Dobson Admits Doubt -- Focus Founder Questioning Early Endorsement of Miers

Rocky Mountain News ^ | M.E. Sprengelmeyer

[SkyPilot]

Of what relevence are Dobson's hallucinations to the process of a Supreme Court appointment?

I can understand Hank if you do not share the Christian faith. But don't mock those of us who do. It isn't needed here.

What relevance? Because our God tells us to pray, and that God the Father listens.

"Be careful for nothing; but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known unto God."
Phil 4:6

"Pray without ceasing."
Phil 4:6

This one is especially powerful:

"Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened. "Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him."
Matthew 7: 7-11

So you see Hank, there is power in individual prayer. He is quite a God to give us this privilege.

Also, I am strongly opposed to this nomination of Miers.

[SkyPilot]

Sorry, the second quote ("Pray without ceasing.") is from this verse:

1Thes 5:17

[Edit35]

..so (are we) going to vote for a Dem so they can put more Breyers and Ginsbergs on the court?

I have no desire to vote for a Democrat.

I just want our current President to make smarter more logical picks for the highest court in the land.

[safisoft]

Responding with fatuous remarks like "arabist statement" reflects poorly on you and shows lack of maturity.

LOL. Right. Here, let me try again:

And no President has gone as far as Bush has in making progress to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict.

That speaks much about your understanding of the history in the Middle East, and your lack of appreciation for the fact that caving to palistinians (terrorists) in any measure is not only a sign of weakness - it is demonstrably foolish when you claim you are at war against "terrorism". This administration has proven, by its pressure against Israel that it is only against "terrorism" when it is against Americans.

Can you imagine us being told that we must sit down and talk to Bin Laden - to negotiate? That is what this Administration does regarding the PLO. Maybe your history is not so good, so let me remind you that the PLO is to terrorism what George Washington is to representative democracy.

[NittanyLion]

Now, now. You know very well the Republican Party can't possibly accomplish a damn thing without a clear 100-seat Senate majority - and maybe not even then. It's going to take many years, and hundreds of millions of dollars in campaign donations, to motivate these guys. So pay up, shut up and vote Republican all the way. Trust 'em.

Don't worry Hank - the apologists are already telling me he'll nominate a JRB type for the next opening. Just keep those donations flowing - it's all strategery! He plays chess, not checkers! All hail our fearless leader!

[NittanyLion]

No one says 100 are needed - 60 would do just fine.

Be serious. If we had 66 GOP senators, we'd still be hearing that the 7 RINO Senators can't assure us of a filibuster-proof majority, and thus only moderate-to-liberal policy will do. The Bush apologists on this site will never admit that Bush actually made an error, and will continue to move the goalposts to make excuses for these awful decisions.

[TUAN_JIM]

With 55 seats in the Senate, there is no good reason that we shouldn't be getting a known quantity.

I second that. There were only 43 Republicans in the Senate when Thomas was confirmed, and he had to overcome all that Anita Hill b.s. The American people are not happy with activist judges or the Democrats judicial obstructionism (ask Tom Daschle).

[johnny7]

That's the same conclusion I've come to.

There's NO way to know what the 2006 election is going to leave us with. I've always believed in striking while the iron is hot... and this goes completely against my better instincts.

[Young Scholar]

I think Repubs/conservative should be quiet.

What do you mean by that?

[LS]

And was right in doing so.

[Southern Federalist]

Thanks for your sane comments. There sure are a bunch of folks on FR who know exactly what's going to happen in the future. I wrote on another post that the critique of Miers seems to come down to: "We don't know anything about her but we're damn sure she's going to betray the republic."

The lousy Republican picks on SCOTUS all came about by appointing (a) judges with a conservative track-record (Kennedy for example) or (b) judges recommended by a "vetting process" (Souter and O'Connor, for example). And let's not forget that it was the (on the whole, rightly) sainted Ronald Reagan who appointed a woman he didn't know very well to the Court so that he could say that he appointed the first woman.

What Bush has concluded from this is obvious. He believes that the most important qualification of a justice is not intellectual accomplishments or a long track-record: it's character. So he has appointed someone whose character he knows very well, through years of working together, and in whom he has confidence. The claim that we don't know that she is a strict constructionist is just wrong: her best friend is the most conservative justice on the Texas State Supreme Court, the Lone Star Scalia, and he has said flatly that she believes in reading the Constitution the way evangelicals read the Bible: straight and literally.

So we have a smart woman, a very talented lawyer, of strong character, who comes to the court with originalist beliefs, and one whom the President knows extremely well. It's surely a better recipe for a conservative justice than listening to Warren Rudman; it may be a better recipe than listening to Ann Coulter or Bill Kristol.

