THEOCRACY WATCH: Miers picked because of her religion

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Irvine511

Blue Crack Supplier
Joined
Dec 4, 2003
Messages
34,498
Location
the West Coast
Bush: Miers' Religion Key Part of Her Life
Oct 12 1:10 PM US/Eastern
Email this story

By NEDRA PICKLER
Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON


President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "They want to know Harriet Miers' background. They want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And 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.

Not even a congressional recess nor Bush's preoccupation with hurricane recovery and affairs of state have shrouded the continuing controversy surrounding his selection of Miers to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor. Debate about Miers' credentials was prominent on the Sunday television talk shows and has continued to occupy considerable attention on the Internet.

Some of Bush's conservative critics say Miers has no judicial record that proves she will strictly interpret the Constitution and not _ as Busy says _ "legislate from the bench." They argue that Bush passed up other more qualified candidates to nominate someone from his inner circle.

On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," but denied he had gotten any assurances from the White House that she would vote to overturn the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that legalized abortion.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/10/12/D8D6K760J.html




maybe i'm naive, but i had thought that in secular democracies, one's religion is completely irrelevant to the job of interpreting a secular constition. it requires no religious faith to do so. faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies someone; it's simply not in the job description.

unless you've been inexplicably nominated by George W. Bush.

i wonder: is there an evangelical take on the 14th amendment?
 
I laugh over the phrase "strictly interpret the Constitution." It's a meaningless phrase that just means "a fundamentalist Christian interpretation of the Constitution." Nothing more, nothing less.

Melon
 
On a radio show being broadcast Wednesday, Dobson said he discussed Miers with Rove on Oct. 1, two days before her nomination was announced. Dobson said Rove told him "she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life,"

Why the hell is this quack talking to that quack about supreme court nominations? And why the hell in this country would religion have jack shit to do with it?

I can't wait till these theocracy seekers are out of office.
 
Even Ann Coulter is outraged by this nomination. Bill Maher asked her if she has now turned against Bush and she said "Yes" and went on, ""This is the U.S. Supreme Court. It's the third branch of government. Yeah, we do want somebody qualified, surprisingly enough. And I'm second to no one in wanting Roe v. Wade overturned. But, you know, once that's done, there are other cases. And she is simply unqualified for the job. It's stunning that he would nominate her."

Why doesn't he just withdraw the nomination already? He has zero support.
 
He scares me so much.

Not scared because he is evil, or weak, but scared because he is just so stupid.

I cannot wait for 2008.

I just cannot wait.
 
Another ass-backwards headline. No extra points cause Drudge already used a similar headline (though he misses the "Theocracy Watch" - you should copywrite that part).

President Bush said Wednesday his advisers were telling conservatives about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers' religious beliefs because they are interested in her background and "part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."

People asking the administration about Miers' religion is different than Bush using a religious litmus test in selecting Miers.
 
nbcrusader said:

People asking the administration about Miers' religion is different than Bush using a religious litmus test in selecting Miers.

But he didn't say they were asking about her religion; they were asking about her background. I know it's a whacky idea but perhaps the background they were inquiring about had more to do with her qualifications for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court (a secular position) than her religion.
 
nbcrusader said:
People asking the administration about Miers' religion is different than Bush using a religious litmus test in selecting Miers.



nope.

Bush has been presenting her religion as a qualification akin to where she went to law school, previous rulings, writings, or other normal criteria one would use.

why should her religion even be an issue?

listen to Dobson's comments.
 
This is kind of being taken out of context.

People are NOT asking about her background. The "inner circle" is using her background to CONVINCE conservative hold-outs that her religious (read: conservative pro-life) background will get them what they want in the court.

The fact that Bush admitted this to the media makes him even stupider than her nomination in the first place.

This counrty is going to hell in a handbasket.


