OR Will Not Support Miers to the Supreme Court
Washington, DC — Today, President George W. Bush has nominated White House Counsel Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court vacancy left by retiring Sandra Day O’Connor.
While many pro-life groups were frustrated with the lack of information about the abortion stand of Bush’s first Supreme Court nominee, John Roberts, even less is known about Harriet Miers. Some have placed her in the same category as pro-abortion administration officials Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes.
“We must reject the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.
“President Bush promised that he would appoint strong constitutional constructionist to the Supreme Court in the mold of Thomas and Scalia, but Miers is no Thomas or Scalia,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman. “We must be given a nominee that will restore the protections of personhood to the pre-born. If your head was about to be crushed, would you want to trust you life to someone who will not state their position on your murder?”
“Bush was given one mandate by the American people in the last election and that was to reform the Supreme Court. Reform does not come in a brown paper bag,” said Newman.
No one should be surprised at Bush’s choices for the Supreme Court. Bush NEVER said he would appoint a pro-life justice! He dodged the question over and over again. He used the code words “strict constitutional constructionist” instead. Where does the Constitution speak of abortion? Conservatives made their FIRST mistake when they supported Bush. They continue to make mistakes by supporting his nominees. Conservatives have shown a tremendous lack of discernment in recent years and the overturning of Roe v. Wade has suffered as a result.
Dittos, Troy. Why don’t we hear of JUDGE Harriet Miers? Has she no experience as a judge? I can think of better training grounds for judgeship than a fiat appointment to the highest court in the country…why can’t Bush?!
I also understand that she contributed to Al Gore…this really does not bode well for the preborn.
It would seem that the social right has been duped. Karl Rove crafted a strategy for Mr. Bush that brought Evangelicals to the table in large numbers – the number one issue was Roe v. Wade (with gay marriage running a close second).
Did Bush never intend to keep his word and appoint a judge in the mold of Scalia – or is he too afraid given recent political setbacks?
Wasn’t he supposed to be a straight talker who did what he said and said what he did? Apparantly not.
don’t we need to wait and see before saying this nominee isn’t any good? I have thought perhaps one reason she or any other candidate don’t want to state their position is b/c of the extreme radical pro abortion left- like Kennedy. Can you imagine a candidate stating they’re against abortion, and then trying to get confirmed w/ people like Kennedy on the senate? I don’t know where she stands, but don’t give up praying for her- maybe God has chosen her for a reason
she contributed to Al Gore! That says it all.
Bush is a huge disapointment, even in the war, now we are left with 2 more countries with “Islamic Constitutions”, so after all of the sacrifice, and the war against radical Islam, Both Afghanistan and Iraq are now left with the Hell which is called Sharia Law, and it’s Bush’s Idea. They have constitutions now, but they make “Sharia Law” and Islamic Principals above all other law, according to the “constitutions of Iraq and Afghanistan, no law can be written that contradicts Islaic Law! ( the laws that make women cover their whole body, behead the innocent, and cut off arms, legs, hands, and sexual organs. Stone women to death for having a sexual relationship after their husband divorces them, etc…) How have we freed them from radical Islam? Saddam and the Taliban should be pleased with these “constitutions”. Bush thinks we will just hear the word “constitution”, and think we have freed these countries, but we now have given radical Islam the ruler of these poor people we “saved”! For the record, I have always been for this war, but when I learned this I see Bush has no intention of removing tyranny from these countries. Even worse, Iran is going to have nukes soon, and you can bet they will use them. What is he doing?He is afraid the Left will put up a fuss, and he cannot seem to defend himself or fight back! He constantly does whatever he can to please the Ted Kennedy’s of our country, and has absolutely no sack!
The truth is that Bush is a Liberal in Conservative clothing, and the only reason anyone thinks he is so “conservative” is because he is constantly attacked by the left, but the attacks are a ploy by the left, and Bush has yet to even defend himself. He is a wimp, and a coward. He appeases the Ted Kennedy’s, etc.. and will not put a real Conservative on the Supreme Court, which has become a communist Hell Hole of an independant government against the people, and for the ACLU!
