Knights of Columbus

(This article was never finished due to fact that some of sources were uncooperative in prooding citations-stay tuned as article is retrieved, some Pro-Roberts/Miers postings by Knights of Columbus, bear in mind, both have made Pro-choice positions).



Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court

8/4/2005


Resolution of the Nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court Adopted by the 123rd Supeme Council Meeting on Aug. 4, 2005.

WHEREAS, Judge John G. Roberts has been nominated to become an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court; and WHEREAS, Judge Roberts is exceptionally well qualified, having demonstrated an excellent judicial temperament as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, an intellectual capacity of the highest order, and an extraordinary breadth of legal experience that includes arguing 39 cases before the Supreme Court as a practicing attorney;

NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Knights of Columbus urges the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct prompt, fair and expeditious hearings on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the United States Supreme Court and urges the full Senate to consider his nomination without delay or filibuster, and to allow him an up-or-down vote on his confirmation;
and FURTHER RESOLVED, that we strongly condemn any effort to block or impede his confirmation based upon his position on whether Roe v. Wade should be reconsidered;
and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that we urge all U.S. members to contact their Senators asking them to support an up-or-down vote on the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court.





Knights Will Never Consider Roe v. Wade Settled Constitutional Law
Printer-friendly version

8/4/2005


123rd Convention Condemns Any Use of Pro-Roe Litmus Test for Roberts

Delegates to the 123rd annual convention of the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic lay organization with 1.7 million members, today adopted resolutions declaring that the organization "will never consider Roe v. Wade to be settled constitutional law," and urging the U.S. Senate to "conduct prompt, fair and expeditious hearings on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the United States Supreme Court."

The resolution on Roe v. Wade "condemn[s] any use of a pro-Roe litmus test by members of the U.S. Senate when considering nominees for the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, and we call on all Catholic senators to cease and desist from opposing, directly or indirectly, the teaching of the Catholic Church on the inviolability of innocent human life." The resolution recalls that the court's 1973 decision in Roe "was accurately described by Justice Byron White as an exercise of 'raw judicial power,'" and that legal scholars have described it as "bad constitutional law," and based on "multiple and profound misapprehensions of law and history."

The resolution on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court urges the Senate "to consider his nomination without delay or filibuster, and to allow him an up-or-down vote on his confirmation." It also states that the Knights of Columbus "strongly condemn[s] any effort to block or impede his confirmation based upon his position on whether Roe v. Wade should be reconsidered."

The resolution on John Roberts urges all Knights in the U.S. "to contact their senators asking them to support an up-or-down vote" Roberts' nomination.

During his annual address to the Knights of Columbus convention on Tuesday, Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said that in Roe v. Wade, "the Supreme Court created out of whole cloth a 'right' to extinguish the life of an innocent unborn child. And in the process, it seized for itself a power that no one has a right to exercise."


Roberts Confirmation is "Encouraging"
Printer-friendly version

9/29/2005


Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said that the confirmation of John Roberts as Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court "is an encouraging sign that this time, at least, pro-abortion groups did not have the ability to hijack the judicial nomination process in Washington.
"Chief Justice Roberts responded to his harshest critics on the Senate Judiciary Committee with skill, honesty and good humor. And while it is disappointing that 22 senators chose to vote against a man who is so clearly well qualified for this position, we are glad that opponents did not resort to a filibuster, and hope that future nominations to the Supreme Court will be handled in a similarly straightforward manner," Anderson said.
At the 2005 Knights of Columbus convention in Chicago in August, delegates adopted a resolution declaring that Roberts was "exceptionally well qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court, and calling upon senators to "conduct prompt, fair and expeditious hearings," to "consider his nomination without delay or filibuster," and to "allow him an up-or-down vote on his confirmation."
"The Senate did all of these things, and that's a very good sign," Anderson said. "We fervently hope that the same courtesy is extended to the next nominee as well." Anderson attended Roberts' swearing-in ceremony at the White House.


Supreme Court Nomination "First Rate"
Printer-friendly version

7/21/2005


Judge Roberts "among the finest judges in the land," Anderson Says

Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson called Judge John Roberts "a first-rate choice for the U.S. Supreme Court." President Bush announced that he would nominate Roberts in a nationally-televised address July 19.

"Judge Roberts is exactly the kind of nominee that members of both parties have described as the kind of choice the President should make," Anderson said.

"He is one of the brightest legal minds in America, graduating at the top of his class at Harvard Law School, and has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity and superb judicial temperament on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit."

