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.

[JasonSC]

almost all the whining is because they fear the nominee is not willing to overturn RvW

You've got to be kidding me. Just look at the posts on this thread.

[nonliberal]

McCain-Feingold, and Public Education were brought to you courtesy of Christians

Bush, a Christian, signed McCain-Feingold and expanded the Department of Education.

[rwfromkansas]

Folks, like I suspected, the AP and Reuters selectively edited this quote.

This is the full quote, according to the NY Times.

"People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers," Mr. Bush told reporters in the Oval Office. "They want to know Harriet Miers's background, they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers's life is her religion."

Now, I want to know the context following this selection. I suspect the NY Times is leaving further info out.

But, one thing I know: Reuters and The Associated Press committed journalistic fraud by NOT notifying the reader they omitted some vital information.

A basic tenet of journalism is that if you alter a quote by leaving something out, you TELL the reader what you are doing. You do this by including three periods where you cut the info out, an ellipsis.

Both AP and Reuters did not do this. They willingly deceived the public. They willingly failed to do have the ethics of even a high school newspaper here.

Disgusting, and it makes me suspicious of what follows the quote as even described in the NY Times. I somehow suspect the context makes Bush look even better.

As it stands now, the Bush statement was not near as "bad" as it looked when the AP and Reuters quoted it.

[p[adre29]

"Who doesn't drool"

Now i do not know Ms. Miers, but that is a terrible way to
characterize her. She may be schmuck or she may be simply
brilliant, we do not know.

Why not Ms. Meirs? All of the blue blood rage aside, (and
after years of being dumped on by them this is sweet) why
not let them whine for a change?

(Am I the only one who remembers George Will's classically lib
statement "We must repeal the embarrassing 2nd amendment)
Until one remembers stuff like that, spare me the the
hysterical verbiage.

[qam1]

Do you think Roe v. Wade, McCain-Feingold, and Public Education were brought to you courtesy of Christians or the Founders? No! but by those who oppose and defame them

They were all brought about by Christians.

Roe v Wade: All 9 Justices as well as the President's who appointed them were all Christians

CFR & Public Education expansion via the No Child left behind act were all passed by Christians and signed by George W. Bush

[justshutupandtakeit]

If the Antis were convinced that she would overturn RvW there would be very little opposition from those calling themselves conservative. No reasonable arguments against Harriet have been made that I have seen. It is pique and resentment that a favorite wasn't chosen.

Many would rather see a flaming conservative go down in defeat that to have one just as conservative confirmed without a big fight.

[nonliberal]

I was referring to the willingness of the Bushbots to support literally anyone he chucked up there. If they don't drool, all the better.

[.30Carbine]

Correction: Jay Sekulow, of ACLJ.

Please excuse my mis-spelling of that worthy man's name.

[LexBaird]

If the Antis were convinced that she would overturn RvW there would be very little opposition from those calling themselves conservative.

I want someone there who can explain why, Constitutionally, Roe v Wade should be overturned, not someone who will just do it because it is a conservative thing to do. It is a poorly crafted, judicially active sledgehammer of a social solution imposed on the public by a court. That is why it should not stand. I don't like it when Leftist judges impose abortion and environmental activism, and I would equally oppose Rightist judges imposing lax police power guidelines or corporate monopolism.

If I had any evidence that Miers could produce a sound Constitutional argument on ANY of the many points she is likely to encounter in the next 20 years, I'd be more inclined to trust the pick. But it appears that Bush is more concerned with short term political goals ( picking a woman, avoiding a fight, rewarding a friend) than in considering what may be happening in 2025.

What is so totally amazing is that a person can have her history of personal accomplishments in the legal profession, and yet leave no paper trail of any of her personal thinking on the law. Her judicial philosophy is, AFAIK, totally undocumented. How can anyone become president of a State Bar Assoc., without ever writing down anything about her opinions on any point of law?

[justshutupandtakeit]

You keep overlooking the fact that there is no reason YOU should have this knowledge you want. There is NO ONE who has it except the President. And if you trusted him enough to give him the highest office in the land why would you not trust him on this? It is HE that has worked with Miers for near 20 years. It is HE who has relied upon her assistance in placing the judges you approve of on the bench. It is HE who knows how she thinks and whether she is close to his philosophy.

It is through the Hearings that you will get information. But you are not going to get anything from her which could bear upon cases to be decided in the future. That is not the way it works.

And your speculations as to Bush's motives are nothing but that. I don't believe them to be correct in any instance. He chose a person that he has known long enough to know how she thinks about the constitution and the law. That should be enough to trust the man in this whom we elected to be Commander in Chief. If he can be trusted with using the Nuclear football he can be trusted to appoint Justices.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since the President has been shown to be eminently trustworthy conservatives have no reason to withdraw that trust merely because THEY don't know enough about the nominee. Now those that have consistently opposed and criticized him are another matter.

[LexBaird]

You keep overlooking the fact that there is no reason YOU should have this knowledge you want.

Of course there is. This isn't a dictatorship, and I have two Senators to make my will known through. If you want to be a mushroom, feel free, but we can't expect our elected representatives to do our will without even being given the information to make a choice.

And if you trusted him enough to give him the highest office in the land why would you not trust him on this?

Because he said he would do one thing, and has done another. In the 2000 election, my sole reason for casting my vote for Bush was his repeated promise that he would seek and appoint judges in the model of Scalia. Miers already fails that test, in that she has no history of making any sort of Constitutional argument. Our own Congressman BillyBob is miles more qualified on that score alone.

And your speculations as to Bush's motives are nothing but that. I don't believe them to be correct in any instance.

The President has stated that he only considered women, which is a damnfool thing to do when trying to choose a lifetime appointment for one of the most influential jobs in our nation. It means he is putting PC politics above truly seeking the best person, male or female. Suppose next time the politically correct move is to appoint only someone who is blind, or bilingual, or transgendered? Will that become more important than judicial philosophy and ability?

I won't buy a pig in a poke, no matter how much lipstick is applied. In other words, I'm not the sort to just shut up and take it.