Harriet Miers

Written by Christianity and the Confusion on October 16th, 2005

Author: Marty Martorella


   In the talk about Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court there are some problems and those who will resist her. I want to address what should be the issue. There are those who take aim at the statement that she is a born-again Christian and pro-life. James Dobson said this;

Well, it's what we all know now, that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life.

    This is a point of contention for some for they see a pro-life judge as someone who has already made up her mind as to how she would vote. Whether she believes in God or not should not be an issue, what sure be is whether she can be objective. If she has made promises to how she will vote in the future not only does this disqualify her but puts into question the Christianity that some fear. In Dobson’s interview he said that Mr. Bush “promised to appoint people who would uphold the Constitution and not use their powers to advance their own political agenda.” Sounds good until you realize that what they are really saying is that they want a judge that will read the Constitution from the same perspective as they do, thus promoting their political agenda. So the question that must be considered is whether Miers can be independent and not push any political agenda?  I might add that the White House should release all paperwork which addresses this issue.

Founding Fathers Would Have Opposed Miers Nomination.  Why?  Read these two paragraphs:

“To what purpose then require the co-operation of the Senate? I answer, that the necessity of their concurrence would have a powerful, though, in general, a silent operation. It would be an excellent check upon a spirit of favoritism in the President, and would tend greatly to prevent the appointment of unfit characters from State prejudice, from family connection, from personal attachment…”

“[The President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure.”

Harriet Miers Headed Law Firm Engaged In Union Busting Avoidance


   James Dobson made some other seemingly bias statements;

“Karl (Rove) told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list and they would not allow their names to be considered, because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter, that they didn’t want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it.” . . . ‘The Democrats have so politicized that process that it’s become an ordeal and many people just don’t want to go through that.”

   How is it vicious to ask for all the records to be displayed? How is it politicizing to want the candidates to answer the questions?

More recently, they have been drawing some of their conclusions, not from the Constitution and not from precedent and not from the American people, but from public opinion in Western Europe.

    Please give some facts, this a blanket statement without any illustrations.  All we have here is the Neo-Con spin, I would like to see some proof.

Click here to hear the whole interview with Dobson and Starr.  

   Dobson calls Harry Reed a Liberal Democrat at one point, Reed is not only is not a Liberal he is also pro-life. This brings us to the question of whether James Dobson is too partisan and might be misrepresenting the message of Christ?


6 Comments so far ↓

  1. Anonymous says:

    Harry Reed isn't a Liberal? He's a Democrat right?

  2. Anonymous says:

    I saw this morning on TV that the emphasis has now been shifted to Miers “qualifications” instead of her religious beliefs.
    Same song, second verse.

  3. Anonymous says:

    And that qualification would be her unconditional praise of george bush?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Blondie, what does being a Democrat have anything to do with being a liberal? Didn't you know that there are a lot of conservatives in the Democratic Party? Lieberman is anything but a liberal for example.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Does she have any other qualifications?

  6. Anonymous says:

    Well I hope you are happy now she has said no more. I don't think that the President would have picked her if she wasn't qualified, but liberals got their way. I just think that it's a shame that an intelligent woman like her wasn't good enough! I bet that President Bush's next pick will not go down so easy! Don't count the President out yet!!!

Leave a Comment