"During his years in private practice," Anderson recalled, "he argued a case pro bono -- free of charge -- on behalf of some of the District's neediest welfare recipients, who were about to lose their benefits under the D.C. Public Assistance Act.

"He is someone who knows and appreciates the plight of the poor, especially those who have the most difficult time getting fair and even-handed treatment in our legal system.
"Judge Roberts' experience in private practice, in the executive branch, and as a judge make him exceptionally well-qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and we applaud President Bush for making such an excellent nomination to fill the vacancy created by Justice O'Connor's retirement," Anderson concluded.

Publishing a story about the Knights of Columbus? See our For the News Media page.
Copyright © Knights of Columbus 2003. All rights reserved.See Privacy Policy and Terms of Service for details.
Senate Should Act Promptly on Miers Nomination, Anderson says
Printer-friendly version


10/4/2005


Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson said Oct. 4 that "the Senate should give the nomination of Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to replace retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the same prompt, fair and expeditious consideration as it did for John Roberts."
Anderson noted that "although Harriet Miers is not as well known as other candidates the president considered for the nomination, she clearly shares with him the fundamental belief that the court's job is to faithfully interpret the Constitution, not to rewrite it to suit someone's policy agenda. Throughout his tenure in the White House, President Bush has been remarkably consistent in nominating qualified men and women to the federal bench who share his values and beliefs regarding the proper role of the judiciary, and there is no reason to believe that Ms. Miers is an exception."

"President Bush has appointed more than 200 federal judges, and from Chief Justice Roberts to the many excellent judges he has nominated to the federal circuit and district courts, they are solid advocates of judicial restraint who do not legislate from the bench," Anderson said. "The president has earned the right to be taken at his word that Harriet Miers will be a justice in that mold."


+++UPDATE+++

I cannot find the article, it may have been cleansed. Here is a good one from NOR:


Here Come the Catholic Cheerleaders October 2005

When President Bush announced the nomination of John G. Roberts for the Supreme Court on July 19, the next day's newspapers gave us everything we needed to know about Roberts. As we noted in our New Oxford Note (Sept., pp. 15-16, 18): "When Roberts was asked by the Senate Judiciary Committee for his appointment to the Court of Appeals on April 30, 2003, about his views on Roe, he said: 'Roe vs. Wade is an interpretation of the Court's prior precedents. You can read the opinion beginning not just with Griswold, which is the case everybody begins with, but going even further back in other areas involving the right to privacy.... And what the Court explained in that case was the basis for the recognition of that right [to privacy].... Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land.... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.'" We also noted: "On the night Roberts was appointed by Bush (July 19), MSNBC ran a banner saying, 'ROBERTS: OVERTURN ROE V. WADE.' White House aide Steve Schmidt called MSNBC to complain.

A correction followed the next evening (July 20): 'According to the White House, Judge Roberts does not oppose Roe v. Wade.'"We noted in that New Oxford Note that neoconservative Fr. Frank Pavone was calling Roberts "prolife." And more Catholic cheerleaders have joined in supporting Roberts (and this is written before Roberts has gone before the Senate Judiciary Committee).The Knights of Columbus, headed by Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson (a functionary in the Reagan White House), got a Resolution passed at the 123rd annual convention of the Knights on August 4: "NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Knights of Columbus urges the Senate Judiciary Committee to conduct prompt, fair and expeditious hearings on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the United States Supreme Court and urges the full Senate to consider his nomination without delay or filibuster...." Given that Roberts supports Roe, one wonders why the Resolution didn't read: "The Knights of Columbus urges the Senate to filibuster Roberts."

But how foolish of us to think that, for Supreme Knight Anderson is a Reagan loyalist and a Republican cheerleader.

Then there is the Thomas More Law Center, founded in 2000 by neocon Tom Monaghan (a big player in Republican politics) and headquartered in Monaghan's complex. The Center is dedicated to the sanctity of human life. In a press release titled "Judge John G. Roberts a Great Choice for Supreme Court Justice," the President of the Thomas More Law Center said: "Judge Roberts has an impeccable legal career. If there is going to be a fight over the President's choice for Supreme Court, this is a fight worth joining."