Thank you President Monkey.
 
aside from being an accomplished lawyer, which is commendable, though it does behoove me to mention that while she was the first female president of the Texas Bar Association, that means, then, that there are probably 49 other women who were the first female heads of their Bar Associations. but, anyway, it does seem thuddingly obvious that Miers was picked for two reasons that Bush *himself* has publically announced:

1. she was a woman
2. she is an evangelical christian

it is unbelievable that the President of the United States has chosen to apply a religious litmus test to SCOTUS. while no one should be excluded from public office because of their religious views, no one should be selected BECAUSE of their religious views.

unless, of course, you're living in a theocracy.

mullahs, anyone?
 
No, he didn't say this.

And to your last question - yes, why not. Or are you automatically operating under the assumption that Bush only picks evangelical Christians. I don't think you want to go down the road of accusing bias with questions like "if Miers were ______, would she be the nominee?"
 
nbcrusader said:
No, he didn't say this.

And to your last question - yes, why not. Or are you automatically operating under the assumption that Bush only picks evangelical Christians. I don't think you want to go down the road of accusing bias with questions like "if Miers were ______, would she be the nominee?"



yes, he did say this:

"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."

i am not "automatically operating under the assumption" that Bush only picks evangelical Christians. he said that he picked her because she was an evangelical Christian, and that he knows her heart.

it wasn't the only reason, but it was a central reason.

and i think we can absolutely say that she wouldn't have been nominated if she were an atheist.

that, and look at Dobson's comments, his insider information that Rove gave him.

just how connected do you need the dots to be?
 
and the increasingly concerned Concerned Women for America agree with me:



Concerned Women for America (CWA) initially responded to President Bush’s nomination of Harriet Miers on October 3 by expressing our cautious optimism and hope that we would be able to support the nomination. This memorandum expresses our assessment of what has transpired since the President made his announcement and of any new information about Miss Miers.


The media are brimming with coverage about Miss Miers’ background and qualifications and the ensuing debate over her nomination. CWA staff members have been heavily involved in evaluating information about Miss Miers and in expressing CWA’s response.

[...]

A qualified nominee for the Supreme Court must have more than intellectual ability and legal competence. It requires a deep knowledge of and experience in constitutional law. That must be coupled with the ability to stand one’s ground as a stalwart and persuasive voice for interpretation of the Constitution faithful to its text and the Founders’ intent. We believe the best evidence of that is a record of having done so.

White House representatives and other supporters of Miss Miers immediately announced that she is an evangelical Christian. There is continual emphasis on her faith and the advantage of having an evangelical Christian on the Supreme Court. We do not doubt Miss Miers’ faith in Christ—we share it.

Like CWA, most of those emphasizing Miss Miers’ faith have resisted any attempt to impose a religious test on any person seeking public office. The Constitution forbids it. We find it patronizing and hypocritical to focus on her faith in order to gain support for Miss Miers.

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/9148/LEGAL/scourt/index.htm
 
Irvine511 said:




yes, he did say this:



i am not "automatically operating under the assumption" that Bush only picks evangelical Christians. he said that he picked her because she was an evangelical Christian, and that he knows her heart.

it wasn't the only reason, but it was a central reason.

and i think we can absolutely say that she wouldn't have been nominated if she were an atheist.

that, and look at Dobson's comments, his insider information that Rove gave him.

just how connected do you need the dots to be?

Nice snippet of a news source.

It fits your picture of Bush - rather nicely. I guess you can select the dots you want to fit your picture. But the facts, as presented in this article, do not support your case.
 
We find it patronizing and hypocritical to focus on her faith in order to gain support for Miss Miers.

Substitute "Miss Miers" with "anti-gay legislation" and you have my opinion of "Concerned Women for America." What a repugnant group.

Melon
 
nbcrusader said:


Nice snippet of a news source.

