Political Crossfire Forums

[F'losrix]

Exerpts from this article:

The head of one of the country's leading anti-gay groups may be called to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee about what he was told by White House adviser Karl Rove about Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers.

Specially, committee members from both parties, including chairman Senator Arlen Specter, want to know if Focus on the Family's James C. Dobson was given "back room assurances" that Miers would oppose same-sex marriage and Roe v Wade if appointed to the high court.

The questions began to arise last week after a comment Dobson made on his nationally broadcast radio program.

"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," Dobson told listeners.

Dobson's comments raise the specter that Rove and other aides know more than is being provided to the committee. If such guarantees on how Miers might rule were made they may also have been illegal.

Spector raised the possibility of calling Dobson to testify during a Sunday interview on ABC's "This Week."

"If Dr. Dobson knows something that he shouldn't know or something that I ought to know, I'm going to find out," Specter said.

"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."

Last week the Republican national Committee hosted a conference call between White House aides and conservative religious leaders in an attempt to win their support for Miers.

Along with Dobson, RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman, White House Political Director Sara Taylor and others in the Administration spoke with Chuck Colson and Pat Robertson protege Jay Sekulow, among others.

During the call Taylor promised social conservatives that Miers "will make decisions not only based on what is in the Constitution, but based on what she believes strongly in."

That is NOT how a supreme court justice is supposed to operate - their guide is supposed to be the 'rule of law', not their personally held beliefs.

Hence my numerous claims that she's a stealth candidate. They're going to try to put an idealogue on the bench and the only way they can accomplish it is to nominate someone like Miers with very little track record.

Perhaps somewhat fortunately, Dobson didn't know enough to keep is mouth shut after he talked to Rove. Not that I think it will make a difference. Her confirmation hearings may not be a 'cake walk', but I think she'll be confirmed nonetheless.

[Enoch]

I don't doubt that Miers will be confirmed either. If she is dealing with Dobson it could be an indication of where she stands on issues, before she even gets on the bench.

[F'losrix]

Some more on this (with emphasis added):

According to a transcript of his radio broadcast today, Mr. Dobson said he was referring to a confidential telephone conversation with Karl Rove, the president's top political adviser, about Ms. Miers that occurred two days before Mr. Bush announced her selection. Mr. Rove gave Mr. Dobson permission to discuss the call, and much of the information has now become public, Mr. Dobson said.

In addition to telling Mr. Dobson about her membership in a conservative evangelical church and her past support for an anti-abortion group in Texas, Mr. Rove assured him that Ms. Miers was the kind of conservative jurist that the president had promised to appoint, and that "the president knew her well enough to say so with complete confidence," Mr. Dobson recounted.

I missed that little detail before - I thought they talked after the nomination was announced in an effort to assuage the fears of the conservative base. But if the White House staff was talking to someone like Dobson about the nomination before it was announced, that puts a whole new perspective on the allegations of backroom dealing.

The stench just gets stronger the more we learn.

Link to the article quoted above

And this is interesting - apparently a fair number of G.O.P. legal staffers are not only opposed but downright hostile to this nomination? Gotta wonder what's up with that.