I agree with you that constitutional law is not nuclear physics and isn't meant to be. Unless you're a liberal, the principles of interpretation are essentially straightforward. The only thing she lacks is familiarity with the detailed history of constitutional jurisprudence, but you know what? A Supreme Court Justice hasn't got much else to do besides study that history, and she will have four smart clerks to help her do it. I can't see any reason why she wouldn't be writing exemplary and memorable opinions very soon.

She will be confirmed unless conservative Republican Senators and pundits decide that this is the time to destroy a Republican president just for the hell of it.

I think that part of the problem is that we have a generation of younger conservative pundits who are children of the Clinton era. They were formed in the Maureen Dowd school of political journalism and still tend to think that the point of politics is to score clever points on the other side. They've all been saying for five years that it's a matter of constitutional principle that the President should get the benefit of the doubt when he appoints judges. If they refuse to give Bush the benefit of the doubt here, then they are a crowd of grandstanding hypocrites. To play these games in wartime is inexcusable.

[clawrence3]

I've already admitted if Roberts and Miers vote to uphold Roe v. Wade not only will those nominations have been in error, but I will never vote GOP again.

[F16Fighter]

"What Bush has concluded from this is obvious. He believes that the most important qualification of a justice is not intellectual accomplishments or a long track-record: it's character."

It's NOT "obvious" -- therein lies the problem.

If "character" is so important, then Dubya wouldn't have had the disgraced Bubba Clinton and GHB parading around on their Magic Mystical Mystery Tour;

CFR would have been vetoed;

The Border would have been sealed and enforced after 9/11;

He would not have embarrassed American patriots (the Minutemen) by referring to them as "vigilantes.";

Teddy Kennedy's Education Bill would have been vetoed...

Dubya has NOT demonstrated the conviction to fight unequivocally for something other than the nebulous "International War on Terror." Something more important -- SC justices.

Just trust George W. Bush, eh?

Sorry, the resume doesn't warrant it.

[RTINSC]

Thanks for the response. Yes, it is true that some Palestinians and some Arabs are terrorists. I am not of the opinion that all Palestinians and Arabs are terrorists as you suggest. Perhaps you have a dog in that fight and I don't.

Naturally, if you are Jewish, you see all Arabs as mortal enemies and terrorists. Understandable. They want to kill you. The US or Bush isn't going to change that, no matter what.

If you think US policy or Bush is supporting terrorism against Israel, then perhaps you think it best we withdraw our support financially and militarily from israel and do nothing?

Again, I believe Bush has done more to resolve the Palestinian/Israeli conflict than any other President. . But our first and only mission is to protect the US, not Israel.

[Bush gal in LA]

I don't know if I would take it as you do ,that Mark was making ''excuses'' for Bush's Pick of Miers. After all he is as mad as anybody about this choice. I saw it as more of an'' explanation'' for the pick. People like me are so perplexed about this choice ,cause as far as I can remember Bush has never backed down from a fight with the Dims, even if there was a chance he would lose the fight. Look for instance at social security reform.......Anyway I think he was saying that if the ''gang of 14'' hadn't gotten together and formed their little clique Bush's first choice WOULD have been a Luttig, or Brown. But with these fools taking over the senate, if they had perceived these choices as ''EXTREME'' and supported a filibuster then Bush would have to get a 60% majority instead of just a majority.making it practically impossible SO.........his hands were tied and he went for the more ''moderate'' choice of Miss Miers........anyway thats how I took it!

[nikos1121]

I am really waffling on this. Part of me really wanted to see a fight, EVEN THOUGH it would have probably ended with John McCain and company coming in with his band of 8, 10 or 14 to undermine the process again. Maybe looking at everything, Pres. Bush figured, I'll take the heat and appoint someone who has been white house council for 5 years equating that with the same pre-SC accomplishments of someone like, say, William Renquist.

[nyconse]

We have 7-8 Rinos in the Senate. Exactly, how is President Bush going to get a 'real conservative ' confirmed. I believe this woman is conservative, and she has no paper trail. Therefore, she can be confirmed. The GOP wants a fight I guess, but they have no Senate Army to lead.

[nyconse]

If we had 66 Repubs and 8 are Rinos...if they voted against a judge and allowed a filibuster then the GOP would lose...58 votes are not enought to stop a filibuster. This is political reality. The GOP does not have a super majority as the Dems did during most of the last 40 years.

[nyconse]

Well, I hope down the road because of total misery you don't consider that maybe a McCain or Frist presidency would have been preferable to a Clinton presidency.

[Cautor]

As I've said before, I will never vote for McCain or Frist. I doubt I will be faced with that choice in the election itself.