Given that Roberts supports Roe, we wonder what St. Thomas More -- who opposed his King and was martyred, not over abortion but over a mere annulment -- would say about that press release.And then there is Edward Whelan of the Ethics and Public Policy Center (George Weigel's neocon outfit) who said: "There is good reason to hope that he [Roberts] will be a genuine moderate who will not read his own policy views on abortion into the Constitution but who will respect the constitutional authority of the people to govern their own states...." This is just bafflegab, for no "genuine moderate" would overturn Roe and return the abortion issue to the states. As Robert Bork wrote in National Review (Aug. 29):

"A moderate is a judge who is unpredictable on many issues but who on major cultural issues -- abortion, homosexual sodomy, pornography, religion, affirmative action, etc. -- invariably votes with the cultural Left."Then we have Fr. Francis Canavan writing in the neocon catholic eye (July 29). Canavan is a professor emeritus of political science, so presumably he's not a Republican cheerleader.He bemoans prolifers who think "political issues are matters of principle -- right against wrong, good versus evil..." He quotes Edmund Burke: "It is no inconsiderable part of wisdom to know how much of an evil ought to be tolerated." C

anavan tries to assure us that "I am not suggesting that abortion is not tantamount to murder and should therefore be tolerated." But in essence he does just that.Canavan says prolifers cannot expect the Supreme Court "simply to reverse" Roe. Canavan prefers an incremental approach, and so he says: "The beginning of that process is the reasonable result to hope for of President Bush's recent nomination of Judge John Roberts to the Supreme Court." What a convoluted sentence. But we do know what he means. Roberts is O.K. with Canavan.Canavan realizes that Roberts is not going to vote to overturn Roe. But it doesn't seem to bother Canavan in the least. He says prolifers should not "ask for too much too soon."President Bush promised to appoint Supreme Court justices "like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

Scalia and Thomas voted to overturn Roe. But Roberts won't vote to overturn Roe.To overturn Roe, all we need are two more anti-Roe votes. Contrary to Canavan, prolifers did expect the Supreme Court "simply to reverse" Roe by the time Bush leaves office. But Canavan advises prolifers: "I do recommend that we stop demanding what we know we cannot get...." Talk about falling on your sword! It looks like Canavan is a Republican cheerleader after all.As Patrick Buchanan writes in The Wanderer (Aug. 4): "With his nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court, the president consciously chose to avoid battle with the left.... There were any number of potential nominees -- Edith Jones of the Fifth Circuit, Michael Luttig of the Fourth (whose judicial records were stronger than Roberts' and whose battle scars as warrior-conservatives were immensely more impressive) -- who were passed over.... Their nomination would have ignited a battle -- one the president would win.... One wonders, why did the president not choose one of them? Why did he decide not to fight?" The answer is easy: Because Bush doesn't care about abortion (e.g., see our New Oxford Note, June 2005, pp. 21-22).

For prolifers, the Democrats are by and large the enemy, and the Republicans are by and large false friends. Either way we lose.


+++UPDATE 9/13/06+++++++++

Article found finally!:
Is Something definitely wrong with the Knights of Columbus?

In several recent statements, both in the Columbia magazine, on the pages of the K of C website and in meetings, several disturbing events have occurred. Carl Anderson has been an unequivocal supporter of both John Roberts and Harriet Miers. Also, a certain amount of questionable statements have been made in relation to Judiasm and salvation.

Let me start by saying that I have been a Knight with my life insurance policies in the Order since 1992. My father has been a past council Grand Knight and he and I both were founding members of the council at___some years ago. Both our memberships have been for the last few years with the council at ___. Dad’s best friend is currently the head of the State of ___, serving with honor.

In short then, I and my family have had a long history in the Knights of Columbus. It then comes with a great amount of consertation that I make these observations.

Prior to the 2004 Presidential election, at a National Convention in Texas, the K of C were overaught with joy to welcomes President Bush. While Bush’s records could fill a book, suffice to say Bush has done little to nothing about the issues of abortion and homosexuality. A study of the budget of the Congress, and Bush’s signature giving his stamp of approval on the budgets, one finds a curious find.

Under the Title X programs, an increase of funding under Bush to Planned Parenthood is rather striking. Bush and the GOP dominated Congress has funded Planned Parenthood more than Clinton or nay President of late. HE has appointed as Ambassador to Romania an openly homosexual man and benefits and spousal status to the man’s gay lover. This was over the objections of the Romania Govt.

We all know Kerry’s record and again, the anti-life, pro-homosexual, budget busting and unconstitutional records of both Bush and Kerry were of public record. Yet Kerry, a nominal Catholic and perhaps, CINO (Catholic in Name Only) was not invited to the Convention. Bush, though, was.

