/2005 9:52:11 PM PDT by Crackingham
James Dobson, chairman of the Colorado-based Christian organization Focus on the Family, spoke on a recent radio program about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers. Here are excerpts:
The president announced his decision Oct. 3. And a few hours after that, many conservative Christian leaders were involved in a conference call, wherein some were expressing great disillusionment with President Bush's decision and there was a lot of anger over his failure to select someone with a proven track record in the courts. And I came in a little bit late and I caught just a bit of that angst and then I shared my opinion, that Harriet Miers might well be more in keeping with our views than they might think.
My reasons for supporting her were twofold. First, because [Deputy White House chief of staff] Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial philosophy, which was consistent with the promises that President Bush had made when he was campaigning. He told the voters last year he would select people to be on the court who would interpret the law rather than create it and judges who would not make social policy from the bench.
Most of all, the president promised to appoint people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their powers to advance their own political agenda. Rove assured me in that telephone conversation that Harriet Miers fit that description and that the president knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence.
And I quickly followed up on that conversation and got glowing reports from a federal judge in Texas, Ed Kinkeade and a Texas Supreme Court justice, Nathan Hecht, who is highly respected and has known Harriet Miers for more than 25 years.
(Excerpt) Read more at ajc.com ...
Yes, we need more judges who don't know constitutional law inside and out and whose strongest qualification is the presence of a very brown nose.
Yes, we need more FReepers who can contribute more personal attacks.
Psychologists who give advice on politics (much less Supreme Court nominations) are about as credible as movie stars who give advice on politics.
Yeah, yeah, yeah. Unfortunately, talking points do not a judicial philosophy make. It all sounds really nice and I'm sure Harriet is a perfectly lovely person, but I'd like a SCOTUS justice who doesn't first think of a box of Wheaties upon hearing the word "constitution", thanks anyway Jim.
-Dan
...NOT!!!!!!!!!
Is that what you're here to do? Why not stick to the issue, instead of starting a "food fight" diversion?
Like a hole in the head.
Just the title makes me laugh, and I haven't read the article yet.
That is what seems to really be going on in this instance. I don't know how we can continue to avoid stating the obvious.
Ah what the heck, we need more judges like Mark Levin. Who cares that he has never been a judge. Dangit we just need more judges like him.
He's just another one of those anti-semites.
A "food fight"? That's good imagery. It's pretty much what those attacking Miers and the President are engaged in.
Liberal Rag in favor of a former Liberal nominee.
Snooze.....
"Karl Rove had shared with me her judicial philosophy"
This makes it sound like her judicial philosophy is something you keep in a shoebox, and bring it out at parties to show people:
"Here it is, aint it the greatest."
"Oooh, cool... hey, did you ever *use* this judicial philosophy of yours? You know, do something with it?"
"Oh no, much too fragile. Mind you dont break it."
what?
You don't think the Bots get personal?
we've been called traitors, elitists, sexists, and even compared to eric rudolph by some of the more moonbat bots
it's like a damned cult of personality for some folks
L
But dangit we need more like her! ;)
Yes, we need more judges who don't know constitutional law inside and out and whose strongest qualification is the presence of a very brown nose.
"I want the president to appoint someone who will go to the original intent of the Constitution and tell us what the founding fathers meant."
Right...so...could you explain again why you are supporting Harriet?
"got glowing reports from a federal judge in Texas, Ed Kinkeade"
_Glowing_ reports? Sounds more like the artist Tom Kinkade.
Ah what the heck, we need more judges like Mark Levin. Who cares that he has never been a judge. Dangit we just need more judges like him.
They laid it all out pretty clearly in the Constitution and The Federalist Papers.
L
...Nathan Hecht and Ed Kinkeade.
Fund reports that two long-time friends of Miers, both judges, told the leaders that if she had an opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade, she would.
With all due respect to Dr. Dobson, he is far behind the curve. Every day, evidence comes out that Miers is not a serious conservative.
The political operators use sincere and decent people like
Dr. Dobson every day. National Right to Life (which supported Bush early on and crushed McCain over CFR) is also
behind her. I interviewed for a job with that organization
sometime back. Their goal is to save the lives of the unborn. I explained to them that I was a conservative and
I think that's one reason I didn't get a job with them.
I'm sure someone told them Miers would overturn Roe Vs. Wade and that's what National Right to life is all about.
They really don't care about how judges make or interpret
law. NRL would be happy with Roe in reverse, an Earl Warren
like judicial order to make abortions illegal everwhere without giving it back to the states.
Sorry to hear this. It sounds like they have no inkling of the big picture. And they need it.
And we need Justices like Scalia and Thomas.
Yep, that's about the size of it.
What's your opinion Crackingham? lol
I hope you aren't holding your breath on that one....LOL
Hey KJ... Check it out..
Guess who is at it again????
If by "food fight", you mean righteous indignation, then you are correct.
