WARNING: KEY RIGHT WINGERS FALLING IN LINE BEHIND HARRIET MIERS
Despite some bumps in her debut, courtesy of a few of the more prominent self-appointed pundits, the key right wing political operatives were all falling in line behind the nomination of Harriet Miers for Supreme Court.
On Oct. 6, Ken Mehlman of the RNC and Tim Goeglein from the White house Office of Public Liaison jointly hosted a mobilizing conference call with most of the key grassroots religious operatives and legal stars on the far right, including James Dobson, Richard Land, Chuck Colson, Paul Weyrich, Jay Sekulow, Leonard Leo, and Rick Warren. They are plowing full speed ahead with the nomination, regardless of what you might have heard.
CrooksAndLiars.com has obtained an audio recording of the conference call and we have prepared a rush transcript: The full transcript is below. Here is a typical chilling quote:
"He and she [the president and Miers] both understand that if she were to get on the court, and she were to rule in ways that are contrary to the way the president would want her to approach her role as a justice, it would be a deep personal betrayal, and would be perceived as such both by him and by her."
This is absolutely nothing more than a patently crony nomination, and is perceived by even its supporters as exactly that and being sold as such. It is a matter of the utmost urgency that you communicate to your senators that this nomination is not worthy of any consideration at all on that basis alone.
The one click form on this page will send your personal message to both of your senators, with
the subject "Reject Harriet Miers and appoint a moderate to the Supreme Court."
At the same time you can send your personal comments only as a letter to the editor of your nearest
local daily newspaper if you like. Read our simple, comprehensive plan HOW we're going to take back the Court.
SUBMIT THIS ACTION FORM TO CONTACT BOTH YOUR SENATORS & YOUR LOCAL PAPER AT ONCE:
Messages log for this question:
In the spirit of transparency and based your requests, you may now
Click Here To View The Last 25 Messages Transmitted. This will allow you to confirm that your messages have been received and logged accurately by our system (much like a weblog), allow our participants to get a sense of what their fellow constituents are thinking, plus allow any party receiving digests from us to monitor the integrity of the messages transmitted by us to them. We will endeavor to truncate most personal contact information (otherwise included in those digests and in your direct transmissions) from the display here for privacy reasons, though in the case of such information included in the body of your comments themselves, we may not catch some variant spellings.
Please tell us if you like this new experimental feature by
Your Kind Support, and we will extend this capability to our other issue pages, and we will continue to respond your requests for the innovative functions you want to see on the site.
Arguments:
HOW WE'RE GOING TO TAKE BACK THE COURT
1. WEB SITE ACTIONS
All progressive blogs should FEATURE a prominent "We Demand A Moderate" action center. If you have a web page of any kind, the absolute bare minimum is to have in the top fold of your main index page (if not on every page of your site) the toll-free Capitol telephone numbers (888-818-6641 and 888-355-3588), plus an exhortation to call your senators specifically about this, and not in teeny-tiny type, but in large bold type that nobody could miss.
If you want to do more, we have a dedicated action page at http://www.nocrony.com that you can link to. It will send a personal message directly to both of your senators, and at the same time you can automatically send a Letter to the Editor of your nearest daily newspaper all with just one click. You can copy the "Click Here for NO on Harriet Miers" button at the top of this page to put on your site and you can put the toll-free phone numbers right here too. If you have another action page somewhere you like post a PROMINENT featured link to that instead, but for heaven's sake DO something. We will even set you up with the code to run a form parallel to ours on your own URL, using our server submission resources only in the background. Just email to dc@thepen.us and it's yours in a matter of minutes.
In addition we have a free module that will instantly return the direct phone and fax numbers of all your members of Congress at http://www.usalone.com/get_instantcongress.htm. You can download the code right on the spot from that page and have the feature on your own site.
If you have a mailing list of any kind of your own opt-ins, do a mailing emphasizing the importance of this action and provide the toll-free number AND link to http://www.nocrony.com. Direct email is one of the most effective tools for generating messages to Congress.