In talking many months back with Vince Page, spokesman for the Constitution Party of Texas, I voiced my concerns over this. Vince is a leader in the Texas K of C as well. He stated that it was normal for the K of C at their Convention to invite the sitting President. I cannot remember, though, Clinton invited. To be sure, this would have created a flurry of controversy and outrage. Yet with Bush, he was greeted with open arms. I remember getting the Columbia magazine, it was a veritable love fest.

Catholic teaching is fairly clear, abortion and those who support it are not to be tolerated. Just look at the Cathecism (2271-2274, 2322). Again, President Bush is lauded for many miniscule abortion measures. One is the Child Interstate Compact clause. IT basically says that a minor must have parental permission to cross state lines to get an abortion. Though the act may have stopped some abortions, there is no data either way. Many abortions will continue regardless of it. My parents own work with Birthchoice and other similar anti-abortion counseling groups, plus 1st hand experience with abortuary protest reveal that women have their parent (s) at times bring them, talk them into the abortions, etc.

The Partial Birth bill is another lauded measure. A careful reading of the bill actually exempts women and doctors in “regular abortions”. Though no law that contradicts God’s law is truly law, Roe vs. Wade was a court opinion. Hence, it is not law. Courts do not make law, they interpret only. By the GOP-led Congress signing this bill and Bush signing on to it, it in a secular effect, legitimizes all other abortions. This Bill was struck down by several Federal Courts w/o a word nor actions by Bush and the GOP Congress.

Bush has signed onto many so-called pro-life bills, yet the vast majority of abortions go unaddressed. Campaigning in 2000, Bush stated that the infanticide will continue, that the nation is not ready to end infanticide. He stated there will be abortions. In 2004, the GOP website hosted a discussion about many topics, abortion was not one of them. Further, when giving his speech at the National GOP Convention, Bush stated a caring nation must make “a place” for the unborn. As John Lofton, co-host of the American View (episode #26) noted, yes, that place is a trash can.

Least we forget, instead of backing Pat Toomey in Pennsylvania or even, Jim Clymer for Senator, the “prolife” President Bush backed Arlen Specter. Specter has along history of unmitigated support for abortion, homosexuality and Big Govt spending. The man has proven he is anything but moral or constitutional. He was the heir-apparent prior to the election of chairing the Senate Judiciary committee.

Bush has also approved stem cell testing on the unborn. Kerry/Edward wanted unlimited, Bush allowed 50+. Either way, the unborn are tortured and killed. Many like Dr. Dobosn continue to insist that Bush has opposed stem cell research, regardless of the brags of the Administration to the contrary.

On 8/4/05, the K of C issues a press release calling for “Delegates to the 123rd annual convention of the Knights of Columbus, the world's largest Catholic lay organization with 1.7 million members, today adopted resolutions declaring that the organization "will never consider Roe v. Wade to be settled constitutional law," and urging the U.S. Senate to "conduct prompt, fair and expeditious hearings on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the United States Supreme Court."

Yes, all hearing before the Congress should be fair and expeditious. Here the K of C reaffirms its commitment to Catholic Pro-life teaching. Yet there is also the rub. The further resolution states this: The resolution on Roe v. Wade "condemn[s] any use of a pro-Roe litmus test by members of the U.S. Senate when considering nominees for the federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, and we call on all Catholic senators to cease and desist from opposing, directly or indirectly, the teaching of the Catholic Church on the inviolability of innocent human life." The resolution recalls that the court's 1973 decision in Roe "was accurately described by Justice Byron White as an exercise of 'raw judicial power,'" and that legal scholars have described it as "bad constitutional law," and based on "multiple and profound misapprehensions of law and history."

The resolution on the nomination of John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court urges the Senate "to consider his nomination without delay or filibuster, and to allow him an up-or-down vote on his confirmation." It also states that the Knights of Columbus "strongly condemn[s] any effort to block or impede his confirmation based upon his position on whether Roe v. Wade should be reconsidered."

This is black-is-white and white-is-black and both. IN other words, abortion is bad, the K of C supports the Catholic Churches position, yet it should not be discussed, nor should Roberts have to comment on the premier moral issues of the day, the slaughter of up to 45 million defenseless, unborn!

Carl Anderson then wnet on to state : "the Supreme Court created out of whole cloth a 'right' to extinguish the life of an innocent unborn child. And in the process, it seized for itself a power that no one has a right to exercise."