Why did he nominate a woman who has no history to look at? I’m sure as we find out what she really stands for we will see that she no more loves the constitution than her dog does.
We have a Republican Congress, Senate and President, and you’d think that would show America is against the appeasement of Liberals (Socialists who hate America). Bush should be impeached, and replaced with an American who thinks the Constitution is valuable, and sees the “American Dream” is dead.
In presidential debates, Bush always refused to state that he would appoint only pro-life judges. He always said he had no litmus-test for appointing judges. He accused both Gore and Kerry of having litmus-tests, because both of them stated that they would appoint only pro-choice judges. Both Laura Bush and Barbara Bush have publicly stated that they support Roe. Does anyone really think that George W. Bush gives a fig about abortion, except when courting votes?
This is a victory for the Democrats and another pro-life defeat. There is a long list of wll-respected, conservative judges who have argued pro-life positions in their judicial writings. Bush chose “none of the above”, rejecting them all for another stealth nominee. If choosing a woman was mandatory, Edith Jones was the pro-life choice.
The facts are:
Pro-Lifers have very little power in Washington.
Bush is marginally pro-life.
In the 2008 presidential primaries, marginally pro-life candidates will continue to receive support from Pro-Life voters.
We are a very long way from any meaningful victory in the political world.
Wholly cow! I got my OR email with comments only hours after the announcement. I really think we are all “jumping the gun” on this. I’ve really enjoyed the up-to-date information from Operation Rescue and think they are doing a great job keeping us informed on a timely basis. But I think that commenting too quickly on Harriet Miers is diminishing their credibility (at least in my eyes) and it is making us all look like hypocrites.
Some of the other reports I am seeing in the press are that Harriet Miers: “As a private citizen in Dallas, Harriet Miers was a devoted parishioner and Sunday school teacher at a conservative evangelical church and donated money to an antiabortion group. As a City Council candidate, she opposed the repeal of a law against gay sex. As president of the Texas bar, she led a fight against an abortion rights plank adopted by the American Bar Association. And as President Bush’s White House lawyer, she helped vet deeply conservative judges.” (MSNBC)
How will she be as a judge herself, I do not know. I do expect to see information from the left and the right before her confirmation hearings e.g. she once supported Al Gore (the definitive word is “once” as in past tense). All of the hate mongering that we are displaying on this website is what’s so hypocritical. I expected this from the left, but not from the pro-life side of the fence. Being pro-life does not excuse being pro-hatred. From what I am seeing, I am feeling confident that Harriet is more on the pro-life side than we are being led to believe. Let’s give it a little time to let things shake out (as we know it will) and then see where the chips fall.
So you think John Kerry would have been better? Please. Get a grip.
She also DEFENDED THE PRE-BORN by standing up agains the American Bar Association’s decision to take a pro-abortion stance. She stood up against them. That’s good.
She’s also an evangelical Christian, approved of by Dr. James Dobson.
Bob is right on target– slow down your rush to judgement, folks! Leave the hysterics and knee-jerk reactions for the other side. Yes, I’m as nervous as anyone at the possibility of Miers being another Sandra Day O’Connor, but it’s way too early in the game to make that pronouncement. Let the information come out and pray.
Thanks for NOT supporting this lady.
The issue is so simple: this is an anti-abortion website. We think that abortion is the MAIN issue of the judiciary today. You have to support someone who is 100% committed to the cause or support nobody.
It is amazing that there is not 1 judge who is clearly, unmistakenly anti-abortion. Not one. Not one Lot in Sodom and Gomorrah.
I hate to say it but this is what you get when you make a pact with the devil. This guy lied about Iraq, lied about WMDs and lied about the connection between international terrorism and Iraq but you supported him thinking he would not lie to you about abortion?? I guarantee you abortions will be allowed under this new court. Anybody care to bet?
I am shocked to see some of the people here (such as Bob) arguing that it is “pro-hate” to be upset with Bush over his nomination of this mediocre woman. Such comments only contribute to the (increasingly accurate) perception that the Republicans can just milk pro-lifers for their votes, chew them up, spit them out, and then say, “thanks for the votes! See you again in four years!” Calling it “pro-hatred” distracts from the issue of whether or not this was a good pick, and it clearly wasn’t.
What, exactly, does the fact that James Dobson endorsed her prove? Absolutely nothing. When we are reduced to defending a nominee based on endorsements from people who know nothing about her, save for her church membership and one or two financial contributions she made, we are in a sorry, pathetic situation indeed. This morning (Tuesday) Bush himself even admitted in a press conference that he NEVER ONCE ASKED MIERS ABOUT HER VIEWS ON ABORTION. HOW ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TRUST HIM WHEN HE SAYS SHE IS CONSERVATIVE WHEN HE HIMSELF DIDN’T EVEN ASK HER IF SHE WILL PROTECT THE UNBORN?
Furthermore, what does it say about a President who claims to be pro-life, but refuses to ensure that all the judges he picks share those values? Would it make any sense for a President to be “opposed to segregation/opposed to racism,” but at the same time refuse to “impose a litmus test” on his judicial selections that would ensure that only those opposed to racism are selected for the bench? Of course not. Yet it is alright for a President to refuse to impose a “litmus test” which would ensure that only those judges who guaranteed the protection of the unborn would be nominated to the bench? Abortion is worse than segregation or racism because it denies the most fundamental, basic right of all–the right to life–to the weakest, most defenseless of all, the unborn. To argue that no “litmus test” may be imposed in this matter is hypocritical indeed.
The comments about Ms. Miers being from a “conservative church,” that she is someone who has in the past helped good causes reminds me of another judicial nominee from fifteen years ago. He went to Church every Sunday, and his supporters claimed that he was conservative. His name is Justice David Souter, famous for upholding Roe in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, among other things. The current situation is no different.
Am I engaging in “hate mongering” by making these observations and arguments? Is refusing to let the President take advantage of me as a pro-lifer “hyppocritical”? If that is the case, then I guess I’m a hate monger. So too, then, was Our Lord Jesus Christ when he rebuked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy. When people start attacking those who refuse to be misled by the President as being “divisive” and “full of hate,” then they are no better than the liberals they claim to despise who claim that opposing homosexual “marriage” is “hate speech” and “intolerant.”
Get a grip folks. NO elected official on either side of this issue will ever go to the lengths neccessary to overturn Roe. The Democrats believe (for the most part) in a woman’s right to choose and the Republicans use this issue (and you folks as pawns) to advance their corporate takeover of this wonderful country we we live in. They have certainly come up with the intestinal fortitude to launch a neverending and senseless war while simultaneously throwing away hundreds of billions of dollars to the next non-competitive bidder. We have been made pawns in a war that uses moral issues as a means of diverting us from the truth. MONEY IS THE KING!
The Republican leadership (KARL ROVE) will continue to keep this issue alive as a means of keeping the Pro-Lifers on the hook. REVOLT!!! Money and power are corrupt. Lots of money and lots of power are very corrupt. Look to the Bible not Bush, Dobson, Robertson or Brownback. They have their own self-interest and ambition in front of yours. RUN DON”T WALK!!!
Some of you people give the pro-life movement a bad name. I constantly defend you against attacks of being brainless zealots, and this is what we get.
Steve is pretty close here–elected officials are not our answer. Nevertheless, God can and does use good people to do his work.
In the case of Miers, it’s true that we just don’t know that much about her. What I have learned about her leads me to believe that she’s not a person that has a lot of love for the gay rights movement, and that she appears to have a Christian slant.
Who were you expecting W to nominate? Randall Terry?
I was disappointed about this also, but do you honestly think Bush didn’t discuss abortion with her under attorney-client privelege? I am a little inclined to trust that Bush knows what he is doing this time… and that he is counting on how little is known about her to keep the media from harping on her views. I can only pray that’s so…
don’t you people realise that drugs are the way people are going to facilitate abortions. you have been defeated by technology. of course you could try to make the drugs illegal. (people will ask rush horseball how to get around that) you are using so much energy and resourses on a doomed cause.
