Posted on 10/05/2005 7:50:11 PM PDT by goldstategop
RUSH: Jim in Needham, Massachusetts, welcome to the program.
CALLER: Listen, Rush, where's the stealth? Where's the lack of debate? Everybody knows what -- Harriet Miers is a born again pro-life Christian fundamentalist. She's probably the closest thing to having Bush on the Supreme Court himself. So there's nothing stealth. There's going to be a debate.
RUSH: Oh, come on, Jim. Let's not go off the deep end here. She is stealth in that she has no written opinions that can be targeted. Don't deny that.
CALLER: Yeah, but everybody knows her background. They can ask her questions about being pro-life, fundamentalist, born-again, Christian.
RUSH: No, they're not going to have to do that. That's what the White House is putting out. The White House is making sure everybody knows this woman is a born-again evangelical, pro-life, as I think that's what the White House thinks that it takes to purchase the support of the base.
CALLER: Precisely. So where's the stealth?
RUSH: The stealth is that there's more than just Roe vs. Wade that's going to come up before the court, for crying out loud!
CALLER: Rush --
RUSH: Look, I don't want to argue, Jim. You and I are not on different sides here. This is not arguable that she's stealth. She is "stealth" in the sense that there is not a lot for Democrats to shoot at other than this religion business, and the White House knows full well that by the time Schumer and Dick Durbin and the rest of them get all ginned up on her evangelical Christian beliefs, that they're going to be fit to be tied; they're going to become discombobulated and they're going to step in another bag of excrement that the White House put right out in front of them. I know that's what the strategy is.
CALLER: Well, Rush, she's not stealth in other areas, too. For instance, she's been involved in the war on terror intimately since the beginning, so she's not stealth on that, either!
RUSH: (sighs)
CALLER: Really, when you really look at it, she's probably the most un-stealth candidate there is.
RUSH: Now, Jim, you didn't know any of this until it was told you and you don't know it yourself. You're trusting other people who are telling you this and vouching for it to believe it. It is stealth. You don't know it! You don't really know it. You believe it because you believe what's been put out there. That's fine. I'm not arguing with you. But in terms of somebody else who has obvious conservative credentials, ideological credentials, judicial credentials that have been written and published and so forth, that's what I mean by, "She's stealth," and also what I mean by stealth is that she's an invisible target, and I'm talking for the Democrats. I'm not saying, "She's a total unknown." I'm saying that she's a small target on the Democrat radar. That's what stealth means, or a non-target, and the reason for that is it gives them less to shoot at and enhances her chances for confirmation -- and, please, listen, I've tried to be as explicit on this. This is the third day in a row, now.
I have no brief against this woman. You do not have to sell her to me. This is not the point. I'm not opposed to her because she's her. I'm not opposed to her. I have no brief against her. There are just obviously better choices. That's all it is to me. But, please, if you're a born-again, evangelical Christian, right-wing fundamentalist, whatever, don't get all offended here because I'll tell you what: The fact that this about her is being put out as fluently and loudly as it is, means that all hell is going to break loose, because as far as the left is concerned when it comes to confirmation -- go back to Dianne Feinstein: "There's only one thing that matters, and that's Roe vs. Wade." So this is a signal that she is pro-life. It's not a "signal," it's a statement that she's pro-life, and that's all you need to know about her -- and that's enough for the left to lose it, and as they lose it, we're going to get half of what I wanted in the fight anyway. A they lose it, people are going to see who they are. They can't help themselves. So we're not on opposite sides here, Jim. We're arguing semantics, I think.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
Anyway, the guy who called about Harriet Miers and she's not stealth because she's pro-life and she's evangelical, look, folks, the issue first of all isn't whether she's evangelical. The issue is whether her religious beliefs will help her decide a case like Roe vs. Wade. I mean, that's what everybody is assuming. Nominees are asked repeatedly if they can put their personal views and faith aside as they rule, and to a man and woman they all say, "Yes." They have to say that. We know that Anthony Kennedy was a very religious Catholic, and yet he's the justice who wrote the decision in Lawrence vs. Texas which found the federal constitutional right to same-sex sodomy in the Fourteenth Amendment -- and it's not there! But he found it, and in the process overturned 19 state laws. So (sigh). Harriet Miers, evangelical, born again, good Christian, Bush knows her. For this reason, he has ultimate faith in her. All that I understand. The assumption is that people are making is, "Okay, she's safe because that means she's pro-life."