So, in other words, abortion is evil, wrong and unconstitutional, yet Robers should not be asked about it. Yet there is more absurd and contradictory statements from Supreme Knight Anderson. Consider the following:


7/21/2005


Judge Roberts "among the finest judges in the land," Anderson Says

Supreme Knight Carl A. Anderson called Judge John Roberts "a first-rate choice for the U.S. Supreme Court." President Bush announced that he would nominate Roberts in a nationally-televised address July 19.

"Judge Roberts is exactly the kind of nominee that members of both parties have described as the kind of choice the President should make," Anderson said.

"He is one of the brightest legal minds in America, graduating at the top of his class at Harvard Law School, and has a well-deserved reputation for fairness, integrity and superb judicial temperament on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit."

"During his years in private practice," Anderson recalled, "he argued a case pro bono -- free of charge -- on behalf of some of the District's neediest welfare recipients, who were about to lose their benefits under the D.C. Public Assistance Act.

"He is someone who knows and appreciates the plight of the poor, especially those who have the most difficult time getting fair and even-handed treatment in our legal system.
"Judge Roberts' experience in private practice, in the executive branch, and as a judge make him exceptionally well-qualified to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, and we applaud President Bush for making such an excellent nomination to fill the vacancy created by Justice O'Connor's retirement," Anderson concluded.

This “1st rate” choice, when questioned by Diane Fienstien stated the following “ My faith and religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have, I don’t look to the Bible or any other religious source”. This was an answer to the question of separation of religion and state.

Is it me, or is Roberts saying that he is a Sunday-only Catholic? A Catholic is called to, everyday, live their faith wholly. Whether we are at work, at leisure or any other activities. This not an “excellent” nomination. Roberts repeatedly stated that Roe vs Wade is “seetled”law. This statement was the same as Janice Brown and William Pryor. Both bent the knee to Roe. Pryor led the charge to prosecute Roy Moore, after Moore was ordered not to mention God in his court. Moore rightfully refused this abridgement of his1st Amendment rights and Pryor stated that Moore was to obey the law, right or wrong. Roberts in his 2003 confirmation to the lower court, states clearly that nothing in his faith or beliefs will inhibit him from enforcing past court decisions. He stated this in lieu of Roe.

Troubling too is the fact that Roberts has repeatedly called America a “democracy”. This is the qualified candidate that Anderson prattles on about? Roberts does not even know our own form of Govt. We are a Republic, no a democracy. Roberts has stated he has no over-arching principle when deciding cases, the constitution apparently is living to him, not a set standard.

In the above noted welfare case, Roberts also seems not to know the proper role of Govt, which is not to house, clothe or feed anyone. The Bible, that book that Roberts does not use, states the jurisdiction of aiding the less fortunate comes from the family, church and community. It does not come from Ceasar. This welfare is unconstitutional.

IN private practice, Roberts knowingly and willing did work on behalf of Playboy and Hugh Hefner. When preparing for Episode #20, John Lofton noted a Human Events article. IN 1996, Playboy magazine challenged the law that calls on TV to scramble sexually explicit material, including pornography. Roberts worked silling on the case for 12 hrs. Though touted as another Scalia, when the case came before the Supreme court and the court ruled 5-4 in favor of Playboy, Scalia was a vocal dissenter. Of note, Conservative hero Rush Limbuagh also gave an interview in the mid-90s to Playboy. This no doubt helped to sell magazines for Playboy. According to Dr. Judith Reisman, consider by many a expert on child pornography and former researcher for the Justice Department on this topic, notes the Playboy has a long history, from at least 1954 of promoting incest, child/adult sex, multiple-sex partners, rape and other perversions. Hefner was considered a pamphleteer for pervert Alfred Kinsey. Reisman testified in Holland that Playboy was the #1 pornographer in the world.


In the regards Romer vs. Colorado case, he stated that lawyers can argue any side of the case. Nothing in his views would stop him from this. He would never turn anyone down. This case, decided by the Supreme Court, struck down Colorado’s laws, voted overwhelmingly by the people, to stop special rights for homosexuals in housing and hiring. Roberts helped prepare and argue this case. While Anderson focus on the big heart of Roberts to help the poor, he does not mention to his fellow Knights Roberts above noted record. Most Knights, as well as most Americans, watch only the evening news. No mention of these facts there, nor at EWTN, nor on GOP cheerleader Pat Robertson program.

