Bush: Miers' Religion Cited in Court Nod

AP ^ | October 12, 2005 | NEDRA PICKLER

[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.

[mlc9852]

I for one am happy with his choice but time will tell if she's what I'm hoping for.

[cogitator]

Because all the federal judges he gave us so far are real originalists and conservatives.

And, I will point out, they weren't nominees for the Supreme Court.

How do you know that all of Bush's judicial nominees were all real originalists and conservatives?

[.30Carbine]

Please see my post #209.

[Leatherneck_MT]

I agree with what you said, but I do not agree that a person has to have a "religion" in order to serve on the Supreme Court.

One of our most intelligent founding fathers, was himself, at best, an agnostic. Yet he helped frame the declaration of independance and later on, the constitution.

That was Thomas Jefferson.

I'll put him up against ANYONE who has ever served or will serve on the SCOTUS.

Bar none.

[LexBaird]

I have tested your logic. You fail.

[Irish Rose]

If I recall correctly, the question was what philosopher was most important to the candidates personally. You might call Christ a philosopher, though He didn't come as one. (His self-proclaimed purpose: "The Son of Man came to seek and save the lost.") But Jesus Christ said very little on politics. The closest He ever came was, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's." Saying that Christ is a "political philosopher" is to brilliantly miss the whole point.

But like I said, I think you are mistaken on what the question was. George Bush said that the most important philosopher to him is Jesus Christ. I believe he told the truth, and I don't find that truth to be bad.

[jveritas]

Because I trust that he only choose these type of people for the courts, period.

[mjwise]

So conservative Christians will be placated if someone just with the same religious beliefs is nominated? Talk about pandering to a demographic.

I'm Roman Catholic but I'm not exactly leaping for joy because Anthony Kennedy is on the court. And someone else has already pointed out the Jimmy Carter parallel.

[kjam22]

I've not tested anything in a literal sense. You've judged me based on your own personal experience and understanding. But even that wasn't a test :)

However, if you read the constitution to say that a public school can't have a christmas program.... then you probably think it was a test.

[sono]

"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine, first, the religion of your own country. Read the Bible, then, as you would Livy or Tacitus. … Those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. … I forgot to observe, when speaking of the New Testament, that you should read all the histories of Christ, as well as of those whom a council of ecclesiastics have decided for us, to be Pseudo-Evangelists, as those they named Evangelists." Thomas Jefferson writing to his nephew Peter Carr on Aug. 10, 1787.

[jveritas]

From the beginning, the White House knew that there will be a very vocal minority among conservatives (including many talk show hosts and pundits) that will oppose the Miers nomination publicly. On the other hand the very vocal conservative minority opposing the Miers nomination did not realize that their power will only extend over a minority of conservatives and they thought that they were going to bring a majority of conservatives and Republican to their camp.

They thought they have the power to do it, but they have failed to realize that the majority of Republicans and Conservatives have much more loyalty to President Bush and trust in his judgment, or at least wait and see what Miers will be about before destroying her without knowing anything about her. This vocal minority of conservatives failed miserably in their calculations and many of them are not willing to admit they were wrong so they are going deep in their rhetoric.

[cogitator]

Basically, it appears most Republicans have adopted a wait for the confirmation hearing attitude.

An indifference which the Democrats, and perhaps any of the GOP on the Judiciary Committee who might not like Bush's inner circle pick, can leverage to the point of a nomination rejection.

If she attempts to emulate the artful non-answers of John Roberts, there is no way she will be confirmed, because there is no trust that she has the requisite legal intellect to be a SCOTUS justice. In the hearings, she will have to demonstrate a breadth of knowledge of Constitutional law, or be sent down.

The Republicans successfully attacked Michael Brown for not knowing how to run a crucial federal agency; does anyone think that they won't be able to test whether or not Miers is suited for the SCOTUS?

[kjam22]

I am a conservative christian. I'll say this unequivocally..... the WH tells us that she is a 3rd grade sunday school teacher at a fundamentalist, evangelical church. That she was on the missions committee there for 7 years. That she reads the constitution as literal as she reads the bible. IF and I say IF... all that is true and she is what they are saying she is, she will be by far the most conservative member of the court... because I know people that are just like that. I know them personally and I know what they believe. And IF Harriet is what she says she is..... I just have to say WOW regarding this nomination.

[chris1]

Yes there is a danger in that when that is her only real qualification, which is not one to begin with.

This nomination is a farse, a sham, a joke, a waste, and a complete surrender to the RATS.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Uh NO.

[mjwise]

And that's something else I don't understand. Why do people think the nomination hearings are going to reveal anything substantive about Ms. Miers? Think Ginsburg and Roberts. You'll know little more about her coming out of the hearings than going in unless she slips up and says more than she should. And once she's confirmed and we find out that she's an O'Connor or (God forbid) left of her, isn't it just a little late then to say "oops" ?

[counterpunch]

I did see that post. So that makes her a lawyer turned politician, nothing more. What is completely lacking in her history is any scholarship in Constitutional Law. Unlike Rehnquist, she has never clerked for a Federal judge. Unlike Roberts she has never argued before the Supreme Court. It appears that she has never been confronted with Constitutional issues in her experience at all. Sure, she may subscribe to some vague platitudes about "framer's intent", but does she have any idea how she would apply that in a complex case involving over a mundane dispute with conflicting precedents and Constitutional principles?

She doesn't have the kind of foundation gained from years of serious study and application of Constitutional Law. She is going to have to "discover" herself on the Court, regardless of what Bush says. And when it comes to actually interpreting and applying Constitutional Law, she may discover she is a liberal.

Does she have a philosophy over which amendment has primacy, the 9th or the 10th? What if she hears a case where the two conflict? What will she do? Has she ever even considered that? Did President Bush consider that when he chose her? Or did he just "like her style"?

And just how well can Bush "know her heart" when it seems not even she does?

[kjam22]

The problem is ... that anybody can change. Lutig could change his mind with a lifetime appointment. He could one day say... what was I thinking? He could go to Washington and have his mind changed.

I think our president has tried to pick people that believes won't change ..... for whatever reason. I think his Dad is haunted by the souter nomination, and I think W is trying to avoid that.... and pick someone that can make it through the confirmation process... because the Dems are dug in for this one.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Most of us do comprehend the meaning of the word "part" and almost all the whining is because they fear the nominee is not willing to overturn RvW which is almost a religious test in itself.

[chris1]

Those are qualifications for the Pope, not the Supreme Court for pete's sake.