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 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 281-292 next last
To: counterpunch
I for one am happy with his choice but time will tell if she's what I'm hoping for.
221
posted on
10/12/2005 1:57:00 PM PDT
by
mlc9852
To: jveritas
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?
To: counterpunch
223
posted on
10/12/2005 1:59:02 PM PDT
by
.30Carbine
(Freedom of speech is NOT GRANTED; IT IS GIVEN...by GOD, not government)
To: .30Carbine
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.
224
posted on
10/12/2005 1:59:51 PM PDT
by
Leatherneck_MT
(3-7-77 (No that's not a Date))
To: kjam22
I have tested your logic. You fail.
225
posted on
10/12/2005 2:00:28 PM PDT
by
LexBaird
(tyrannosaurus Lex, unapologetic carnivore)
To: LN2Campy
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.
226
posted on
10/12/2005 2:00:31 PM PDT
by
Irish Rose
(Will work for chocolate.)
To: cogitator
Because I trust that he only choose these type of people for the courts, period.
227
posted on
10/12/2005 2:02:12 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
To: kjam22
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.
228
posted on
10/12/2005 2:02:26 PM PDT
by
mjwise
To: LexBaird
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.
229
posted on
10/12/2005 2:03:10 PM PDT
by
kjam22
To: Irish Rose
"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.
230
posted on
10/12/2005 2:03:11 PM PDT
by
sono
(I knew I was going to take the wrong train, so I left early. L Berra)
To: SergeantsLady
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.
231
posted on
10/12/2005 2:03:54 PM PDT
by
jveritas
(The Axis of Defeatism: Left wing liberals, Buchananites, and third party voters.)
To: SergeantsLady
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?
To: mjwise
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.
233
posted on
10/12/2005 2:06:22 PM PDT
by
kjam22
To: .30Carbine
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.
234
posted on
10/12/2005 2:08:25 PM PDT
by
chris1
("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
To: stylin19a
To: jveritas; All
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" ?
236
posted on
10/12/2005 2:09:36 PM PDT
by
mjwise
To: .30Carbine
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?
237
posted on
10/12/2005 2:11:57 PM PDT
by
counterpunch
(Save the GOP - withdraw Miers now)
To: mjwise
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.
238
posted on
10/12/2005 2:12:18 PM PDT
by
kjam22
To: thoughtomator
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.
To: kjam22
Those are qualifications for the Pope, not the Supreme Court for pete's sake.
240
posted on
10/12/2005 2:12:58 PM PDT
by
chris1
("Make the other guy die for his country" - George S. Patton)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220, 221-240, 241-260 ... 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson