Same here.

But no matter who Bush nominates, that person will look after Bush.

However, the Chief Justice only has the power to preside over Bush's impeachment. The Senate has the real power in these matters.

No. But I think that Priscilla Owens would be filibustered.

As I believe Sunshine has said before. Roe v Wade is history. I think this (as has also been said) can be a good thing. If Graham is correct they do not WANT to overturn it because it will destroy the Republican Party (Money & Allaince). But I think Bush doesn't subscribe to those who think that way among the Republican thinkers. Hence the split.

However, I think Bush has decided to cut his strings, and do what he wants to. He has nominated a soft spoken Ideolog whom he believes will do just that, AND is a toady who will help him when he needs help. The Religious Right will eventually be mollified when she votes that way, but the "thinking conservatives" don't see her as a heavyweight thinker that can convert others to conservative thought. But, what they really mean is that they are actually frightened she WILL vote to overturn Roe (BUT CAN'T COME RIGHT OUT AND SAY THAT)!

Bush is a "Con-Man" who has made the grave error of believing his own BS. He really believes he is guided by "God". And that makes him even more dangerous than a simple crook. He is dangerous to everyone, even his corporate backers who have lifted their snouts from the public trough long enough to notice this "strategic"mistake.

Miers to Face Tougher Time Than Roberts in Hearings

By Peter Baker and Dan Balz

In a room at the Justice Department this summer, Harriet Miers listened silently as young lawyers playing senators threw question after question at John G. Roberts Jr. at a secret practice hearing, or "murder board." She watched as he rattled off Supreme Court cases and, as one participant put it, "artfully dodged" inquiries he did not want to answer.

Now it's her turn. After an unexpectedly rocky first week, Miers's nomination to the Supreme Court appears likely to hinge on her performance before the Senate Judiciary Committee at hearings that probably will open early next month, according to strategists in both parties.

The question is how much she learned from Roberts's murder boards and how much constitutional law she can master in cramming sessions over the next several weeks.

Unlike Roberts, who made a career arguing before the high court and commands the nuances of obscure rulings, Miers never practiced that sort of law, nor did she, in her various behind-the-scenes roles at the Bush White House, demonstrate the sort of skill at public performance that Senate hearings demand.

Given her lack of background, lawyers and politicians predict, her hearings could easily turn into a stump-the-nominee contest. And following Roberts, as Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.) put it last week, will be like "following Elvis."

"The hearings for her are the defining moment," said Kenneth M. Duberstein, the former Reagan White House chief of staff who shepherded two Supreme Court nominations through the Senate for President George H.W. Bush. "This is prime time, when America really gets its first look at her and the first time they'll really be listening."

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), like Brownback a Judiciary Committee member and expected to be one of Miers's tougher interrogators, said her testimony could determine the outcome. With conservatives disgruntled about her selection and liberals disinclined to support any Bush nomination, Miers faces the prospect of tough grilling from both sides.

"These hearings are going to be crucial -- more crucial than any in a long, long time," Schumer said in an interview. "It's not going to be an easy hearing for Harriet Miers. Roberts was sure of his right flank, and she can't be. And Roberts, of course, is brilliant. No one will be as good. He spent his life doing this. Harriet Miers is a very capable lawyer but is not someone who has spent her life litigating before the Supreme Court."

Bruce Fein, a Republican lawyer who helped prep Sandra Day O'Connor for her confirmation hearings in 1981, put it more bluntly. "It's almost like putting you and me into MCI stadium and saying, 'Play against Michael Jordan at his peak,' " he said. "That's what it's going to be like up there."

Miers, a Southern Methodist University graduate who was President Bush's personal attorney and now serves as White House counsel, may not have Roberts's command of constitutional law, but colleagues predicted she will survive the questioning with relative ease. "Harriet is always thoroughly prepared for everything she does," said her friend Karen P. Hughes, the longtime Bush adviser who now is an undersecretary of state. "I'm confident she will be very prepared, very composed and will make a very strong impression."

In his weekly radio address yesterday, Bush praised Miers as "a remarkable woman and an accomplished attorney" who would be "a good conservative judge" on the high court. "Throughout her life, Ms. Miers has excelled at everything she has done," Bush said. "She's been a leader and a trailblazer for women lawyers, and her work has earned the respect of attorneys across the nation."

The challenge for Miers will be different than for Roberts, who breezed through his hearings and won confirmation last month as chief justice, demonstrating versatility with the issues, even though he resisted giving his own views. Roberts had to explain himself to the party's conservative base, which had some questions about his ideology, but did not have to prove his legal and constitutional credentials, noted Jay Sekulow, chief counsel of the American Center for Law and Justice and an adviser to the White House on judicial nominations. Miers must deal with both.

"The Senate hearings are going to be very important," he said.

Her tentative response to a question during a courtesy call on Capitol Hill last week seemed revealing to some observers. Sen. Patrick J. Leahy (Vt.), ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, asked her to name her favorite justices.

"Warren," she answered, according to people familiar with the conversation.

Leahy was taken aback. Did she mean Chief Justice Earl Warren, the bête noire of conservatives who presided over an activist court? Or maybe his successor, Warren E. Burger, a moderate conservative who voted for Roe v. Wade and rarely makes any scholar's list of top justices?

Burger, she answered.

The Judiciary Committee has not scheduled hearings yet, but officials expect them to be held in early November. They can be arduous even for the most prepared nominee; Roberts spent 22 hours in the witness chair over a week.

While historically many justices had not served as judges, none has been nominated to the Supreme Court since 1971 without experience on the bench, and Miers's career as a Texas corporate attorney has not given her a background in the types of issues that regularly go before the court.

The White House will try to compensate for that with a crash course. She will pore through briefing books on key cases and undergo the same sort of murder boards she supervised for Roberts. The process, which will be run by Rachel L. Brand, head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Policy, will include former senator Dan Coats (R-Ind.) and former Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie, who will monitor her practices and offer tips on how to answer -- or not answer -- senators' questions.

As a participant in Roberts's preparation, colleagues said, Miers presumably gained not only greater facility with issues likely to be on the agenda but also benefited from helping to refine and revise answers to the toughest questions.

"The great advantage she has is she has the Roberts transcript to study," said H. Christopher Bartolomucci, a former White House associate counsel who participated in a murder board with Roberts. "Not only is that a forecast of the kinds of questions she's likely to get, she can see how they can be answered."

But others suggested the senators would take a different tack with Miers, seeking to demonstrate her unfamiliarity with cases that did not come up during Roberts's hearings.

"If I was a Democrat and I wanted to destroy her candidacy, I'd go to constitutional law professors and experts and get the 60 key Supreme Court decisions," Fein said. The committee members could then go through the list and ask her, " 'Have you read this case from beginning to end?' And when she says for the 59th time, 'No, I haven't,' I'd say, 'Why are you going to be on the Supreme Court?' "

Fein said the White House likely will try to shift the discussion away from legal scholarship and toward biography, much as the first Bush White House did with Clarence Thomas, emphasizing his rise from poverty in Pin Point, Ga. "They'll give her a libretto -- 'you overcame the difficulties as a woman in a masculine world down in Texas,' " he said. "They'll try to paint her as a female Horatio Alger."

The president laid that groundwork in yesterday's radio address, stressing Miers's history as the first woman to be hired at her Texas law firm, the first to become head of a large Texas firm and the first to serve as president of the Dallas and Texas bar associations.

And the White House could try to turn the barrage of attacks on her credentials to her advantage. "One way this actually helps her is it greatly lowers her expectations for the hearings," said a conservative working for her nomination, "and coming on the heels of John Roberts's virtuoso performance, that's actually a good thing. If she exceeds expectations during the hearings, she'll win even more support."

Staff writer Thomas B. Edsall contributed to this report.




Would you like to send this article to a friend? Go to
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/e...er=emailarticle

MSNBC.com
The Right: With Friends Like These
The cheerleaders for Bush's judicial pick found little to cheer.

By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek


Oct. 17, 2005 issue - After Sandra Day O'Connor resigned from the Supreme Court in July, the White House reached out to an informal network of conservative lawyers and academics to help build support for the next nominee. The group of about three dozen worked smoothly during the confirmation battle over John Roberts, plotting strategy in conference calls with administration officials and penning newspaper op-eds. But last week members of the "brain trust," as one called it, rebelled. In a string of sometimes testy e-mail exchanges among themselves, the lawyers agonized over the selection of White House counsel Harriet Miers. They also debated vigorously whether they should go public with their dismay, or simply say nothing.

"We are keeping quiet. And hiding from the media," wrote Abigail Thernstrom, the Bush-designated vice chair of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission and a prominent critic of affirmative-action policies, in an e-mail copied to other members of the network. "As for undermining trust in the president, I am afraid he has accomplished that all on his own—without any help from us." (Asked for comment last week, Thernstrom said she was upset that a "private e-mail exchange ends up in the news media.")

The e-mails, copies of which were obtained by NEWSWEEK from one of the participants, illustrate the depth of conservative angst over the Miers selection. Many on the e-mail trail fretted about their own "credibility" if they publicly took up the cause for Miers, who seemed to lack the credentials they value. "It no longer matters whether she's the second coming of John Marshall; the cronyism charge has stuck, bec. [sic] it's so obviously true," wrote Michael Greve, a legal scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. Greve wondered what was next. Would Bush, he asked, replace Fed chair Alan Greenspan with "a young lady in the basement of the West Wing who did a terrific job on the TX Railroad Commission [and was the] first Armenian bond trader in Dallas..."

Others stuck by the president. George Terwilliger, a former top Justice Department official who worked for the GOP on the 2000 Florida election battle, said that "unless it does violence to one's conscience, I would respectfully suggest that we suck it up and show our support" for the administration.

