National Pro Life Action Center Implores Bush to Withdraw Miers Nomination, Correct Flawed Process

US Newswire ^ | 10/14/2005 | Joe Giganti

[Stellar Dendrite]

Stephen G. Peroutka, chairman of the board of governors for the National Pro-Life Action Center (NPLAC), issued the following statement calling for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States:

"The time has come for President Bush to realize and accept that his nomination of Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court was ill-advised and he should withdraw her nomination. With 45 million children's lives lost to abortion, the stakes are simply too high to gamble on another 'stealth' candidate. If the president remains reluctant to take this step, then NPLAC believes that Ms. Miers should then remove herself from this process.

"The president promised to nominate Scalia- and Thomas-like justices, but there is simply no evidence that he has honored this promise. Adding insult to injury, President Bush, the first lady and their emissaries have resorted to infantile attacks upon conservative opposition to Miers by pretending that the opposition is some form of latent sexism. This is not only insulting to conservatives, but to the collective intellect of the American people, and we implore the president to put an end to this petty tactic.

"It is absurd to accuse a movement that has supported the efforts of great women like Margaret Thatcher and Phyllis Schlafly, and championed the cause of judges like Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown of chauvinism.

"Criticism of the president's choice has nothing to do with the fact that Ms. Miers is a woman and has everything to do with feeling betrayed by the president. Much has been written about the high value this president places on loyalty, but loyalty is not a one-way street and pro-family conservatives are now asking for it from this president.

"Harriet Miers may well be a phenomenal lawyer who is pro-life and devoutly Christian, but the fact is, we will never know because of the flawed nature of the modern confirmation process. By adopting the 'Ginsberg cloak of silence,' the Administration has ensured that the American people will never truly know the judicial temperament of Ms. Miers or any other potential nominee. Pro-lifers can no longer accept this lowering of the bar.

"We must fix this process by realizing that there is nothing to be gained by concealing a nominee's judicial philosophy and temperament. Following this practice has led to nothing but repeated disappointment for those seeking to return constitutionality to the Supreme Court and put an end to the plague of abortion."

[Pessimist]

Maybe you're right. I guess I figured her Evangelical background would have got her a pass from the religious on that.

[TheDon]

I prefer to protect the lives of all the littlest Americans.

[TheDon]

It basically held that unlimited abortion was the law of the land and anybody who disagrees with it has no legal recourse to oppose it.

If all that you said was true, there is still a legal recourse to overturn it.

Article. V.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress;

[adam_az]

"65 percent of the people on THIS forum, one of the MOST conservative on the web, want her either confirmed OR at least given a hearing."

Not even CLOSE to a representation of the poll!

30.9% say YES, 27.1% say NO. That is awful close. 38% "Need more info." That is different than "given a hearing." Frankly, we ALL need more info, because all we know about her so far is that she was a liberal until her mid-40's and uses a lot of exclamation marks while writing gushy greeting cards to her boss.

Do you approve of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court?

Member Opinion
Need more info	38.0%		1,240
Yes	30.9%		1,007
No	27.1%		885
Pass	2.3%		74
I'm voting Hillary!	1.8%		58
	100.1%		3,264

[uncbob]

Since "strict constitutionalist" has consistently been one of Bush's criteria for selecting judges, isn't it a good bet she is?

NOOOOOOO

Bush failed to veto CFR which he said contained unconstitutional sections after ADMITTING a president has an obligation to do so

[uncbob]

He has done a great job appointing judges so far.

Which ones did he ask the democrats advice on

[adam_az]

"Shall I continue?"

I've been HOPING we'd see government shrunk - instead it's expanded.

[deport]

I also found that they don't have their own Web site.

---

They in fact do have a web site..... but this is nothing more than a paid press release that many of these type orgs have to use as they won't get covered by the press otherwise. Remember Judicial Watch.... all their releases come through this news wire service....

http://www.nationalprolifecenter.org/

Note their partners and others......

[JohnnyZ]

What evidence do you have that Harriet is an originalist?

Bush said so. Whatever Bush says is right. I trust in Bush. /s

[Krodg]

we do not know if she will drift leftward within a decade or less.

You don't know that about any of the other choices considered.

When I voted for President Bush for his second term, I did so because I trusted him. The most important issues were the safety of our country and the judge issue. President Bush has not failed on the first issue, so I will trust him on this one.

[gopwinsin04]

We need Rove back in the White House doing his strategery pronto.

[StatenIsland]

"Which ones did he ask the democrats advice on...?"

Asking advice is a courtesy, and the Dems would have been smart not to offer any. They, the Dems, were foolish to hand the Pres a weapon like that - look at the barrel he's got Dingy Harry over now that Reid's publicly supported Miers.

IMO, President Bush does what he wants, and takes advice only from those whom he trusts. The rest is for show.

[JohnnyZ]

A Luttig-type nominee stood a good chance of NOT getting confirmed, as the McCain-Voinovich gang

You mean the senators that have voted for every single Bush judge so far? McCain, who voted to confirm Luttig in the first place I assume? A group of senators who ruled out ideology as an appropriate reason to filibuster? Would vote against a widely respected judge like Michael Luttig?

Preposterous.

[verity]

It is not about the First Amendment; it's about the garrulous nature of these blowhards.

[adam_az]

"And 65% on THIS forum is pretty damned weak support given that we are the ones who are supposed to be on Bush's side. I still want to know why Harry Reid was high-fiving others and Chuckie Schumer expressed relief when Miers was named. What do they know that the rest of us haven't been told?"

It's not 65% - Howlin seriously misrepresented the poll. (Shocking, I know!)

See my post #64 on this thread.

[StatenIsland]

"You mean the senators that have voted for every single Bush judge so far? McCain, who voted to confirm Luttig in the first place I assume? A group of senators who ruled out ideology as an appropriate reason to filibuster? Would vote against a widely respected judge like Michael Luttig?

Preposterous."

Hey, Johnny Z, you could be right. But you could be wrong. Has McCain never shocked you by going against the right? Had not he and the Gang of 14 kicked the pins from under Frist just as we were about to go nuclear? You can disagree, of course, but I think "preposterous" is going a bit too far.

As far Voinovich, any man that would cry on the Senate floor over a nomination like Bolton could never be trusted, in my eyes, to take my back in a fight when the going got REALLY tough.

If you wanted to, couldn't you put together a list of Republican senators who could conceivably vote against Luttig, thereby embarrassing the President?

Beside, there were 4 other points to my decision to support the President in his pick of Miers, it was not based on this alone.

[Howlin]

Not even CLOSE to a representation of the poll!

Only to an agenda driven blind man.

No matter how you dress it up, only 27 percent of you ON THIS FORUM, a highly right wing forum, say no.

[JohnnyZ]

If you wanted to, couldn't you put together a list of Republican senators who could conceivably vote against Luttig, thereby embarrassing the President?

I believe there's no chance a GOP senator would vote against Luttig. He is, quite simply, a respected and accomplished jurist. The Democrats would not have the votes to filibuster, either, not with Bill Nelson, et al, up for reelection.

[Howlin]

And 65% on THIS forum is pretty damned weak support given that we are the ones who are supposed to be on Bush's side.

Aren't you the least be embarassed to being reduced to posting tripe like that?

Hell, 27 percent of Those Posing as Freepers hate Bush all the time.

[.30Carbine]

Thank you for that link...I looked and looked! Must be a Google-glitch.