Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush: Miers' Religion Cited in Court Nod
AP ^ | October 12, 2005 | NEDRA PICKLER

Posted on 10/12/2005 9:40:01 AM PDT by West Coast Conservative

President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

Bush, speaking at the conclusion of an Oval Office meeting with visiting Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski, said that his advisers were reaching out to conservatives who oppose her nomination "just to explain the facts." He spoke on a day in which conservative James Dobson, founder of Focus on Family, said he had discussed the nominee's religious views with presidential aide Karl Rove.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bush; christianity; conservatism; evangelicalsonly; miers; quotas; religion; scotus; womenonly
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-292 next last
To: .30Carbine
Now why would the mention of a person's spiritual beliefs - in Christ Jesus - so cause you (and so many others) to react this way?

It's not about her religion, your religion, or my religion (which I presume is Christian for all three -- I can vouch for myself). It's about the fact that President Bush stated that her religion played a part in his decision to select her as SCOTUS nominee. That's where the danger lies (as others have already said).

161 posted on 10/12/2005 1:06:34 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: West Coast Conservative
"Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

That's true of a number of the nominees who are also proven conservatives, and have judicial and constitutional experience. It's also true of millions of Americans, and NOT a strong enough reason to nominate someone to the Supreme Court.

162 posted on 10/12/2005 1:06:54 PM PDT by TAdams8591 (A Reagan Conservative and mighty proud of it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leatherneck_MT
We are talking about SCOTUS and our Constitution. Not elections for the Pope.

You are familiar, I would imagine, with the Declaration of Independence, the document which founded the body which met to determine our Constitution? They also were discussing the form of our Supreme Court, as we are here, as well as the other branches of government which would cause this nation to become the most free, the most fair, of any nation or government ever established on the earth.

The men who drafted the document which is the basis for our Supreme Court also wrote and also believed that "we are endowed by our Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness."

They also were not interested in electing a Pope, as you put it. They were interested in maintaining the liberties given them by the God Who Made Them. That's why they and their ancestors left for our shores to begin with.

It is not possible that these liberties can be maintained apart from a belief in a Creator-Giver. I give you America, 2005 as the greatest example.

But that page of history is turning.

163 posted on 10/12/2005 1:07:20 PM PDT by .30Carbine (Freedom of speech is NOT GRANTED; IT IS GIVEN...by GOD, not government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: cogitator

please see my post #163


164 posted on 10/12/2005 1:08:20 PM PDT by .30Carbine (Freedom of speech is NOT GRANTED; IT IS GIVEN...by GOD, not government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: kjam22
And who said I was a strict constructionist? :)

I think you are overliterally reading the passage and making it uselessly narrow to mean much of anything. "Test" has more than the single popular meaning (e.g. a written test) people think of -- check out definition 3 here.
165 posted on 10/12/2005 1:08:37 PM PDT by mjwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: mjwise

>Sorry bub, but if President Bush even once thought, "Her religious beliefs, by only the virtue of their existence, are positively influencing my decision to nominate her" then he subjected her to a de facto religious test and this nomination should die in committee<

That type of thinking is just what the framers were attempting to prevent.They all believed Religous beliefs were evidence of good character.Many openly said the public profession of atheism was grounds for a lack of trust.
The Constitution ban on Religous tests applies to laws and regulations of the government.It was never meant as a check on anyones thoughts or judgement.The president was given the power to appoint.The Constitution is silent on how he excercises that judgement.

Your rabid attacks on this appointment have made you part of the "thought police".If this is an example of the type of "Constitutional scholars" you guys want appointed I will take a average guy or gal any day.


166 posted on 10/12/2005 1:08:50 PM PDT by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: mjwise
Please see my post #163.

Please also check out JimRobinson's thread: Suffocating the First Amendment.

167 posted on 10/12/2005 1:10:52 PM PDT by .30Carbine (Freedom of speech is NOT GRANTED; IT IS GIVEN...by GOD, not government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I think you may be overreacting. Who are laughingstocks and who is doing the laughing? The Dems? And we care because?

No, the legal community.
They're all saying "'Strict construction' my ass. It was all just a religious agenda after all."

This has set back conservative thought in approaching legal matters considerably. It has just lost a lot of hard-won credibility.
168 posted on 10/12/2005 1:11:19 PM PDT by counterpunch (Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: mjwise
There's written tests, there's oral tests, there's drivers tests, there's skiing tests, there's marksmanship tests... I would just say produce the test or the documents that relate to her test.

