Palmetto Family Council

Morning Prayer

2008-07-04T20:54:00.000-04:00

The Blessing of Morning Prayer

"From the unity it has attained the whole day takes its order and discipline. This unity must be sought and found in morning prayer and will prove itself in work. Prayer in the early morning is crucial for the whole day. Wasted time of which we are ashamed, temptations to which we succumb, feebleness and lethargy at work, disorder and indiscipline in our thoughts and in our intercourse with other people - these more often than not have their cause in the neglect of morning prayer.

The ordering and arrangement of our time will be more positive when it is the outcome of prayer. Temptations which the working day brings with it will be conquered if there has been a real encounter with God. Decisions demanded by our work will come more easily and readily when they are made not in the fear of men but simply before the face of God. “And whatsoever you do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Colossians 3:23). Even mechanical tasks will be carried out with greater patience, when they are recognised as tasks laid on us by God. Increased energy for work will be ours when we have asked God to give us today the strength our work requires."

--Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Our Friend Ralph Anderson Turns Back Three!

2008-06-10T20:40:00.080-04:00

Incumbent Senator Ralph Anderson (D-Greenville), the deciding vote to kill the ill-fated Catawba Indian Casino two years ago, has been re-nominated and is expected to win against token Republican opposition in November.

Congratulations Senator on defeating three challengers!

Rose Defeats Scott who defeated...

2008-06-10T20:40:00.076-04:00

The DUI charge against Senator Randy Scott (R-Dorchester) clearly hurt his re-election chances.

This Senate seat continues to be a revolving door as Mike Rose defeats Randy Scott who defeated Bill Branton who defeated Mike Rose.

Mike Rose 52%
Randy Scott (i) 48%

Conservative vs. Liberal GOP in Chester

2008-06-10T20:40:00.073-04:00

Mark Bennett, the Republican nominee for SC Senate District 17 (Chester et al.) may not have a chance against Creighton Coleman in the General Election, that it yet to be determined.

But it is good in any event to see a conservative Republican defeat a liberal one.

Mark Bennett / 631 votes / 59% [C]
Joanie Winters / 444 votes / 41% [L]

I Believe...that McGill is Re-Elected

2008-06-10T20:40:00.069-04:00

It is good to see that the author of the "I Believe" Licence Tag bill has been re-elected.
Senator Yancy McGill 53% to Ted Brown's 40%.

Katrina Shealy is in the Driver's Seat

2008-06-10T20:40:00.066-04:00

With all precincts in...Shealy appears to be in the driver's seat.

Jake Knotts (i)
4,858
45%

Katrina Shealy
4,395
41%

Michael Sturkie
1,521
14%

Spartanburg, Bloody Spartanburg

2008-06-10T20:40:00.063-04:00

Rep. Ralph Davenport has been a solid pro-family representative for Spartanburg County. His tenure in the SC House comes to an end tonight. Republican Steve Parker will face Democrat Eric Hayler in the fall. Thanks for your service, Ralph.

Still very close is Rep. Bob Walker and newcomer Joey Millwood.
Millwood leads by 19 votes.

Rep. Keith Kelly has survived against Roger Nutt (55%-45%).
Mike Forrester has defeated Ken Roach (56%-44%) for an open seat.
Derham Cole has defeated Christina Jeffrey in a surprisingly close race for an open seat.

Bob Leach Defeated in Bad Incumbent Night in G'ville

2008-06-10T20:40:00.062-04:00

Representative Bob Leach, Chaplain of the South Carolina House Republican Caucus has been defeated by Bill Wylie.

Bob had a perfect 100% score on the Palmetto Family Alliance Legislative Scorecard and has been a good friend of faith, family and freedom for many years.

Bill Wylie has been involved with Goodwill Industries in Greenville and will make a fine House member, but Bob will be sorely missed by all of us.

Greenville Report: Stringer, Nanney Win

2008-06-10T20:40:00.051-04:00

Blue Ridge actuary Tommy Stringer has defeated Greer optometrist Pete Smith in Greenville County's District 18. Stringer was an endorsee of Palmetto Family PAC and was actively supported by former Palmetto Family Council Board Chairman J.D. Martin.

Wendy Nanney has defeated incumbent Rep. Gloria Haskins in District 22. Haskins was one of the votes in favor of Judge Don Beatty for the SC Supreme Court last year.

Nanney is the daughter of Bob Jones University Dean Bob Taylor, a county councilman, who defeated Haskins' son Brian tonight as well.

Watson Endorses Bright in Spartanburg

2008-06-10T20:40:00.049-04:00

L.B. Watson has just endorsed Lee Bright in Senate District 12.

Bright will face Scott Talley in two weeks.

Ryberg is the man...

2008-06-10T20:40:00.046-04:00

Palmetto Family PAC endorsee and fiscal champion Senator Greg Ryberg has defeated Jason Whinghter in Aiken County. Ryberg has no general election opposition.

The state is fortunate that Greg has agreed to invest more time in setting our financial house in order. Now if his colleagues will only listen.

The Ugly Senate 12

2008-06-10T20:40:00.043-04:00

It appears that Lee Bright and Scott Talley will go at it for another two weeks. YouTube will have to increase its bandwidth.

Talley is coming in at around 44% and Bright at 38%. L.B. Watson is a distant third at 18%. Watson would likely favor Bright if he chooses to endorse one of his former rivals.

Note: In the interest of full disclosure, Lee Bright is a member of the Board of Directors of Palmetto Family Council. Scott Talley serves on Palmetto Family Alliance's Legislative Steering Committee.

Skelton Back

2008-06-10T20:40:00.040-04:00

Rep. Billy Ray Skelton (not to be confused with his brother Bobby Joe) has defeated Trey Whitehurst in Clemson by less than 250 votes. Ugh.

Palmetto Family PAC had endorsed the much more conservative Whitehurst.

Jakie and Katrina Slug It Out

2008-06-10T20:40:00.037-04:00

With 91% of the vote counted, incumbent Senator Jakie Knotts and former Lexington GOP Chairm Katrina Shealy are in a dead heat.

With 35 of 37 precints in, it is 45% to 41%. Because of the presence of Mike Sturkie, this one will go into a runoff in two weeks. Sturkie will surely endorse Shealy.

There is some question as to which precints are still out. If they are along US378, Katrina could tie it up. If it is Edmund, Jakie may pick up a point.

There is no question that it will be an incredible two weeks...but what possibly could have been held back for a runoff contest?

Scott and the Other Ford

2008-06-10T20:40:00.034-04:00

Only about 100 votes separate Rep. John Scott and Richland 1 School Board member Vince Ford in the Senate District 19 Democratic Primary in Richland County. Scott has the extra hundred.

Ford and Jackson

2008-06-10T20:40:00.031-04:00

Senator Robert Ford and Senator Darrell Jackson, who oppose Palmetto Family Alliance on nearly every legislative issue, have won their respective Senate primaries. Ford has token opposition from the GOP in the General. Jackson will be back for sure as there is no Republican running in the fall in District 21.

Marion County Senate

2008-06-10T20:40:00.028-04:00

Senator Kent Williams (D-Marion), a speaker at our annual dinner in 2005 and a good friend in the Senate on family issues has been re-elected handily with over 3/4 of the votes cast.

Democratic Leaders Coming Back

2008-06-10T20:40:00.025-04:00

Two leaders of the Democratic Party in the House, Doug Jennings (Marlboro) and Gilda Cobb-Hunter (Orangeburg) have won renomination and re-election handily.

Jennings has advocated a Civil Unborn Victims of Violence Act for years and we will need his help in 2009.

Palmetto Family Founder Headed to House!

2008-06-10T20:40:00.022-04:00

It appears that one of the founders of Palmetto Family Council, Tim Scott, will defeat both Wheeler Tillman and Bill Crosby in the GOP Primary for House Seat 117.

South Carolina just became a better place to live and raise a family. Tim Scott is the real deal. The best news of the night so far.

Laurens House

2008-06-10T20:40:00.019-04:00

Mark Willis has defeated Jason Culbertson. Willis was a PF PAC endorsee. Congratulations to Mark. He will face Democrat Mike Turner in the fall.

Shock in Beaufort...

2008-06-10T20:40:00.016-04:00

Can it be? Has Tom Davis, Governor Sanford's former Chief of Staff defeated incumbent Senator Catherine Ceips? Just a few more precincts to come in. This could be huge.

The Word from Indian Land, SC

2008-06-10T20:40:00.014-04:00

Deborah Long (Lancaster County) who had one of the highest scores on the Palmetto Family Candidate Questionnaire, and was endorsed by the PAC, is cruising at nearly 75% of the vote with most of the ballots counted. She will be the GOP nominee for the seat being vacated by Mick Mulvaney, who is running for the Senate.

Greenwood Senate

2008-06-10T20:40:00.013-04:00

It may a bit early to call, but it appears that Dee Compton and Chip Stockman are headed for a GOP runoff for the seat being vacated by Senator John Drummond (D).

Both of these gentlemen were off the chart on the Candidate Questionnaire, which prevented our endorsing one of them. Compton is hovering in the high forties. He will need 50% plus one vote to avoid the runoff in two weeks. Their Questionnaires are here.

Early Returns

2008-06-10T20:40:00.003-04:00

It appears in early returns that Rep. Bill Sandifer will keep his House seat in Oconee County. Bill was the driving force in the House behind the bill to require cable tv companies to block channels that a subscriber has not paid for...and we know what kind of channels those can be.

Senator Larry Martin also looks strong. Martin led the fight to get a vote on Common Law Marriage, Historical Documents Displays and the SC Public Prayer Act. (We won the latter two.)

Watch Election Night

2008-06-10T14:02:00.003-04:00

Watch this space after 8:30 p.m. tonight for Election Night analysis of the 2008 Democratic and Republican Primaries.

GreenvilleOnline: Prayer Battle Not Over

2007-02-12T12:42:00.000-05:00

GreenvilleOnline.com -Local News-ACLU prayer battle not over - (2/12/2007)

ACLU continues to put pressure on municipal and county councils.

Oconee Pre-Meeting Prayer Under Fire - WYFF4

2007-02-08T19:39:00.000-05:00

Oconee Pre-Meeting Prayer Under Fire - WYFF4

A television news report of the story.

Oconee Strikes Out

2007-02-06T22:16:00.000-05:00

It was a snowball right over the plate. It could have been on a tee it was so easy to hit.

But the Oconee County Council lost its nerve and struck out without a swing.

The bottom line was the bottom line, we are told. Even though the county Ministerial Association had agreed to pay the ACLU's legal fees if the county lost, and even though Alliance Defense Fund had offerred to defend the county for free, the ACLU's financial threats frightened the Oconee County Council into scrapping its traditional invocation and adopting a new "moment of silence" policy. The watertight but simple sign-up sheet for prayer policy ADF devised was left on the cutting room floor.

We have work to do.

Stay tuned.

Community Defense Act of 2005

2007-01-25T21:17:00.000-05:00

Community Defense Act of 2005

The Community Defense Act, passed last year in Ohio, is a solid model for addressing Sexually Oriented Businesses on a statewide, rather than a local basis. Palmetto Family Council is working with legislators now to file South Carolina legislation.

Great Legislative Day

2006-05-16T17:01:00.000-04:00

Marriage Counseling Tax Credit
Passed House Judiciary unamended
Bill has already passed Senate

Unborn Victims of Violence
Passed House Judiciary unamended
Bill has already passed Senate

Bible Education Credit
Passed House Education unamended
Bill has already passed Senate

Sen Knotts agreed today to "take his name off" the Common Law Marriage bill which should allow a vote on it. The bill has already passed the House.

Cockfighting / Gambling bill is under consideration now.

What a day!!! Were you praying? Someone was!
OPS

Oran P. Smith, PhD
President
Palmetto Family Council

Help Clean Up Television..for "the Least of These..."

2006-04-25T16:45:00.000-04:00

One only needs a pulse these days to notice how coarse, profane and indecent television programming has become. Even relatively decent shows contain commercials or promos for other shows that are unfit for children (and many times adults).

Turning it off is a good option, as is using the V-Chip http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/vchip.html. Good parents are already doing that to protect their own.

But if we care about our entire cultural fabric and the little minds that feed on television while their parents are distracted or out making a living, we need to do more. One common sense proposal at the federal level is H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.

[IF YOU WISH, SKIP TO THE BOTTOM AT THIS POINT FOR OUR ACTION REQUEST]

This is not a radical bluenose crusade. It is a solid bill that passed the U. S. House of Representatives by an overwhelming 389-38 vote more than one year ago. H.R. 310 would raise fines against broadcast decency violators, and would strengthen the Federal Communications Commission's ability to enforce those fines. (We now have an FCC chairman willing to fight indecent broadcast programming. All he needs is the tools to do the job effectively.)

For more than a year, the Senate leadership, specifically Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-TN) and the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee, Ted Stevens (R-AK), has prohibited this excellent bill from coming to a vote, even though a similar bill passed the Senate last session by a vote of 99-1. Sen. Stevens believes broadcast networks will clean themselves up if we let them police themselves.

Unfortunately, the big four networks (CBS, ABC, NBC and FOX*) abused the trust Stevens and the American public placed in them by suing the FCC in federal court for the right to air indecency (like the f-word and s-word) during. primetime.

It's clear the networks are not interested in cleaning up their programming, but are even more intent on pumping cultural poison into our homes.

*Note we are speaking primarily of networks that broadcast over the air. People pay for cable, but network television still broadcasts over airwaves owned by the public (you and me), which can be regulated as a public trust.

Will you call U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham {202-224-5972} and Jim DeMint {202-224-6121} to ask for them to push for a vote on Rep. Fred Upton's (R-Mich.) Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005 (H.R. 310)?

Together we can finally make a difference. If you want to go even further, take a look at the excellent work being done by our friends at the Parents Television Council (http://www.parentstv.com/).

We win on Casino...Sort Of

2006-03-28T18:00:00.000-05:00

5:30pm. The Sen Jud Comm just "carried over" the Casino bill. Sen. Hutto, the author of the bill, made the motion. Translation: they didn't have the votes today so they will try again next meeting.

We project we would have won by about 3 votes with a proxy from sen. Kevin Bryant. Back to work shoring up the committed. They are getting lots of pressure. Especially African-American Senator Ralph Anderson of Greenville.

Rev. Sen. Darrell Jackson told him (and us) afterward that he would vote for ANYTHING the Indians wanted...including prostitution. (As much as he hated it and gambling.) He thought after all we have done to them that we should give them total autonomy. Wow.

I am not an expert on Indian law, but it seems strange to me that all we can offer them is the Right to Operate Gambling. Why not a McDonalds franchise?

Pre-Kindergarteners Need Family First

2006-01-20T14:38:00.000-05:00

The debate we are having as a state on preschool issues is long overdue. To contribute to that conversation, here are several considerations we feel have been missing from the discussion.

The benefits of pre-kindergarten have not been established for all children. No statistically reliable study has ever shown that pre-k programs have significant long-term benefits for a diverse group of four-year-olds. After ten years, 300,000 students and $1.15 billion, Georgia’s test scores are unchanged. Even the “spend $1 now on pre-k, save $7.16 later” slogan isn’t applicable to the average child. Yale’s Ed Ziegler laments this as a transference of findings about seriously at-risk kids to all kids. David Elkind of Tufts University and others go even further, arguing that pre-k can actually be destructive for kids from intact middle-class families. We don’t prescribe radiation or other aggressive therapies for healthy people, neither should intervention be universal, but directed at those in desperate situations.

Parents are the best educators of young children. The Perry Project, which is cited as evidence for the worth of pre-k programs, was in many ways more about parenting than about programs. To participate in the Perry Project, a family was required to have at least one parent in the home during the day and that parent had to participate in a weekly in-home visit. The presence of the parent plus the in-home training helped the parent become a better teacher. The results are even better if the parent educates full-time. A first grade teacher may spend 360 hours on language arts, but the parent who reads to their child typically spends 4,000-6,000 hours on literary activities from birth to age six. That’s why 80% of young mothers told Public Agenda they prefer to stay at home to care for their young children. Public (and specifically tax) policy shouldn’t push our children out of the nest too soon or force both parents to work.

Intervention at the pre-K level treats symptoms. The broken home is the cause. A truckload of literature suggests that children of two married parents are more academically, economically, physically, emotionally, and socially healthy than children of single-parents or cohabiting parents. That is true even with the near Supermom and Superdad status of so many single parents. Today in South Carolina, there are private programs promoting intentional fatherhood that are under funded. Likewise, federal dollars are available right now to our state to promote healthy marriage, but these funds go untapped year after year. We should leverage public and private funds immediately to encourage what little children need most, parents in strong marriages.

Symptoms may need to be treated as well, but we shouldn’t deploy our resources piecemeal. Award-winning psychiatrist John Bowlby observed that “a home must be very bad before it is bettered by a good institution.” In these homes, parents just cannot carry out their roles as primary educators. We believe when properly defined, current resources are quite substantial to help the severely disadvantaged (Matthew 25:40). Large counties / school districts need some additional support, but most districts, even in many of the plaintiff counties in the Abbeville case, would have extra seats for at-risk four year-olds if current federal, state and local efforts were coordinated. Between EIA, First Steps, Head Start, programs for the developmentally challenged, and ABC Child Care vouchers, most of the rural counties that lag behind in performance have the capacity to get the job done. We need to define that small population we wish to serve, focus our efforts and invest existing funding more wisely.

Resources are allocated best when collaboration trumps control. If we as a state decide to target our most disadvantaged four-year-olds, we should look to idle and underutilized church and community-based facilities and instruction. If it were possible to divide our $103,576,297 estimated annual spending on four-year-old pre-k programs among the 28,000 high-risk four-year-olds (and that number may be overly broad), we could provide $3,699 for each child in a state where faith-based K-5 tuition averages $2,562. Let’s not centralize and control, but collaborate with willing, efficient partners.

Improving education for South Carolina’s very young citizens is at its core all about time, love and attention from a mother and a father committed to each other and to intentional parenting. We should promote that as a society. Failing that gold standard, we should focus our resources, then give churches and communities the first crack at reaching those who need our help.

Maryland, My Maryland

2006-01-20T14:35:00.000-05:00

The news just in from Maryland isn't good. A Baltimore City Circuit Judge has ruled that Maryland's one-man, one-woman marriage law violates the state constitution's Equal Rights Amendment (ERA).

Thankfully, South Carolina has no such law, but this wrongly decided order is another reason why our Marriage Amendment is a top priority for us as an organization and as a state.

Report from National Public Radio
ADF's Jordan Lorence Interviewed

Copy of the Decision

Report from Maryland's WJZ-TV

Breakpoint Commentary on Failure of Same Sex Unions

*The states that have ERA are: Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.

Alito's Day in Court

2006-01-10T09:34:00.000-05:00

After weeks of seeing his record twisted beyond recognition, Sam Alito will finally face his critics (and friends) this morning.

If you are just now focusing on the hearings, it is worth a little time to review some of the specious charges against the judge. This is a good site for facts and fictions.

Here's Alito's wonderful family-centered opening statement from yesterday (twice as long as John Roberts', also without notes). Watch today's hearing live beginning at 9:30 a.m. as members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, including Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), question the nominee.

Carroll Campbell & Me

2005-12-15T13:43:00.000-05:00

Note: The following remembrance of Carroll Campbell contains many personal references. Please understand that this is not an attempt to tie myself to The Great Man, but is meant to explore what Governor Campbell meant to me personally and to the state. --OPS

I found out about former Governor Carroll Campbell’s death last week while on a family trip to Orlando. My mother-in-law called to share the news so I wouldn’t have to learn it from my usual source for news when out of town: SC Hotline.

During the six-hour car ride back from central Florida, my wife Kristin kept Stephen (8), Elizabeth (5) and Margaret (2) well entertained with books, songs and games, so I had a lot of time to think about Carroll Campbell and the decade or so we were close.

I met Mr. Campbell in 1976 when one of the three people in my hometown of Greer who would admit to being Republicans invited me to attend a Campbell campaign barbecue at his farm near Fountain Inn. Vice-Presidential candidate Bob Dole was in town to raise funds for Campbell’s run for the S.C. Senate and push the Ford-Dole ticket. There were young volunteers everywhere at the barbecue, and I had to become one of them.

In 1978, the successful Senate campaign operation turned into an intense race for U.S. Congress. This time I had a new driver’s license, so I began to spend most of my free time at Campbell for Congress headquarters on Stone Avenue. I cross-referenced phone numbers to the voter file, erected countless 4’ x 8’ mini-boards, “bumper branded” in shopping center parking lots, asked voters to sign petitions supporting the Kemp-Roth tax cut plan and went door-to-door with the candidate. In the door-to-door effort, our usual plan was to enter a business as Campbell was leaving it. We would follow up immediately on the connection Campbell always made with people in the hardware store or drycleaners by asking to put up one of his orange campaign posters with the modified Campbell soup logo. More than once I received permission followed by the remark: “and I bet you’re his son!” I was embarrassed and flattered at the same time.

Two years later, I became Congressman Campbell’s youngest Washington intern, rooming in Washington on A Street with now 7th Circuit Solicitor Trey Gowdy of Spartanburg who was working for Strom Thurmond. Back in South Carolina in the fall, Campbell found cool things for me to do, like driving in Ronald Reagan’s motorcade when he made an appearance at the new Haywood Mall. I drove the ABC News camera crew with a Secret Service agent literally riding shotgun. The NBC News car was driven by my friend David Sudduth, who already had a knack for politics. He was elected to Greenville City Council last month.

South Carolina was a swing state of sorts in those years. Jimmy Carter had visited earlier at the home of now Republican Senator J. Verne Smith. The Greenville News ran a cartoon that morning showing Carter and Smith in the dining room of the Senator’s house with toilet paper strung at every corner of the room. The drawing showed a wide-eyed Smith expressing to Carter “I’m sorry, Mr. President, but “Carroll Campbell got in here last night.” Carter’s host lived two doors up the street from my parents, so Greer folk seeing the cartoon told me that if the house were indeed “t.p.’ed,” they knew whom Campbell would have had carry out the job.

Carroll Campbell took care of his young volunteer and made sure if I were present at any event sponsored by his campaign, he would see that I met the guest of honor. I met Ronald Reagan this way several times, as well as Bob Dole, Guy Vander Jagt, Jack Kemp and George Bush (41).
It was about this time that I was struggling with where to attend college. It was June and time was running out. Hearing that the 4th District Congressman would bring remarks at a Flag Day observance at Roper Mountain Science Center, I attended, hoping to have a few minutes with my mentor. Campbell and I jumped in his Buick, grabbed a Coke at a drive through window and talked for a half-hour or so. Unfortunately, when we returned to the Center to drop me at my car, we found the gates padlocked with my vehicle inside. Campbell, a driven man who didn’t like to waste a second, was clearly not pleased, but gladly drove me home to Greer on the back roads he knew so well. The result of the trip was more free advice. The suggestion Carroll Campbell gave me that day, which he jokingly made me swear that I would never divulge, can now can be revealed. Carroll Campbell, a man whose loyalty was strongly garnet and black, suggested I go to Clemson. For a Carolina man, that was hard advice to share, but there was a reason for it.

Our conversation that day revolved around a central issue: in selecting a college, how could I merge my interest in politics and political science with my calling and make a living at it? After hanging around Campbell for four years, I wanted to be involved in retail politics, but I also wanted to study political science. Complicating the issue was a deep-seated calling to some kind of Christian endeavor that I couldn’t put my finger on. Clemson and Furman were close, but USC was in the political city. Clemson was far enough away that I could get out of the house, but Furman might offer some good religion courses. (My how times have changed.)

Campbell knew exactly what to do. Professor Charles W. Dunn, founder and head of the Political Science Department at Clemson, was an outspoken Christian and author of numerous political science and Christian books (like The Future of the American Presidency and Upstream Christian in a Downstream World). If I were to study under Dunn, he would help me find the will of God and teach me political science. Dunn was my man, Campbell said. As for the political city, that should wait, he advised. There would be numerous opportunities for political involvement without going to Columbia for college. And oh, by the way law school or graduate school would be a good idea, too.

