What does James Dobson know about Harriet Miers that the rest of us don’t know? That question has been pressing since last week, when the Focus on the Family founder told his radio listeners that he was supporting Miers because of something White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had told him. The Denver Post even opined that Dobson and Miers should both be called to testify at the confirmation hearings for Miers’ nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court. Dobson is expected to say more on the radio today, having secured Rove’s permission to do so (is Plamegate prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald taking notes?). All of which should make Americans wonder: Why is the White House telling Dobson things about Miers that it isn’t telling the rest of us?
Posted by Rhonda Holman
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- littlejohn on Let immigrants run
- writerdog on Minority status in Senate; majority approval at home
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- Pleefer on Open thread 11/23
- writerdog on Let immigrants run
- Regular on Open thread 11/23
- JimJohnson on Let immigrants run
- Heckler on Open thread 11/23
13 Comments
Maybe she will overturn Roe vs. Wade. What is funny about the anti-aborition crowd who do nothing but to see that Row vs. Wade is overturn, and even if it does, does not make aborition illegal and aborition in this country will always remain, they will never stop it.
But that’s ok. Gives these groups perpetual exisitance to collect money and protest in front of schools.
As far as Dr. Dobson, I have no idea who he is.
Why is the White House telling Dobson things about Miers that it isn’t telling the rest of us?
How’s about because they aren’t! Sorry Rhonda. PS-You may not like Dobson (OK, you don’t) but isn’t he a private citizen allowed to have a private conversation?
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/3392437
So would it be unethical for Dobson to speak to Rove about Miers, I don’t understand the problem here. The White House speaking to a supporter about a Supreme Court nominee? Where’s the impropriety there? What is it you are concerned about Rhonda, there’s nothing unusual about this. It’s no different than the Clinton White House talking with someone from Planned Parenthood about the nomination of Ruth (a fifteen year old should be able to cross state lines for an abortion without telling her parents)Ginsburg.
Heckler and others,
The impropriety comes from Karl Rove giving assurances that Harriet Miers would vote a certain way on an upcoming SCOTUS case. If he were to do so, the correct inference would be that Harriet Miers had told him how she’d vote.
The right-wing judicial fantasy is that no justice EVER has an opinion prior to seeing the facts of the case–they’re all supposed to ’strict constructionists,’ after all, rather than ‘judicial activists.’ But for Rove to give such assurances shows how false this right-wing judicial claim is, because Miers OBVIOUSLY has a position, and Rove OBVIOUSLY knows it. She’s plenty activist; otherwise how would she have gotten the nomination? But of course, when she goes before the Judiciary Committee, she’ll do like Roberts: she can’t comment on any cases that may come before the court, and all she’s doing is judging the law, not making it.
Beyond that, the further issue is this: why should Ayatollah James Dobson receive private assurances that a SCOTUS candidate will vote a certain way, when the Senators on the Judiciary Committee will not be told this same information?
That’s the issue. The Bush Administration can’t have it both ways. They can’t give personal assurances to the fence-sitters among the President’s supporters that she’ll oppose abortion, while claiming before the Judiciary Committee that she has an open mind when it comes to how she’ll rule on Roe vs. Wade.
CF
Wow, talk about inside information, you have it. Since you know what they talked about, what assurances were given it should be you that is called to tesify.
Up yours, Darrell.
I didn’t go on national radio claiming to have assurances that Harriet Miers’ views would be acceptable to anti-abortion fundamentalist Christians.
I’d LOVE to know her true views.
Don’t you love this conservative disingenuousness?
“the Focus on the Family founder told his radio listeners that he was supporting Miers because of something White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove had told him.”
We don’t know what they talked about, they intone . . .
Technically that’s true, but when a hugely influential conservative who delivers millions of votes to the Bush column expresses concern about Miers, then meets with Rove and says this, and then says, “we welcome the president’s nomination,” you don’t have to be Einstein to conclude that Rove discussed Miers’s positions.
Why do conservatives have to constantly hide behind closed doors?
We hide behind closed doors to consprie to do away with all liberals, or maybe better yet to allow the liberal imagination to run wild, which is much more entertaining. However, in this case I am sure Dr. Dobson obtained highly secret information about the appointment that you will never know. This is great entainment please keep it up.
Well, the cat’s escaped from the sackcloth! Bush has just told us that he picked Miers primarily for her membership in a church that was “universally pro-life.” If that isn’t a religious test, I don’t know what is! She was chosen for one issue, and one issue only- to overturn Roe V. Wade, and the Constitution be damned.So much for any “stealth” the religious extremists might have wanted.
Why would anybody in their right mind give a rat’s patoot about anything Dobson has to say about anything?
A fair and balanced Supreme Court is a necessity. With people like Clarence Thomas, that shiftsit quite a bit. Meirs, now that we know why Bush picked her, would shift the court so far right, they couldn’t make a left turn, or drive straight for that matter.The rules would have to be reinvented. The constitution rewritten. This is one person who doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court bench, no way, no how.And bringing up Bush’s reason for selecting her just tells us, again, how stupid this moron is. No president has used religion (at least openly) as a criteria in the selection process. There’s a reason: Church and State. They work much better separated.
Rhonda: “Why is the White House telling Dobson things about Miers that it isn’t telling the rest of us?”
Anyone trying to understand George W. Bush is too drunk to drive.
Keys please.
CIA and Plame seek written assurances over DOJ DO NOT PROSECUTE Plame:
Senior Democrats seek assurances, final leak investigation reportLarisa Alexandrovna
Print This | Email This
The ranking member on the House Permanent Committee on Select Intelligence along with other senior Democrats issued a letter today requesting that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald submit a final and public report on his two-year investigation into the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame Wilson.
The letter, released to RAW STORY, requests “assurance that, upon completion” of the investigation “[Fitzgerald] will submit a final public report to Congress of all indictments, convictions, and any decisions not to prosecute.” Normally, special prosecutors are required to submit a report to the U.S. Attorney General. Fitzgerald’s Grand Jury expires Oct. 28.
Signed by Jane Harman (D-CA), John Conyers (D-Michigan), Tom Lantos (D-CA) and Rush Holt (D-NJ), the letter expresses concern about any possible appearance of political influence and for possible acquiescence of legal authorities given the high level status of those under investigation.
Advertisement