Posted on 10/03/2005 3:39:38 PM PDT by DallasMike
Dobson Welcomes Miers' Nomination; Praises President Bush's 'Remarkable Consistency' in Judicial Appointments
10/3/2005 3:13:00 PM
To: National Desk
Contact: Christopher Norfleet, 719-548-4570 or Paul Hetrick, 719-531-3336, both of Focus on the Family Action, culturalissues@focusaction.org
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo., Oct. 3 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today regarding President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court:
"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy.'(1) To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy. Based on the information known generally about Harriet Miers, and President Bush's personal knowledge of her, we believe that she will not prove to be a lone exception.
"On the other hand, one cannot know absolutely about matters of integrity and philosophy until a jurist is given the tremendous power and influence of their position. As Lord Acton said: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Sadly, that seems to have happened to Justices Souter and Kennedy. All we can say now is that Harriet Miers appears to be an outstanding nominee for the Supreme Court.
"We look forward to learning more about her at the confirmation hearings."
---
Note 1: Neil A. Lewis, "The 2000 Campaign: The Judiciary," The New York Times, October 8, 2000.
James C. Dobson, Ph.D. is a psychologist, author, radio broadcaster and founder of Focus on the Family Action. Founded in 2004, Focus on the Family Action is an action organization dedicated to the preservation of the moral and cultural values upon which our nation was founded. Web: http://www.focusaction.org
-0-
/© 2005 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/
Do you know positively how each of them would rule on any issue? If you do, you are a mind-reader.
This outcry for Janice Rogers Brown or any of the others is based on what you have been told by conservative writers familiar with these people (or at least I hope they are). Very few people on this board can actually cite any of the writings of those who weren't picked.
So, why is Ann Coulter's opinion to be valued over President Bush's?
Maybe it's just me, but I have a hard time believing that the Bush administration would nominate justices who would be writing idiotic, Souter-like opinions just in time to turn off the entire conservative base during the heat of the 2006 mid-term election cycle.
I didn't really analyse it, just caught my eye and brought it to the table for discussion.
Then you just don't know Dr, Dobson!!!!!!
Hammer, meet nail head!
And if some nitwit wants to say that Ann is a 'True Conservative' and Bush isn't, please, do me a favor, and go talk to the weird looking Jesus thing in your closet.
Actually, it's sad.
Count me among those who were completely surprised, after the president's statement this morning, to read all the negative posts here on FR.
I guess I still don't understand it. She appears to be a terrific choice. After all the acrimony President Bush has fought for other nominees to the bench throughout his terms in office, I cannot think he would crumple and appoint anyone who wouldn't fit his requirements: strict constructionist, anti-judicial activist, etc.
Now I find that she is a strong evangelical Christian, and I like the choice even more.
One interesting thing about this announcement: It came bright and early on a Monday morning...for some reason, that seems like taking a strong stand, to me.
...much better legs.
You are right, it is sad. these guy's better keep their words sweet, they just might have to eat them.
If you like matchsticks.
Miers is not a known quantity, and Bush elevating her to the SCOTUS is like the chairman of the board of directors of a powerful bank elevating the CPA who prepares his personal tax returns to a life-tenured position as bank president.
It remains to be seen whether she can and will resist the powerful entreaties and pressures the left will bring to bear to corrupt her. O'Connor failed in that respect.
Meanwhile, qualified praise such as Dobson's, together with the loud outcry from conservatives opposing her nomination, should serve to place Miers on abrupt and clear notice that there are certain grave expectations of her, that she will be considered the foulest of traitors should she betray Bush's trust in her.
It is the only hope we have of getting her attention when we still can, when she is still humble and her ears are still open. The worst thing we could all do is to meekly roll over and mewl, "Well, if she's good enough for Dubya, she's good for me, by cracky!"
She isn't good enough for me. She'll have to prove that she is, and she'll have to prove it over and over until it becomes clear that it has become an ingrained habit she cannot break.
The Burden of Proof isn't on us to show she isn't deserving, rather it is on the nominee to show that he/she is deserving. Alot of people who are her friends are vouching for her conservative credentials- but friends tend to say nice things about friends.
Conservatives broke their backs working to re-elect Bush and a a Republican Senate. We deserve a solid and established Conservative, and not someone who is an unknown. And the lives of unborn babies are too important to blindly trust anyone on this matter.
I agree.
I was pretty discouraged when I heard Bush's announcement this morning. Most conservatives wanted Bush to put up an "in-your-face" nominee and have a battle royale over him or her.
Rush made a statement today that I thought was telling: "If you had to go to war, would you want the Senate Republicans as your army?" This says a mouthful. Because we have so many RINOs in the Senate who have threatened to vote against strong conservatives like Janice Rogers Brown or Michael Luttig, Bush's options were limited. He didn't want to put up a nominee that would be "Borked".
Knowing the quality of judges that W has nominated for district and appellate courts, do we think that all of a sudden he lowered his standards for the Supreme Court? He knows Miers and he knows her philosophy. He also understands what is at stake.
The Vice-President did interviews with Rush and Hannity today. I think the White House underestimated the conservative backlash. Thus, they brought out the VP to do damage control.
Conservatives are very angry. From the posts I've read, the RNC will take a big financial hit in the coming months. This could mean trouble for the mid-term elections.
I'll wait to hear Miers during the hearings before passing judgment.
That's a poor basis for support when you're talking about SCOTUS.
Miers name is not anywhere to be seen on that "report"
How are you tying it to her?
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.