Well, the left is going to have a conniption fit over this, and she's going to have to say at the hearings that whatever her personal beliefs are will have no bearing on her ruling. They're required to say this. Even if they're lying, they are required to say it -- and as I said, there are a lot more issues than just Roe vs. Wade on this court that have profound impact on the country, this foreign law business, Kelo, eminent domain. This Oregon case is big. I mean, constantly the court is taking cases like this that ought not even be decided at the court, folks. This Oregon case is one thing that I think could be, and should, but they take a lot of cases they have no business taking. They ought to be decided -- and Roe was one of them, ought to be decided -- in the legislatures of the states or at the Congress by the elected representatives of the people. That's another thing. The court has appropriated all this power to decide these political issues and call their decisions "law." This is problematic, and it's fundamental to get it straightened around. It is really what these two elections have been about, if you want to know the truth. It's what everybody has been working for, for 20 or 30 years, because this court's been out of control for even longer than that.
[I]n terms of somebody else who has obvious conservative credentials, ideological credentials, judicial credentials that have been written and published and so forth, that's what I mean by, "She's stealth," and also what I mean by stealth is that she's an invisible target, and I'm talking for the Democrats.
She is one to the Democrats and to us as well. In the end, the abortion issue will matter to the Left and if they have so much as a hint she's pro-life, they will filibuster her - no ifs buts or ends about it. It would have been better to go into this fight honestly and win on the basis of ideas here. That is what the President should have done in sending forward a well-qualified conservative who has the staunch support of the base from Day One.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Rush limbaugh needs to go back to DU! He's no conservative!
(now let's wait for the personal attacks on Rush to commence...many of them coming from self-proclaimed Christians)
LOL. That's good. I'm going to sit back and watch this thread.
bttt
You don't know what Roberts' judicial philosophy is either. In fact, Roberts testified that he doesn't have one. Let's face it... If you knew what the nominee's judicial philosophy was, then they would not get confirmed. We're dependent on Bush making that call. If you did not trust him to do so, then you should have voted for someone else.
me too...normally I'd participate but I've spent too much time over the last few days scratching with the turkeys. I've got an article to write!
Her religion is being pimped by Bush supporters to placate the base. She's a stealth candidate alright.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
What the Pres should have done and what he did do may be two different things to people but the fact is that he has made a decision and we now have the option to hope for her approval in the Senate or hope for her defeat. I prefer the former.
I don't know how you can say she brings nothing when you don't know her. It's not important for you to know her. It's important for the President to know her since he's making the appointment.
Of course, if you don't trust him, then I can see why you'd not be satisfied with his appointment. At this point, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's really kind of pointless to do anything else since the only thing we can do is vent anyway.
John G. Roberts, Jr said the following during his confirmation hearings about is judicial philosophy:
"If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me," Roberts told senators. "But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution."
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
What a wonderful thing to do to our President while our sons and daughters are fighting for their lives.
How helpful when we need the Patriot Act reaffirmed.
How helpful when we need the tax cuts made permanent.
How helpful when we need to deal with social security.
Harriet Miers will make the same kind of responses. Roberts reply could not have been anything else. The questions are predictable and so are the responses. Candidates as smart as Roberts and I think Harriet Miers too just aren't going to screw up when being questioned by light weights like Schumer, Kennedy and rino Arlen Specter.
Damn Harriet Miers' oily hide for not revealing her philosophy as Roberts so bravely did! Oh, wait... confirmation hearings haven't started yet, so she couldn't have done so.
It will readily be comprehended, that a man who had himself the sole disposition of offices, would be governed much more by his private inclinations and interests, than when he was bound to submit the propriety of his choice to the discussion and determination of a different and independent body, and that body an entier branch of the legislature. The possibility of rejection would be a strong motive to care in proposing. The danger to his own reputation, and, in the case of an elective magistrate, to his political existence, from betraying a spirit of favoritism, or an unbecoming pursuit of popularity, to the observation of a body whose opinion would have great weight in forming that of the public, could not fail to operate as a barrier to the one and to the other. He would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.
Federalist 76
Actually right now we need to deal with the Supreme Court. It may be down low on your list, but it's tops on mine. Pretending the president is strong won't make it so.
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.