It fits your picture of Bush - rather nicely. I guess you can select the dots you want to fit your picture. But the facts, as presented in this article, do not support your case.



it's that resolute stubbornness again ... when the CWA women disagree with you, then you're *really* grasping at straws.

why the trumpeting of her evangelical Christianity as if it were a qualification?

why why why?

and you can read the full article via the link at the beginning of the thread.

also: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012...zJuCM0A;_ylu=X3oDMTBiMW04NW9mBHNlYwMlJVRPUCUl
 
Last edited:
nbcrusader said:
If people are asking - the administration is answering.


and the answer is that one of the reasons they picked her was not only because of her religion, but how she chooses to practice her religion.



(guess who just figured out how to bold?)
 
I can't believe some 50% of your voters actually thought it fit to put Bush back into office.

Everything else stems from that fact.
 
anitram said:
I can't believe some 50% of your voters actually thought it fit to put Bush back into office.

Everything else stems from that fact.

A game show analogy works here. Americans like to think they're smart, but if the questions are too hard, they tune out. They don't like to look dumb.

So they elected someone who makes them look smart, in comparison. :wink:

Melon
 
anitram said:
I can't believe some 50% of your voters actually thought it fit to put Bush back into office.

Everything else stems from that fact.



i just want to be clear that this little American (well, not so little ...) gave everyone ample warning.

ample.
 
ouizy said:
This is kind of being taken out of context.

People are NOT asking about her background. The "inner circle" is using her background to CONVINCE conservative hold-outs that her religious (read: conservative pro-life) background will get them what they want in the court.

The fact that Bush admitted this to the media makes him even stupider than her nomination in the first place.

This counrty is going to hell in a handbasket.


Thank you President Monkey.

Ouizy, you have been cracking me up on this thread. Just for kicks, I have also seen Bush referred to as Chimpy and Chimpolean.
 
I usually get all bent out of shape on this theocracy thing, but I kinda don't feel it's that big a deal here, because *of course* dubya needs to appeal to her religion when he discusses what he knows of her--there's no evidence of a judicial or a constitutional philosophy at all for her! Yeah, in part its code for the conservative base, trust me, she's evangelical! And part of it is a she'll-do-the-right-thing in a vague way, because we have no clue what she'd do at all!
On the one hand it seems an incredibly silly nomination, like bush just punted because he was tired of seeing it on his to-do list, and on the other I'd bet he thought he had a decent chance of having this go through and be successful with minimal trouble for him. I mean, Roberts was lauded as a brilliant stealth nominee, because he had so little official paper trail, so why not repeat that? Disappointed I didn't pick a woman--she's got the prefered genitalia to replace o'connor! Conservatives worried about the issues? "trust me" seemed to work with roberts! brilliant! and she likes me lots and will be another woman looking adoringly into my eyes at dinner parties so, make the announcement boys!

I don't think he's stupid at all and it doesn't really help the left to use that rhetoric. Inarticulate, surely. Anti-intellectual, yep. But he's saavy and ruthless and thus a good pol. The opposition ought to come up with a better general descriptor, imho. He's an arrogant asshole, surely...but that makes it so hard to distinguish him from so many other politicians. But he also is bold--blatantly here challenging the 'rules' we all assume presidents would play by I think, as he does in many other arenas. Can you tell I've been reading Paul Krugman's book? He makes a scary and compelling argument that Bush and his ilk are really being revolutionaries, dumping the usual rules out the window, refusing to accept them as legitimate (his argument inspired by henry kissinger's doctoral dissertation...how scary is that?!) So, yeah, this may be an example of this...he's blatantly claiming he picked her because he knows her heart, knows her 'religion', when in general we deem this inappropriate to consider. And he successfully duped people like me because there's nothing else to consider here so I don't get outraged at his criteria. And then others won't believe that he actually said that, or that he meant that...when he damned well does and doesn't see a thing wrong with it. So, I think I'm left in the scary position of agreeing with ann coulter:yikes:
maybe he was banking on that being anathema enough to liberals that they'd vote her in to piss off the conservatives...karl rove has had to work harder lately perhaps to earn his supeonaed-ass keep!

cheers...
 
Back
Top Bottom