Posted on 10/04/2005 11:30:07 PM PDT by Aussie Dasher
President Bush sought to calm conservatives over his latest Supreme Court pick in a rare Rose Garden press conference yesterday, but some Republicans on Capitol Hill remain unconvinced.
Responding to a question from The Washington Times, the president said he hopes conservatives who wanted him to pick someone more demonstrably conservative than White House Counsel Harriet Miers understand that "she will not legislate from the bench."
"I know her; I know her heart; I know what she believes -- remember, she was part of the search committee that helped pick Roberts," he said. "She knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for. And I know exactly the kind of judge she'll be."
But in a response not likely to please conservatives or liberals, Mr. Bush yesterday said he does not recall discussing abortion with Miss Miers in the decade that he has known her, and he declined to say whether the court should overturn Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that made abortion a constitutional right.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
"chairman of the Texas Lottery from 1995-2000"
What is a good Christian women doing running the Texas Lottery? I guess her convictions may only go as deep as her bank account.
Studies show that lotteries are the favorite legal gambling game for teenagers. Statistically, one of seven who play will become addicted. But teenagers aren't the only ones affected. One out of 10 adults who gamble will become addicted too. In fact, gambling is the fastest growing addiction in America. Like alcoholism and drug addiction, compulsive gambling is costly to the economy. Families are the ones who suffer the most. Many people feel gambling is only a game that is fun, but the Bible tells us this evil is a terrible sin that will lead to poverty.
"He that hasteth to be rich hath an evil eye, and considereth not that poverty shall come upon him" (Proverbs 28:22).
Gambling in our nation is spreading as the number of states operating lotteries has more than doubled since 1980, making them the ultimate "get-rich-quick" schemes. As gambling spreads to more and more states, Christians need to have the Bible's instruction about this money robber. The Bible declares that it is wrong to bet money on the possibility of becoming instantly rich.
"He who oppresses the poor to get gain for himself, and he who gives to the rich will surely come to want" (Proverbs 22:16).
States who legalize lotteries and gambling are oppressing the poor for gain. According to a 1988 study of the Michigan lottery, that state sells the greatest number of tickets in low-income and ethnic neighborhoods in urban areas. Lottery tickets made available in grocery marts and drive-in markets make it easy for people to purchase these "chances to win the big hit." Some spend money on the lottery tickets instead of groceries for their families. Many compulsive gamblers wreck their lives and their families as they are encouraged to risk money that they usually cannot afford to lose. An estimated 15 million people are compulsive gamblers.
The lie that is used to promote this evil in our society is that legalized gambling doesn't promote crime and will lower taxes. Actually just the opposite is true -- gambling promotes other vices which attract the criminal element. This results in higher, not lower taxes as the cost for additional policing must be increased. Indian reservations and the big gambling centers of Las Vegas and Atlantic City are taking in billions of dollars. Casinos rob those who play the games with them as the odds are stacked 80% to 90% in favor of the casino. Even those that do win big on occasion statistics have proven that within two years most winners have totally spent the money they won.
Proverbs 21:20 says, "There is treasure to be desired and oil in the dwelling of the wise; but a foolish man spendeth it up."
People who gamble give to the pool of money that composes great wealth. This causes them to give to the rich and as Proverbs 22:16 says "...he who gives to the rich will surely come to want." Our states are also reaping a type of "poverty" where gambling exists because it undermines the American work ethic. The result is lowered productivity, use of work time to gamble, absenteeism, high rates of business failure, and repeated non-payment of loans, mortgages and other financial obligations. Gambling is, to many, a scheme to escape labor.
Some Christians argue that gambling does no harm. However, the scripture is clear that this activity is sinful. Anytime someone is enticed to gain money at someone's else's certain loss, this is definitely not practicing the principals taught by Christ. Also, the practice of gambling takes away from the Bible's principals of economics -- working, saving and giving. Discipline and accountability for spending are ignored. Gambling preys on the weakness of others.
Let me mention here that entering free sweepstakes or drawings are not sinful as they are advertising ploys paid for by the sponsors. They use these to advertise their products while giving their customers a chance to win in a drawing. There is no gambling involved as the participants give no money for a chance to win the prize.
However, many Christians are guilty of supporting lotteries, bingo, horse racing, and even playing at the casinos. Video poker has become so popular it is now referred to as "the crack cocaine of gambling." Some do not realize the gravity of their sin. They justify gambling simply because they have needs that cannot be met through their present earned income. The Lord desires to meet those needs for them and will give them a plan for becoming debt free if they seek him and His economic principles in the Bible.
The Lord can bring deliverance to those caught in this web of compulsive gambling. Through admission of this sin and repentance God will break the bondage of it in those who desire to be set free. Gamblers need love and acceptance but they must repent in order to be free. The Lord loves those who are addicted to gambling and will help all that call upon Him for deliverance.
But the president declined to say whether his father, former President George Bush, had erred in 1990 by appointing Justice David H. Souter, who was seen at the time as an easily confirmable "stealth nominee" but has proven more liberal than many expected....Neither the WashTimes nor the FR live thread of the press conference (those are the two posts that note the question) has a clear expansion on that. However, the White House site does, and here's the exchange:
THE PRESIDENT: ...Baker. You're next.Why doesn't this reassure me?Q Thank you, Mr. President. You said several times now, sir, that you don't want a justice who will be different 20 years from now than she is today. Given that standard, I wonder in hindsight whether you think the appointment of Justice David Souter, then, was a mistake? And even --
THE PRESIDENT: You're trying to get me in trouble with my father, Baker. (Laughter.)
Q Well, I'm trying to understand what informed your choice this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Call him. (Laughter.) Go ahead. Sorry to interrupt you.
Because you're smarter than a box of rocks?
He's not even willing to call Souter a mistake? Not good.
Do you really, I mean REALLY, expect the current President of the United States to call a SITTING member of the US Supreme Court a mistake? You can't be serious. Talk about breaking every rule of decorum in the book, earning enemies left and right, setting bad precedent, and just looking tacky.
Bush is playing this like he should. Laugh off the stuff he knows he shouldn't talk about and nominating someone he believes he can trust.
Frankly, I like this pick more and more every day.
Hopefully Stephens or Ginsberg will exit, and then you all may have your Janice Rodgers Brown or Priscilla Owens.
You must be taking all the love from me, because the more I hear, the less confident that I am that she is "merely" a "like-for-like" replacement for O'Connor and not the proverbial "Souter in a skirt".
The current crop of Dems'n'RINOs needs to be voted out of office and replaced with Republicans with spines. After the '06 election, hopefully W will have two more shots at getting openly confirmable, non-stealthy conservatives on the court, but we'll first have to help get him more actual Republican senators into office.
If a SC nominee were successfully filibustered now, the Left (plus Arlen, too, I suspect) would try to bring back O'Connor back, and mount massive MSM support for that and subsequent SC-nominee filibustering, until the likes of another Kennedy--maybe even Patches--would be brought forward as W's "only option to break a stalemate."
One can act as if we're ready to die fighting for an Owens, but if we did die in that fight, "our children" would surely suffer because of it.
HF
"Why doesn't this reassure me?"
Because you are silly?
Silly because...
Oh, I forgot to mention that Jumpin' Jim Jeffords also voted for Roberts.
Silly because you are worried just because the President refused to be trapped by a dumb question by a liberal member of the MSM.
I commend you for your deeply held religious beliefs, they are mot mine, and what you are using for a litmus test is akin to calling for a Christian theocracy, only pure Christians are suitable for the Supreme Court. On that I will pass. God in the pledge, abortion (though I make exceptions for rape, incest and the mothers life being endangered) the secular left's twisting of the 'Establishment Clause', I can support you in those areas because the progressive democrats are engaging in a war on religion. As a good Christian, you should remember "Judge not, lest ye be judged", only God has the right to judge.
I'm against the Miers nomination, but were I in his place I wouldn't take the reporter's bait either.
Did you happen to actually read the questions I have? His laugh-off of that question was hardly a key concern. With comparisons to Souter already abounding, the joking non-answer to whether Souter was a mistake is just another brick in that wall of concerns, and comes poorly-timed. Now, if it were, say Edith Jones, then it could be laughed off.
Would you still laugh it off if they had asked President Bush whether Stevens, Breyer and Ginsburg were mistakes as his nominee was being compared to them, and he gave essentially that laughing non-answer?
I'll bet you said that in 1981, 1987, and 1990. The only problem with wild-cards is, once you know what they're worth on the bench, yuo can never, ever remove them.
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.