Bush touting Miers and religion

On Wednesday, October 12, Bush met with Poland's President Aleksander Kwasniewski, and then they appeared before the media. One of the questions to Bush addressed the Miers nomination.

Q: Thank you, Mr. President. Why do people in this White House feel it's necessary to tell your supporters that Harriet Miers attends a very conservative Christian church? Is that your strategy to repair the divide that has developed among conservatives over her nominee?

PRESIDENT BUSH: People ask me why I picked Harriet Miers. They want to know Harriet Miers' background; they want to know as much as they possibly can before they form opinions. And part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion. Part of it has to do with the fact that she was a pioneer woman and a trailblazer in the law in Texas. I remind people that Harriet Miers is one of the -- has been rated consistently one of the top 50 women lawyers in the United States. She's eminently qualified for the job. And she has got a judicial philosophy that I appreciate; otherwise I wouldn't have named her to the bench, which is -- or nominated her to the bench -- which is that she will not legislate from the bench, but strictly interpret the Constitution.

(emphasis added). Forget for the moment that one's religion is not a qualification to serve on the Supreme Court. Instead, focus on yet more examples of abject hypocrisy by the Bush administration.

An examination of what Bush said upon nominating John Roberts first for Associate Justice and then Chief Justice shows that at those times, religion had absolutely nothing to do with pertinent qualifications. On July 19, 2005, Bush officially introduced Roberts as the nominee to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and he discussed some of Roberts's life:

Judge Roberts was born in Buffalo and grew up in Indiana. In high school, he captained his football team, and he worked summers in a steel mill to help pay his way through college. He's an honors graduate of both Harvard College and Harvard Law School. In his career, he has served as a law clerk to Justice William Rehnquist, as an Associate Counsel to President Ronald Reagan, and as the Principal Deputy Solicitor General in the Department of Justice.

*******

In my meetings with Judge Roberts, I have been deeply impressed. He's a man of extraordinary accomplishment and ability. He has a good heart. He has the qualities Americans expect in a judge: experience, wisdom, fairness, and civility. He has profound respect for the rule of law and for the liberties guaranteed to every citizen. He will strictly apply the Constitution and laws, not legislate from the bench.

He's also a man of character who loves his country and his family. I'm pleased that his wife, Jane, and his two beautiful children, Jack and Josie, could be with us tonight. Judge Roberts has served his fellow citizens well, and he is prepared for even greater service.

Notice there was no mention of religion or faith at all. On September 5, 2005, Bush said the following about Roberts:

This summer I announced the nomination of Judge John Roberts to be associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. I choose Judge Roberts from among the most distinguished jurists and attorneys in the country because he possesses the intellect, experience and temperament to be an outstanding member of our nation's Highest Court.

For the past two months, members of the United States Senate and the American people have learned about the career and character of Judge Roberts. They like what they see. He's a gentleman. He's a man of integrity and fairness. And throughout his life, he has inspired the respect and loyalty of others. John Roberts has built a record of excellence and achievement, and a reputation for goodwill and decency toward others.

Once again, there was no mention of Roberts's religion.

And yet, in the face of all the accurate observations that, at the very least, Miers has nowhere near the same qualifications as Roberts, Bush expressly tells us that Miers's religion is relevant to being qualified to be on the Supreme Court.

And then of course Scotty Boy McClellan tried to tell everyone that Bush did not say that. About an hour and a half after Bush's comments on October 12, Scotty had a press briefing, and Bush's comments about Miers's religion were discussed. You know, if Scotty could ever just answer a question in a straightforward manner, I would stop printing such lengthy excerpts from his briefings. However, the lengthy excerpts are necessary to show the depth of his bullshit. In this lengthy excerpt, pay attention to how he tries to say that Miers's religion is irrelevant and how he completely avoids explaining why religion was never mentioned in connection with Roberts. I will add some commentary as we go...

Q: Scott, the President has said that religion was part of Harriet Miers' life, and the White House's outreaching has mentioned the fact that she does go to this conservative Christian church --

MR. McCLELLAN: Outreaching -- reaching out.

Q: Reaching out, outreaching. No such efforts were made, not to this extent, anyway, in terms of Chief Justice Roberts. No one in the White House even mentioned his religion, as best we can tell. Why is this case --

MR. McCLELLAN: In terms of outreach?

Q: In terms of talking about his religion --

MR. McCLELLAN: I think it's well-known that he is a person of faith, as well.

Q: I know, but it was never -- it never was brought up at this podium, and the President never mentioned it.

MR. McCLELLAN: Where have I brought up Harriet Miers' religion at this podium?

COMMENT: No one said you brought up Miers's religion. The reporter said that you never brought up Roberts's religion.

Q: Do you think Harriet Miers' religion is being emphasized more by this administration than Chief Justice Roberts' was?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, Harriet Miers is a person of faith. She recognizes, however, that a person's religion or personal views have no role when it comes to making decisions as a judge. A judge should make decisions based on our constitution and our laws. That's the role of a judge. A judge should look at the facts and apply the law. And that's just like Judge Roberts. He recognized that, as well, that someone's ideology or religion has no role to play when it comes to making decisions on our nation's highest court. That's what the American people expect.

I think when you're talking about our outreach, or reaching out, we do reach out to a lot of people. And Harriet Miers is not someone who has sought the limelight. So there are a lot of Americans who are just beginning to get to know who she is. And we're confident that, as they do, they will see what the President has known for some time now, which is that she will make an outstanding Supreme Court justice. But what we emphasize in the outreach to people we talk to is that she has the qualifications and experience and judicial philosophy that is needed on our nation's highest court. The President appointed her, or nominated her, because she is eminently well-qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. We should be looking at a nominee's record and that nominee's qualifications and their judicial temperament. She is someone who believes in strictly interpreting our Constitution and our laws. And that's why the President selected her.

COMMENT: Notice that Scotty never answered the question, but instead tried to say that Miers is just like Roberts.

Q: So if her personal views and ideology have no bearing on --

MR. McCLELLAN: You just had your question.

Q; -- the judicial decision --

MR. McCLELLAN: You're taking away from others.

COMMENT: Perhaps I should start calling McClellan "Snotty."

Q: -- what relevance does it play in a conversation between Karl Rove and James Dobson? Why would he bring it up, even?

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I think you're being very selective in what you're talking about from the conversation, because I know what Karl emphasized in that conversation is her qualifications and her background, and her judicial philosophy.

Q: Also that she's a member of a very conservative church.

MR. McCLELLAN: That she is a person of faith. She is someone who attends church on a regular basis. And people want to know who she is. They want to know her qualifications, they want to know her background, they want to know her experience. And that's all part of reaching out to people to gain support for her nomination.

COMMENT: Notice that Snotty did not deny that Rove told SpongeDob that Miers was a member of a very conservative church. Does anyone really think that SpongeDob cares about judicial philosophy more than what church Miers attends?

Q: But in the context of the conversation between the President's Deputy Chief of Staff and Senior Advisor and the head of a very conservative Christian organization, it sounds like code.

MR. McCLELLAN: John, what Karl emphasized in that conversation is that she is someone that has the qualifications and experience and the judicial philosophy that the American people want to see on our nation's highest court. And that's why the President selected her.

COMMENT: See previous comment.

Q: Back to Miers for a moment. When you say that Ms. Miers understands that religion has no role in the business of the Court, at the same time the President has said he knows her heart, her beliefs, her character; he talked today about people wanting to know about her life and, therefore, her religion. How are we not to interpret that her religion was one of the factors in his selection?

MR. McCLELLAN: The President makes selections based on potential nominees' qualifications and experience and judicial temperament. That is what he has done in each and every instance when it comes to appointing people to the bench. He has a long track record of appointing people who have a conservative judicial philosophy, one that is based on interpreting our Constitution and our laws, not making law from the bench. And that's what he bases his decisions on, not someone's religion.

Q: So her religion played no role in her making it to the final group and then, ultimately --

MR. McCLELLAN: No, the President makes decisions based on the person's qualifications and experience and judicial temperament.

COMMENT: Then please explain why Bush expressly mentioned Miers's religion.

Q: All right. So there was no -- no role at all in the President's decision-making of Harriet Miers' religion?

MR. McCLELLAN: That's part of who she is. That's part of her background. That's what the President was talking about in his remarks in the Oval Office.

Q: Why is Karl Rove calling up religious leaders telling them it's okay, she belongs to an ultra evangelical church?

MR. McCLELLAN: We're calling up a lot of people --

Q: Why that?

MR. McCLELLAN: -- to reach out to them and talk to them about the President's selection of Harriet Miers. And what he is emphasizing in those conversations, Terry, is that she is someone who is strongly committed to a conservative judicial philosophy.

Q: What is somebody's --

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, why wouldn't --

Q: Wait, wait, wait. What relevance does how a person prays have to the judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: Didn't say that it did.

Q: So why are you peddling it?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of her background, Terry; it's part of who she is.

Q: But you just said it was relevant to judicial philosophy.

MR. McCLELLAN: People want to know who she is. And when you're getting to know someone, you want to know what their qualifications and experience are, you want to know what their judicial philosophy is, and you want to know who they are. Faith is very important to Harriet Miers. But she recognizes that faith and that her religion and that her personal views don't have a role to play when it comes to making decisions.

COMMENT: This is Snotty at his best. He never answered the question. Instead he just kept repeating catch phrases.

Q: It seems that what you're doing is trying to calm a revolt on the right concerned that Harriet Miers isn't conservative enough, by saying, it's okay, she is conservative enough, because she goes to this church.

MR. McCLELLAN: No, it seems like the media wants to focus on things other than her qualifications. Maybe your news organization would rather focus on things other than her qualifications and record. The President believes we should focus on her qualifications and her record and her judicial philosophy. And that's what we emphasize.

COMMENT: As I and scores of others have explained, she has NO qualifications to serve on the Supreme Court. Moreover, the media is focusing on her religion because Bush has expressly focused on her religion.

Q: Why is his top aide going around and telling people how she prays?

MR. McCLELLAN: He's simply talking about who she is and what her background is. And you're being very selective in your comments there, because what he emphasized and what Dr. Dobson said he emphasized, was her conservative judicial philosophy. That's what it should be based on.

Q: Scott, isn't -- the bleed-over here, though, is that if we understood the account correctly -- and it doesn't sound like you're disputing it -- that Karl was making an argument that her religious faith and her membership in the evangelical church was evidence of what her judicial philosophy -- conservative judicial philosophy would be. He was using it to buttress the question of how she would rule -- am I misunderstanding that?

MR. McCLELLAN: See, David, there's some that have -- no, there's some that have a litmus test for the Supreme Court. The President does not. The President does not ask candidates their views on issues that may be controversial, like abortion. The President looks at them and asks them what their judicial philosophy is; are they someone who is going to strictly interpret our Constitution and our laws, rather than -- and not make law from the bench. The President doesn't believe people should be legislating from the bench. He believes that judges ought to be looking at the law and applying the law.

Q: Scott, if that's the case, then, wouldn't Karl's statement to Mr. Dobson have been, "you know, what church she belongs to is completely irrelevant to how she would serve on the Supreme Court; I'm not even going to tell you what church she went to because it doesn't have anything to do with her philosophy." Wouldn't that be the consistent statement?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of who she is, David. We're just pointing out facts about who she is. But that's not what we're emphasizing. What we're emphasizing is her judicial philosophy and her experience and her qualifications.

COMMENT: If Rove really was emphasizing Miers's judicial philosophy, then please explain why on October 5, 2005--several days after Rove spoke to him and after he endorsed Miers--SpongeDob said on his radio broadcast "Lord, you know I don't have the wisdom to make this decision. You know that what I feel now and what I think is right may be dead wrong." On the air one week later, Dobson explained his conversation with Rove. He stated that Rove did say that Miers's judicial philosophy was the same as Bush's, but he disclosed that Karl also talked about religion:

What did Karl Rove say to me that I knew on Monday that I couldn’t reveal? Well, it’s what we all know now, that Harriet Miers is an Evangelical Christian, that she is from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life, that she had taken on the American Bar Association on the issue of abortion and fought for a policy that would not be supportive of abortion, that she had been a member of the Texas Right to Life.

If the greater emphasis was on judicial philosophy, that would mean that Dobson was uncertain about Miers because she was an evangelical Christian from a conservative church and had been a member of Texas Right to Life. Yeah, right. The point is that the only thing that was keeping Dobson on board was Miers's religion. Any other conclusion is delusional. That means that the major emphasis by Rove was religion.

Q: So there was no effort, to your mind, that it was not Mr. Rove's desire here to use her church background as evidence of how she may approach cases from the bench?

MR. McCLELLAN: I think I already described what we were talking about in these outreach efforts. If you want to interpret them differently, that's your right to do.

Q: I was asking how you were interpreting.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I just explained it.

COMMENT: Well, no, you did not.

Q: You talk about conservative judicial philosophy. As you know, there is a difference between conservative judicial philosophy and conservative ideology. Were both equally important to the President in picking Harriet Miers?

MR. McCLELLAN: I just told you what the President looks for when he nominates someone to the bench. He has a long track record of appointing people who are highly qualified and people who have a conservative judicial philosophy. That's what you're looking for in a judge -- you want someone that is going to apply the law, not try to legislate from the bench. And that's why the President -- in part, is why the President selected Harriet Miers.

He also selected her because she is someone who is exceptionally well-qualified to serve in our nation's highest court. Some have tried to create a different standard when it comes to the confirmation process for a Supreme Court justice. I would encourage you to go back and look at her record and look at her qualifications. She is very accomplished. She is someone who has a distinguished career and a long record of accomplishment. She was one of the top 50 women lawyers in the nation, named by a national journal, on a number of occasions. She is someone who has been a trailblazer for women in the legal profession. She has broken the glass ceiling when it comes to the legal profession in Texas, serving as the first woman president of the Dallas Bar Association and then the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association. And she's on track to be the number two leader at the American Bar Association. She is someone who has a record of overcoming obstacles throughout her life.

Q: That doesn't answer my question. Is it --

COMMENT: Snotty certainly did not answer the question. Aside from that, being "accomplished" does not necessarily mean that a person is qualified to be on the Supreme Court. I will address this matter in a separate--and brief--post.

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I disagree because I think it's important --

Q: No, no, no. Here is my question. Is it as important to the President that his nominee, that Harriet Miers has a conservative ideology, as a conservative judicial philosophy?

MR. McCLELLAN: He bases it on their judicial philosophy and their qualifications and experience. That's what he makes decisions on. Again, your question implies that there are litmus tests. There are not litmus tests when it comes --

Q: I wasn't implying anything. I was asking --

COMMENT: Conservative ideology is not the same thing as a conservative judicial philosophy. For instance, I have a rather conservative judicial philosophy, but I am no conservative in terms of political ideology. And did the reporter say anything that resembled "litmus test"? That answer is "NO."

MR. McCLELLAN: Well, sure, because a person's ideology and personal views have no role to play when they're making decisions as a judge. A judge makes decisions by looking at the case and looking at the facts and then applying the law. That's what the American people expect, and that's the type of people that the President has always appointed to the bench.

Q: If personal views don't have a role to play, then why would anybody from the White House talk about what church she goes to and what the beliefs are of the people in the church?

MR. McCLELLAN: It's part of who she is. And faith has played an important part in her life. But she recognizes that religion and personal views and ideology don't have a role to play when you're a judge, but people want to know who she is. And that's been an important part of her life.

COMMENT: Let me see if I understand...Religion and personal views and ideology don't have a role to play when you're a judge, but Bush wants to make sure we know about Miers's religion and personal views and ideology.

I am so sick and tired of this administration's bullshit. Bush never said anything about Roberts's religion being in any way relevant to his nominations to the Supreme Court even though it was well known that Roberts was (and is) a devout Catholic. And then he turns right around and expressly says that Miers's religion is relevant to her qualifications to be on the Supreme Court. Snotty McClellan said that Rove did not emphasize religion in giving a confidential briefing to SpongeDob when the facts show otherwise. And so on and so on...

Woe to you hypocrites.