Several years later, I met with Campbell in his office in the Longworth House Office Building office on Capitol Hill. I hadn’t seen much of him lately and Nikki McNamee, his AA, suggested that I visit with him at the end of the legislative day while he worked through his “in” box. Out of nowhere in that casual conversation (as casual as they got with CAC), Campbell announced to me that he had been accused of having ice water running through his veins. He didn’t seem to want me to review the comment, and I glad of it. I wasn’t stupid enough to tell him that I could see how one might make that accusation! It was true that Carroll Campbell could be a tough customer. But to me, for a brief time in my late ‘teens and early twenties, Carroll Campbell was a friend and mentor.

When he became Governor, I worked briefly in his division of Economic Development and he called me to his office a couple times to work on special projects, but the time of our frequent contact had passed. Maybe God’s work in my life though Carroll Campbell and my usefulness to him was done. There is no doubt that his career advice, which has guided me even to this point, was a message from God. Ultimately I moved to the political city, received two graduate degrees in political science from USC, and became involved in a dozen political campaigns and numerous research projects and legislative issues. In 2002, I became director of an organization dedicated to family, faith and public policy. I had finally come full circle from our conversation on Flag Day in 1981.

In one of his last pubic appearances, a tribute to him and his legacy, Carroll Campbell was asked to respond to the comments made about him that evening. Several of those in attendance told me that in his brief remarks he didn’t substantially review the accomplishments of his life, but called for a greater understanding of the importance of the family and for resistance to enemies of family life. He had also come full circle.

Carroll Campbell & Cultural Issues

2005-12-15T13:37:00.000-05:00

Notes on Carroll Campbell’s Record

Looking back on his administration, it is clear that God used Carroll Campbell as a public policy leader. Here are just a few areas.

Adoption. Carroll Campbell worked to make adoption affordable for working families, pushing for a $10,000 reimbursement for employees of state government who adopt. Campbell took the idea to the National Governor’s Association with the support and advocacy of his friend Wendy’s founder Dave Thomas.

Gambling. Carroll Campbell worked to roll back and fight the expansion of gambling by resisting video poker and a state lottery. He also negotiated the agreement with the Catawba Indian Tribe that kept them out of the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), made Catawba gaming a state matter and refused the tribe any special rights to video poker. (An important consideration in light of Tuesday’s lower court ruling to the contrary. That fight is not over. Stay tuned.)

Life. Governor Campbell had a huge impact on life issues. 1) He signed the Parental Consent Act in 1992, which according to South Carolina Citizens for Life, caused abortions to decline by 14 percent the next year, the single largest annual decrease. 2) He signed an Act insuring that women know the health risks involved in abortion and know that alternatives to abortion exist. 3) He signed the Abortion Clinic Regulation Act making South Carolina’s clinic regulations some of the strongest in the country.

Family Sustenance. Carroll Campbell worked for policies that reduced the burden of government on working families by creating a $40 million tax break for parents of children under 6. Because of this, South Carolina doubled the tax exemption for parents in 1994. Campbell worked to streamline state government operations and limit state spending. Campbell knew that economic issues were family issues, too.

It's Scalito!

2005-10-31T10:19:00.000-05:00

Just a few minutes ago, President Bush nominated Samuel A. Alito, Jr., a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (northeast) to the United States Supreme Court. Known as "SCAlito" or "Scalia Lite" to liberal legal commentators, Alito, like Scalia, is sharp, conservative and experienced.

A key moment in Alito's 15-years on the Third Circuit was his dissent in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1991) where he supported a Pennsylvania law requiring women to notify their husbands before having an abortion.

Alito wrote: "[t]he Pennsylvania legislature could have rationally believed that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion."

Chief Justice Rehnquist's dissent in the 5-4 Supreme Court case, whose majority overturned the law, agreed with Alito.

On this Hallowe'en, we have a treat...and a war on our hands. Liberals are already calling Alito a "wacko." Let the debate begin on the role of judges vs. our elected representatives. It is a debate we will win.---OPS

Miers Supported Feminist Lecture Series

2005-10-10T10:14:00.000-04:00

The Chronicle of Higher Education is reporting the Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers supported the establishment of a lecture series at Southern Methodist University focusing on Women's Studies. (Note: This link will be available to non-subscribers for only five days.)

http://chronicle.com/temp/email.php?id=ukbn5ph1qz7c00muysmau89ummlzr81d

Greenville Reporter Remembers Miers Pastor

2005-10-10T08:59:00.000-04:00

"Back in 1984, as a political writer for The News and Observer in Raleigh, I had the distinction of being tossed out of the state Republican Party's convention as conservative ire boiled over at the N&O's liberal bent.

Allies of then U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms dominated the convention and passed a resolution, quite unanimously, expelling all of N&O ilk.

As I was departing with colleague Rob Christensen, two steps ahead of an escort squad of Helms Youth, the convention chairman thundered: "The cancer has been removed."

That chairman was Barry McCarty (left). Today, Dr. Barry McCarty is the preaching minister at conservative, evangelical Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, where, published reports say, anti-abortion literature is passed out.

By various accounts, one of his parishioners is a tithing Sunday school teacher who makes it back for an occasional Sunday service despite her job in Washington: Harriet Miers."

--Political reporter Dan Hoover in The Greenville (SC) News, 10/9/2005.

[PFC Note: Barry McCarty came to Valley View Christian Church as Preaching Minister in March, 2004. Before McCarty, the Pastors of Valley View were Dennis Slaughter and Ron Key. The church has since split with about 200 members joining Key, according to a lengthy report that can be found at the religious studies site adherents.com.]

Lindsey on Miers

2005-10-07T12:34:00.000-04:00

After an hour-long personal meeting with Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers, Senator Lindsey Graham has reportedly told her critics to "shut up for a minute." According to the Myrtle Beach Sun News, Graham says we need to "give the lady a chance."

While I don't think we should be admonished to "shut up" in a democracy, I am inclined to agree with our senior senator otherwise. Let's see what she has to say.

P.S. : On the matter of what she is saying, I understand that in a meeting with Senator Patrick Leahy (Very D-Vermont) she mentioned "Warren" as one of her favorite justices. She later qualified that to be Warren Burger (CJ 1969-1986) not Earl Warren (CJ 1953-1969). Earl Warren was very liberal and controlled by others on the court. Warren Burger was relatively conservative but not the best leader either.

Miers Television AD

2005-10-05T09:47:00.000-04:00

Television ad produced by Progress for America

http://pfavoterfund.com/docs/audiovideo/

Disappointing Those Who Want a Fight?

2005-10-05T09:40:00.000-04:00

Don’t Underestimate Miers
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?article_id=4876

Key quotations:
“There is a doom-and-gloom element on the Right which is just waiting to be betrayed, convinced that their hardy band of true believers will lose by treachery those victories to which justice entitles them.”

“The President’s smashing victory in obtaining 78 votes for the confirmation of John Roberts did not confirm these conservative critics in their understanding of the President’s formidable abilities as a nominator of Justices. Au contraire, this taste of Democrat defeat whetted their blood lust for confirmation hearing combat between the likes of a Michael Luttig or a Janice Rogers Brown and the Judiciary Committee Democrats. Possibly their own experience of debating emotive liberals over-identifies them with verbal combat as political effectiveness.”

Two Windows to Miers Faith

2005-10-05T09:34:00.000-04:00

Here are thumbnails of two articles on Harret Miers faith excerpted by Al Mohler of Soutnern Seminary. The evidence is consistent with what World editor Marvin Olasky is reporting.

"In Midcareer, a Turn to Faith to Fill a Void," The New York Times, October 5, 2005.

By 1979, Harriet E. Miers, then in her mid-30's, had accomplished what some people take a lifetime to achieve. She was a partner at Locke Purnell Boren Laney & Neely, one of the most prestigious law firms in the South, with an office on the 35th floor of the Republic National Bank Tower in downtown Dallas.

But she still felt something was missing in her life, and it was after a series of long discussions - rambling conversations about family and religion and other matters that typically stretched from early evening into the night - with Nathan L. Hecht, a junior colleague at the law firm, that she made a decision that many of the people around her say changed her life.
"She decided that she wanted faith to be a bigger part of her life," Justice Hecht, who now serves on the Texas Supreme Court, said in an interview. "One evening she called me to her office and said she was ready to make a commitment" to accept Jesus Christ as her savior and be born again, he said. He walked down the hallway from his office to hers, and there amid the legal briefs and court papers, Ms. Miers and Justice Hecht "prayed and talked," he said.