Hello. This is my first post here. I like the comment above that since other issues rightfully serve as “litmus tests” for judges (such as commitment to racial equality), so the pro-life issue similarly makes an appropriate “litmus test.” As an attorney, I know very few judges who make public statements about their political views on divisive issues, so that fact alone doesn’t dissuade me from approving of this nominee. I find it encouraging that she donated $150 to a pro-life group in 1989, if I remember the news report correctly. People generally don’t donate money to a cause unless they support it. Well, that’s my humble opinon. Thanks.
This selection is the ‘safe route’. It is proof that GWB has lost his edge. Iraq is a mess, the feds screwed up and continue to screw up the response to Katrina and Tom Delay is the tip of the corrupt iceberg. We should get used to this type of thing from this administration. The political capital won in the presidential elections last year is long gone. Count your blessings that Miers is the one he nominated. It actually could have been much worse.
Relax folks. Many of you are ridiculus. This is a judicial selection. Bush is correct, we don’t need anyone to legislate from the Bench, which is what many of you want. Selecting a supreme court justice soley on his or her views on one topic, be it abortion, assisted suicide or whatever is WRONG. The supreme court exists to interpret the constitution, period.
Let’s give this some time. Ruling her out so soon seems a bit hasty. She could turn out to be a spectacular judge.
Spurning a candidate for supreme court justice only because of her possible, not even probable, views on abortion is about as closed-minded and short-sighted as one could act. We know nothing about Harriet Meirs, so why would Operation Rescue rail against the nomination? I know its not Priscilla Owens or some of the others many had hoped for, but there really is no reason to think that this is the next Harry Blackmun. I for one, plan to sit back and see what comes out at the hearings. Let her at least have a chance to explain herself. Judging someone before you even know her? THAT is wrong.
You silly people. We do not care about you anymore. We only care about Halliburton and our friends in the oil industry. Geez! Five years and you haven’t figure this out? Yes, the Republican right, its about as dumb as dumb gets.
Ever notice how dumb Republicans are? That’s why I should be elected the next president of the U.S.
please do not paint with such a broad brush, and allow the Lord to move in this situation through our *CONTINUED* prayers for our elected officials, judges, and judicial nominees. If Harriet Miers is who he nominated, we need to be spending more time in prayer for her, the Lord is not limited in what he can do! He used a Persian king, after all, to loose the Israelites from Egypt, right? Don’t underestimate the Lord…
Vote Miers Down!
Call your Senator now:
http://votemiersdown.blogspot.com
Gary Bauer, president of American Values and a former Christian conservative candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, said he remained unconvinced about Miers, arguing that religious views do not predict legal decisions.
“As of today, not one friend, associate, co-worker or White House official is able to produce one sentence she has written or spoken in criticism of Roe vs. Wade,” he wrote in an e-mail newsletter to supporters. “Her apparent silence is troubling — at least to me.”
This is enough for me to be disappointed in this pick.
I was listening to Focus on the Family as Dr. Bodsln was talking about the new nominee for the US Supreme Court. He knows the church she goes to and according to the people who know her she is a devout christian who can be trusted on the supreme court.
The only time she comtributed to Al Gore was BEFORE he became a liberal, not after.
Christian Conservatives made a pact with the devil when they threw their weight behind the Republican Party, many of whose positions can scarcely be reconciled with the teachings of Jesus. We’ve been cafeteria Christians and it should be no surprise that it hasn’t worked. If we’ve been snookered again, we have only ourselves to blame.
State of U.S. Courts. . .
Consider this:
Open Letter
October 23, 2005
United States Judicial Conference
Administrative Office
of the United States Courts
Thurgood Marshall Federal Judiciary Building
One Columbus Circle, N.E.
