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.
Article VI...........
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
JFK must not have read that when he appointed his brother to be Attorney General.
Neither did the Senate who approved him.
Since you have never supported this President, why should I consider your concerns.
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.
This is exactly what the Miers nomination boils down to for those of us on the right. I am disheartened at the vicious attacks Freepers have thrown at each other because of this nomination. Debate and dissent is good, and may it never be stifled, but the vitriol has got to stop on both sides.
My position on Miers is currently "need more info." I was disappointed President Bush didn't select someone like Brown or Owens. From what I've read on Miers so far though, it seems she may turn out ok, and I definitely feel better about her.
I keep hearing the objection of "'May turn out ok' isn't good enough! Where's the paper trail?!" I understand because we have been burnt before, but how dependable is a paper trail, truly? O'Connor had a paper trail. Kennedy had a paper trail. Souter had a paper trail. What good did it do in the end?
A nominee can write the most sensible opinions around before getting to the SCOTUS, but does that guarantee anything? Sad to say, but even spelling out their thoughts in a Senate hearing has absolutely no bearing at all on what a person does once they're seated. The most anyone, other than the nominee himself, can do is infer how that person will rule.
I would've liked a paper trail. I would feel so much better about this nominee if there were one, but that's really all it can do. In the end, it all comes back to trusting the President we elected to do his best to fulfill his duty and nominate justices that will uphold the Constitution as the law of this land. I think he's done a good job of that up to this point.
Of course, you can always contact your senators and the President and voice your praise or concerns, as is your right as a constituent. There's no denying that the President has lost trust among some, but it doesn't change the fact that the President is the only person in the US with the power to nominate judges to SCOTUS. Do you trust the President on this or not? Your call.
I do feel SLIGHTLY better about her now than I did. We won't know really until she's been on the court a while.
Although this Oregon case might help us get to know Roberts, who (crossing my fingers) should turn out similar to Rhenquist more or less.
I voted for this president. There is no more significant way than that to support him. But that doesn't mean I have to be a drooling zombie follower. He's far from ideal. He's a mediocrity, really. But he was the best choice. I'm looking out for what I think is important, not necessarily what GWB wants.The idea that he's looking out for us is laughable.
I'm not worried about her abortion stance. I think she's pro-life.
I'm wondering how she'd rule on:
Property Rights
Second Amendment
"phantom" civil rights like sodomy and gay marriage
Just what issue that might come before the Court is about to impact you personally?
They know damn well she is pro-Life but the point is what are they going to do about it. How will they be able to attack Dear Aunt Harriet without looking like the biggest bullies on the block?
This funniest part is the attempt to convince us that she is something other than a Conservative by the Perpetually Pissed Off.
She has also stated that the right to keep and bear arms is a precious right.
Don't know what she thinks of Kelo. Perhaps that question will be asked of her during the hearings.
Wasn't John Kennedy supposed to be a tool of the Pope because he was Catholic?
I would expect that anyone qualified for the Supreme Court would be able to separate out their religious beliefs from their job as a Justice. Miers, or anyone for that matter, ought to be ruling based on the law, not based on their own personal beliefs.
Miers wrote that she believes in the RTKBA (and she is a Texas Republican, after all). In answering a survey to a gay rights group, she said she supports the Texas anti-sodomy law, which also makes gay marriage a non-starter. I don't have anything on property rights, but I hope that comes up during the hearings. So far, so good though.
Bravo Rush!!!
I'm an American. Every year cases go before the court that affect us all personally.
“Do you believe today that the right to privacy does exist in the Constitution?” asked Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chair of the Judiciary Committee, during the Sept. 13 session.
“Senator, I do,” Roberts said. “The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.”
In discussing his understanding of privacy rights, Roberts pointed to the Constitution’s First, Third and Fourth Amendments, which are part of the Bill of Rights. Among other things, they protect citizens against improper searches and seizures by the government, protect against restrictions of freedom of speech and assembly, and prohibit the establishment of an official state religion.
Roberts added that in the past 80 years, the Supreme Court has recognized the concept of “personal privacy,” as protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The high court used this concept of privacy as the basis for its 1972 decision in Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion, as well as its Lawrence decision overturning sodomy laws, considered to be the court’s most sweeping ruling on gay rights.
Wrong, it is important for all of us to know her, and then let our Senators know how we feel they should vote, either for or against.
The Constitution doesn't allow the President carte blanche to put whoever he wants on the Supreme Court, rather it requires the Senate to give "advice and consent". They aren't supposed to rubber stamp his, or anyone's, nominees. Rather they are supposed to act in the best interest of their constituents. Not in the best interest of the President or their party.
Again, it is important for all of us to contact our Senators and let them know how we feel.
I guess that's enough for some people (like James Dobson), but personally I'm more interested in her views of constitutional law than the frequency of her church attendance.
Even if she [i]is[/i] a secret Clarence Thomas (which I doubt), I still can't get past the fact she's a White House crony. Bush appointed her out of either his personal loyalty to her, or her expected loyalty to him (the expectation that she will grant the executive branch more power whenever it desires it). Neither is appropriate for an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Yes! Thanks to Rush for stating the obvious. Her faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies her. What's wrong with people?
Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was responding to a statement that John Roberts did not let his judicial philosophy be known DURING THE HEARINGS.
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.