A lot has been made out of a recent statement by Dr. James Dobson, of Focus On The Family, to the effect that he knew some things about Harriett Miers-George Bush's most recent Supreme Court nominee-that he probably shouldn't know. The information evidently came to him in the coure of a conversation with senior Presidential advisor (for the time being) Karl Rove. As a result of this conversation, Dobson has pledged his support to Ms. Miers. To Bush's obvious chagrin, he is one of the relatively few social conservative leaders to do so. In fact, even Dick Cheney recently founmd himself in the absurd predicament of having to call-in on the radio show of conservative windbag extraordinaire Rush Limbaugh in a seemingly vain attempt to convince the fat blow hard to support the Miers nomination.
To be sure, Dobson's support is tepid, to say the least. He has said that he gives the support with the knowledge that the blood of more innocent babies might well be on his hands, in part. But he has given it, nevertheless. Why?
I have always been of the opinion that most conservatives want the fight more than they actually want a conservative nominee. But without a truly known conservative nominee, there can be no fight. No rallying of the troops. No blood, no guts, no money. Again, what does Dobson know? Could this be a simple means of gearing up the conservative Christian camp for a fight, to sound the alarums of war? Or is there truly something in Miers background that Dobson has been made privy to?
It would be too easy to suppose that Rove told Dobson that Miers has expressed oppossition to abortion in private, and has all but assurred the President that if nominated she will if given the opportunity vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. Of course, if she were to have actually said that, she would if it were to come out be immediately disqualified from the court, or at the very least would be obliged to recuse herself from any ruling on the matter of abortion rights versus right to life. Possibly even if it was a ruling that just sought to nibble around the edges of Roe v. Wade.
I find it hard to believe that Rove would have told Dobson something like that, and if he did, it seems incalculable to me that Dobson would have mentioned it on his radio program, or anywhere else, publicly or privately.
That leaves very little else to consider. Perhaps Rove has just stressed to Dobson that the President knows Miers very well, and would not have nominated her for the Supreme Court if he did not know her and her beliefs and feelings on a myriad of subjects, including not only such issues of concern to Dobson as might one day come before the court, but perhaps more importantly, that Bush is well aware of Miers' judicial philosophy. Perhaps Miers has stated in no uncertain terms that she is a "strict constructionist" of the Constitution. She may have said that there is indeed precedent for oveturning precedent when a case has been wrongly decided, as in the case when a decision might smack of politics, or of "judicial activism".
This could be it. But there seems to be something missing here. Something personal. After all, Dobson could easily assume any or all of the above that I have mentioned, without Rove's or anyone elses input. It is really not a matter of something that one should know that maybe one shouldn't know.
It occurred to me just the other night, and I know it's a stretch, but there might indeed be something personal in the life of Harriet Miers that a person like Dr. James Dobson might well find reassurring, to a point.
Harriet Miers, at the age of sixty, has never been married, and it has even been rumored that she has never engaged in sexual relations. I find this unlikely, to tell you the truth, yet it is a fact she has never married. She was at one time a Catholic, and yet, for some reason as yet unspecified, she converted to evangelical Christianity. This is somewhat of a rarity. Yet, it seems to have occurred sometime during the late seventies to early eighties. Well before Harriett Miers reached the age of forty. She has been a devout evangelical Christian ever since, and has involved herself to some extent in Pro Life matters, donating money to Pro Life charities. A decade later, she converted as well, from a supporter of the Democratic party to a Republican supporter. Soon thereafter, she met Bush, to whom she has been attached ever since.
My question is this? Did Harriet Miers ever have sexual relations-consensual or otherwise-with any man? Is it possible that this resulted in a pregnancy? And is it even possible that, yes, Harriet Miers, possibly after agonizing over the decision, possibly not, had an abortion? How would this have affected her life? Did she go through a torrent of agonizing guilt over her actions? Some women, it is said, have been racked by guilt and depression after undergoing an abortion, sometimes even when the aborted pregnancy is the result of rape-or incest.
Did this lead to her future abandonment of the Catholic Church, where such an act would be considered an heinous sin, and carries with it to this day even the threat of permanent expulsion, of excommunication? Did this convince her to turn from the church, which she came to view as cold and harsh, and turn to the open, and loving, and forgiving arms of the evangelical Christian movement?
Of course, all this is the most rank speculation, I know that. But it is easy to see how Harriet Miers and George W. Bush, also a born again convert, would become so close. I have no doubt that Bush knows her well-too well. But is it possible that she would have confided such a harrowing life experience as this to the comander-in-chief that she so admires and respects. I think she would.
Of course, all this brings up yet another question. If it were to turn out that Harriet Miers had had an abortion, a life changing experience, which, out of guilt and remorse, turned her into a staunch abortion opponnent, this in itself would certainly not disqualify her from a seat on the Supreme Court. What is more improtant, it may not even require her to recuse herself from any decision involving Roe v. Wade, or any other Pro-Life versus Pro-Choice issue that might come up before the court.
On the other hand, it might well indeed disqualify her. For, what if it were to turn out that this abortion transpired before 1973? The year before Roe v. Wade was decided, and then became the law of the land? Then, assumming Harriet Miers was an adult at the time of the abortion, and that it was thus not forced upon her, but that it was the result of her own adult decision-then Harriet Miers would have broken the law. In fact, she would have to be considered a murderer, and of her own child at that, accordding to the law as it stood at the time.
How ironic would that be? People have been disqualified from lower court seats and from lower cabinet posts for a lot less than that. But for Harriet Miers to be disqualified from a seat on the Supreme Court because she had at one time had an illegal abortion, well, that would take the cake.
Yahoo! Music Unlimited - Access over 1 million songs. Try it free.