Even so, some of the most biting criticism came from prominent Washington hands who have zealously defended Bush in the past—but who have been conspicuously silent about Miers. One, Michael A. Carvin, the lawyer who argued the president's case in Bush v. Gore before the Florida Supreme Court, was riled by a newspaper article about Miers. The story reported that Miers had once been quoted saying she wouldn't belong to the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal group, because she viewed it as "'activist' and 'partisan'." In an e-mail to the group, Carvin—who did not respond to repeated calls for comment—wrote, "This is becoming more embarrassing as every day passes."


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9629612/

MSNBC.com
Mild About Harriet
She has served the president faithfully, but her resume drew fire from the right. Will Harriet Miers make it to court?

By Evan Thomas And Jonathan Darman
Newsweek


Oct. 17, 2005 issue - Harriet Miers is George W. Bush's kind of woman. She works ceaselessly, around the clock if necessary. She is a tomb of discretion. And she never, ever, says anything that might in the slightest way be construed as critical of George W. Bush. Ed Kinkeade, a federal judge and an old friend, teased her about her accommodations at the president's ranch in Texas—a trailer. Miers grew uncomfortable, recalls Kinkeade. "Now Ed, don't say that," she protested. "It's a manufactured home, and it's very nice."

Bush has long been surrounded by hard-laboring, ever-loyal women like Karen Hughes and Condoleezza Rice. He calls them "mother hens." Miers was Bush's personal lawyer, scrubbing his record as a political candidate and, as White House counsel, she has defended the president's prerogatives in the war on terror. Throughout her public career, she has been self-effacing to the point of invisibility. To Bush, however, she has apparently been an open book. "I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believes," said the president last week, after he nominated Miers to the United States Supreme Court. "I know her well enough to be able to say that she's not going to change, that 20 years from now she'll be the same person with the same philosophy that she is today."

In other words: trust me. For a president under attack recently for staffing his government with hacks and cronies, the appointment of his personal lawyer—who has never judged a day in her life—to the nation's highest court showed a certain stubborn confidence in his own judgment. It may have been misplaced. Last week the White House was scrambling to assure its cantankerous conservative base that Miers would not disappoint. The right may settle down and toe the line, but Miers's place on the court is far from a lock.

The White House tried to sell her as a born-again Christian. Before Miers was named, Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, carefully stroked evangelical leader Dr. James Dobson. Dobson endorsed Miers, somewhat enigmatically declaring, "Some of what I know I am not at liberty to talk about." To the chattering classes, Dobson was speaking in code: his remark was widely translated to mean that he had been reassured that Miers would vote to reverse the Supreme Court's 1973 decision, Roe v. Wade, giving women a constitutional right to abortion. But when Miers began to make the rounds on Capitol Hill, she received at best a lukewarm reception on the left and on the right. After meeting with her, Sen. Sam Brownback, perhaps the most outspoken pro-life advocate in the Senate, told a colleague, "The hearings will eat her up."

Miers is not quite a milquetoast as she sometimes appears to be. A fiercely competitive tennis player—a strong recommendation to the jock-loving Bush—she owns a lipstick- red Mercedes and appears driven by a well-disguised passion that has so far been devoted largely to the service of powerful men and the Lord her God. Within the White House, say a number of staffers present and past, she was known more for meticulousness, sometimes fussiness, than for great wisdom or piercing insight. But Bush has called her a "pit bull in size-6 shoes," and she has one quality that Bush especially prizes: it is a mistake to underestimate her.

Bush may have thought he could slip Miers through the confirmation process. She has no obvious paper trail to speak of—no record of decisions or judicial opinions or scholarly articles or even op-ed-page pieces to trip her up under questioning. The Democrats will seek memos and records of her service in the White House as staff secretary, deputy chief of staff and counsel. Bush is sure to say no, citing executive privilege and the argument—not unreasonable—that a president can't function if Congress can demand the confidential advice of his aides.


Miers's lack of judicial experience is hardly disqualifying. Some powerful justices, including the greatest chief justice, John Marshall, and the last, William Rehnquist, had never served on the bench before. (Ditto Earl Warren, and some highly respected recent justices, including Byron White and Lewis Powell.) And the fact that Miers went to Southern Methodist and not Harvard could be a plus. The court already has six justices trained at Harvard Law School, as well as eight justices who served on federal courts of appeal.

A civic-minded corporate litigator for most of her career, Miers could bring some real-world perspective. Bush may have been born with a silver spoon in his mouth, but he has always liked up-from-the-bootstraps types. Miers's personal story is brave: a quiet, shy woman who made it in the clubby man's world of the Dallas bar (first woman partner in her firm, first female head of the state bar association).

But she is not, by a long shot, the Supreme Court justice the conservative movement has long dreamed of. She is not a flame-throwing Big Thinker who by the power of conviction and logic can seize control of the high court's secret Monday-morning conferences and lead her brethren away from decades of mushy-headed, left-leaning judge-made law to the Promised Land of Originalism, the strict interpretation of the Framers' original intent. The true believers did not want to avoid a fight on Capitol Hill. They wanted to turn the next justice's confirmation hearings into a public seminar on the innate superiority of conservative jurisprudence.

The sense of disappointment and betrayal among conservative intellectuals was plain to see. In his newspaper column, George Will, a high priest of conservative thinkers, wrote that Miers wouldn't stand out among a list of thousands of lawyers. Others complained that Miers was the worst appointment since G. Harrold Carswell, a Nixon appointee who was rejected by the Senate in 1970, despite Sen. Roman Hruska's plea: "Mediocre judges and people and lawyers... are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't all have Brandeises, Cardozos and Frankfurters, and stuff like that there."

In the conservative National Review Online, former White House speechwriter David Frum reported, contemptuously, "She once told me that the president was the most brilliant man she had ever met." Frum scoffed that in a White House "that hero-worshiped the president, Miers was distinguished by the intensity of her zeal."

It is true that Miers has made a lifetime of winning over powerful, demanding men. But she did not have much choice if she wanted to get ahead in Dallas. Though she graduated with high marks in her class from SMU Law, she had trouble finding a job; women were a rarity in Dallas law firms in the early '70s. Eager to stay in Dallas but short of money (her father, a real-estate man, died when she was a teen, and she remains very close to her mother), she was rescued with a clerkship from a federal judge, Joe Estes. Tough on his clerks, Estes was so taken with Miers's self-effacing diligence that he arm-twisted an old-line Dallas law firm to give her a job.


Clients liked Miers, who made herself always available and quietly indispensable. The other lawyers in the firm took to her, too, in part because she never pushed. "At our firm, you're not supposed to run for managing partner, or act like you really want that job," said her former partner Mike Moore. "Some people do, but they're not very successful. Harriet was chosen by the firm; she didn't ask for it."

Miers's mentor, the most important man in her life, was Nathan Hecht, a partner in her firm who is now a state Supreme Court justice. Praying with her, Hecht helped Miers convert from being a dutiful but not particularly devout Roman Catholic to a born-again evangelical. Interviewed by NEWSWEEK, Hecht played down his role. "She was doing some soul-searching, thinking about what was important... She asked me where I went to church and I told her, and over time that became a very meaningful place to her."

The church was Valley View Christian Church. Miers never fit into ritzy, establishment Dallas, the plush near-in neighborhoods like Highland Park. Valley View is in the outer suburbs, the sort of place inhabited by rising middle-class transients looking for a sense of permanence (the same kind of people Rove was so adept at getting to the polls as Republican voters in 2000 and 2004). "We believe the Bible is completely true," says Dr. Barry McCarty, the church's preaching minister. "For us the Bible is the sole authority."

On Sunday evenings at Valley View, Miers was a "Whirly Bird" instructor in a Christian education course that was a hybrid of traditional Sunday school and the Cub Scouts. Commencing class with the theme song "Whirly Birds for Jesus!" she "had this calming, comforting type of voice," recalls Kevin Rossen, 26, a youth minister who had Miers in the third grade.

After church in the morning, she would attend an adult Bible study group taught by her friend Hecht. The conversation may have turned to abortion from time to time, though Hecht says he doesn't recall. He is sure, however, that Miers shares the church's position that life begins at conception. Miers seldom offered her opinions to the group. "She was the backstage person," says a friend, Vickie Wilson. "She would make the coffee, put the coffee cups on the cart, roll out the coffee and then clean everything up when it was over... She was the servant."

In the minds of friends, there was no question that the tie between Miers and Hecht was romantic. "They dated for years and years," says Kinkeade, her old friend. Hecht is more reticent. "I don't like 'dating' and don't want to say 'dating.' I haven't even said there was a romantic relationship. I've said that we were close friends... We go to dinner, we'd go to the movies together, we'd go jogging together. We enjoyed each other's company a great deal."


Says Kinkeade: "I pestered them over the years about getting married... Their calling was to do public service and maybe they knew they wouldn't have the time that would be required of them to raise a family." It is not clear whether Miers and Hecht are still a "couple," a word that clearly makes Hecht uncomfortable. "You'll have to ask them that," says Liz Lang Miers, Harriet's sister-in-law. (Miers herself was not giving interviews last week.)

Miers's sense of public duty led her to run for an at-large seat on the Dallas City Council. As a corporate lawyer, she was expected to play the role of defender of the propertied, moneyed interests. She was a fiscal conservative, but ventured into unexpected territory. She reached out to Diane Ragsdale, one of only two African-Americans on the 11-member City Council and—reversing an earlier stand—embraced a redistricting plan that called for more minority representation. Since Dallas was at the time about 40 percent minority, she likely figured that the courts, which had already found the system discriminatory, would throw out anything less. Nonetheless, she surprised some minority leaders. At one racially charged meeting, she grabbed the microphone and forcefully apologized to the African-Americans of Dallas for police violence. "The people were shocked," recalled Ragsdale. "She was passionate."

Among Miers's satisfied clients was George W. Bush. She ably (and discreetly) handled any ethics and legal questions that came up in the 2000 campaign, including allegations that Bush had been given favorable treatment to get into the Texas National Guard (and avoid the draft and Vietnam), and the late-breaking story that Bush had been arrested on a drunken-driving charge as a young man.

Bush brought her to Washington, where she was a fastidious dot-the-i's staff secretary and then a less successful deputy chief of staff for policy. Her attention to detail got in the way of quick decision-making, say several White House sources who did not want to be identified because they like her and did not wish to offend her. "She was not a policy pro, as she was the first to admit," says another White House aide.

Bush trusted her to search for candidates for the Supreme Court openings, and was pleased by her work on Judge John Roberts. He didn't tell her that he was secretly running a background search on her. On the Sunday night when Bush told Miers that he was nominating her for the court, he warned her, "Be prepared for a process that could be tough." The White House acknowledges it underestimated the scale of opposition to her appointment. Republican operative Ed Gillespie did not help matters when he went into a truculent meeting of movement conservatives and announced that he smelled "a whiff of sexism and a whiff of elitism" in the room. The meeting exploded, according to numerous participants. It wasn't Miers's gender or pedigree that the conservatives objected to. Most of them hate the Ivy League. It was her failure to have demonstrated in any public way that she is a passionate advocate of judicial restraint.

Bush is not the first president to name a crony (Hugo Black and Felix Frankfurter were friends of FDR's). The last president to name his personal lawyer to the court was Lyndon Johnson; he was embarrassed when his choice, Abe Fortas, was accused of financial impropriety and had to step down. The core reason the Framers gave the Senate the power of "advice and consent" on judicial nominees was to provide "a check upon a spirit of favoritism in the president," wrote Alexander Hamilton. At her confirmation hearings, Miers would be well advised to show at least a hint of independence from the man she has so faithfully served.

With Holly Bailey, Howard Fineman, Stuart Taylor Jr., Susannah Meadows, Andrew Murr, Tamara Lipper and Pat Wingert


URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9629611/site/newsweek/page/4/

This just cracks me up. The Dallas City Council is a pretty corrupt entity.

forgive me if this is noted previously. It was reported on this good new website. I think the acutal recording is on Crooksandliars.com blog

They are lining up on getting the right to support the nominee because no matter what her opinions she can be counted upon to do the right thing by the Bush cartel

http://www.nocrony.com/


this is the transcript

RNC/WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE CALL ON HARRIET MIERS (10/06/05):

Click Here for the action form to oppose the Miers nomination now.

Tim Goeglein: Operator thank you and good afternoon to everybody, my name is Tim Goeglein from the White house office of public liason. We know we have people joining us from all 50 states around the country, we really appreciate you taking time to join us for this call. Of course the president has [00:22] nominated Harriet Miers for the second of the two open seats during the Bush presidency.

As you know Harriet has been a confidant close to the president for a number of years, has held the most senior possible positions here in the White House, most recently as White House counselor. She is [00:44] a colleague of long standing and has the president's every confidence. and we so appreciate our friends and allies and coalition members around the country who are working with us, working with the president to help confirm Harriet Miers. and we thought it would be a good thing going [01:06] into the weekend to gather all of you on the line and be able to talk a little bit about her and to the extent possible to answer some questions or concerns that you may have and it's my real pleasure to have joining us the chairman of the Republican National Committee, former White House colleague, former political director here Ken Mehlman, Ken good afternoon [01:29] and thanks for joining

Ken Mehlman: Thanks Tim, I'll make a couple brief comments and then we have some other folks who I think also wanted to make some comments. Let me open just by saying that i think alot of those of us who believe in judicial restraint and who are constitutionalists are always going to be cautious when new nominees are named to the Supreme Court and one of the reasons we need to be cautious is that [1:51] so many people in the past have a record voting that is different from what has been advertised. And to my thinking one of the most important things you have is someone who's nominated who the president knows their thinking, knows their philosophy. He's not taking the word of a chief of staff or the word of a senator or the words of anything other than what he knows about the person.

In this case [2:13] it's hard to imagine a president having a better knowledge of a nominee than the president of the United States has of Harriet Miers, someone he's worked closely with for more than a decade, someone who's philosophy he shares. as she shares his philosophy, and someone who has seen her operate that philosophy every single day. This isn't taking someone else's word, this is the president observing over 10 years, [2:36] and most recently over several years every single day what her judicial philosophy is. She identified her as clearly philosophy as that of judicial restraints. So unlike in the past where it was one of these things which we had to trust what someone else said, in this case we have a president that knows the nominee better than we can imagine, better than we've ever seen.

Second, Harriet Miers has served with distinction [2:58] at a time when she was the top legal advisor to the president on some critically important issues whether the issues were whether to renominate Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens and Bill Pryor, whether the question was whether where the administration ought to come out on key policy matters that affect the judiciary that affect families that affect other issues, the president's positions have been [3:20] very strong and we know his top advisor has been Harriet Miers. And so when people say well we know the president's got the right approach, but how do we know Harriet Miers is like someone saying, you know, the president has the right position on the war or terror but we don't know if Donald Rumsfeld does. The fact is she is his key advisor on these issues.

And the third thing that I think also is important to remember is this. One of the most important [3:43] and I think troubling areas where we've seen judicial activism recently is in the ability of any administration in the future to carry out its leadership in the global war on terror. And I think having someone who has real world experience when future issues come up who will be able to say here's a real world practical implications of when for instance the court's hamstring the ability [4:06] of the administration or the defense department or somebody else to deal with the terrorist threat we face. I think that's an important and unique perspective that someone who's spent her whole life on the court doesn't have but someone who has served in a White House, particularly in this White House does have.

So we've . . . other speakers are going to talk about other issues but I think these are three very important things, number one, how do we avoid what those in the, what I like to call [4:27] people who grow in office, which is to say who would do up things do differently than we expect them to. I think the way we know that is cause this president knows his nominee better than ever before. Second, top advisor at a time when this president has made some incredibly effective decisions, and third her unique ability to understand how bad judicial activism is on the [4:50] critical issue of the global war on terror. These are all important issues as well as our understanding that this is somebody whose long standing record whose longstanding perspective are all important and i think those are things that we need to consider. I'm going to turn it over to several other distinquished speakers, first Chuck Colson, and Chuck are you with us.

Chuck Colson: I am Ken, thank you. I appreciate what you said and the fact is that I've George Bush talk on a [5:12] number of occasions about his committment to judges I know how passionately, conservative judges, strict constructionists, I know how passionately he feels about this and he knows Harriet Miers better than anyone so I take his word on this completely. I also had lunch with her one day and was impressed with her quiet dignity, her restraint, she's a modest humble woman [5:34] with an enormously deep intellect. That impresses me because we have too many judges that think they're speaking from Mount Olympus I like somebody who's got a little bit of modesty and humility and I can't imagine a better compliment right now for judge Roberts, chief justice Roberts, so I think it's a great appointment, I'm [5:57] very enthusiastic.

I think the fact that it's been received not as a big battle cry, alot of conservatives wanted a big battle, but I don't want a big battle I want a judge. And I think she's just the person for it. Now Jim Dobson is staying for this call, I can't cause I've just come out of a board meeting. He and I are joined at the hip and have talked about this at great lengths, so [6:19] Jim if I, if anything I've said triggers questions I'm going to count on you to handle them for me but I think we really ought to now as a conservative movement line up behind this, this nominee and make it a concerted push. Believe me when she gets up there and they start on her it won't matter if she's walked across the Potomac River, they're going to exact their pound [6:41] of flesh and I think we need to be united behind her.

Ken Mehlman: Thanks alot, Chuck, Doctor Dobson, he has just given you the cue, thanks for being on this call.

James Dobson: Well thank you, Ken. And goodness, Chuck, I appreciate what you said. You are a constitutional attorney and I'm not and I have leaned very heavily on you through this process. [7:04] We've talked four times after we knew where the nomination was going, so I have really appreciated the things that you've said and they've had an influence on me. I, I, I would just like to issue a disclaimer before I make my statement because this is one scary moment. [7:26] Everything I care about is on the line because the court has usurped the other two branches of government and has made all great social decisions, answered them or tried to answer them for the American people, and taken away from the people the responsibilities that Abraham Lincoln talked about [7:48] in the Gettysburg address, he, he said this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And it has not been that on all of the great social, moral issues. And because the seat that's being vacated by justice O'Connor has been a swing vote, this [8:11] decision is of earthshaking importance in my view and that's why I've taken it very seriously, and why I have maybe drawn the conclusion that I have.

The second disclaimer that I want to say is that I'm speaking only for myself, not trying to argue with anybody or sway anybody. I've got close friends who are [8:33] mad at me because of the way I see this, but I think each, each of us has to do that. But I have drawn the conclusion that Harriet Miers will be an excellent justice on the United States Supreme Court. I, I'm not absolutely positive of that cause you can't know till they get in power and then it's too late, [8:55] and power itself tends to corrupt, and it has happened with some of the other members of the court in my view and it could happen to her.

But I believe that the president has very carefully made this decision. It is very consistent with two promises he's made probably [9:18] more strongly than any other two campaign promises. He promised to reform the judiciary, put people on that court who will not legislate from the bench, who will not try to create social policy from the court and who will respect the constitution, and he has [9:40] been absolutely consistent on that issue for four and a half years. I don't know of any judge or justi . . . judge now, I guess justice was the chief justice now that has contradicted that promise.

The second thing is his, his committment to the pro-life [10:02] position, this is his personal belief and philosophy, and I think probably theology and he has kept it and I appreciate that. And all the conservatives out there that are beating him up today and riding his back over having chosen Harriet Miers, I think they ought to take a big deep breath and consider [10:25] that fact that he has signed the partial birth abortion ban legislation and he has supported the Mexico city policy and he has been against embryonic stem cell research. I mean he's been consistent on both those things. For that reason I believe that we would be very, [10:47] very foolish to, to abandon his base and to have lied to the people about what his plans were, and to put a person on the court who will change his legacy forever. This is his legacy. I said on a program yesterday that it's, it will not be [11:09] Iraq, as important as that is, 20 years from now it will be who he put on the court. He knows that, and I believe, [coughs] excuse me, I believe he has appointed a woman that he is sure is consistent with that.

Now finally and I'll close with this that, I've done my homework, I know some others [11:32] have too, she is widely known in Dallas, and in other places in Texas, and I've talked to people that have known her for 25 years, and who have been very, very close to her. I know the church she goes to, I know what her history is in terms of her own faith committment, and I, that means a whole lot to me, [11:55] because there's a base there, there's a moral understanding and a world view that I believe will hold her in good stead. So am I absolutely positive, no, I, I don't know you can't, that you can be. The Rocky Mountain News this morning said that Dobson admits doubts. You bet I do, it's that important, [12:16] but I believe the president has done the right thing and I support it.

Ken Mehlman: Thank you very much, Doctor Dobson, our next speaker is the White House political director Sarah Taylor.

Sarah Taylor: Thanks, Ken. I don't have much to add, I think all the speakers have done a great job articulating some of these key issues here, but I would just follow up, like Ken and others on the phone have worked for the president [12:39] for an incredibly long time since the day that he became a candidate, and for office back in 1999, and there's one thing that's absolutely been consistent about his commentary on judges and that is, that he believes strongly in ending judicial activism and putting only people on the bench who will interpret the constitution, [13:01] and as Mr. Dobson just said, and as Ken and others have said, he's been absolutely 100% consistent in that effort, and I'm confident having worked with Harriet personally for the last five years that he made a choice that will uphold that. The woman on television, Harriet said on television live in her [13:23] announcement exactly just that, that she believes that the, the responsibility of every justice is to uphold the Constitution. And, certainly having known her, and known her character, I believe her strongly she will be a fantastic Supreme Court justice. And I know we understand how important this is, that alot of people for long time have worked [13:46] hard on behalf of these issues and she's somebody who is honest, who has incredible character, and when she says to people that she's going to behave in a certain way she always does it. And I have enormous confidence in her and that she will be an incredible, and, justice somebody who will not only make decisions based [14:08] on what's in the Constitution, but makes decisions that, she believes strongly in.

Ken Mehlman: Thank you very much Sarah, Jay Sekulow, are you on?

Jay Sekulow: I am, Ken, thanks. I want to approach this. And of cour. . . I agree, with what everyone has said and I want to echo something that [14:30] Jim Dobson and Chuck Colson said and that is the president is keenly aware of what's at stake here. I had the opportunity to almost 6 years ago to introduce then governor Bush to a large gathering in Washington, D.C., and before that introduction he and I sat in the back in the green room for about 30 minutes and discussed judges, and from that moment forward till very [14:53] recently, and the opportunities I've had to be with the president and we've talked about judges this is a president that knows not only in this same situation where he has a legacy that's at issue but its the direction for the country. And he knows that. And I think, and I was encouraged when the president nominated Harriet Miers, and let me tell you this from a perspective of someone who litigates regularly at the [15:15] Supreme Court of the United States. I'm involved in three cases at the court this term. And believe me I want Harriet Miers votin' on these critical cases. One of those cases now, cases involving the issue of partial birth abortion, something the president championed for as the leader of the executive branch of government is now passed of course by Congress, passed by the president and now is in the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States and last time it was a [15:37] 5 to 4 decision. So there is much at stake as this congressional ban goes before the court and we could see the replacement for justice O'Connor being what was it, the swing vote last time against us, we could see this swing the other way.

Now none of us know, how an individual judge or justice is going to rule in a particular case. But for me the critical aspect has been in my conversations with Harriet Miers [16:00] over the last year have been how she views the role of a judge, and she views the role of a judge to not be that of a policy maker. She views it as a limited role. She understands that is the aspect and the intent of the founders in the Constitution. So I'm encouraged there, and I'll tell you this my view is that bringing somebody outside of the judiciary into the Supreme Court is a good thing, and I'm saying again this as someone who [16:22] litigates at the court. And as a historic aspect of this and I think not a historic aspect that should be ignored, when the president nominated Harriet Miers, this is the first evangelical that's been nominated to the Supreme Court since 1931. I think that's significant. Now we've got alot of great friends at the Supreme Court of the United States that are, that are devout Catholics and I think that's great, so I don't want to, [16:44] this isn't a religious discussion in that sense. But this was a bold move by the president and I think an important move.

And those that don't yet, have not yet come to support Harriet, I understand that, you don't know, and that's fine, but as Jim Dobson said and I wanted to reiterate, let's let the evidence come in, and it's beginning to, you're already seeing this, and I think time will tell, and time will be very good [17:07] for Harriet Miers. And I said this to a couple people yesterday. John Roberts did a magnificent job before the Senate judiciary committee, and so will Harriet Miers, in her own way, maybe different from John's, but it will be in her own way. This is one smart woman. You don't get to be the president, the president, the first female president of the Texas bar association without being a very good and very smart and very able lawyer. And I think [17:29] she's gonna be a great justice on the Supreme Court.

Ken Mehlman: Thanks alot, Jay, is Leonard Leo on?

Leonard Leo: I'm here and thank you, Ken. It's pleasure to be here this afternoon to offer my own experiences with Harriet Miers so all of you can make your own informed judgements about where you are on this very important nomination. I have had the privilege [17:51] of seeing Harriet Miers at work on issues that are of tremendous interest and concern to us, most particularly the issue of judicial selection, and her committment to conservative judicial philosophy is very deep and something she takes very seriously and works rigorously to project [18:14] within this administration. I think she said it extremely well when she accepted the president's nomination from the oval office very early this week, when she stated essentially that every generation has a responsibility to respect and [18:36] apply the founders' vision of the limited role of our courts. And then she went on to say that she undertood it was the judge's duty to strictly apply the law and the Constitution. Those are in today's partisan environment and in the wake of the Bork and Thomas nominations, philosophically significant and [18:58] philosophically laden terms. Everyone understands today what it means to ascribe to the framers' vision of our Constitution and the limited role of the courts. It's a way of making it very clear to everyone that you are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its text and as it was written by our framers.

Now [19:21] I happen to think based on my experiences that Harriet is a very honest person and she knows what she said, and she understands those words because day in and day out she's helping the president pick judges who also ascribe to the framers' visions of separation of powers and federalism and Constitutional interpretation by the courts. And so those were [19:43] important words, and I think she recognized that the world really didn't know much about her because the jobs that she's had are not jobs like politicians have, they're jobs where you're working behind the scenes, you know. So in the interest of truth in advertising she told us all a little bit about what her judicial philosophy is and I'm sure that she expects that as the process winds its way [20:05] to a conclusion she will, she will have plenty of opportunities to elaborate on those principles that she first mentioned on that Monday and that people such as myself and Jay have had the privilege of seeing her apply in action.

I think one of the things is in order. I think all of us have some sense [20:28] of what some of the fatal flaws have been in terms of other Supreme Court nominations. And one of the biggest problems Supreme Court justices have is that they, they lose their footing. They, they begin to grow in office. Judge Silberman called this the Greenhouse effect, referring to Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times, bowing to the pressures of the left and [20:50] the media. And I think that as we, as we, as we look at her background, this is a woman who, who is a devout Christian, who, who was one of the first women partners in Texas, who was not afraid when running for city council to make her views clear regarding the extent of what, what are appropriate [21:12], you know, homosexual rights, and what might not be something that she would want to support. I don't think that those positions or affiliations tell us a whole lot about how she's going to decide a particular case. But I do think what they tell us is, and we shouldn't use them for that purpose, but I do think what they tell us is that this is woman who is very comfortable in her skin. [21:35] She has alot of courage and she doesn't care a whole lot about what other people think. And boy, I'll tell ya, that for me is very, very important when you're talking about putting somebody on the Supreme Court because that's a pressure cooker. And, and I think that is what the president meant when he said that he knew this woman for 20 years, and that this is a woman who 20 years from now is going to have the same [21:57] perspective on judicial philosophy. And that's impressive for a woman lawyer who's got to deal in the polite society of a liberal legal culture that doesn't look too kindly on all these different things that we're learning about her. So I think this is a woman of tremendous strength and courage and independence, who understands the framers' vision of the Constitution and is prepared to apply it.

Ken Mehlman: Thank you, Leonard, [22:19] has doctor Land joined us, I know he wasn't on before . . .

Richard Land: Yes, sir, I'm here.

Ken Mehlman: Oh great, thank you for joining us, and I'm glad that you're, you're up, you're next.

Richard Land: Well, I appreciate what everybody has said, and I agree with it and I would just say that I, you know, I, this president, there's nothing that he's been clearer about and has stood more steadfastly for, not only against [21:42] unprecedented opposition, remember Tom Daschle as the obstructionist, and this president has refused to flinch on the issue of, of judicial nominees that are strict constructionists, original intent jurists, let's remember the chief justice was once a filibustered nominee. And who was helping the president pick those nominees? Harriet Miers. [23:04] And I think the, that one of the things that someone as a sixth generation Texan I want to add to this call and that is this. There, the two things that are probably, there are two virtues that are valued as highly as any virtue can be valued in the Texas culture and those two virtues are [23:26] courage and loyalty, courage and loyalty. And this president, and he knows that Harriet Miers is also a Texan, and with, with a degree of understanding that would never have to be articulated, he and she both understand that if she were to get on the court, and she were to rule in ways that are contrary to the way the president [23:49] would want her to approach her role as a justice, it would be a deep personal betrayal, and would be perceived as such both by him and by her and he knows in nominating, in nominating a woman who comes from outside the beltway bubble, who's culture was formed in Texas and who doesn't take care what the New York Times thinks. [24:11] She doesn't care. And he doesn't care. Which is one reason why they've been successful conservatives. I think this is a brilliant nomination and I think it will be confirmed in the way she rules on the cases that are very important to us over the next decade.

Ken Mehlman: Thank you very much, thank you very much Dr. Land, operator I think we're going to take a minute, there are [24:33] so many people on the call, but we'll open it up for a couple questions and then I believe we'll try to keep it to a half an hour, so we'll keep it to that short period.

Tim Goeglein: While we're waiting for the questions and answers, I just might emphasize that alot of folks may not know that Ken Starr has also very strongly supported Harriet Miers as had [24:56] National Right to Life, Rick Warren and a number of other individuals and groups and we have sent much of that very widely but we want to let folks know that there are any number of places that they can tap in and read the endorsements or support from other folks.

James Dobson: Ken can we talk or do we got to sit here in silence.

Ken Mehlman: You know, no, no by all means, please make a comment, [25:18] Dr. Dobson.

James Dobson: I just started to say that after the president made his annoucement there seemed to be a shockwave that went through the conservative community and especially the Christian conservative community and people didn't know what to think. I've seen that change. And I really believe that as people are getting comfortable [25:40] with her nomination there is much more compliments about who she is and what the president has done. That may not be accurate but that's the way I see it.

Sarah Taylor: I, this is Sarah, I would second that. I was in Iowa last night doing a Republican dinner, and talked, talked to alot of folks, alot of active, you know, people in conservative circles at the dinner [26:03] and you know all of them were kind of, sort of dumbfounded by the way that some of the conservative media has been acting about this. They said obviously we'd like to know more about her but, I don't know, you certainly did not get the sense that . . .

Jay Sekulow: This is Jay, I concur with that also, I think it's been that the more, that time will help us here and will continue to the more information gets out.

Operator: OK, [26:25] we're ready for our first question. And our first question comes from Paul Weyrich.

Paul Weyrich: We understand that when she was on the Dallas city council that she had initially come out against a tax increase, and then after a day [26:47] of voting and much pressure she voted for a tax increase mainly to restore funding for expansion of libraries. This was not a question of public safety, that had all been taken care of. What troubles me about [27:10] this is that she had initially been very much opposed to it, and at the end she was the swing vote that ended up being in favor of it. That is troublesome if you think of it in terms of the court, because there is an enormous [27:32] ammount of pressure on the court.

Leonard Leo: May I address that, this is Leonard.

Paul Weyrich: Anybody can address it.

Leonard Leo: Sure, hey Paul, how are you.

Paul Weyrich: I'm fine, thank you.

Leonard Leo: That's a very important comment. And all I can tell you Paul are my own experiences and observations as someone who has [27:54] been a part of the legal profession and has travelled within the organized bar community as someone who's not, you know, particularly part of the mainstream. If you look at her overall background she's done an awful lot that bucks up against the system and she doesn't seem to care about it. You know there's been alot of hay [28:17] made of the fact that she was part of the effort at the American Bar association to get the association to recind its position on abortion on demand. Again I don't think that tells you anything about, you know, what she's going to do on Roe or any other abortion case, but I think what it does tell you is a little [28:39] something about the culture at the A.B.A. that, you know, she's got guts and she's not going to shrink away from positions that she feels very strongly about. And I just think there are a number of other instances where I know of where that's the case and where she's done things or where she [29:01] has views or perspectives or affiliations that are really just at odds with the liberal big law firm culture that even exists in Dallas, Texas. And so while we may all find various, you know, incidents where she might have changed her mind about things, we have to know more about why and what happened. [29:24] My own experience with her is that she, she does, she's very comfortable with who she is and that she's, she's not gonna break from her views without having, you know, a good reason, it's not going to be politics or because she wants to be invited to the next cocktail party in Georgetown.

Ken Mehlman: Thanks Leonard, why don't we take the [29:46] next question operator please.

Operator: The next question comes from Marlis Pompo(last name?).

Ken Mehlman: Hi Marlis, how are you?

Marlis P: I am fine thank you, and yourself.

Ken Mehlman: I'm great . . . for those who don't know Marlis, Marlis has been one of the leaders with Iowa Right to Life and so many other important causes for more years that she'd like me to say. but talk about a trail blazer, Marlis is [30:08] a wonderful lady, somebody that helped make history in 2004 when we turned Iowa from blue to red.

Marlis P: Well, thank you very much. I've, obviously I'm, I want to be supporting Harriet Miers and I, I believe in president Bush. I believe when he, I believe all that he's told us, [30:31] I've watched the nominees that he has placed before us over the last several years of his presidency. I've seen all of the good strong constructionists he's placed up and I see no reason why he's placed all of these wonderful constructionists up when he gets the chance to put people up for the highest court in the land that, that would change when he would place them up for the Supreme Court. I'm wondering if you could help me however [30:53] with some explanations of what I tell our folks when they're, I think one of the more troubling pieces that are out there is the piece from the Worldnet Daily and its the piece that talks about, it does have, have some things about when she was city council woman and [31:15] it also has come talk about a position she took on gay adoption and I'm wondering if somebody can shed light on, on any of the things that are in that particular piece for us that we can have some clearer insight for those of us who are supporters of the president, and, and, and [31:38] really have faith in the fact that, that, that he's there for us and is going, will do nothing but support, or put a good person in this, in this position.

Leonard Leo: I can, I can address the gay adoption issue, Ken, if you like.

Ken Mehlman: Please do.

Marlis P: That's the one that I'd most like to . . .

Leonard Leo: There has been a news report suggesting that Harriet Miers supported the A.B.A [32:00] resolutions pertaining to gay adoption and the creation of the International Criminal Court, I'm assuming that that's what you were referring to.

Marlis P: That's exactly, that's exactly what was reported in World Net Daily, yeah.

Leonard Leo: The news reports are wrong and false in the following respect. And I know this from experience having served as one of the few conservative members of the A.B.A. house of delegates. The select committee of the A.B.A. [32:22] house of delegates, which she chaired, is basically a glorified mailman. What they do is they gather up all the proposed resolutions, the different committees and sections of the A.B.A. want to have put before the house of delegates for a vote, and the select committee transmits them by mail, or today by email, to all of the house of delegates members so they have the materials they need in advance of the [32:45] meeting, so they can begin thinking about what positions they're going to take on the resolutions. The select committee does not draft the resolutions, they do not opine on whether they are appropriate for A.B.A. consideration, and they in no way engage in any editorial or drafting responsibility. So basically she was simply transmitting paper to people within the A.B.A. [33:07] saying here are the things you're going to have to consider when you're at the house of delegates meeting and there are resolutions up for a vote.

Jay Sekulow: Yeah, and there's, there's another aspect to that as well, unrelated to the A.B.A. section, but if she, she answered a question through a question in a question, though a questionaire put forward on the issue of the Texas sodomy statute that was at the Supreme Court two years ago, and [33:29] remember this was a, a statute that, I'm not opining on this, that justice Thomas called uncommonly silly, yet she said she would not repeal it, and I thought that said alot about her views on that, that kind of issue, in the right way, I mean she, she understood the role of the legislature and she looked at it under her view and said, thought that there was a legitimate reason to have these things so, you know, I think you're got to [33:52] put it all in context, and it wasn't more than an administrative function at that A.B.A. subcommittee.

Marlis P: OK, I appreciate that.

Sarah Taylor: Marlis, it's Sarah, I owe you an email. I've been out for two days so I, I will, I have something that will help you on this.

Marlis P: OK, Great thank you.

Ken Mehlman: Why don't we turn to the next question please.

Operator: Thanks, your next question comes from Rick Warren.

Rick Warren: Well, hi Ken and Tim and everybody.

Ken Mehlman: [34:14] How are you.

Rick Warren: Great, I don't need to say a whole lot, but because I didn't think I was going to be in on this conference call, but I think it was for this very moment that we had the last election. It's the reason I jumped in and mobilized, you know, our network, because it's all about the court, and I think for all of the reasons already mentioned Harriet's a great choice. [34:36] I mean she's a great person, she's a great woman, she's a great Christian, she's a great thinker, and I just throw my support behind her.

Tim Goeglein: Yes we really appreciate that very much, that means alot.

Ken Mehlman: Yeah, thank you very much Rick, we really appreciate that. Thank you all very much. I know we promised everyone [34:59] we'd be done in a relatively brief period, and it's 4:15, we said we'd make it a half an hour, I'm sorry it took a little longer than we promised, thank you all for your help, and for your leadership and we look forward to working with you on this important issue.

Back to the action form.
© 2005 The People's Email Network, Patent Pending, All Rights Reserved Email us Terms and conditions

Call the tollfree number 888-355-3588 right now and ask to be connected to your senators.

The only question will be; How soon the Court get's a Roe v Wade Challenge! And if those Republicans who see the danger to their Party, can stifle the Court cases from reaching the Supremes' "too quickly" (before the 06, and the 08 elections). If the Supreme Court overturns Roe too early, the Republican Party will suffer Generational Damage IMO.

If they can delay that decision until after 08, they will avoid that damage and have a better chance of retaining power longer.

The risk to their plan is that they may have forgotten to tell the Religious Right who is literally frothing at the lips at the chance to undo Roe. I don't think those folks are going to wait.

Miers will probably pass the hearings test because the same kind of procedures
that gets the Bush Administration's approach to improving education by--teach the test and then call higher test scores improved education--will be used to get her
by.

http://www.forbes.com/business/feeds/afx/2...afx2267124.html

October 10, 2005
Endorsement of Nominee Draws Committee's Interest
By DAVID D. KIRKPATRICK
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9 - Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and several Democrats on the committee said Sunday that they were considering calling the evangelical conservative James C. Dobson to testify on what he has been told about Harriet E. Miers, the president's Supreme Court nominee.

"If Dr. Dobson knows something that he shouldn't know or something that I ought to know, I'm going to find out," Mr. Specter said Sunday in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on the ABC News program "This Week."

In response to a later question, Mr. Specter added, "If there are back-room assurances and if there are back-room deals and if there is something which bears upon a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that's a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American people."

Mr. Dobson, the influential founder of the conservative evangelical group Focus on the Family, has said he is supporting Ms. Miers's nomination in part because of something he has been told but cannot divulge. He has not disclosed the source of the information, but he has acknowledged speaking with Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, about the president's pick before it was announced.

On his radio program last Wednesday, Mr. Dobson said, "When you know some of the things that I know - that I probably shouldn't know - you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice." He added, in a reference to aborted fetuses, "if I have made a mistake here, I will never forget the blood of those babies that will die will be on my hands to some degree."

Dana Perino, a spokeswoman for the White House, said Sunday that Mr. Rove did not provide Mr. Dobson "any insight into how Ms. Miers may rule on any particular case." But the attention to the private reasons for Mr. Dobson's endorsement underscores the delicate problem the White House faces in trying to quell conservative dissatisfaction with Ms. Miers without arousing the ire of liberals or, for that matter, the handful of Senate Republicans like Mr. Specter who support abortion rights.

Even as liberal groups were raising questions last week about Mr. Dobson's sources, the White House put him on a conference call with conservative activists around the country to try to reassure them that Ms. Miers shared their views of the law.

Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, said Sunday on the same program as Mr. Specter that he, too, would consider calling Mr. Dobson to testify. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York, another Democrat on the committee, said in an interview on the CBS News program "Face the Nation" that he already believed the committee should call Mr. Dobson as a witness. "This is not a game of wink and whisper," Mr. Schumer said. "This is serious business."

Senator Richard J. Durbin, an Illinois Democrat on the committee, said Sunday on the CNN program "Late Edition" that the possibility that the White House might have given "inside information" about Ms. Miers to Mr. Dobson was "reprehensible." Senator Ken Salazar, Democrat of Colorado, has called on Mr. Dobson to disclose whatever he knows.

Mr. Dobson has not been invited by the Senate to testify and will wait to respond until he does, his spokesman, Paul Hetrick, said Sunday.

Conservatives continued to debate over Ms. Miers's legal qualifications and conservative credentials. Robert H. Bork, the former Supreme Court nominee who is a hero to many on the right, said in an interview on MSNBC on Friday that her nomination was "a disaster," and some conservative publications and columnists are calling for her withdrawal or rejection.

But on CNN on Sunday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican whip, called her "an outstanding lawyer" and predicted, "at the end of the day, the support in the Senate for Harriet Miers in the Republican conference in the Senate is going to be rock solid."

On Fox News, Justice Nathan L. Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court, a friend of Ms. Miers who has become her de facto spokesman, said there was "no chance at all" that she would withdraw her nomination. Although he said he had not heard it from her, he said, "it's outside the bounds of possibility."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/politics...agewanted=print

October 10, 2005
A Place at the Table for Miers and High-Level Friends
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
WASHINGTON

They got together last month at the Bull and Bear steakhouse at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel in New York. They have been to the restaurants Olives and Galileo in Washington, and listened to concerts from the president's box at the Kennedy Center. Sometimes Ann M. Veneman, the former agriculture secretary who is now the executive director of Unicef, cooked everyone dinner at her home.

In all the conservative uproar over President Bush's choice of Harriet E. Miers for the Supreme Court, and in all the looks backward into Ms. Miers's career and upbringing in Texas, one thing has been lost: her current life in the Bush administration as one of a handful of powerful single women who have become friends and part of an informal network of support in Washington.

For much of the past five years, Ms. Miers, 60, has been a close friend not only of Ms. Veneman but of Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state. Schedules permitting, the three have met for what people still call girls' nights out in Washington.

The three continued the tradition in September during the United Nations General Assembly over dinner at the Bull and Bear, where Ms. Veneman, who is now based in New York, joined Ms. Miers, Ms. Rice and Anna Perez, Ms. Rice's former spokeswoman.

"There's a lot of girl talk," said a friend of Ms. Miers and Ms. Rice, who asked not to be named because she did not want to be identified discussing the women's personal lives. "It's about life, not business."

Friends say that Ms. Miers and Ms. Rice share not only brutal work schedules but also an intense devotion to Mr. Bush. Someone who knows both women said that it was "reasonable to speculate" that Ms. Rice - who remains as close a confidante of the president as she was when she worked steps from the Oval Office as national security adviser in the first term - played a role in Ms. Miers's selection.

Last year, Ms. Miers was a guest at a surprise birthday party for Ms. Rice at the British Embassy in Washington. More recently, Ms. Miers went with her longtime friend Nathan L. Hecht, a Texas Supreme Court justice, to a dinner that Ms. Rice gave for Ms. Veneman when Ms. Veneman was leaving the Department of Agriculture for Unicef. Other guests at the dinner, in a private room of the Aquarelle restaurant in the Watergate complex, were Karl Rove, the White House deputy chief of staff, and Stephen J. Hadley, the national security adviser.

The tradition of girls' nights out - or girls' lunches out - is hardly unique to the Bush White House. Among other Washington women who get together are White House social secretaries, who last assembled earlier this year. "We call ourselves the social secretaries' sorority," said Ann Stock, a social secretary in the Clinton administration, who gave a lunch at her home in January to welcome Lea Berman, Laura Bush's most recent social secretary, to the clan.

A favorite topic, Ms. Stock said, was stories about people desperate for invitations to White House dinners. Ms. Stock gave up no names. ("We did a pinkie swear that what goes on at the table stays at the table.") But she offered a generic version of a tale common to all administrations.

"A king and a queen are coming for a state visit, and the social secretary gets a call from a man who is close to hysterical," Ms. Stock said. "All the invitations have gone out, everybody's accepted and there's no room, but he comes in and tells this long story about his wife dying of cancer, and how they have to have an invitation. So the social secretary makes a special exception and creates a table of 12, which is bigger than all the others. And guess what? She's still alive today, and so is he."

In the Clinton administration, there were also single women who went out for what one of them, Susan Brophy, referred to in shorthand as "G.N.O.'s." In her era, G.N.O.'s usually took place over long, late dinners at the Palm.

"It wasn't like networking, it was like drinking wine," said Ms. Brophy, who was a deputy assistant for legislative affairs in the Clinton White House and is now a senior vice president at Time Warner in Washington. (Ms. Brophy has since married a lawyer she met on Air Force One and is the stepmother to his five children.)

"We strategized about life, career moves, nothing really related to our life in government," Ms. Brophy said. "It was about friendship." Many in the bipartisan group had known each other for decades - among them Lorraine Voles, who was Vice President Al Gore's communications director, and Victoria Clarke, Ms. Voles's friend from their days at George Washington University. Ms. Clarke, a Republican who was working at the time in public relations, was later the Pentagon spokeswoman in Mr. Bush's first term.

"Political parties really didn't matter," Ms. Clarke recalled of the evenings. She said the group last got together a few weeks ago for dinner at Listrani's in Northwest Washington.

The topics of conversation? Jobs, families - and who might be Mr. Bush's latest pick for the Supreme Court.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/10/politics...agewanted=print

Honestly?

If they are going to overturn RvW, I hope they do it before the 06 elections.

I've changed my position on Miers today.

I was saying that Dems should let her get confirmed because if she is not, Bush will nominate someone worse.

However, I now think she is probably the worst Bush can offer. So, Dems should do the right thing and vote against her--unless she prove sherself otheriwse in hearings. Good rarely comes out of doing the wrong thing (e.g. not voting your conscious in this case).

What made you change your mind? Are you still going to watch the hearings?

The hearings are worthless.

Nobody tells the truth, they don't say anything at all, and its all posing for them.
And in truth, for the Senators too.

I like what Arlen Spector said- he is going to try and find out if a back door deal
was made and W ordered Miers to vote against Roe/Wade

But it doesn't matter- anyone is just as bad.
She is not the best or worst.
Gonzales actually would be the best.
Everyone else is worst
The only bad thing about Miers is, you know she would be a vote to accept/deny a case involving W

A regular conservative judge would not be on the take of a sinking Bush
Miers would be-MAYBE or maybe she wouldn't

If Bush wanted to really shake things up, he would take this one back and name
Laura

Tell the Dems and the repubs- Go to hell-try denying Laura
It would be impossible. She would win 100 to 0
As W made remarks making her into a candidate in the past, I am surprised he didn't try this

Be careful what you wish for in denying Miers

Also, if this does fracture the Repubs, they will 3rd party in 08 if McCain or Rudy is nominated, thereby conceding to the Dems they win the presidency in 08

I agree! All Dems should vote against her. They should make as much noise as possible. Not sure if a Filibuster is called for, but after the hearings (especially with the comments of Dobson were he to be called to testify as to back room assurances), the Dems should make it clear, even with a Filibuster, they oppose the overturning of Roe!

Let the Republicans "Nuke" the Filibuster, and shove her on to the court! Then, the Dems should orchestrate a "Challenge" to Roe in some State. Let her and Roberts vote to overturn it, quickly!

But Roe/Wade is 6 to 3 now, not 5 to 4

Miers alone won't overturn it, will just make it 5 to 4

And it is not up for looking at the entire Roe v. Wade. Right now it is just partial birth

Harriet Miers will do for the Supreme Court what Michael Brown did for FEMA.

Cronyism, incompetence, blatant disregard, and contempt emanating from the office of the President of the United States of America. The worst president in US history, Bush is a glaring reflection of our failure to preserve and protect our heritage... putrefied from the decline and decay of democracy as our nation descends into the abyss of fascism and arrogance and ignorance and finally extinguished in slavery.

Yeah!...But on the brighter side...

Here is from the NY Daily News, and one reason they may as well keep Roe/wade legal

New York's $1 abort pill - a dose of danger



By NANCY DILLON
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER

A $1 pill meant to help with ulcers is gaining notoriety for its unintended side effect - it also causes abortions.
Sold under the brand name Cytotec and nicknamed "the star pill" for its hexagonal shape, misoprostol is already well known in poor, immigrant communities in New York and abroad as a cheap and private way to end an unwanted pregnancy.

