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.

[kjam22]

You still don't get it.... we're talking about a political court. In your driving scenario.... I'd nominate my personal driver before I'd nominate Mr. Goodwrench. We don't need a mechanic. We need someone who will vote the way we want them to. Period.

[cogitator]

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

I admire your emphaticness. But in order to wrap this up, I'll educate you a bit on process. Every one of those nominees had a public record that could be evaluated, and every one of those nominees was evaluated and passed by White House staff members, based on that record, before President Bush made their nomination. Every one of those nominees went through a Judiciary Committee hearing on their qualifications to be a Federal judge. They passed because they had a record demonstrating their skills and a recognizable set of legal qualifications.

Here's an example:

Judge Susan B. Neilson

Here's an example of a nominee who has not been a judge previously:

William James Haynes III

Here's the page for Harriet Miers:

Harriet E. Miers

I will let you trust the President as much as you want. As far as I'm concerned, she's at best a District Court pick.

[.30Carbine]

So, to your way of thinking, Jay Seculo would make a better nominee?

[Dat Mon]

Appreciate that.

Ive come to the conclusion that the factors I cited...especially the religious qualification issue Bush advanced today...make this woman's performance before the committee a moot point.

Its a damn shame for her.....but they make her rejection a necessity...even if she puts in a decent performance. Not to sound smug...but its not hard to feel a degree of sympathy for this woman, who Im sure is a very kind person. I blame the person, who, in a boneheaded move, put his loyal assistant in this position to begin with.

All this doesn't mean she WILL be rejected...if she appears...shes as good as confirmed.

(If the pressure gets too great...or if she isnt performing well in her prep sessions...I think she will withdraw herself)

[SergeantsLady]

You said, "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". And in doing so, I think you've answered a question that's been puzzling me...

I can understand Bush's decisions. I can understand the conservative media voices (I am addicted to them after all). I can even understand abhorrent statements from the DNC (usually too numerous to count). But what I have not been able to understand is the continued battle between "Conservative" viewpoints and carried out into the public arena...given the somewhat astonishing silence from the Democrats...which should be a clue to us all not that they "like" Miers, but that they very much LIKE having the conservative "dirty" laundry aired instead of their own...and having of all things Republicans debating her "Faith"... As a parent, I sometimes regain "control" by using a "time-out" (sometimes a more hands on approach...). In this case, I'd very much like to give everyone a 48 hour "time-out".

There's a phrase from an old movie in which a young Japanese officer (in conversation with his commanding Admiral) insists upon pushing the naval confrontation at Midway forward, the older Admiral hesitates, stating "We must measure what we have to gain against what we might lose". The naval battle was pushed further, the end result being the Pacific War turning in favor of the U.S.A. (My apologies if I've jumbled my old movies or muddled history...)

[LexBaird]

You've judged me based on your own personal experience and understanding. But even that wasn't a test :)

Yes, it was. You claimed there was no test, because there was no physical paperwork. I tested your assumption using the test of logic, and found you to have employed the Fallacy of Equivocation. My judgment followed this test. Now stop testing the power of your argument, lest it goes beyond the test strength and collapses under the weight of assumed definitions. It makes me testy.

[LexBaird]

"can we count on her to vote the way we want"

That depends on "we" doesn't it? I want her to base her decisions on the text of the Constitution, and not on International law, penumbras, and shifting societal fads or Evangelical beliefs. How do you want her to vote?

[LexBaird]

You still don't get it.... we're talking about a political court. ...We need someone who will vote the way we want them to. Period.

Then we are at an impasse. What I believe we need is to remove politics from the courts, and STOP the judicial activism, not just make Conservative judicial activists.

The reason for lifetime appointment is to remove political survival as a motivation in judges. Their job is to interpret the legislation in light of our Constitution, not influence the legislation or decree the legislation based on political popularity..

[rwfromkansas]

This is not a religious test. He chose her because of whatever qualifications the president chose to use to nominate a person. If that included strong religious views, so be it.

If that is why congress approves her, that would be a religious test.

[rwfromkansas]

This is not a religious test. He chose her because of whatever qualifications the president chose to use to nominate a person. If that included strong religious views, so be it.

If that is why congress approves her, that would be a religious test.

[rwfromkansas]

This is not a religious test. He chose her because of whatever qualifications the president chose to use to nominate a person. If that included strong religious views, so be it.

If that is why congress approves her, that would be a religious test.

[rwfromkansas]

The clause does NOT mean you can't use religion at all in your consideration.

But, you can't bar somebody from serving because of religious issues.

[LexBaird]

I know exactly as much about Seculo's judicial philosophy as I do about Miers'.

[kjam22]

What I believe we need is to remove politics from the courts,

And that's a noble thing. But it's like the owner of an NFL team saying.... "the game was better when they wore leather helmets. I understand that everyone else wears high quality headgear... but I'm standing on principle and making my team wear leather helmets". The traditionalists will applaud him.... but his team will get killed on the field. Part of being successful is understanding and accepting the environment, and the rules therein.

[rwfromkansas]

I am questioning if the quote is even accurate.

He just said a few words in response to the question about why he picked her? He just said one thing in her life was her religion and didn't elaborate further?

I think the quote is twisted.

[rwfromkansas]

You are truly a dim bulb.

A religious test is a very narrow term.

Just considering it as a factor does not qualify. Otherwise, our government would have done many, many, many things, especially in the 1800s, that the courts were wrong to uphold because actually they were religious tests.

[mjwise]

You are truly a dim bulb.

And a good day to you too. Is this insult week on FR?

A religious test is a very narrow term....Just considering it as a factor does not qualify.

That's actually up to the Senators to decide I suppose, if it's brought up. Promulgating it as a justification for a nominee is still reprehensible, if not unconstitutional.

When some Jimmy Carter-esque president decides to nominate a thinly-qualified Muslim lawyer/scholar for the simple sake of nominating a Muslim to the USSC, I trust you will have no objections.

[nonliberal]

I think Bush was operating under the assumption that he could nominate anyone who doesn't drool during the confirmation hearings and get them confirmed. Talking about her religion is troublesome at best, absolutely asinine at worst.

[nonliberal]

No proven conservative judicial philosophy.

There, five words.

[JasonSC]

So now he is pulling the religion card.

Hey, what else is new?