Posted on 10/08/2005 9:52:18 AM PDT by Allen H
IT's risky to you and others because you and others don't know her. Bush knows her, and there is not one single judge he's put up that has NOT been strongly conservative. the charge of cronyism is one the msm has made all week long and it's a liberal talking point. It is surely not one that any conservative should be proud to throw around. Better a Bush "crony" on the court, than a kerry or gore "crony". You don't know her. No one here knows her. Bush does, and he is the one that put up all the judges that people her wish got the nomination, and Miers is the one that was primarily responsible for picking them to go to Bush. Think about that.
When you start with the word whine, you demonstrate you aren't interested in discussion, just starting a food fight.
She argued that the ABA should be *neutral*, which does not mean she is a pro-life activist. American Life League, the most solid pro-life organization which is peaceful and rational, opposes Miers, which suggests she has not donated to or been involved with them. Feminists for Life is also unsure what to think of her. Justice Hecht said she is *PERSONALLY pro-life*, a stance she shares with Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer, and most pro-abortion activists.
What more have I done that is pro-life? I have worked at Crisis Pregnancy Centers to give women other options, I have prayed every Saturday outside an abortion mill since I was 16, written countless pro-life papers for liberal professors of ethics and philosophy, did graduate work at Harvard to increase my opportunities to effect our culture and laws, and worked on the campaigns of pro-life politicians. Harriet Miers may feel as strongly as I do, and I most certainly don't look down my nose at her or at anyone else (arrogance is not pro-life), but I have no way of knowing that.
You mention that "rational" people do nothing besides contribute money. I guess people that helped Jews, Slavs, and Catholics escape the Holocaust were irrational.
I fail to see how a pro-lifer or a conservative could oppose the overturning of Roe v. Wade. The decision removed the abortion issue from the democratic process, a classic example of centralized government. Before Roe, there were several hundred US abortions per year, now there are approximately 1.3 million. People have more abortions since it has been recognized as a "Constitutional right," because many Americans conflate law and morality.
If we cannot legislate upon moral issues such as the right to exist, I hope you have joined an advocacy group to "decriminalize" rape and homicide. If "people want to make that horrible, wicked decision," "it is their God-given right." There is no use in making such acts of violence illegal, I suppose.
I admire your anti-terrorism work, but wouldn't you say (according to your own principles) Al-Qaeda has a God-given right to decide to kill innocent civilians? If killing is immoral but we have free will, isn't anti-terrorism law a legislation of morality?
As for Roe v. Wade's precedent, the late Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas have consistently dissented from decisions upholding the case's precedent. While Rehnquist was alive, he believed Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. Scalia and Thomas continue to express this sentiment.
....says the fool who's been here for all of a month, to the person who's been here for years.
Nice.
You know what's ironic about your statment? The same Senate that voted to take the interogation rights and limits away from the President and the military last week is the same group of weak senators that you want to decide if a well known polarizing conservative Judge gets confirmed to the Court. Don't you see a problem with that?
And I'm not going to argue Miers pro-life stance with you. It speaks for itself. There is NO rational argument that she's not strongly pro-life. Evidence, first hand accounts, and her personal and professional life the past 30 years prove that she is. I refuse to argue something that is well established and well confirmed by the passage of time.
This is what drives me nuts! I agree 110% with what you said! The rulings out of the Supreme Court are OUTRAGEOUS! The government allowing people homes to be taken for profit. The court sanctioned murder of Terri Schiavo and anyone else disabled that can't speak for themselves. Not allowing States the STATES RIGHT to execute a violent vicious murderer just because they're 17. On and on and on. But as of yet, there is no evidence that has come to light that would clearly indicate that Miers does not believe the same as you and I do. NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THAT IDEA. And until there is somcething concrete that can hold water, I REFUSE to speak against something on the basis of supposition and fortune telling, and add to the stupidly created rift in the conservative movement! That is all this has done. Conservatives with reasonable concernes have been unreasonable in their voicing of them and made a split in the conservative movement, giving the liberals just what they want. It has done nothing but hurt conservativism. And in a few months when Miers has proven to have become another strict constructionist conservative Christian Justice, all this hand wringing and accusing going on will be shown to be really foolish with no good having come from it.
