Posted on 10/12/2005 6:25:03 AM PDT by SmartCitizen
It has been nine days since President Bush shocked the world with his nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States. Like so many, I have spent the past week trying to get a take and establish a position on this out-of-left-field selection.
Many "conservatives," whatever that term means, have pointed out reasons to oppose the nomination. Whether it be cronyism, lack of a paper trail, poor legal qualifications, past political contributions, the reasons to not support her are varied and valid.
As all of the cable news shows have ramped up their coverage of the nomination "fight," I have watched with disgust, the same tired old faces marched out by the media to give us the "Christian" position on Ms. Miers. From Rev. Falwell, to Pat Robertson, James Dobson to Jay Sekulow, like good soldiers they have marched before the cameras, saluted and justified the president's choice.
According to the online version of The Chattanoogan:
Mr. Falwell also stated he trusts President Bush's judgment and will work for Miers' nomination against what he sees as the hard-line Democratic opposition in the Senate, consisting mainly of Sens. Hillary Clinton, Edward Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Richard Durban, who "would vote no on Jesus."
Focus on The Family leader James Dobson added:
We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will "not use the bench to write social policy." To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy. Based on the information known generally about Harriet Miers, and President Bush's personal knowledge of her, we believe that she will not prove to be a lone exception.
Pat Robertson on "The 700 Club":
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.
Jay Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice chimed in:
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.
Like the proverbial elephant in the living room, why will no one say what is obvious to everyone? The debate is not over Harriet Miers. No my friends, the debate is far more obvious and glaring. Our "Christian leaders" have invested so much into President Bush, it is hard for them to come-to-grips with the obvious.
"Trust me," says the president.
"Trust him", say Falwell, Dobson, Sekulow and Robertson.
That is why Harriet Miers is in trouble. Not because we don't trust her, but because we don't trust him.
I like President Bush. He seems like a decent enough guy. I believe him when he talks about his conversion to Christ. I think he is genuine. I think Jesus changed his life, as he did mine. But I know many "Christians" like him. They have accepted Christ's forgiveness, but they have not accepted his Lordship. I'm sorry, but saying Jesus changed your life, does not qualify one for unconditional Christian support. Jesse Jackson makes that claim. So does Al Sharpton. Bill Clinton carried a Bible to church. The last I checked, it is the truth that sets us free. I have the courage to say what few Christians are willing to utter: We don't trust the president.
That is why Harriet Miers is in trouble.
I watched in 2003 as a true Christian, Judge Roy Moore, stood for his faith. It cost him his job. Christian President Bush did nothing to support Christian Judge Moore. He later named Moore's chief prosecutor, "conservative" Bill Pryor, to the federal bench.
I watched as the president continued to call Islam a religion of peace. I cowered as he repeatedly stated that Christians and Muslims serve the same God. He invited Ozzy Osborne to the White House and said nothing as his party welcomed former porn star Mary Carey and vile rapper Kid Rock.
He has publicly stated that he is against an abortion ban, that he won't have an abortion litmus test for judges and that he supports the states granting homosexuals civil unions.
He, along with others, told us the war on terror was about WMDs in Iraq. When none were found, it became about regime change. When Saddam was ousted, it became a war for democracy. He instituted the unconstitutional Patriot Act, but called the Minuteman project, those gallant patriots securing our borders "vigilantes."
His fiscal policies have brought America to the brink of bankruptcy, only to open America's coffers to a $250 billion give away to America's cesspool, New Orleans.
He is one of us, our Christian leaders tell us, and Harriet Miers thinks like him.
God help us!
The church and church leaders have failed us. Psalm 20:7 says, "Some trust in chariots, some trust in horses, but we will remember the name of the Lord."
Sadly, our Christian leadership has invested way to much into Republicanism in general, and President Bush in particular. Trusting in horses and chariots, they have been willing to hold their nose as they swallowed the rotten fruit of the Bush administration, knowing that it has always been about the Supreme Court. They couldn't let John Kerry fill those sure-to-open judgeships. They knew he had a litmus test on abortion. So they looked the other way as the rotten fruit piled up.