It isn't an attack to point out the truth; i.e. Miers lack of qualifications or a proven judicial philosophy, or the President's failure to raise any good arguments in favor of this nomination. However, it is an attack to call those opposing the nomination sexist and elitist. The only attacks I've heard are coming from the Bush camp.
The only problem with the elitism charge was that it was a bit early. It's become rampant now.
"Smoked you out," didn't I?
Most of all, the president promised to appoint people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their powers to advance their own political agenda. Rove assured me in that telephone conversation that Harriet Miers fit that description and that the president knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence.
How does this square with the fact that Miers believes that the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause mandates racial quotas?
In my experience, the hyperbole from all perspectives and all degrees of support or opposition have been equally offensive.
Well, the original (as in, within the half hour after Miers nomination was announced) declination of criticism that was deemed "elitist" was, literally, accurate, given that the original (and many ongoing) derisions about Miers was based upon the fact that "she's no one, she's nothing" and similar. People appeared outraged that some ordinary female who had no reputation outside of those who know her was nominated.
On that basis alone, that type of criticism of Miers, yes, it was and continues to be elitist, elitism at work. Conservatives, liberals, both rely on that sort of grandiosity to denounce those they deem too insignificant to be of equal value (in this case, Miers as a Supreme Court Justice).
I am waning (greatly) in my support of Miers given her recent comments coming to light, but that's what the process is intended for (I assume), and that is to provide a review process of nominees.
Uh newbie, Dr. Dobson ain't no liberal(the writer of the article), but you already knew that.
You just hate Meirs.
Where did she say that? She said she was for proprtional voter representation(i.e district seats in Dallas, and not the two or three at large seats that were part of the council at the time).
But what the hey your animus of Meirs gets in the way of real facts.
Can you show me where that is a prequisite in the US Constitution for a SCOTUS Judge, Mr. Uber constitutionalist.
"There is no proportional representation requirement in the Equal Protection Clause," said Cass R. Sunstein, a constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago. He and several other scholars said it appeared that Miers was confusing proportional representation -- which typically deals with ethnic groups having members on elected bodies -- with the one-man, one-vote Supreme Court ruling that requires, for example, legislative districts to have equal populations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/19/AR2005101902402.html
Since the constitution is so simple, what does equal protection mean and how is that to be applied when considering a federal or state action?
And since this language is so simple, what does "liberty" mean in the context of these amendments and how is that concept applied when considering federal or state action?
"We need judges like Miers"
ROTFLMAO! This is both sad and fuuny. Now I'll try to read the whole article.
elitist
sexist
unappeasable
vigilante
cynical
Far right
ignorant
looter
extortionist
"church lady" hater
nitrous-oxide-huffing
jihadis best friend
clown-car-driving bozo
BTTT for later.
elitist
sexist
unappeasable.... (etc)
You forgot: petulant
And personally I like being called 'petulant'.
Thus far its my favorite 'insult' - especially when one considers the source: kool-aid drinking zombie 'bots' whose support for Miers is based solely on Dubya saying "trust me", and assorted 'leaks'.
Never mind the facts that she's just NOW taking a crash course in Constitutional Law in order to not make a complete and utter ass out of herself at her hearing (if it ever occurs). Her interview performance has been so poor that after visits with twenty senators they've been called off INDEFINITELY. And her 'answers' on the Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire was so sophomoric (the 'Hello Kitty' stationary attachments were a bad idea) that even the likes of Arlen Specter called them insulting. Yep, Dubya says "trust me", so we must!
Yeah, I'm 'petulant' alright.
(and people wonder how the Nazis rose to power in Germany)
Well, I've just read the whole article, and it actually says little or nothing. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution IS a liberal rag, which says that it asked for a statement from Dobson because it wanted to present what amounts to an opposite opinion. Dobson, of course, is not a liberal.
Dobson is an honest man. What he says here is what he says elsewhere, that he supports Miers because Karl Rove and a pair of Texas judges (one of whom happens to be Miers's long-term boyfriend) have told him that she is pro-life. Frankly, we don't even know that. We don't know if she is a throughgoing pro-lifer who will follow the logic of that position (i.e. that babies are innocent human beings who deserve the protection of our laws, not inconvenient objects to be tossed in the garbage), or if she's one of those "I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I can't impose my beliefs on others" sort of persons whom Mario Cuomo provided with a way out.
Will she be willing to confront the wrath of the establishment, on behalf of which which she has loyally worked all her life, to reverse Roe v. Wade, because it does violence to the Constitution and everything it stands for, or will she go along to get along, as she has done all her life? My bet is that she will go along to get along.
Dobson does not know her personally. He probably has never read any of her work. And I doubt that he has a very deep understanding of Constitutional law. He is going purely on the word of Karl Rove, the praise of two of her Texas buddies, and his trust in the President's judgment. Well, Bush usually has good judgment, but he is only human. Even the best leaders screw up occasionally. That's just not enough to base such an important decision on. At the very least, Dobson should be doing some research of his own before opening his mouth at this stage, but there's no sign that he has done anything of the kind since October 3.
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.