Let me save you the trouble. They have no friggin clue.
See, this is why you're not worth conversing with because you are all snappy comebacks, and no real content or foundation in fact and reality. EZ clearly asked for one of the anti-Miers posters to spell out some facts and really get to the meat of things, and your response was a stupid smart comment. I'm able to respond to what people say in detailed fashion, and you are STILL unable to do that. You're just a supply of smart comments and glib comebacks. Not someone involved in or even equipped for a real debate.
Again you miss my point. It's not JUST about her or her predicted performance. Plenty dismay has been expressed as "missed opportunity."
And I hear that the GOP thinks the criticism is bullshiite.
OMG ... you say this about LAZ? Long-time readers of FR can only shake their heads.
Based on his postings here, I firmly believe Laz is more qualified to be the nominee, and personally I would be happy if it were so (unless it was Brown ... sorry Laz).
I know that a lot of conservatives are scared because of what happened in the past, but George W. is not his father.
He may have been born back East, but he was raised in Midland Texas. Midland is not the center of Liberalism in Texas. It's in the heart of Conservative Texas. Even the Dems in Texas in the past were conservative. Why do you think Texas is now a Republican State? It's because the Republican Party, despite a few left over Rockefeller Libs, is conservative.
Let not your heart be troubled, she's a conservative.
Yeah, you're a master debater, alright.
Yet another comment birthed out of ignorance. I don't love Bush on conditionally, and I don't agree with all he's done. Like I said for the umpteenth time, I wish the military was on the border, and I would like major budget cuts to all but the military and DOHS. I'd also like to call back all unpaid and forgiven foreign debts from all nations who owed them. Those are not exactly things that Bush has done or will do. But when it comes to this, the evidence at hand indicates that Miers will be a strong conservative Justice, and if you didn't post smart comments and snappy jibes, you wouldn't be posting anything at all. If you are typical of the anti-Miers crowd, then I am right in my assertion that all the people against Miers are secular conservatives at best, who maybe aren't even Republicans but trolls, and are opposing Bush's nomination for Miers when they didn't even vote for Bush either time. Who did you vote for I am curious? Can you honestly name all the Republican's you have voted for for President last year back to when you were 18, and not have one democrat on the list? If not, your opinion on this is really not valid, as you have a side agenda. Stirring the pot among conservatives, which all good libs do for a living.
Sorry, I called you a lemming.
Sorry, but I prefer to make decisions based on what I know for fact from my own experience, not what I'm told from other people. And that's what Bush has done. He made a decision based on what he KNOWS for a fact, not what someone else told him.
Harry Reid won't be supporting her like this once it gets into committee. Did you see all the quotes from lib democrats that supported Roberts, and then did the best they could to eviscerate him in committee and in the media? Democrat support before the committee starts hearings doesn't bug me a bit. Because I know for a fact that they will all be trying to destroy her in committee and making her to be a zealot in the media, just like they did with Roberts, and if she gets 20 democrat votes on the Senate, she'll be lucky. They know good and well she's a conservative, just like the lib groups know it, which is why EVERY LIB GROUP in the country is opposed to her.
In other words, trust Bush.
No thank you.
Almost all of your posts are insulting and frankly, insults are the bulk of the content of what you have to say. I am starting to think you're genetically incapable of actually refuting someones points one at a time, without being personally insulting to cover your lack of facts to disagree with.
On the Bush-bot angle, I also believe in strict immigration reform, and I recycle all the garbage I can, can't stand smoking, and would support a 50% to 100% big tobacco and alcahol tax. Am I still a goose stepping Bush-bot???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.