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 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 211 | View Replies]

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?

222 posted on 10/12/2005 1:58:59 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 203 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

Please see my post #209.


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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 205 | View Replies]

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))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 222 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 219 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 225 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 226 | View Replies]

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.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

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?

232 posted on 10/12/2005 2:05:43 PM PDT by cogitator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 213 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 228 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 215 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

Uh NO.


235 posted on 10/12/2005 2:09:13 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 231 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 223 | View Replies]

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
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 236 | View Replies]

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.


239 posted on 10/12/2005 2:12:23 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Public Enemy #1, the RATmedia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

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)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 233 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 201-220221-240241-260 ... 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.

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