She was baptized not long after that, at the Valley View Christian Church.

"Strong Grounding in the Church Could Be a Clue to Miers's Priorities," The Washington Post, October 5, 2005.

Hecht and other confidants of Miers all pledge that if the Senate confirms her nomination to the Supreme Court, her judicial values will be guided by the law and the Constitution. But they say her personal values have been shaped by her abiding faith in Jesus, and by her membership in the massive red-brick Valley View Christian Church, where she was baptized as an adult, served on the missions committee and taught religious classes. At Valley View, pastors preach that abortion is murder, that the Bible is the literal word of God and that homosexuality is a sin -- although they also preach that God loves everybody.

Harriet Miers: Maybe Not

2005-10-05T08:30:00.000-04:00

George Will: Why Did Bush Nominate Miers? (link to column)

Manuel Miranda: Who Harriet Miers is Not (link to Human Events column)

Bill Kristol: THE WEEKLY STANDARD (Fox News)

ANCHOR: Joining us now that talk to talk about President Bush's second nominee, Fox News Political Analyst and Editor of the Weekly Standard Bill Kristol. Are you surprised?

KRISTOL: I am surprised, yes.

ANCHOR: Because why? Because she doesn't have judicial experience? Because why?

KRISTOL: Well, both -- it would be hard to make the case she was the most distinguished candidate available to the President and there's not much on her record that proves she will do what the President has said he wants to do and what conservatives have wanted to do for two or three decades which is to move the court in the direction of constitutionalism and restraint. I talked to five Republicans and Democrats and they're demoralized.

ANCHOR: Disappointed, but clearly, this is a woman that the president knows pretty well. He must feel like he has a good handle on how she would rule.

KRISTOL: I guess. I don't know if he's discussed complicated issues of constitutional law with her. I mean, he's passed over conservative judges including female judges who have long and distinguished records on the federal court, on the state supreme courts. Maybe he's right. Maybe Harriet Miers is really -- she's obviously a capable lawyer. Maybe she'll be a first-rate justice and it looks like a capitulation. Looks like he was unwilling to put up Priscilla Owen or other distinguished female conservative judges who -- about whom there would have been a fight, but a fight on judicial philosophy. A fight that most I know would have welcomed. He put up someone with no judicial record and it's hard to see that as anything more than flinching from a fight.

ANCHOR: Are they -- does that mean he'll lose conservative members?

KRISTOL: I think almost all of them will go along with him. Of course, the hearings become more important. Let's see how she answers various questions about her judicial philosophy. I don't think it's a sure thing. And I think the Democrats will go after her. They'll do a big investigation. She has never been confirmed by the Senate. I'm sure there are no scandals, but all kinds of stuff can come up when one looks into someone's background. Votes at the city council, all kinds of stuff. The Democrats will give her a tough time. I think they'll accept her, as they regard this as another O'Connor or another Souter. So the question for me, do elected officials stand up and say, this is not what we wanted, Mr. President. It isn't what you said you would do. This is not a Scalia or a Thomas or a Rehnquist or for that matter, John Roberts, in terms of quality of pick and proven quality on the record.

ANCHOR: Well, this president hasn't backed away from a fight in the past. It would seem that he would have been willing to fight this one out, if he really thought that Priscilla Owen for instance was a better nominee.

KRISTOL: Yeah. That's why I was surprised. I expected the President to pick someone -- the President put Priscilla Owen in the Circuit -- nominated her in 2001 and 2002 and that signaled that he thought she would be a good federal judge. Harriet Miers is a competent lawyer and able woman who has worked loyally for the President for 10 years. He didn't put her on a court to suddenly elevate her to the Supreme Court. I think it's risky politically and I think it sends a bad signal. I mean, these conservative women who have been judges, who have been making the case for constitutional constitutionalism for five or 10 years, and they're passed over for someone with no record, that's hard to explain.

ANCHOR: The conservatives you're talking to and presumably they're the stronger voices from that side of the political spectrum, if they are disappointed, that doesn't bode particularly well for this nomination. I mean, I imagine she would be confirmed, but it doesn't bode well for a time -- for the president at a time when he is trying to build political support in the wake of the hurricanes and the Iraq war and everything else.

KRISTOL: Well, that's the question, Jon. Obviously, elected officials have different reactions in public than in private and they have different reactions than commentators. So he'll get a lot of support from leading Republican senators and I think from some people who want to be on the team with the President. But I think it's worrisome, if you're a conservative who wants this President to fight his way through on the big issues, I think it's very hard to make the case that this is a fighting move by the President.

ANCHOR: Bill Kristol from The Weekly Standard, and a Fox News Analyst, thank you.

Brownback skeptical on Miers nomination
SAM HANANEL
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback is greeting the nomination of Harriet Miers for the U.S. Supreme court like many other conservatives - with skepticism.

Brownback, a Republican, said Tuesday he is disappointed Bush did not pick a candidate with a clearer track record on conservative issues like abortion and same-sex marriage.

"There's precious little to go on and a deep concern that this would be a Souter-type candidate," he said referring to Supreme Court Justice David Souter, a little-known judge nominated for the court by the first President Bush who later turned out to be liberal on the bench.

"The circumstances seem to be very similar," Brownback said. "Not much track record, people vouching for her, yet indications of a different thought pattern earlier in life."

Brownback, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he hopes to learn more about Miers' background when he formally meets with her in his Senate office on Thursday.

"I have not come to any conclusions, but there's a great deal of skepticism about her as a candidate," he said.

Kansas Sen. Pat Roberts, also a Republican, issued a statement praising Miers as a "trailblazer for women" in the legal profession.

"I look forward to learning more about her qualifications for the Supreme Court through the confirmation hearings," Roberts said.

Miers, 60, is Bush's trusted White House counsel. Though she has a lengthy record as a lawyer in private practice and a public official in Texas, she has no experience as a judge.

Brownback's views reflected the opinion of other conservatives, who hoped Bush was ready for a fight with Democrats over an outspoken conservative nominee in the mold of Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council says conservatives have faith in Bush's judgment, but that they would have preferred a nominee with a documented conservative track record. Perkins has not taken a position on the nomination, saying he will be looking for clues to Miers' judicial philosophy during her confirmation hearings.

Democrats, meanwhile, appeared to be approaching Miers' nomination cautiously, though Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said Monday he was "very happy that we have someone like her" to fill the seat of retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

Brownback said he is concerned about Miers' political ties to some Democrats. She contributed $1,000 to Al Gore in his failed 1988 bid for the Democratic presidential nomination and gave the same amount that year to Texas Democratic Sen. Lloyd Bentsen, according to research by Political Money Line, a nonpartisan campaign finance tracking service.

But she has contributed money to Republicans too, including President Bush. The practice of giving money to both sides of the aisle is not unusual among members of large law firms like the one Miers worked for in Dallas.

For now, though, Brownback is withholding judgment, listening to what others have to say and gleaning information from the press.

"The best thing she's got going for her is President Bush's consistency on judicial nominations," he said.

Harriet Miers: Maybe Yes

2005-10-03T17:03:00.000-04:00

Monday, October 3, 5:03 p.m.
I have just completed a conference call with a host of conservative leaders on the nomination of White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. As I expected, nothing has changed from my Early Skinny memo at noon today listing the pros and cons of the nomination. With the dearth of information on this individual, our warmth to her appointment may hinge on our trust in the President and trustworthy Texans (like Justice Hecht) who know her and assure us she is conservative and evangelical. Like a lot of Texans, she used to be a Democrat. But her leadership in the vetting of judges for the White House gave us Appeals Court Judges like Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown and Chief Justice John Roberts. Then again, there is no doubt but that this nomination is "huge." --OPS

Dr. James Dobson (PRO/WAIT)
Fred Barnes (PRO/WAIT))
*************************************
PRO-MIERS
Dr. James Dobson

Focus on the Family Action Chairman James C. Dobson, Ph.D., issued the following statement today regarding President Bush's nomination of Harriet Miers to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the United States Supreme Court:

"We welcome the president's nomination of Harriet Miers to the U.S. Supreme Court. He pledged emphatically during his campaign to appoint judges who will interpret the law rather than create it. He also promised to select competent judges who will 'not use the bench to write social policy.'(1) To this point, President Bush's appointments to the federal bench appear to have been remarkably consistent with that stated philosophy. Based on the information known generally about Harriet Miers, and President Bush's personal knowledge of her, we believe that she will not prove to be a lone exception."