You would put the idea that a president weighs in his own mind all aspects of a nominee (including religious belief) before making a choice to be part of a "test". I think that's one of the more liberal readings of the constitution that I've heard in a long time. :)

169 posted on 10/12/2005 1:12:16 PM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: Blessed

Blessed - the problem is not that the thought of her religion entered his mind. The problem is that now he has to prove that it WASN'T a conscious deciding factor. This is why they usually tell defendants not to take the witness stand.


170 posted on 10/12/2005 1:12:26 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Stuck on Genius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Dat Mon

You made a lot of good observations and points in that post #142.


171 posted on 10/12/2005 1:12:42 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart. Ps. 51:17)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: kjam22

>". I think that's one of the more liberal readings of the constitution that I've heard in a long time. :)<

And most dangerous.


172 posted on 10/12/2005 1:14:25 PM PDT by Blessed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: jveritas
You are way overrating the numbers of the anti-Miers camp and you are sadly mistaken if you form a majority. Majority of conservatives and Republicans are either supportive of President Bush choice or they just want to wait and see before making judgment on Miers. Only a minority, but a very vocal one (talks show hosts and conservative pundits), are against her without knowing anything about her.

You missed my point. The Miers nomination is ambiguous, which is why there is such controversy. By your comments to me, you indicated that President Bush could nominate anybody for the SCOTUS, and you'd trust him. Right?

What you admitted by making "trust in the President's discernmment" the sole criterion by which to judge a nominee was: the rest of the country could recognize clearly that a nominee was merely a blatant shoe-licking doofus, and you'd still "trust" that he'd made a good choice.

173 posted on 10/12/2005 1:14:32 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
Legal community? Since when is the "legal community" our standard-bearer? LOL I thought we all hated lawyers!
174 posted on 10/12/2005 1:15:20 PM PDT by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: DTogo

Thanks for the effort.


175 posted on 10/12/2005 1:15:21 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Blessed

Yep


176 posted on 10/12/2005 1:16:04 PM PDT by kjam22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: .30Carbine
Now why would the mention of a person's spiritual beliefs - in Christ Jesus - so cause you (and so many others) to react this way?

Because in the context of the Supreme Court, allowing for religious influence means the next name you hear could be "Allah".

177 posted on 10/12/2005 1:18:05 PM PDT by Rutles4Ever (Stuck on Genius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Blessed
Blessed --

I don't think we actually disagree substantively but instead keep framing this differently. I do believe that religious beliefs can very well be an indicator of good character. But it is not to be a qualifier.

And the no religious test clause follows a discussion and listing of people, not laws, and it is certainly meant to apply to people serving at an appointed, federal role and it specifically refers to judges:

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.

Explicit or implicit religious tests would simply be unconstitutional, from my straightforward reading of this.
178 posted on 10/12/2005 1:19:36 PM PDT by mjwise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: TAdams8591
If you nominate someone to the SCOTUS who does not believe in a Creator-God, the Giver of Every Good and Perfect Gift - the freedom to speak, to write, to print; the freedom to worship; the freedom to be free from search and seizure, the freedom to be stand before one's accusers at fair trial, the freedom to travel, the freedom to defend one's person and property, the freedom to congregate and to petition government - then you nominate someone to that Court who thinks these rights are granted, bestowed, and parceled out by men.

President Bush, and Harriet Miers, and .30Carbine know that Rights are From God My Creator, and no man can take them away except by overwhelming force unto imprisonment or death.

The Founders knew the God of Creation who endowed them with UNALIENABLE RIGHTS. The multitude of politicians and judges who have ruled America since I was a baby have usurped this authority for themselves. And look where it has gotten us.

179 posted on 10/12/2005 1:20:25 PM PDT by .30Carbine (Freedom of speech is NOT GRANTED; IT IS GIVEN...by GOD, not government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
Legal community? Since when is the "legal community" our standard-bearer? LOL I thought we all hated lawyers!

Everyone hates lawyers until they need one...
But now that Bush has discredited all of the legwork done by the Robert Borks and Antonin Scalias and John Roberts over the past decades, where are we going to find the next generation?
Rather than gaining in law schools and legal circles as it has been doing steadily for some time now, conservative judicial philosophy will now be discarded as "the stuff of religious nuts", not serious-minded legal scholars.
180 posted on 10/12/2005 1:20:50 PM PDT by counterpunch (Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 281-292 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson