I haven't weighed in on my feelings about Harriet Miers yet. I don't know her, but if she's a strict constructionist, she would probably get my vote if I had one. I said before the last presidential election that the single most important issue of who we elect as president would be judicial appointments, and that is turning out to be so true. I don't mindlessly fall in step behind James Dobson, but on this subject I agree very much with him. I do respect his opinion on most subjects though.
Below is a segment of the radio show Dr. James Dobson did this past Wednesday, with John Fuller interviewing.
_________________________________________________
(Dobson speaking on Focus on the Family Radio Program)
One thing is clear. We know emphatically that Justices Souter and Kennedy and Breyer and Ginsburg and Stevens have made up their mind about Roe v. Wade, by politicizing their decrees on that issue and others. They have usurped the right of the people to govern themselves and they imposed a radical agenda on this country. And John, as long as I'm talking about that, let me say one other thing.
More recently, they have been drawing some of their conclusions, not from the Constitution and not from precedent and not from the American people, but from public opinion in Western Europe. You know, that's one of the most outrageous developments in the history of the Court. American public opinion is ignored and so are previous Court decisions or precedent. And frequently, the Constitution itself is bypassed. And instead they favor the views of people who have no commitment to our freedoms and our traditions that the Founding Fathers gave us.
So, I want the President to appoint someone who will go to the original intent of the Constitution and tell us what the founding fathers meant. If we don't like what they wrote, there's a process to change it. But the way it works now, every time the Court meets, it can be more or less a constitutional convention, where five or more justices reinterpret the meaning of that precious document.
Now Karl Rove didn't tell me all of that, but what he said, in essence, is that Harriet Miers is a strict constructionist, which is why the President likes her.
And you know, I've never met her; I don't have any personal communication with her. I've never received a letter or a phone call from her or any firsthand knowledge, but I do believe President Bush is serious when he says this is the kind of person I'm looking for and Harriet Miers is such a person.
Nevertheless, what the Democrats have concluded in their wildest speculation is that Mr. Rove laid out for me a detailed promise that Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade and revealed all the other judicial opinions that she has supposedly prejudged. It did not happen, period!
Senator Leahy was speaking on George Stephanopoulos's program, "This Week" on Sunday, just past. And this is what he said and I quote. This is word for word: "James Dobson has said that he knew privately; he had private assurances of how she would vote." Well, Leahy is either lying or he's given to his own delusions or he's got some problem somewhere, because that's flat out not true.
Nowhere have I been quoted making such a statement, because it's not true.
Again John, last Sunday, Democrats were on all the talk shows and nearly all of them mentioned me one way or another. Senator Schumer from New York, referred to my conversations with Karl Rove as a "wink and a whisper," you know, trying to make something sinister out of it.
It's obvious what the agenda is here.
_________________________________________________
(full transcript here)
No comments:
Post a Comment