On the other hand, one cannot know absolutely about matters of integrity and philosophy until a jurist is given the tremendous power and influence of their position. As Lord Acton said: 'Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.' Sadly, that seems to have happened to Justices Souter and Kennedy."

We look forward to learning more about her at the confirmation hearings."

PRO-MIERS
Fred Barnes from THE WEEKLY STANDARD

IF ALL GOES WELL, Harriet Miers will turn out to be a less impressive version of John Roberts: that is, a judicial conservative, or constitutionalist, who will cause the ideological balance on the Supreme Court to shift to the right. She's not likely to have Roberts's gift for describing and defending a conservative judicial philosophy, dodging questions on current issues, and toying with frustrated Democrats. All she needs to do is come off as a credible mainstream conservative, avoid the questions that Democrats will try to trick her on, and persuade senators she's not merely a Bush crony. That accomplished, she should be confirmed.

She'd better be able to do this. If she can't--if she's not really a conservative--the political effect will be to shatter President Bush's still-strong relationship with his base. The love affair will be over. The president will have dashed the hopes cherished by conservatives for a conservative Supreme Court. And he will be far weaker as a national political leader as a result.

Here's what people at the White House told me after Bush announced to nearly everyone's surprise that Miers, 60, now the chief White House legal counsel, was his pick to replace Sandra Day O'Connor: After running the judicial selection process along with Karl Rove--the process that led to the Roberts nomination--she had become a candidate for the high court herself.

The president and others at the White House have had long discussions with her about judges. She and Rove were involved in questioning at least five candidates for the court vacancy Roberts has filled. From those talks over the months, I'm told, it became clear to Bush that she had exactly the philosophy of judicial restraint he favors and that she wouldn't "grow" as a justice and turn into a swing vote or a liberal.

Also, I'm told, the president is fully aware of the stakes in this nomination. Roberts's replacement of William Rehnquist as chief justice was simply a conservative replacing a conservative. But Miers would succeed a swing justice. With her, I'm told further, Bush believes he would be altering the ideological makeup of the court, moving it to the right.

The question is: why pick Miers and not someone with a judicial record as a conservative? Bush had before him a list of roughly two dozen potential nominees with unassailable qualifications and clear conservative leanings on judicial matters. He'd already interviewed at least four of them. Any of them would be likely to win confirmation. No president whose party controls the Senate has lost a Court nomination fight since 1968. And that year, President Lyndon Johnson's selection of his buddy Abe Fortas came late in the term. That made it easy for Republicans to delay and ultimately kill the Fortas nomination.

So why did Bush choose Miers? For him, these nominations are quite personal. He wants to feel comfortable with his nominee, confident his pick will be a conservative now and conservative 20 years from now. Bush picked Roberts after being impressed while interviewing him. His doubts were erased (and there were initial doubts about Roberts). My guess is with Miers his doubts were washed away too.

Conservatives shouldn't throw up their hands in despair, at least yet. They should wait until they hear from Miers as a witness before the Senate Judiciary Committee. It's then that we'll begin to find out if Bush was correct in his view that she's the person to fulfill the dreams of so many conservatives and finally shove the Supreme Court to the right.

The Early Skinny on Harriet Miers

2005-10-03T11:52:00.000-04:00

Problems:

The nomination has opened up charges of cronyism. She's very loyal to the President, but doesn't appear to have much of a judicial philosophy.
She gave money to the Democratic National Committee in 1988, Al Gore's Presidential Campaign in 1988 and Lloyd Bentsen's Senate Campaign in 1987. (Was it because her law firm asked her to, or was she a conservative Democrat then, like a lot of Texans? Was Al Gore pro-life then?)
We need to ask if this type of nomination is what conservatives have fought for since Reagan vs. Ford in 1976, and in 2000 and 2004. She doesn't appear to be what was promised: a Scalia or a Thomas.
She has been on Minority Leader Senator Harry Reid's OK list twice.
She agreed to run (clean up?) the Texas Lottery Commission.
Her Texas judge friend, Nathan Hecht, says she would be another Lewis Powell (a fine Southern gentleman, but a moderate at best). But then Hecht was speaking on NPR. That she was a national leader in the American Bar Association (ABA) (as opposed to the Federalist Society) seems to put her in the Powell mold.
It is a done deal. She will be approved by the Senate.

Positives:

According to Marvin Olasky of World Magazine, who has spoken with her pastor (of Valley View Christian Church), she has been active there for a decade, tithes to that conservative evangelical church, and "has committed her life to Jesus."
Based on conversations with her colleague, Justice Hecht, she would likely take an evangelical Christian position on abortion. She was a sponsor for Dallas Right to Life dinners while on city council there.
Dr. Dobson and Chuck Colson have said they have researched her, and are openly supportive.
She has been on Republican OK lists.
There may be another opening on the court. Bush will get a third shot.
As White House Counsel, she bravely pushed Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown and other solid conservatives in a hailstorm of anger and hostility without buckling to pressure.
She appeared to be one of the voices for breaking the Democratic filibuster with the "Constitutional option."
Planned Parenthood is already working against her.
She's a Texan born and bred (Southern Methodist University / SMU Law). Her cultural influences are not those of a David Souter (Harvard/Oxford/Harvard Law).
Decision-making on the court can be a collegial affair. She will be influenced by Scalia, Thomas and Roberts and will more likely join their opinions rather than Breyer, Ginsburg or Stevens.
Here ABA activities include a Texas Bar sponsored effort to get the ABA to switch its position from pro-Roe v. Wade to neutral.

Update: (October 5) Since I developed this ledger sheet, I notice that Al Mohler has done a similar pro- and con- exercise. That can be found here.

Roberts Frustrates Left

2005-09-16T09:30:00.000-04:00

In his responses Wednesday, future Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts frustrated Senators Schumer and Feinstein with his learned and at times humorous responses to their over-the-top cross-examination.

Only in response to questions of propriety related to his failure to report being interviewed by the AG did he seem even a little off his game. At no time did he comment on pending cases or provide extra-legal political opinion, much to the chagrin of one Joseph Biden, Democrat of Delaware.

It is becoming obvious that this is a dress rehearsal for the next nominee. Veterans of the Clarence Thomas hearings say these hearings are less well attended with interest groups less strident, which is remarkable given today's 24-hour news and wall-to-wall talk.

Judge Roberts' Faith

2005-09-14T13:27:00.000-04:00

The Washington, D.C.-based Culture of Life Foundation issued the following statement late yesterday on Senator Diane Feinstein's line of questioning of Judge John Roberts. It, along with the transcript of the exchange and another with Senator Specter is worth repeating here.

We condemn Senator Feinstein's attempt to place Judge Robert's Catholicism at the center of his confirmation hearings this afternoon.

Using the context of John Kennedy's Catholicism, Senator Feinstein asked Judge Roberts if he believed in an absolute separation of Church and state. In her questions and comments Senator Feinstein invoked those terrible debates in America about whether Catholics could have a role in the public square. Apparently Senator Feinstein agrees with those who feared faithful Catholics in public office.

Senator Feinstein's questioning is an unconscionable dredging up of a dark time in America. And her questioning comes perilously close to a religious test for pubic office. She owes Judge Roberts and all Americans an apology.

*********************

Transcript
Confirmation Hearing
Judge John Roberts
September 13, 2005

FEINSTEIN: In 1960, there was much debate about President John F. Kennedy's faith and what role Catholicism would play in his administration. At that time, he pledged to address the issues of conscience out of a focus on the national interests, not out of adherence to the dictates [Note: Dictates? What is she saying?] of one's religion. And he even said, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute." My question is: Do you?

ROBERTS: Senator, I think the reason we have the two clauses in the Constitution in the First Amendment reflects the framers' experience. Many of them or their immediate ancestors were fleeing religious persecution. They were fleeing established churches. And it makes perfect sense to put those two provisions together: no establishment of religion and guaranteeing free exercise. That reflected the framers' experience..

