Dispatches from the Creation Wars

Dobson and the Miers Nomination

James Dobson is one of the few religious right leaders who has endorsed the nomination of Harriet Miers for the Supreme Court (Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ being the other notable one). But Dobson has been spouting off about his inside information. We know from reports that Karl Rove was dispatched to speak to Dobson and win his support for the nomination after the furious response from other conservative leaders. We don’t know what was said in those meetings, but it appears that some in the Senate would like to know:

Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, and several Democrats on the committee said Sunday that they were considering calling James Dobson to testify on what he has been told about Harriet Miers, the president’s Supreme Court nominee.

“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 Sunday on ABC’s This Week. “If there are backroom assurances, and if there are backroom 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,” Specter said.

When he announced his support for the nomination, Dobson said, “”I do know things I’m not prepared to talk about here.” On his radio show, he went further:

Well, some have called me today, some whose names our listeners would recognize — not only members of Congress, but Christian leaders and others — and saying, “You know, you have taken a stand here. You have made some comments about Harriet Miers, and we want to know what that’s based on.” So I think maybe I ought to take the rest of the broadcast today, or at least a portion of it, to tell our listeners the rationale. Now, I can’t reveal it all, because I do know things that, you know, I’m privy to that I can’t describe because of confidentiality. And there are some things I can’t go into…

The New York Times called and asked me to tell them more, and I can only say so much, and then after that I’ll say, “Those are confidential conversations and contacts, and I can’t go very far in that direction.”

So what is this secret information that has been given to Dobson? It is almost certainly that Miers has given assurances that she will vote to overturn Roe v Wade if she has the opportunity. Dobson made that clear in the same broadcast that he was praying that he was right to support her nomination because if he was wrong, millions of babies could die:

And so, just all in all, I am asking now for the prayers of God’s people, not that I would be victorious in any kind of debate or conflict — who cares? — but asking that I would not make a mistake here, because there is so much in the balance, John [Fuller, co-host]. There’s no way to put it into words. The burden of this decision about this nominee weighs me down in ways that I don’t recall experiencing before. Because if I make a mistake here, and others make a mistake, what we’re talking about are babies. We’re talking about millions of babies.

All of this points out the central bit of nonsense at the core of the whole nomination process. Bush adamantly swears that he has never spoken to Miers about abortion in all the time he’s known her, and that he would never dream of asking a nominee for their specific views on that issue. Uh huh. If you believe that, I’ve got a bridge to sell you. They say this so that they can pretend that only the left has a “litmus test”. But frankly, one would have to be virtually braindead to actually believe that.

Should Dobson be forced to testify? Absolutely. Put him under oath and make him say exactly what he’s been told. And I’d lay big odds that Dobson, the alleged great moral leader, would lie through his teeth.

Comments

  1. #1 KeithB
    October 10, 2005

    They should absolutely force Dobson to testify. How else can the Senate perform its “Advise and Consent” Role?

    I wonder if Dobson’s info came from someone else, say Mier’s Pastor? Can they force the *Pastor* to testify if he has already spilled the beans to a third party?

    If the info *did* come from Rove, I would bet he spit out his coffee as soon as Dobson said he had inside information.

  2. #2 decrepitoldfool
    October 10, 2005

    IF such assurances were given (that she would vote to overturn Roe), in exchange for endorsement, with a plan to present a case to SCOTUS so that Roe would be overturned…

    Well that would seem like the very definition of a conspiracy, wouldn’t it?

  3. #3 Grumpy
    October 10, 2005

    Why would overturning Roe be so apocalyptic? First, it would then be up to the states to enact whatever abortion restrictions they want — and some might not rise to the bait.

    More importantly, there would be no better stimulus for a debate about adding a Privacy Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In fact, why don’t we start that debate now??

  4. #4 Matthew
    October 10, 2005

    Wow, it’s one thing to nominate a judge who is well known as a critic of Roe, but to nominate someone with 0 experience in constitutional law because they promised to vote against Roe (when they don’t even have a judicial philosophy yet)…. that perhaps might be evil.

    Good thing she’ll be rejected.

  5. #5 Troy Britain
    October 10, 2005

    …I’d lay big odds that Dobson, the alleged great moral leader, would lie through his teeth.

    The justification for lying being of course that is a necessary evil to save the millions of babies.

  6. #6 raj
    October 11, 2005

    The justification for (Dobson’s) lying being of course that is a necessary evil to save the millions of babies.

    Sorry, you misunderstand. Dobson’s lying has nothing to do with saving millions of babies. His lying is for the purpose of taking in millions of dollars. Dobson is a failed child psychologist, who has established a gig–Focus on the Family–which brings in oodles of money. And, do you know what one of their primary issues is? Homosexuality. But, do you know what their primary audience is? Not homosexuals, but conservative christians. An odd disconnect. And the reason that they do it? Because it is very profitable for them to do so.

    Dobson’s operation is nothing more than a money-raising operation for Dobson.

  7. #7 Jim Lippard
    October 11, 2005

    Gil Alexander-Moegerle’s book, _James Dobson’s War on America_ (1997, Prometheus Books) is a must-read. Alexander-Moegerle was a former vice president at Focus on the Family.

  8. #8 Troy Britain
    October 11, 2005

    Sorry, you misunderstand. Dobson’s lying has nothing to do with saving millions of babies. His lying is for the purpose of taking in millions of dollars.

    I said justification not purpose. As for purpose I’m sure you are quite right.

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!