Washington D.C. 20544
Mr. Albert N. Moskowitz
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
950 Pennsylvania Ave, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20530
Mrs. Mary Beth Buchanan
U.S. Attorney Western Pennsylvania
United States Department of Justice
U.S. Post Office and Court House
700 Grant Street, Suite 4000
Pittsburgh, Pa 15219
United States Judicial Conference
Chief Justice United States Supreme Court
c/o Mr. William K. Sutter, Clerk
Office of the Clerk
c/o Mrs. Pamala Talkin
Marshall of the Court
No. 1 First Street, N.E.
Washington, DC 20543
Third Circuit Judicial Council
United States Court of Appeals
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
Chief Justice
United States Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit
c/o Toby D. Slawsky, Esq.
Circuit Executive
22409 U.S. Courthouse
601 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pa 19106-1790
RE: Formal Complaint (filed under the Judicial Improvements Act of 2002
28 U.C.S. Sections 351-364); Formal Complaint (filed under 28 U.S.C.
Section 372(c)); and Request for Investigation (pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 604)
Dear All:
Please be advise of the following criminal activity.
On or about October 11, 2005, Marcia M. Waldron, Clerk for the Third Circuit Court of Appeals forwarded a copy of an Order (No. 05-3702) that, among other, requested a copy of the district court docket entries. On October 21, 2005, I purchased a copy of the docket entries (No. 03-1400) and forwarded such to the Third Circuit. However, I noticed the August 16, 2005, entry entered by JSP that advised the clerk’s office couldn’t locate documents #16, #64 and #86. That is, the clerk office wasn’t able to transmitted the complete record (No. 03-1400) to the Third Circuit.
In short, previously I submitted unequivocal evidence of perjury (violation of Section 1746 Title 28, United States Code) to the Department of Justice, federal court and others. Since my request for a formal investigation, the evidence (documents #64 and #86) was somehow removed from the official court file.
At issue is an affidavit submitted to the court by Cassandra Colchagoff (an attorney). With the November 10, 2004 affidavit Mrs. Colchagoff attempted to change her testimony (December 2003 affidavit). That is, the district court specifically cited her December 2003 testimony as its reason for dismissing the constitutional claims in the matter No. 03-1400.
Mrs. Colchagoff had testified (made a material false declaration) that there was “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.”
The district court ruled that “without a link to federal funding” I couldn’t pursue my constitutional claims against Kaplan.
The only difference between the two Colchagoff affidavits is the November 10, 2004, testimony no longer suggested, “no link to Kaplan Higher Education Corporation (Kaplan College) and no link to federal funding.” Likewise, her attorneys, Sara Shubert, Laurence Shtasel, and Blank Rome appears to have changed their representation to the court. Her attorneys now acknowledged my October 15, 2000, Kaplan College enrollment letter and admitted in footnote 2 “certain colleges operated by Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, such as Kaplan College, received federal funding.”
Because this information (Document # 64 and #86) is “fatal” to the court’s decision at No. 03-1400, it has been unlawfully removed and withheld from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The unexplained disappearance of document #64 and #86 is further proof of criminal activity (obstruction of justice and intentional violation of my civil rights).
Please note, the November 10, 2004, Cassandra Colchagoff affidavit (Document #64 and #86) now missing from the court record, at paragraph 23, specifically admitted malfeasance.
In conclusion, the missing affidavit (Document #64 and #86) not submitted to the Third Circuit is decisive for all factual issues related to this matter and directly contradicts Judge David S. Cercone’s Memorandum opinions (May 14, 2004 and June 29, 2005).
I demand an immediate investigation.
Respectfully,
(Name Removed)
non of us want a judge bogaslaw on the bench but it up congress not the public yes we can vote the for a new congress but the judge bogaslaw would stay for 20 years plus and any polyticion who voted the for judge bogaslaw would be geting kickbacks for 20 plus years
a judge bogaslaw would be very very bad should the riaa be able to get search warnents and have (riaa) angents plant and find eveidance. should microsoft be alowed to deactavate your software and not alow it to reactavated so that you have to buy it over and over or hp be able raid your home because your name and adress showed up from supina for the billing info of carrotink.com
this list could go on and on but all of the above is for the supreme court to decide lets hope we dont have ajudge for sale