FEINSTEIN: You can't answer my question yes or no?

ROBERTS: Well, I don't know what you mean by absolute separation of church and state. For example, recently in the Ten Commandments case, the court upheld a monument on the Texas Capitol grounds that had the Ten Commandments in it. They struck down the posting of the Ten Commandments in a Kentucky courthouse. Is it correct to call the monument on the Texas Capitol grounds with the Ten Commandments, is that an absolute separation or is that an accommodation of a particular monument along with others that five of the justices found was consistent with the First Amendment?

So I don't know what that means when you say absolute separation. I do know this: that my faith and my 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.

************************

SEN. SPECTER: And let me digress from Roe for just a moment because I think this touches on an issue [which] ought to be settled. When you talk about your personal views, and as they may relate to your own faith, would you say that your views are the same as those expressed by John Kennedy when he was a candidate, and he spoke to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association on September of 1960, quote, "I do not speak for my church on public matters, and the church does not speak for me."?

ROBERTS: I agree with that, senator, yes.

SPECTER: And did you have that in mind when you said there is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying the precedent as well as Casey.

ROBERTS: Well, I think people's personal views on this issue derive from a number of sources. And there is nothing in my personal views based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from a fly -- applying the precedent of the court faithfully under principles of starry decisus [note: stare decisis or "let it stand"].

***********************
The hostility toward religion manifested in Washington these days is chilling. Just another example of how some of our leaders are out of touch with the Framers. The hearings are expected to wrap up this week, early next week at the latest, with windy floor statements and debate to begin mid- to late next week.

Trusting Roberts

2005-08-12T13:39:00.000-04:00

Please find below two messages from Tony Perkins, President of Family Research Council that you will find interesting and important. -OPS

Trust Yet Verify

A brief follow up to the story from yesterday on Supreme Court nominee John Roberts' involvement with pro bono work on Romer v. Evans. As a former policy maker and now full- time advocate for family values, my first thought in response to the LA Times story was "aiding and abetting," which I would venture to say is how many of our supporters would see this news. However, I urge caution in jumping to that conclusion. Judge Roberts was an attorney with a large firm where helping colleagues when called upon was expected. Attorneys are not necessarily advocates or activists. In fact, activists are exactly what we don't want on the court.

I spent the good part of yesterday on the phone and in meetings to get the facts. I have verified that his involvement was limited to about 5 hours of participation in a moot court as he played the role of one of the High Court's conservative members asking tough hypothetical questions of the attorneys who actually prepared and argued the case. Stories are already beginning to circulate about the motives behind one of the main sources of the LA Times story who is no longer with the law firm and is now with a left-leaning advocacy organization in Washington.

I remain confident that President Bush understands that his legacy in large part will be determined by whom he places on the Supreme Court. I have also gained confidence in reviewing Judge Roberts' judicial opinions, which helps me trust his statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding his judicial philosophy: "(Judges) do not have a commission to solve society's problems, as they see them, but simply to decide cases before them according to the rule of law." Yet as Ronald Reagan said, "Trust, but verify." We plan to do just that as we will be heavily involved in the confirmation hearings.

Justice Sunday II

There is still time if your church hasn't signed up to host the August 14 simulcast - "Justice Sunday II - God Save the United States and this Honorable Court!" Churches across the country continue to sign up to serve as host churches for the community. Your church has ways to broadcast the event. Sky Angel satellite system will broadcast the simulcast live from 7 PM - 8:30 PM ET on Channel 9702. Trinity Broadcasting Network will rebroadcast the event at 10 PM ET. You may also access the simulcast via webcast at www.justicesunday.com. Justice Sunday II will be a pivotal moment as we pray for the future of the Supreme Court and educate pro-family Americans on what they can do to protect our nation from judicial activism. Click the link below to register your church, visit www.justicesunday.com for general information, or call 800/225-4008 (toll free).

Additional Resources Justice Sunday II - Registration for Churches

National Conference on Darwin Coming to Greenville

2005-08-01T16:18:00.000-04:00

I am glad to announce that Greenville, South Carolina has been selected for Uncommon Dissent: Scientists Who Find Darwinism Unconvincing. Presenters for the August 4-6 academic conference include the leading critics of Darwin and Darwinism in America, Dr. Michael Behe (Darwin's Black Box) and Dr. Jonathan Wells (Icons of Evolution).The registration fee for the three-day conference is $145 (standard) or $115 (teachers and students, including homeschool parent-teachers). But, if you include "Palmetto" in the Comment section of the Registration Form, you may take $20 off, just for reading Palmetto Public Square. For further information, or to register by telephone, please contact Lewis Young at Piedmont Travel in Greenville (864) 288-3456.

Frist and South Carolina Conservatives (The State)

2005-07-30T19:01:00.000-04:00

Sen. Bill Frist’s turnaround on embryonic stem cell research could come back to haunt him if he aspires to the presidency, S.C. conservatives said Friday.

That’s because a position that draws rave reviews from the likes of Democratic Sen. Edward Kennedy is liable to generate the opposite reaction in conservative-leaning Republicans who vote in the state’s primary elections, said Oran P. Smith, president of the Palmetto Family Council.

“We’re disappointed to hear that he has taken this position. ... We want to defend a culture of life,” Smith said. “We feel that destruction of embryos is destruction of life.”

Frist — who logged visits to South Carolina in May and June — seems to be flouting the GOP tradition of waging a conservative campaign early and moving to the center later, Smith said.

“First, he has to be nominated,” Smith said. “I think he has harmed himself with perhaps a larger group than he realizes.”

Holly Gatling, who heads South Carolina Citizens for Life, said her group supports medical research using stem cells from adults and from umbilical cord blood.

But in embryonic stem cell research, “a human life is destroyed for lethal medical experimentation that’s not promising,” she said. “Senator Frist is simply wrong.”

Gatling said it’s early to assess Frist’s chances as a presidential candidate but that his new position on stem cell research will raise questions among S.C. conservatives.

“The question I would ask him is, when does he believe that killing an innocent human life is not wrong?”

— Linda H. Lamb

Out of the Ballpark

2005-07-20T16:01:00.000-04:00

First of all, I must apologize profusely for my report of the possible selection of Edith Brown Clement. Though I underlined in my message that it was mere speculation, it was premature to include a photograph. That, added to the suggestion that Chief Justice Rehnquist might retire undermines my credibility. I will be reluctant in the future to rely on even the best sources (in those cases USA Today, The Washington Post [yes, I know], and Robert Novak).

Now for Judge Roberts. BIO

1. At 50, he is relatively young. With Alberto Gonzales (49) and Michael McConnell (50) he was among the younger judges being considered for the post. The only thing better than being a solid choice is being a young, solid choice.

2. He is experienced. He is a "lawyer's lawyer" according to Manuel Miranda. Roberts has argued 39 cases before the high court alone, where he won 25 (64%). Most of the cases were business-oriented where he argued, for instance, against radical environmental protections.

3. He is a Rehnquist, not a Scalia...and surely not a Souter. The other strong conservative possibility for the Bush nod, J. Michael Luttig of the Fourth Circuit, who clerked with Scalia, has a longer paper trail and is much more aggressive in style. Roberts seems to be in temperament more like his mentor, Rehnquist, for whom he clerked. His opinions (see CASES), even in dissent, are written in a collegial but forceful style. One of his most interesting decisions was the case of a 12-year-old convicted of eating a french fry in a D.C. Metro (subway) station. Roberts voted to uphold the conviction.

4. He has bipartisan support (including Bill Clinton 's Solicitor General) and cleared the Senate 99-0 in 2003. The Gang of Fourteen will find it hard to cite the "extraordinary circumstances" called for in their pact as an excuse to filibuster.

5. Roberts is a family man and it is reported that his wife has been involved in Feminists for Life, an organization made famous by its honorary chairwoman, Everybody Loves Raymond's Patricia Heaton.

6. In brief written during his time with the Justice Department of George H.W. Bush (41), he and his co-writer argued that Roe should be overturned. He also urged the federal government in one case to intervene on behalf of the pro-life Operation Rescue. But, during Senate hearings for the D.C. Appeals Court slot, Roberts said Roe was settled law.

