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."
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.
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.