Someone once described politics as the art of compromise. After a decade of working, Falwell and company finally found a place at the table. The president conferred with them, he asked their opinions, he even prayed with them. The church finally mattered in the White House.
But at what cost? I am reminded of the story of King David and Nathan in II Samuel 12:7, after Nathan, the Church, confronts David, the government, about his un-godly actions.
Then David's anger was greatly kindled against the man; and he said to Nathan, "As the Lord lives, the man who has done this deserves to die; and he shall restore the lamb fourfold, because he did this thing, and because he had no pity." Nathan said to David, "You are the man."
Yes, President Bush is the man. Can you imagine the reaction from the Christian leaders if President Kerry shouldered the Bush legacy?
I feel you cringing as I speak against our Christian golden boy. "How can you speak out against this Christian man?" they ask me. Because I am a Christian. My loyalty is to Christ, not to the Republican Party.
I watched in horror as the Democrats looked the other way in the '90s. Monica, semen stains, Whitewater, impeachment, nothing would break their blind partisan support of the Clinton White House. It's time we Christians got the log out of our own political eye. This may come to you as a shock, but God is not a Republican!
It is not about Harriet Miers. She may be a great justice, a solid Christian, and the right person at the right time. But that is not the issue. It is about President Bush and what the church has allowed him to do.
Now, Judge Moore is running for governor of Alabama. The Republican establishment doesn't like him, because he hasn't yet learned how to compromise. He won't play the game. Dr. Dobson supported him, but most in Christian circles labeled him a lawbreaker. He stands for Truth. He'll win because the people of Alabama trust him.
Isn't it ironic? If Judge Moore were president and he had nominated Harriet Miers, asking us to "trust him," it would be so much easier to do. If he said that she would be a great justice because she thought like him, we would know what he meant.
President Bush says, "Trust me … she thinks like me."
That's what scares me.
You smell like Troll.
IBTZ?
Yeah, another Bush-bot tactic: Attack the messenger rather than the substance.
Got an argument?
That's why the circuit courts are usually a way-station to the Supreme Court.
Instead of the novel approach apparently adopted by the Bush administration, which seems to be under the impression that elevating a glorified secretary to associate justice is a bold political masterstroke.
Got an argument?
p.s. I don't trus anyone who calls themselves a Christian and goes to church on Sunday.
Luk 6:46 And why do you call Me Lord, Lord, and do not do what I say?
Mat 5:17 Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I have not come to destroy but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, Till the heaven and the earth pass away, not one jot or one tittle shall in any way pass from the Law until all is fulfilled.
Sure and if I wanted desperately to make a point I could manufacture many personas and instead of arguing as one I could maybe argue as 10... Of course no one on FreeRepublic would ever do such a thing, would they? That would almost be like voter fraud and that never ever happens. Friend, I hope you can see why some just might be teensy weeensy distrustful of people who recently register to tell us the same old, same old about Miers. Oh by the way, welcome to FreeRepublic. It isn't my intent to be unfriendly.
I doubt of Dave Daubenmire would have approved of Mary's anointing of Jesus' feet with costly ointment. (It just doesn't look right to be seen doing such things. And by such a lowly person! GASP!) He probably would have objected to Samuel's anointing David as king when he had allllll those brothers he could have chosen. (Comes from a position of weakness, dontcha know.)
Let's get these hearings over with! I don't think I can endure another month of whining conservatives.
Make one
Bush is a weak president trying to survive. Being his own worst enemy he thought for sure the conservatives would take one more for the team. Well, we wont.
You may be right. But many of Bush's supports DO have a primary loyalty to Jesus Christ.
Got a response to the substance of the article? Or, do you just attack people?
See post 29.
You refer to the artlicle, I am asking you, make your case.
Another ad hominem. Does anyone want to try to deny the facts of the article...such as Bush's stellar conservative record?
I am excluded from the above said 'we'.
I trust President Bush. I trust Harriet Miers.
Considering the sellout of this country that's in the works, i.e. amnesty to millions of Mexican illegals, I happen to think that's a good thing.
Good morning Calpernia. :)
The article makes the case for me -that's why I posted it. Got an argument against any of it?
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.