Note: My reaction to this seeming incongruity is simple. If you are an Appeals Court judge, Supreme Court decisions are settled law. When you become a Supreme Court Justice, you decide what is settled and what isn't.

Here is my statement released to print media today:

In John G. Roberts, the President has chosen a veteran lawyer, scholar and family man for the Supreme Court of the United States. As the President considered candidates in recent days, we were close to believing that a less qualified candidate might emerge. We are glad to be proved wrong.

Judge Roberts strong bipartisan support in the United States Senate for the D.C. Appeals Court only two years ago should be controlling. This man is solid in every way and will have a long and impressive career on the high court in the mold of his mentor, [Chief Justice] William Rehnquist.

Bush to Name New Justice Tonight

2005-07-19T15:00:00.000-04:00

USA Today and others are reporting that President Bush will announce his nominee to fill the seat of Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in an address to the nation at 9:00 p.m. EDT. The White House is asking networks to carry his remarks live.

Speculation is that the President will nominate 57-year-old Edith Brown Clement, a former U.S. District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana who now sits on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Just in case she is chosen, what kind of judge is she?

Though her judicial philosophy is somewhat fuzzy, she has indicated tendencies of strict constructionism, a philosophy that usually means interpreting the Constitution narrowly and with original intent in mind rather as a "living document" to be stretched to meet progressive ideas. When Bush (43) nominated her to the Appeals Court in 2001, she was confirmed 99-0. She is a member of the conservative Federalist Society.

Clement has been targeted for dislike by the left-leaning People for the American Way and the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL) finds her record "seriously troubling," placing the burden on her confirmation testimony to dispels doubts about her commitment to "protecting personal freedom," i.e., abortion.

Conservative researchers are concerned, however about a statement she made during her 2001 Senate confirmation hearing. She told the Judiciary Committee that the Supreme Court "has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion" and that "the law is settled in that regard." That statement sounds more like the stare decisis ("let is stand") philosophy that pervaded the career of O'Connor.

Judge Clement was born in Birmingham and graduated from Alabama. Her law degree is from Tulane. Before taking a seat in the bench (1975) she represented oil companies, insurance companies and the marine services industry.

Other possibilities being talked about in Washington include the other female contenders: Edith Hollan Jones and Priscilla R. Owen (with Clement also 5th Circuit Court of Appeals) newly appointed Janice Rogers Brown of the D.C. Circuit; and Columbia College and USC Law graduate Karen Williams of our own 4th Circuit.

The Word on Gonzales Ain't Good

2005-07-13T16:17:00.000-04:00

The Word is Out on Gonzales

In my last Palmetto Public Square, I suggested that there might be a social issues problem with President Bush nominating his friend, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, to the United States Supreme Court. Now. after reading a paper shared with Palmetto Family Council by Birmingham, Alabama attorney Phillip L. Jauregui, I believe the concerns over Gonzales are even broader.

Jauregui's paper, available on the PFC website here, is an analysis of a Parental Notification ruling [In re Doe19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000)], of the Texas Supreme Court when Gonzales sat there. It is telling, and not in a good way.

Not only was the effect of the court order the death of an unborn child, it clearly showed Gonzales as an activist joiner eager to overturn two lower court rulings and flout the legislature to allow a 17-year-old girl to have an abortion without notifying her parents.

Gonzales felt so strongly about the decision of the court's majority that he issued a separate, concurring opinion in which he said: "I fully join in the Court’s judgment and opinion.”

The dissenters in the case, (including then Texas Justice Priscilla Owen, who was recently confirmed to a federal judgeship in the deal worked out by the Gang of 14) violently disagreed saying Gonzales and the others "thwarted the Legislature’s purposes in the Parental Notification Act,” violated “parents’ fundamental, constitutional rights to raise their children,” “usurp[ed] the trial court’s authority to find facts,” and “trivialize[ed] the decision to have an abortion.” (I have cited three of their errors. The Jauregui paper cites a total of eighteen lapses for which Gonzales is responsible.)

The situation is clear. Alberto Gonzales, a good friend of a good President and a probably a good Attorney General, isn't the right appointment for the United States Supreme Court. Why? Because his hands are sullied with anti-family jurisprudence and with judicial activism. Long term,

I'm not sure which is worse.

Epilogue
In recent weeks Palmetto Family Council has partnered with Manuel Miranda and the Third Branch Conference, an affiliation of originalist, textualist and pro-family leaders monitoring the apponitment of new Justices to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Miranda published an excellent piece in this morning's Washington Times on the Gonzales situation, raising many additional points to those cited in this edition of Palmetto Public Square.

More Commentary Coming

2005-07-12T16:34:00.000-04:00

Watch this space for the latest on South Carolina public policy from a free market and faith perspective.

The Goods on Gonzales

2005-07-12T16:07:00.000-04:00

Birmingham Attorney Phillip L. Jauregui has prepared an outstanding legal brief on the record of AG Alberto Gonzales on life issues based on In re Doe, 19 S.W.3d 346 (Tex. 2000) . Here is an exerpt, taken from his conclusion:

"Gonzales thwarted “the Legislature’s purposes in the Parental Notification Act,” Id. at 376,
Gonzales violated “parents’ fundamental, constitutional rights to raise their children, Id.,
Gonzales “usurps the trial court’s authority to find facts,” Id.,
Gonzales “trivializes the decision to have an abortion,” Id.,
Gonzales “acted irresponsibly,” Id. at 383,*
Gonzales “summarily rendered judgment without careful consideration of the record.” Id.,
Gonzales “manufactured reasons to support [his] actions” Id.,
Gonzales “ignor[ed] the evidence that supports the trial court’s judgment.” Id.,
Gonzales “disregarded the law.” Id.,
Gonzales “trampled the process on which the legitimacy of our law depends.” Id.,
Gonzales “usurped the role of the trial court,” Id. at 376,
Gonzales improperly “reviewed the evidence, and [drew his] own conclusions,” Id.,
Gonzales “fors[ook] any semblance of abiding by principles of appellate review.” Id.,
Gonzales’ “actions raise disturbing questions about [his] commitment to the rule of law,” Id. at 377,
Gonzales’ “actions raise disturbing questions about … the process that is fundamental to the public’s trust in the judiciary.” Id.,
Gonzales “manufactured reasons to justify [his] action,” Id. at 379,
Gonzales “substitute[d his] judgment for that of the trial court,” Id. at 383, and
Gonzales “ignore[d] the evidence.” Id. at 383.

Justice Gonzales’ fellow justices say it best; no other commentary is needed."

New Justice Warning

2005-07-12T15:40:00.000-04:00

"For me to know and you to find out."

That was Chief Justice William Rehnquist's comment to reporters over the weekend in response to speculation that he would imminently retire. Columnist Robert Novak and internet blogger Matt Drudge had reported that the Chief would synchronize an announcement with the touchdown of the President's plane from the G-8 Summit last Friday afternoon. Our sources in Washington seemed to confirm that expectation.

Well...it didn't happen.

The issue that is before us now is a replacement for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

The President is thought to favor an Hispanic-American, and if possible an Hispanic individual he knows. Those assumptions would seem to point to former Texas Supreme Court justice and current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. In the face of conservative criticism over Gonzales' wobbly record on life issues, Bush, in an interview with USA Today, defended Gonzales as "a friend." In true Texas style, the President also made it clear that he sticks with his friends. We believe such an attitude is fine for a cub scout brawl or a Toby Keith ballad, but a desire to go down with your buddy just for the sake of it isn't an acceptable rationale when choosing a Supreme Court justice.

Should Rehnquist retire, the plot thickens. President Bush could appoint a strict constructionist judge like the our own 4th Circuit's J. Michael Luttig to fill the solid Rehnquist's seat, elevate originalist Scalia or Thomas to the solid Chief position and appoint blow-with-the-wind Gonzales to the squishy O'Connor slot. The net effect of that (see the column by National Review Online's Ramesh Ponnuru) would be a zero sum game.

Make no mistake about it. If zero sum is the result, then all the hard-fought 2000. 2002, and 2004 Presidential and U.S. Senate election victories that make solid, lifetime court appointments possible were fought in vain. We would be foolish and irresponsible to settle for that.