2. RADIO ACTIONS
All progressive radio personalities should dedicate part of EVERY show to giving out the toll-free Senate phone numbers (888-818-6641 and 888-355-3588) and to rally your listeners to take action on this. Don't just assume people know it already or can find it on their own. PROMOTE it. Talk is not enough, not even close. We must convert advocacy into ACTION. In the same way that a single run of an ad on your radio station will not have sufficient impact standing alone, you should make this a recurrent theme of your show and keep REPEATING it, at least for the next week or so.
At the same time you can give out the URL of the main action page, http://www.nocrony.com, or any other easy to say and remember web address you like, to get people to email or phone or fax their members of Congress. In addition all the other things above that apply to other web sites apply to you as well. Feature the Senate toll-free phone number and action links and do it prominently on your main page, your blogs, and ideally on ALL your pages at least in one of your side columns.
And as a listener of your favorite progressive radio show, call in. Encourage them to get on the case to give out the toll-free number, and to give out web links and post them on their sites. Talk about this on the air when they put you on. There is also a list of all the major progressive call-in talk radio shows on this page in the right column, together with the call-in numbers.
3. PHONE AND FAX ACTIONS
The most powerful single thing you can do personally is to call the offices of your members of Congress directly and tell them that they must heed the voice of the people. There are two toll-free phone numbers we have tested good recently, 888-818-6641, 888-355-3588. They are answered 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, just ask to be connected to your members of Congress by name. Otherwise use the Lookup Phones function at the top of this page to get all their direct phone and fax numbers, and or to find out who all our representative are.
We must communicate to our members of Congress in every way that this is a deal breaker for us. Any member of Congress who allows any more nominees through who are not at least moderates must never hold public office in any capacity again and they must be made to understand this by our emails, our faxes, our phone calls, and our letters to the editor. We stopped Bolton (at least in the Senate) and we can and will stop this nominee as well. To any remaining doubting Thomas's we say this to you, "Defeatism is the treason of our own minds."
RNC/WHITE HOUSE CONFERENCE CALL ON HARRIET MIERS (10/06/05):
Tim Goeglein: Operator thank you and good afternoon to everybody, my name is Tim Goeglein from the White house office of public liason. We know we have people joining us from all 50 states around the country, we really appreciate you taking time to join us for this call. Of course the president has [00:22] nominated Harriet Miers for the second of the two open seats during the Bush presidency.
As you know Harriet has been a confidant close to the president for a number of years, has held the most senior possible positions here in the White House, most recently as White House counselor. She is [00:44] a colleague of long standing and has the president's every confidence. and we so appreciate our friends and allies and coalition members around the country who are working with us, working with the president to help confirm Harriet Miers. and we thought it would be a good thing going [01:06] into the weekend to gather all of you on the line and be able to talk a little bit about her and to the extent possible to answer some questions or concerns that you may have and it's my real pleasure to have joining us the chairman of the Republican National Committee, former White House colleague, former political director here Ken Mehlman, Ken good afternoon [01:29] and thanks for joining
Ken Mehlman: Thanks Tim, I'll make a couple brief comments and then we have some other folks who I think also wanted to make some comments. Let me open just by saying that i think alot of those of us who believe in judicial restraint and who are constitutionalists are always going to be cautious when new nominees are named to the Supreme Court and one of the reasons we need to be cautious is that [1:51] so many people in the past have a record voting that is different from what has been advertised. And to my thinking one of the most important things you have is someone who's nominated who the president knows their thinking, knows their philosophy. He's not taking the word of a chief of staff or the word of a senator or the words of anything other than what he knows about the person.
In this case [2:13] it's hard to imagine a president having a better knowledge of a nominee than the president of the United States has of Harriet Miers, someone he's worked closely with for more than a decade, someone who's philosophy he shares. as she shares his philosophy, and someone who has seen her operate that philosophy every single day. This isn't taking someone else's word, this is the president observing over 10 years, [2:36] and most recently over several years every single day what her judicial philosophy is. She identified her as clearly philosophy as that of judicial restraints. So unlike in the past where it was one of these things which we had to trust what someone else said, in this case we have a president that knows the nominee better than we can imagine, better than we've ever seen.
Second, Harriet Miers has served with distinction [2:58] at a time when she was the top legal advisor to the president on some critically important issues whether the issues were whether to renominate Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla Owens and Bill Pryor, whether the question was whether where the administration ought to come out on key policy matters that affect the judiciary that affect families that affect other issues, the president's positions have been [3:20] very strong and we know his top advisor has been Harriet Miers. And so when people say well we know the president's got the right approach, but how do we know Harriet Miers is like someone saying, you know, the president has the right position on the war or terror but we don't know if Donald Rumsfeld does. The fact is she is his key advisor on these issues.
And the third thing that I think also is important to remember is this. One of the most important [3:43] and I think troubling areas where we've seen judicial activism recently is in the ability of any administration in the future to carry out its leadership in the global war on terror. And I think having someone who has real world experience when future issues come up who will be able to say here's a real world practical implications of when for instance the court's hamstring the ability [4:06] of the administration or the defense department or somebody else to deal with the terrorist threat we face. I think that's an important and unique perspective that someone who's spent her whole life on the court doesn't have but someone who has served in a White House, particularly in this White House does have.
So we've . . . other speakers are going to talk about other issues but I think these are three very important things, number one, how do we avoid what those in the, what I like to call [4:27] people who grow in office, which is to say who would do up things do differently than we expect them to. I think the way we know that is cause this president knows his nominee better than ever before. Second, top advisor at a time when this president has made some incredibly effective decisions, and third her unique ability to understand how bad judicial activism is on the [4:50] critical issue of the global war on terror. These are all important issues as well as our understanding that this is somebody whose long standing record whose longstanding perspective are all important and i think those are things that we need to consider. I'm going to turn it over to several other distinquished speakers, first Chuck Colson, and Chuck are you with us.
Chuck Colson: I am Ken, thank you. I appreciate what you said and the fact is that I've George Bush talk on a [5:12] number of occasions about his committment to judges I know how passionately, conservative judges, strict constructionists, I know how passionately he feels about this and he knows Harriet Miers better than anyone so I take his word on this completely. I also had lunch with her one day and was impressed with her quiet dignity, her restraint, she's a modest humble woman [5:34] with an enormously deep intellect. That impresses me because we have too many judges that think they're speaking from Mount Olympus I like somebody who's got a little bit of modesty and humility and I can't imagine a better compliment right now for judge Roberts, chief justice Roberts, so I think it's a great appointment, I'm [5:57] very enthusiastic.
I think the fact that it's been received not as a big battle cry, alot of conservatives wanted a big battle, but I don't want a big battle I want a judge. And I think she's just the person for it. Now Jim Dobson is staying for this call, I can't cause I've just come out of a board meeting. He and I are joined at the hip and have talked about this at great lengths, so [6:19] Jim if I, if anything I've said triggers questions I'm going to count on you to handle them for me but I think we really ought to now as a conservative movement line up behind this, this nominee and make it a concerted push. Believe me when she gets up there and they start on her it won't matter if she's walked across the Potomac River, they're going to exact their pound [6:41] of flesh and I think we need to be united behind her.
Ken Mehlman: Thanks alot, Chuck, Doctor Dobson, he has just given you the cue, thanks for being on this call.
James Dobson: Well thank you, Ken. And goodness, Chuck, I appreciate what you said. You are a constitutional attorney and I'm not and I have leaned very heavily on you through this process. [7:04] We've talked four times after we knew where the nomination was going, so I have really appreciated the things that you've said and they've had an influence on me. I, I, I would just like to issue a disclaimer before I make my statement because this is one scary moment. [7:26] Everything I care about is on the line because the court has usurped the other two branches of government and has made all great social decisions, answered them or tried to answer them for the American people, and taken away from the people the responsibilities that Abraham Lincoln talked about [7:48] in the Gettysburg address, he, he said this is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. And it has not been that on all of the great social, moral issues. And because the seat that's being vacated by justice O'Connor has been a swing vote, this [8:11] decision is of earthshaking importance in my view and that's why I've taken it very seriously, and why I have maybe drawn the conclusion that I have.
The second disclaimer that I want to say is that I'm speaking only for myself, not trying to argue with anybody or sway anybody. I've got close friends who are [8:33] mad at me because of the way I see this, but I think each, each of us has to do that. But I have drawn the conclusion that Harriet Miers will be an excellent justice on the United States Supreme Court. I, I'm not absolutely positive of that cause you can't know till they get in power and then it's too late, [8:55] and power itself tends to corrupt, and it has happened with some of the other members of the court in my view and it could happen to her.
But I believe that the president has very carefully made this decision. It is very consistent with two promises he's made probably [9:18] more strongly than any other two campaign promises. He promised to reform the judiciary, put people on that court who will not legislate from the bench, who will not try to create social policy from the court and who will respect the constitution, and he has [9:40] been absolutely consistent on that issue for four and a half years. I don't know of any judge or justi . . . judge now, I guess justice was the chief justice now that has contradicted that promise.
The second thing is his, his committment to the pro-life [10:02] position, this is his personal belief and philosophy, and I think probably theology and he has kept it and I appreciate that. And all the conservatives out there that are beating him up today and riding his back over having chosen Harriet Miers, I think they ought to take a big deep breath and consider [10:25] that fact that he has signed the partial birth abortion ban legislation and he has supported the Mexico city policy and he has been against embryonic stem cell research. I mean he's been consistent on both those things. For that reason I believe that we would be very, [10:47] very foolish to, to abandon his base and to have lied to the people about what his plans were, and to put a person on the court who will change his legacy forever. This is his legacy. I said on a program yesterday that it's, it will not be [11:09] Iraq, as important as that is, 20 years from now it will be who he put on the court. He knows that, and I believe, [coughs] excuse me, I believe he has appointed a woman that he is sure is consistent with that.
Now finally and I'll close with this that, I've done my homework, I know some others [11:32] have too, she is widely known in Dallas, and in other places in Texas, and I've talked to people that have known her for 25 years, and who have been very, very close to her. I know the church she goes to, I know what her history is in terms of her own faith committment, and I, that means a whole lot to me, [11:55] because there's a base there, there's a moral understanding and a world view that I believe will hold her in good stead. So am I absolutely positive, no, I, I don't know you can't, that you can be. The Rocky Mountain News this morning said that Dobson admits doubts. You bet I do, it's that important, [12:16] but I believe the president has done the right thing and I support it.
Ken Mehlman: Thank you very much, Doctor Dobson, our next speaker is the White House political director Sarah Taylor.
Sarah Taylor: Thanks, Ken. I don't have much to add, I think all the speakers have done a great job articulating some of these key issues here, but I would just follow up, like Ken and others on the phone have worked for the president [12:39] for an incredibly long time since the day that he became a candidate, and for office back in 1999, and there's one thing that's absolutely been consistent about his commentary on judges and that is, that he believes strongly in ending judicial activism and putting only people on the bench who will interpret the constitution, [13:01] and as Mr. Dobson just said, and as Ken and others have said, he's been absolutely 100% consistent in that effort, and I'm confident having worked with Harriet personally for the last five years that he made a choice that will uphold that. The woman on television, Harriet said on television live in her [13:23] announcement exactly just that, that she believes that the, the responsibility of every justice is to uphold the Constitution. And, certainly having known her, and known her character, I believe her strongly she will be a fantastic Supreme Court justice. And I know we understand how important this is, that alot of people for long time have worked [13:46] hard on behalf of these issues and she's somebody who is honest, who has incredible character, and when she says to people that she's going to behave in a certain way she always does it. And I have enormous confidence in her and that she will be an incredible, and, justice somebody who will not only make decisions based [14:08] on what's in the Constitution, but makes decisions that, she believes strongly in.
Ken Mehlman: Thank you very much Sarah, Jay Sekulow, are you on?
Jay Sekulow: I am, Ken, thanks. I want to approach this. And of cour. . . I agree, with what everyone has said and I want to echo something that [14:30] Jim Dobson and Chuck Colson said and that is the president is keenly aware of what's at stake here. I had the opportunity to almost 6 years ago to introduce then governor Bush to a large gathering in Washington, D.C., and before that introduction he and I sat in the back in the green room for about 30 minutes and discussed judges, and from that moment forward till very [14:53] recently, and the opportunities I've had to be with the president and we've talked about judges this is a president that knows not only in this same situation where he has a legacy that's at issue but its the direction for the country. And he knows that. And I think, and I was encouraged when the president nominated Harriet Miers, and let me tell you this from a perspective of someone who litigates regularly at the [15:15] Supreme Court of the United States. I'm involved in three cases at the court this term. And believe me I want Harriet Miers votin' on these critical cases. One of those cases now, cases involving the issue of partial birth abortion, something the president championed for as the leader of the executive branch of government is now passed of course by Congress, passed by the president and now is in the hands of the Supreme Court of the United States and last time it was a [15:37] 5 to 4 decision. So there is much at stake as this congressional ban goes before the court and we could see the replacement for justice O'Connor being what was it, the swing vote last time against us, we could see this swing the other way.
Now none of us know, how an individual judge or justice is going to rule in a particular case. But for me the critical aspect has been in my conversations with Harriet Miers [16:00] over the last year have been how she views the role of a judge, and she views the role of a judge to not be that of a policy maker. She views it as a limited role. She understands that is the aspect and the intent of the founders in the Constitution. So I'm encouraged there, and I'll tell you this my view is that bringing somebody outside of the judiciary into the Supreme Court is a good thing, and I'm saying again this as someone who [16:22] litigates at the court. And as a historic aspect of this and I think not a historic aspect that should be ignored, when the president nominated Harriet Miers, this is the first evangelical that's been nominated to the Supreme Court since 1931. I think that's significant. Now we've got alot of great friends at the Supreme Court of the United States that are, that are devout Catholics and I think that's great, so I don't want to, [16:44] this isn't a religious discussion in that sense. But this was a bold move by the president and I think an important move.
And those that don't yet, have not yet come to support Harriet, I understand that, you don't know, and that's fine, but as Jim Dobson said and I wanted to reiterate, let's let the evidence come in, and it's beginning to, you're already seeing this, and I think time will tell, and time will be very good [17:07] for Harriet Miers. And I said this to a couple people yesterday. John Roberts did a magnificent job before the Senate judiciary committee, and so will Harriet Miers, in her own way, maybe different from John's, but it will be in her own way. This is one smart woman. You don't get to be the president, the president, the first female president of the Texas bar association without being a very good and very smart and very able lawyer. And I think [17:29] she's gonna be a great justice on the Supreme Court.
Ken Mehlman: Thanks alot, Jay, is Leonard Leo on?
Leonard Leo: I'm here and thank you, Ken. It's pleasure to be here this afternoon to offer my own experiences with Harriet Miers so all of you can make your own informed judgements about where you are on this very important nomination. I have had the privilege [17:51] of seeing Harriet Miers at work on issues that are of tremendous interest and concern to us, most particularly the issue of judicial selection, and her committment to conservative judicial philosophy is very deep and something she takes very seriously and works rigorously to project [18:14] within this administration. I think she said it extremely well when she accepted the president's nomination from the oval office very early this week, when she stated essentially that every generation has a responsibility to respect and [18:36] apply the founders' vision of the limited role of our courts. And then she went on to say that she undertood it was the judge's duty to strictly apply the law and the Constitution. Those are in today's partisan environment and in the wake of the Bork and Thomas nominations, philosophically significant and [18:58] philosophically laden terms. Everyone understands today what it means to ascribe to the framers' vision of our Constitution and the limited role of the courts. It's a way of making it very clear to everyone that you are committed to interpreting the Constitution according to its text and as it was written by our framers.
Now [19:21] I happen to think based on my experiences that Harriet is a very honest person and she knows what she said, and she understands those words because day in and day out she's helping the president pick judges who also ascribe to the framers' visions of separation of powers and federalism and Constitutional interpretation by the courts. And so those were [19:43] important words, and I think she recognized that the world really didn't know much about her because the jobs that she's had are not jobs like politicians have, they're jobs where you're working behind the scenes, you know. So in the interest of truth in advertising she told us all a little bit about what her judicial philosophy is and I'm sure that she expects that as the process winds its way [20:05] to a conclusion she will, she will have plenty of opportunities to elaborate on those principles that she first mentioned on that Monday and that people such as myself and Jay have had the privilege of seeing her apply in action.
I think one of the things is in order. I think all of us have some sense [20:28] of what some of the fatal flaws have been in terms of other Supreme Court nominations. And one of the biggest problems Supreme Court justices have is that they, they lose their footing. They, they begin to grow in office. Judge Silberman called this the Greenhouse effect, referring to Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times, bowing to the pressures of the left and [20:50] the media. And I think that as we, as we, as we look at her background, this is a woman who, who is a devout Christian, who, who was one of the first women partners in Texas, who was not afraid when running for city council to make her views clear regarding the extent of what, what are appropriate [21:12], you know, homosexual rights, and what might not be something that she would want to support. I don't think that those positions or affiliations tell us a whole lot about how she's going to decide a particular case. But I do think what they tell us is, and we shouldn't use them for that purpose, but I do think what they tell us is that this is woman who is very comfortable in her skin. [21:35] She has alot of courage and she doesn't care a whole lot about what other people think. And boy, I'll tell ya, that for me is very, very important when you're talking about putting somebody on the Supreme Court because that's a pressure cooker. And, and I think that is what the president meant when he said that he knew this woman for 20 years, and that this is a woman who 20 years from now is going to have the same [21:57] perspective on judicial philosophy. And that's impressive for a woman lawyer who's got to deal in the polite society of a liberal legal culture that doesn't look too kindly on all these different things that we're learning about her. So I think this is a woman of tremendous strength and courage and independence, who understands the framers' vision of the Constitution and is prepared to apply it.
Ken Mehlman: Thank you, Leonard, [22:19] has doctor Land joined us, I know he wasn't on before . . .
Richard Land: Yes, sir, I'm here.
Ken Mehlman: Oh great, thank you for joining us, and I'm glad that you're, you're up, you're next.
Richard Land: Well, I appreciate what everybody has said, and I agree with it and I would just say that I, you know, I, this president, there's nothing that he's been clearer about and has stood more steadfastly for, not only against [21:42] unprecedented opposition, remember Tom Daschle as the obstructionist, and this president has refused to flinch on the issue of, of judicial nominees that are strict constructionists, original intent jurists, let's remember the chief justice was once a filibustered nominee. And who was helping the president pick those nominees? Harriet Miers. [23:04] And I think the, that one of the things that someone as a sixth generation Texan I want to add to this call and that is this. There, the two things that are probably, there are two virtues that are valued as highly as any virtue can be valued in the Texas culture and those two virtues are [23:26] courage and loyalty, courage and loyalty. And this president, and he knows that Harriet Miers is also a Texan, and with, with a degree of understanding that would never have to be articulated, he and she both understand that if she were to get on the court, and she were to rule in ways that are contrary to the way the president [23:49] would want her to approach her role as a justice, it would be a deep personal betrayal, and would be perceived as such both by him and by her and he knows in nominating, in nominating a woman who comes from outside the beltway bubble, who's culture was formed in Texas and who doesn't take care what the New York Times thinks. [24:11] She doesn't care. And he doesn't care. Which is one reason why they've been successful conservatives. I think this is a brilliant nomination and I think it will be confirmed in the way she rules on the cases that are very important to us over the next decade.
Ken Mehlman: Thank you very much, thank you very much Dr. Land, operator I think we're going to take a minute, there are [24:33] so many people on the call, but we'll open it up for a couple questions and then I believe we'll try to keep it to a half an hour, so we'll keep it to that short period.
Tim Goeglein: While we're waiting for the questions and answers, I just might emphasize that alot of folks may not know that Ken Starr has also very strongly supported Harriet Miers as had [24:56] National Right to Life, Rick Warren and a number of other individuals and groups and we have sent much of that very widely but we want to let folks know that there are any number of places that they can tap in and read the endorsements or support from other folks.
James Dobson: Ken can we talk or do we got to sit here in silence.
Ken Mehlman: You know, no, no by all means, please make a comment, [25:18] Dr. Dobson.
James Dobson: I just started to say that after the president made his annoucement there seemed to be a shockwave that went through the conservative community and especially the Christian conservative community and people didn't know what to think. I've seen that change. And I really believe that as people are getting comfortable [25:40] with her nomination there is much more compliments about who she is and what the president has done. That may not be accurate but that's the way I see it.
Sarah Taylor: I, this is Sarah, I would second that. I was in Iowa last night doing a Republican dinner, and talked, talked to alot of folks, alot of active, you know, people in conservative circles at the dinner [26:03] and you know all of them were kind of, sort of dumbfounded by the way that some of the conservative media has been acting about this. They said obviously we'd like to know more about her but, I don't know, you certainly did not get the sense that . . .
Jay Sekulow: This is Jay, I concur with that also, I think it's been that the more, that time will help us here and will continue to the more information gets out.
Operator: OK, [26:25] we're ready for our first question. And our first question comes from Paul Weyrich.
Paul Weyrich: We understand that when she was on the Dallas city council that she had initially come out against a tax increase, and then after a day [26:47] of voting and much pressure she voted for a tax increase mainly to restore funding for expansion of libraries. This was not a question of public safety, that had all been taken care of. What troubles me about [27:10] this is that she had initially been very much opposed to it, and at the end she was the swing vote that ended up being in favor of it. That is troublesome if you think of it in terms of the court, because there is an enormous [27:32] ammount of pressure on the court.
Leonard Leo: May I address that, this is Leonard.
Paul Weyrich: Anybody can address it.
Leonard Leo: Sure, hey Paul, how are you.
Paul Weyrich: I'm fine, thank you.
Leonard Leo: That's a very important comment. And all I can tell you Paul are my own experiences and observations as someone who has [27:54] been a part of the legal profession and has travelled within the organized bar community as someone who's not, you know, particularly part of the mainstream. If you look at her overall background she's done an awful lot that bucks up against the system and she doesn't seem to care about it. You know there's been alot of hay [28:17] made of the fact that she was part of the effort at the American Bar association to get the association to recind its position on abortion on demand. Again I don't think that tells you anything about, you know, what she's going to do on Roe or any other abortion case, but I think what it does tell you is a little [28:39] something about the culture at the A.B.A. that, you know, she's got guts and she's not going to shrink away from positions that she feels very strongly about. And I just think there are a number of other instances where I know of where that's the case and where she's done things or where she [29:01] has views or perspectives or affiliations that are really just at odds with the liberal big law firm culture that even exists in Dallas, Texas. And so while we may all find various, you know, incidents where she might have changed her mind about things, we have to know more about why and what happened. [29:24] My own experience with her is that she, she does, she's very comfortable with who she is and that she's, she's not gonna break from her views without having, you know, a good reason, it's not going to be politics or because she wants to be invited to the next cocktail party in Georgetown.
Ken Mehlman: Thanks Leonard, why don't we take the [29:46] next question operator please.
Operator: The next question comes from Marlis Pompo(last name?).
Ken Mehlman: Hi Marlis, how are you?
Marlis P: I am fine thank you, and yourself.
Ken Mehlman: I'm great . . . for those who don't know Marlis, Marlis has been one of the leaders with Iowa Right to Life and so many other important causes for more years that she'd like me to say. but talk about a trail blazer, Marlis is [30:08] a wonderful lady, somebody that helped make history in 2004 when we turned Iowa from blue to red.
Marlis P: Well, thank you very much. I've, obviously I'm, I want to be supporting Harriet Miers and I, I believe in president Bush. I believe when he, I believe all that he's told us, [30:31] I've watched the nominees that he has placed before us over the last several years of his presidency. I've seen all of the good strong constructionists he's placed up and I see no reason why he's placed all of these wonderful constructionists up when he gets the chance to put people up for the highest court in the land that, that would change when he would place them up for the Supreme Court. I'm wondering if you could help me however [30:53] with some explanations of what I tell our folks when they're, I think one of the more troubling pieces that are out there is the piece from the Worldnet Daily and its the piece that talks about, it does have, have some things about when she was city council woman and [31:15] it also has come talk about a position she took on gay adoption and I'm wondering if somebody can shed light on, on any of the things that are in that particular piece for us that we can have some clearer insight for those of us who are supporters of the president, and, and, and [31:38] really have faith in the fact that, that, that he's there for us and is going, will do nothing but support, or put a good person in this, in this position.
Leonard Leo: I can, I can address the gay adoption issue, Ken, if you like.
Ken Mehlman: Please do.
Marlis P: That's the one that I'd most like to . . .
Leonard Leo: There has been a news report suggesting that Harriet Miers supported the A.B.A [32:00] resolutions pertaining to gay adoption and the creation of the International Criminal Court, I'm assuming that that's what you were referring to.
Marlis P: That's exactly, that's exactly what was reported in World Net Daily, yeah.
Leonard Leo: The news reports are wrong and false in the following respect. And I know this from experience having served as one of the few conservative members of the A.B.A. house of delegates. The select committee of the A.B.A. [32:22] house of delegates, which she chaired, is basically a glorified mailman. What they do is they gather up all the proposed resolutions, the different committees and sections of the A.B.A. want to have put before the house of delegates for a vote, and the select committee transmits them by mail, or today by email, to all of the house of delegates members so they have the materials they need in advance of the [32:45] meeting, so they can begin thinking about what positions they're going to take on the resolutions. The select committee does not draft the resolutions, they do not opine on whether they are appropriate for A.B.A. consideration, and they in no way engage in any editorial or drafting responsibility. So basically she was simply transmitting paper to people within the A.B.A. [33:07] saying here are the things you're going to have to consider when you're at the house of delegates meeting and there are resolutions up for a vote.
Jay Sekulow: Yeah, and there's, there's another aspect to that as well, unrelated to the A.B.A. section, but if she, she answered a question through a question in a question, though a questionaire put forward on the issue of the Texas sodomy statute that was at the Supreme Court two years ago, and [33:29] remember this was a, a statute that, I'm not opining on this, that justice Thomas called uncommonly silly, yet she said she would not repeal it, and I thought that said alot about her views on that, that kind of issue, in the right way, I mean she, she understood the role of the legislature and she looked at it under her view and said, thought that there was a legitimate reason to have these things so, you know, I think you're got to [33:52] put it all in context, and it wasn't more than an administrative function at that A.B.A. subcommittee.
Marlis P: OK, I appreciate that.
Sarah Taylor: Marlis, it's Sarah, I owe you an email. I've been out for two days so I, I will, I have something that will help you on this.
Marlis P: OK, Great thank you.
Ken Mehlman: Why don't we turn to the next question please.
Operator: Thanks, your next question comes from Rick Warren.
Rick Warren: Well, hi Ken and Tim and everybody.
Ken Mehlman: [34:14] How are you.
Rick Warren: Great, I don't need to say a whole lot, but because I didn't think I was going to be in on this conference call, but I think it was for this very moment that we had the last election. It's the reason I jumped in and mobilized, you know, our network, because it's all about the court, and I think for all of the reasons already mentioned Harriet's a great choice. [34:36] I mean she's a great person, she's a great woman, she's a great Christian, she's a great thinker, and I just throw my support behind her.
Tim Goeglein: Yes we really appreciate that very much, that means alot.
Ken Mehlman: Yeah, thank you very much Rick, we really appreciate that. Thank you all very much. I know we promised everyone [34:59] we'd be done in a relatively brief period, and it's 4:15, we said we'd make it a half an hour, I'm sorry it took a little longer than we promised, thank you all for your help, and for your leadership and we look forward to working with you on this important issue.
Call the tollfree number 888-355-3588 right now and ask to be connected to your
senators.
To get the dedicated phone and fax numbers for your members of Congress, use the instant lookup form below.
Call in to your favorite progressive radio stations and ask them to give out the
Senate toll-free phone numbers (888-818-6641 and 888-335-3588), and to do it frequently. Talk
about the issue on the air yourself when you call.