"There's a black market for it," said Dr. Eric Schaff, professor of Family Medicine at the University of Buffalo. "Women get very desperate with unintended pregnancy. And legal abortions still cost several hundred dollars."

An 800-microgram dose of misoprostol, about four pills, is 60% to 90% effective at ending a pregnancy when taken alone in the first seven weeks, studies show.

Local doctors have been using it legally for years in an FDA-approved regimen that includes the abortion pill mifepristone, popularly known as RU-486.

But unprescribed misoprostol use - which is both dangerous and discouraged by the FDA - is commonplace in Latin American countries where abortion is illegal.

A 2000 study of 610 primarily Dominican women at three clinics in the city found that 37% admitted familiarity with misoprostol.

The study, conducted by doctors at Columbia Presbyterian Medical Center, also found that 5% of the women had used misoprostol, with another 15% knowing someone who had.

"My fear is that we're going to see more and more of this as legal access becomes more restricted," said Dr. Maureen Paul, chief medical officer at Planned Parenthood NYC, warning that "unsupervised misoprostol use is really not the answer."

She said complications can include infection, excessive bleeding or, in cases where the pregnancy is not aborted, serious birth defects.

Abortion foes said they're concerned misoprostol's cheap price will fuel popularity.

"Drano is probably the one thing cheaper, but I wouldn't recommend it," said Lori Kehoe, spokeswoman for the New York State Right to Life Committee, referring to the clog remover. "Regardless of price, the ultimate cost is one human life at least and possibly two."

She said she worried about women using the drug in private and not knowing whether it worked or not.

"We need to tell women the truth about the possibility that this drug can harm them and deform their children," she said.

Pro-choice advocates also worry about awareness.

"Any time women are resorting to back-street, illegal abortions, it's never as safe as a procedure done under a doctor's supervision," said Jennifer Blum of Gynuity Health, a New York nonprofit that supports access to abortion.

"Misoprostol is not an end-all solution," she said, "but it's definitely the cheapest and easiest method, and women like it because it's not invasive - with pain like normal menstrual cramps or miscarriage."

Originally published on October 8, 2005

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/354017p-301730c.html

I think evangelicals are the some of the cruelest and most shortsighted people.

Good rulings will have a better chance of happening under people like Roberts than people like Miers.

Scalia and Roberts will enslave Miers to their will, whereas someone of true brilliance may be more independant.

On the other hand, the supreme court is weird
9 people always together

For all we know Ginsberg and Miers might bond

Or Stevens might be the one
It is never guaranteed

Clarence Thomas of course is the natural example. When they vote, he always makes sure to see where Scalia's hand is and agrees. Hve they ever voted different?

Even Reinquist towards the end was occasionally moving over

So who knows how Miers would do now, but mmore important eight years from now
in the midst of Al Gore's second term

Anything is possible. But Miers is Bush's pick and is an evangelical and as such I am confident she will work overtime to be the worst judge she can possibly be.

Again, nothing good comes out of intentionally doing the wrong thing. I advise all Dems to vote your conscience instead of trying to trick fate somehow.

Her lack of experience dealing with constitutional law should be enough grounds to kill this nomination, before considerations of ideology even come into the picture.

trouble is, except for Gonzales no one else is any better.
So what's the difference really?

And he is not going to be able to name Gonzales, if he couldn't get this one passed.

Unless she backs out, she will pass...Bush won't withdraw it, as he never admits a mistake

Just gotta hope the other 5 remain healthy until a Dem is in office(Souter, Breyer, Stevens,Ginsberg,Kennedy)

From the Huffington Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/bu...d-a_b_8587.html

Thanks for the sense of humor in times such as these... of national crisis and tragedy... I have used laughter many times as a means of coping with unbearable personal loss in my life, too. After the laughter and tears, the reality remains, but some emotional release - even laughter is better than going into a complete emotional meltdown.

Laugh it up, fuzzball!

Maybe the Senators should interview Dan Rather too.
That would be poetic justice

Today in St. Paul, Senator Kerry joked: "I'm a lawyer but haven't practiced law for several years, was never a judge and I've met George Bush... I guess that makes me qualified for the Supreme Court!"

I paraphrase but it was very close to that!

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/051009/nysu009.html?.v=27

Ok, just watch the wingnuts heads explode over this one.

http://americablog.blogspot.com/2005/10/ha...ng-in-tree.html

October 11, 2005
Documents Show Miers's Close Ties to Bush
By RALPH BLUMENTHAL and SIMON ROMERO
AUSTIN, Tex., Oct. 10 - "You are the best governor ever - deserving of great respect," Harriet E. Miers wrote to George W. Bush days after his 51st birthday in July 1997. She also found him "cool," said he and his wife, Laura, were "the greatest!" and told him: "Keep up the great work. Texas is blessed."

Ms. Miers, President Bush's personal lawyer and his selection for a Supreme Court seat, emerges as an unabashed fan in more than 2,000 pages of official correspondence and personal notes made public on Monday by the Texas State Library and Archives Commission in response to open-records requests.

Mr. Bush returned the admiration, the files show. After Ms. Miers's birthday wishes, he wrote thanks and a "happy 52nd to you." He added, "I appreciate your friendship and candor - never hold back your sage advice."

The documents, including many minutes of meetings of the Texas Lottery Commission, which Ms. Miers headed, shed little light on her legal thinking, but underscore her ties to Mr. Bush. Because of their closeness and her lack of a judicial record, some critics have dismissed Ms. Miers as a crony unworthy of nomination to the court but for her confidential service as the president's lawyer.

Others question whether their bond could undermine the separation of powers of the executive and judicial branches.

More than a year into Mr. Bush's first term as governor, Ms. Miers drew on their friendship by asking the Bushes to serve as "honorary chairs" at an Anti-Defamation League dinner in 1996 honoring Ms. Miers with the Jurisprudence Award for devotion to constitutional principles and democratic values.

Mr. and Ms. Bush agreed, and the governor delivered one of the two keynote tributes, saying: "A desire to see justice done is what drives my friend Harriet Miers. And believe me, when Harriet is out for justice, she is a formidable character."

Mr. Bush added: "When it comes to cross-examination, Harriet can fillet better than Mrs. Paul. I know first-hand. She is my lawyer."

A few days later, Ms. Miers wrote to thank the Bushes, saying, "Texas has a very popular governor and first lady!" She recalled a little girl who collected Mr. Bush's autograph and said, "I was struck by the tremendous impact you have on the children whose lives you touch."

The notes to Mr. Bush date from at least March 1995, around the time he named her to the lottery commission, the files show. On March 25, on the letterhead of her Dallas law firm, Locke Purnell Rain Harrell, Ms. Miers wrote to thank him "for taking the time to visit in the office and on the plane back - cool!"

"Keep up all the great work," she wrote. "The state is in great hands. Thanks also for yours and your family's personal sacrifice."

In October 1997, Ms. Miers sent Mr. Bush a flowery greeting card in thanks for a letter that he had written on her behalf. In it, she said of his daughters: "Hopefully Jenna and Barbara recognize that their parents are 'cool' - as do the rest of us."

She added, "All I hear is how great you and Laura are doing," and ended, "Texas is blessed."

A spokesman for the White House, Allen Abney, said he did not have enough information on the exchanges to comment in detail.

"We've said all along they are close," Mr. Abney said. "The president nominated Ms. Miers because of her qualifications and because he knows her and they share the same conservative judicial philosophy."

The documents, released on Monday at the archives and covering 1995 to 2000, did not touch on her views on sensitive social issues. They also were not related to Mr. Bush's campaigns for governor and president. Those files are held with his father's papers at Texas A&M and are not public.

Before the release, the papers were reviewed by the office of Gov. Rick Perry, a Republican, which made no objections. The lottery commission blocked the release of two confidential memorandums with appeals to the state attorney general's office.

The search produced more than 2,000 pages from the 2,000 cubic feet of documents from Mr. Bush's files as governor and more than 20 square feet of records from the commission. Some papers from Ms. Miers's time at the commission , a position to which she was named by Mr. Bush, depicted her as a bureaucrat with a keen eye for procedure. They also showed she sailed through her confirmation hearing. Minutes of commission meetings showed Ms. Miers in command, questioning employees and other commissioners on topics like advertising, charitable bingo operations and bids to help manage the lotteries. One lawmaker asked what groups could run bingo, saying, "Could the Ku Klux Klan?"

Ms. Miers responded, "Well, I would certainly hope not."

Nathan Levy contributed reporting from Austin for this article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/11/politics...agewanted=print

Isn't it reassuring .. she's "cool"

Should fit in really well with the rest of the Justices.



No wonder she thinks Bush is brilliant!

Notice the fundamentalist code 'blessed' when a lot of ordinary Christians would say 'lucky' or 'fortunate'. Interestingly lucky comes from lucifer, so fundamentalists say. The Irish say 'the devil's luck', or 'the luck of the devil.' I would say we are very lucky to have such a President of the USA....so there.

I didn't realize that the term "blessed" was a code. I consider myself a normal run of the mill non-practicing Christian, and use the word often.
For instance!...I don't consider the birth of my two children a "lucky" occurrence.

What Did Rove Tell Dobson?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


David D. Kirkpatrick writes in the New York Times: "Senator Arlen Specter, the Pennsylvania Republican who is chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and several Democrats on the committee said Sunday that they were considering calling the evangelical conservative James C. Dobson to testify on what he has been told about Harriet E. Miers, the president's Supreme Court nominee. . . .

"Mr. Dobson, the influential founder of the conservative evangelical group Focus on the Family, has said he is supporting Ms. Miers's nomination in part because of something he has been told but cannot divulge. He has not disclosed the source of the information, but he has acknowledged speaking with Karl Rove, President Bush's top political adviser, about the president's pick before it was announced."

Meanwhile, an alert reader e-mails me to note that in this morning's broadcast , Dobson said that he has gotten Rove's permission to discuss their conversation and will do so on tomorrow's show.

"That conversation that I had with Karl Rove was leaked to the media by one of my close friends, for reasons that I have not yet figured out," Dobson complained. "Now it has become something of a national obsession."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5041100879.html

Dobson to clarify info
Focus on the Family founder will talk on radio about Miers

By M.E. Sprengelmeyer, Rocky Mountain News
October 11, 2005

WASHINGTON - Focus on the Family founder James Dobson will take to the airwaves Wednesday and Thursday to clarify what information he got from the White House or other sources about U.S. Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Dobson has faced a barrage of media attention in recent days because he has tentatively endorsed Miers just as other conservatives or evangelical Christian leaders have expressed doubts about her qualifications and concern about the lack of a paper trail outlining her views.


Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have said they might call Dobson to testify at Miers' upcoming confirmation hearings because of his statements implying he has confidential information about the nominee.

Last week, Dobson told listeners to his Christian-oriented radio program: "When you know some of the things I know - that I probably shouldn't know - that take me in this direction, you'll know why I've said with fear and trepidation (that) I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice."

Dobson said he spoke to President Bush's lead political adviser, Karl Rove, before the Miers nomination, although he has not said what they discussed.

That has raised concern among some U.S. senators, including Sen. Ken Salazar, D-Colo., who say the White House should tell lawmakers whatever Dobson was told.

Focus on the Family spokesman Paul Hetrick said Monday that Dobson plans to address the Miers nomination again in a two-part broadcast scheduled to air Wednesday and Thursday.

"What he knows about her so far he likes, and enough to endorse her," Hetrick said. "Like all of us, he'd like to know more."

He said Dobson is looking forward to hearing Miers testify at the upcoming hearings, but that the committee has not asked him to appear.

On Sunday, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said on the ABC network's This Week broadcast that if there are "backroom assurances" or "backroom deals" about how a nominee is going to vote, "I think that's a matter that ought to be known by the Judiciary Committee and the American people."

Questions over what Dobson knows prompted the committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Pat Leahy, D-Vt., to ask Miers last week whether she had told anyone how she would vote on any specific cases. She reportedly told Leahy: "I will be my own person. I will be independent. Nobody has the authority or right or ability to tell how I'm going to vote."

Dobson is a longtime opponent of abortion and has said he hopes the Supreme Court soon will reverse its landmark 1973 decision that cemented abortion rights. He said he believes Miers is against abortion, but in last week's broadcast added that "if I have made a mistake here, I will never forget it. The blood of those babies who will die will be on my hands to a degree."

Colorado Springs-based Focus on the Family is one of the most prominent Christian media empires in the world, with Dobson's regular radio commentaries aired on 3,500 outlets in the United States.

Hetrick said Dobson has received more than 100 media interview requests since he offered a tentative endorsement of Miers while other conservatives expressed skepticism.

"He feels that enough time has passed and enough has been said in the media that he feels he can make some additional comments to any who are interested, especially to our constituents," Hetrick said.

"Our constituents, just as everyone else in the country, are consumers of news. He would want them to have perhaps a more complete understanding of what they may be reading in the news."

Hear it live

• Focus on the Family broadcast information can be found at www.family.org/fmedia/radiolog/index.cfm



sprengelmeyerm@shns.com
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/stat...4148655,00.html

For social conservatives, it just doesn't add up
By Peter S. Canellos, Globe Columnist | October 11, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Even with control of the White House and Senate, the Republican Party doesn't have the votes to put an open opponent of abortion rights on the Supreme Court.

That's the message behind President George W. Bush's two Supreme Court picks. It may have been a simple matter of math for the White House, but it has added up to a bitter equation for social conservatives.

Last week was a time of intense frustration in the conservative movement, and it wasn't because of any particular deficiency of Bush nominee Harriet Miers: It was because Bush felt compelled to nominate someone like Miers -- a candidate with no record on abortion rights or other social issues -- and implicitly conceded that an openly conservative nominee wouldn't be confirmed.

''After working for 20 years to get to this point, to elect a president and a Republican Senate, a Republican House to change the direction of this court, to avoid the liberals being able to institutionalize their beliefs in the court . . . [the Miers nomination] has disappointed some of them," radio host Rush Limbaugh said of his listeners. ''They feel that we could win the fight, and that we could win the fight handily, and it would be a nail in the coffin of the left."

Limbaugh and others who have bemoaned the Miers nomination were clearly ready for a fight in Congress, but cooler heads in the White House felt it would be an impossible victory.

In criticizing Miers, many social conservatives hankered for another woman, Texas appeals court Judge Edith Jones, an open critic of the Roe v. Wade decision that granted abortion rights.

Last year, in the case of McCorvey v. Hill, which sought to reopen Roe v. Wade, Jones wrote: ''That the [Supreme] court's constitutional decisionmaking leaves our nation in a position of willful blindness to evolving knowledge should trouble any dispassionate observer not only about abortion decisions, but about a number of other areas in which the court unhesitatingly steps into the realm of social policy under the guise of constitutional adjudication."

Strong words, and Jones, 56, is well known both for her legal acumen and her willingness to take uncompromising stands. But she would run into a buzz saw in the Senate.

Democrats have shown uncharacteristic unity in blocking openly right-wing judicial nominees, and Jones' record is as conservative as any. A Jones nomination would almost certainly be opposed by all 44 Democrats and Independent James Jeffords of Vermont, who usually votes with the Democrats.

In addition, Republican Senators Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins of Maine, Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, and Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania have all urged Bush to choose a moderate Supreme Court nominee, and would feel betrayed by the choice of Jones.

Thus, Bush's opponents would be able to count on 49 votes against Jones before the confirmation hearings even began -- that is, before Jones would be grilled relentlessly, with her many strong-worded legal opinions and fiery speeches dissected on TV.

Then, even if the White House could hold the remaining Republicans in line, Democrats would block the nomination through a filibuster. Senate rules require 60 votes to end the filibuster, and the GOP doesn't have them. Republican leaders would try to change Senate rules, as they did last spring, to force a simple majority vote. But this time it would seem less like a matter of principle than a back-door attempt to win confirmation for a controversial nominee.

Last spring, the move to change Senate rules was opposed by Republican mavericks, including John McCain of Arizona, John Warner of Virginia, Mike DeWine of Ohio, and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina. Herding those cats back into line would require an unusual combination of White House arm-twisting and grass-roots lobbying -- something all four resisted last spring. And in changing Senate rules to push through a particular nominee, the White House couldn't necessarily count on other independent-minded GOP senators such as George Voinovich of Ohio and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. There aren't enough carrots and sticks in White House to win over all those senators in the best of times, and these haven't been the best of times for Bush.

The numbers just don't add up. Limbaugh and his listeners may be armed for battle, but their fight was effectively over last spring, when the GOP failed to change the filibuster rules.

Now, social conservatives must wait to see if Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Miers prove to be right-wingers; it could be a long, painful wait.

Peter S. Canellos is the Globe's Washington bureau chief. National Perspective is his weekly analysis of events in the capital and beyond.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt..._add_up?mode=PF

Rove had to tell Dobson that Miers will vote to overturn Roe. So will Roberts. Graham says that still doesn't constitute enough votes to overturn Roe. Is this true? If it is now 6 to 3, and with Miers 5 to 4 (to uphold Roe). Then, who else will be "encouraged" to resign or "croak"?

John Paul Stevens is 85 years old, but I expect that he will do like Renquist and he will only leave on a stretcher.

I was brought up a Catholic and we used 'lucky' a lot. But for a baby being born we would be thankful to God, if everything went fine. I first heard the use of 'blessed' instead of 'lucky' with my evangelical fundamentalist Christian friends. They would avoid 'lucky' like the plague. Maybe things are different in America. But Catholic people here are very carefree about their language use, I am referring to Americans and Phillipinos.

The fact that those who oppose her on the right are mostly the "thinkers", and those who are supporting her (or at least not in revolt) are the wild eyed Fanatics. Tells me she will vote to overturn Roe.

She is also a Corporate Lawyer so she believes in the rights of the Big Guys over the Little Guy. However, she refused to join the Federalist Society, so that suggests to me two things. ;

1. The Federalist Society agenda is to indeed be for the dominance of Corporations over Average Americans which she probably also advocates.

2. However, as this is furthered by the Republicans remaining in power; They will opine loudly against Roe, but never actually vote to overturn it !

When their people become Judges, or Justices, they are on board with this secret pledge, because a vote to overturn may destroy the Republican Party. She may reject the hypocracy of that position.

This may explain the split.

If this woman gets confirmed than I really do believe in 'dumbing down'

Those papers today with the notes and cards to and from Bush sound like a teenager for crying out loud !

The SCOTUS is going to be COOL!

I do know it isn't funny BTW.

Here's the thing-

It is now middle of Oct.2005
Nov.2006 is elections
Jan 2007 innaugurations

If Dems win Senate or get it close, Bush cannot nominate anyone

For all you know Miers and Ginsberg will bond and be buddy/buddy and she will vote like Ginsberg (probably not, but you never know)

I wonder- as they will not do a vote on her until after Thanksgiving probably, what if Bush and all are indicted end of October?
hmmmmm.............it boggles the mind.

I still say, if she is voted down, Bush is finished. He is staking everything on this woman

But if that happened, won't Bush simply execute another 911 type of plan to herd in the straying sheep again?

Graham the chances of her voting with Ginsberg are about as good as a snowball's chances in ..... She will do exactly what Bush tells her to do. The woman hero worships him .. which shows the level of intelligence in that potential Justice.

Those notes released today were pathetic. My 15 year old granddaughter shows more maturity.

again-I am saying in 2009, say.

Once the Bush regime is history...who knows what she would do