In my phone discussions with Lofton, and later discussed on the American View, he told me that he actually spoke to Roberts former boss at Hogan and Hartson. This man stated that no lawyer was forced to work on any case that offended any lawyer’s personal views. Roberts had a choice, he chose to work for vile pornographers, homosexuals and others that are beyond the pale of the K of C or any Catholic group.

IT is rather surprising to me, in lieu of the fact that Carl Anderson is frequently in Rome nad meets with the Holy Father, that he would be an unabashed cheerleader for all things Republican and Bush in particular. Anderson stated this as well about Roberts:

"is an encouraging sign that this time, at least, pro-abortion groups did not have the ability to hijack the judicial nomination process in Washington.

"Chief Justice Roberts responded to his harshest critics on the Senate Judiciary Committee with skill, honesty and good humor. And while it is disappointing that 22 senators chose to vote against a man who is so clearly well qualified for this position, we are glad that opponents did not resort to a filibuster, and hope that future nominations to the Supreme Court will be handled in a similarly straightforward manner," Anderson said.

At the 2005 Knights of Columbus convention in Chicago in August, delegates adopted a resolution declaring that Roberts was "exceptionally well qualified" to serve on the Supreme Court, and calling upon senators to "conduct prompt, fair and expeditious hearings," to "consider his nomination without delay or filibuster," and to "allow him an up-or-down vote on his confirmation."

"The Senate did all of these things, and that's a very good sign," Anderson said. "We fervently hope that the same courtesy is extended to the next nominee as well." Anderson attended Roberts' swearing-in ceremony at the White House. (Knights of Columbus website, 9/29/05).
Anderson was at the swearing in. Like his multiple trips to Rome, I am sure, Anderson did not pass up the chance to many photo ops with Roberts, Bush and company. Just like we saw out of the National Convention in 2004. Never mind Roberts denying his faith apparently does not play into the chance to be at the king’s table.

ON Miers, Carl Anderson had this to say: “the Senate should give the nomination of Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to replace retiring U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, the same prompt, fair and expeditious consideration as it did for John Roberts.”
Anderson noted that "although Harriet Miers is not as well known as other candidates the president considered for the nomination, she clearly shares with him the fundamental belief that the court's job is to faithfully interpret the Constitution, not to rewrite it to suit someone's policy agenda. Throughout his tenure in the White House, President Bush has been remarkably consistent in nominating qualified men and women to the federal bench who share his values and beliefs regarding the proper role of the judiciary, and there is no reason to believe that Ms. Miers is an exception." Again, we have seen judicial nominee after nominee state that Roe vs Wade is “settled law”. Roberts was no exception.

Miers, though has made no statement about abortion and Bush has never made any statements about it either. Judge Hecht has stated she attends a “pro-life” church. This apparently appeases many. Yet, Bill Clinton attended a pro-life church (Southern Baptist), Kerry certainly attends a pro-life church, as does Ted Kennedy. What, then does this tell us? Very little.

Anderson concluded this 10/4/05 press release by stating: The president has earned the right to be taken at his word that Harriet Miers will be a justice in that mold." Has he really? I think just the few points already made give us little faith to trust in Bush. Couple this with the budget busting spending (in his 1999 book, a Promise to Keep, Bush stated he was a fiscal conservative and the Americans have grown too accustomed to relying on Govt) and open contradictions on Iraq (no WMD found, democracy is not our business to export). Bush has largely proven to be anything but trustworthy.

When Congress had the chance to stop the murder of Terri Schiavo, they failed to do so. We hear constantly that Bush and his judicial appointees are strict constructionist, that the courts are the enemy of freedom and that the GOP/Bush will end this with their judicial appointments. Yet, as we have seen, Roberts is has no over arching principles in decideing cases. The judge that repeatedly ordered Schiavo death, Greer, is a Republican. The court of Roe was mostly a Republican appointed court. Congress signed, along with Bush a bill to turn the case over to the court one more time. Senator Frisk stated on the Today show afterward: “All we were arguing with on the floor of the Senate, is to get an accurate diagnosis before you withdraw a feeding tube from a live person, that was the only argument and we turn it back to the courts and that s all we said, we told the courts ‘make sure your diagnosis is correct’ right before you withdraw a feeding tube and starve her to death” (American View #11).

This is the same people that nominated and supported Roberts/Miers. These are the same people that Anderson lines up with. Why?