Whining about Miers.

Since I’m sure there are still many conservatives out there who are still upset and whining about Bush not nominating who they wanted, I’m wondering. Do you wish Bush had nominated who you wanted, even if it meant them not being confirmed and Bush being forced to pick a milk toast? I don’t think anyone can argue about the fact that the Republican majority in the Senate haven’t exactly acted with a spine or any kind of united strong conservative voice the four years they’ve been a majority. And it seems the larger their majority gets, the more its spine gets watered down.

This is a reality lesson in life. There are two ways to stand strong to your convictions and beliefs and not waiver. You can go about your life, putting your beliefs into practice, never bending, never breaking, never compromising, and whenever anyone asks what you believe, you tell them, politely, civilly, like how Miers has done it. OR, you can do it another way. You can be all those same things above, and you can also be very vocal, very "in your face", very confrontational, outspoken, and be very well known as to what you believe and stand for, so that if you come up for a position like Supreme Court Justice, it’s known immediately which side of the court you will always come down on. The Scalia / Thomas side, or the Ginsburg / Stevens side. The latter is the kind of person that Michael Luddig, Pricilla Owens, Edith Jones, or David Pryor, who I would sure support. Frankly that’s the kind of person I am, and I was hoping they'd of gotten this nomination. I’m not quite "in your face" with liberals unless confronted, but I also will not sit like a wall flower while people say stupid liberal things in the face of reality. I wouldn’t expect to be nominated for the SCOTUS either. Being that way is not bad in any way, but it is a problem. It’s guaranteeing a nasty, long, drawn out, ugly fight that would not even guarantee ALL the Republicans standing with the President. If Bush thought that the Republican majority in the Senate actually had a spine and would stand up to a fight, I think he would have likely put up someone like Juddig or Jones. I think this pick is an indictment on the complete and total lack of conservative will in the Senate majority. Heck, this woman he did pick stands as a solid conservative nominee with all those who have endorsed her, and not all Republicans are backing her. The bottom line is, Harriet Miers WILL be confirmed, and she much more likely than not, will prove to be a conservative, indications show she will be much like Scalia and Thomas. And if you voted for President Bush both times, like I did, or just one time, then you have to trust that he will keep his promise on Judges, like he has so faithfully kept it to this point. There hasn’t been one single Judge on the district, appellate or federal court level that Bush has nominated that hasn’t been a strong unbending conservative. And this is one fact I STILL can’t get around that frustrates me with those opposing Miers. Miers was pivotal in choosing ALL the Judges that Bush has nominated to all the courts the past five years, all of which have proven to be good solid conservatives that all the conservative voters have liked so much. Yet somehow the person who found, supported, and brought all those good conservative judges to the President, somehow isn’t good enough to be a judge herself when she’s accomplished all the things she’s done in her life? That is simply the stupidest thing I’ve ever heard. Especially after it’s been proven she said now she was worried that perhaps John Roberts might not be conservative enough. And some conservatives are still not supporting her? ARE YOU FRIKKEN KIDDING ME??? THAT is just simply elitism and nothing else.

I was worried initially, because I desperately wanted an Owens, or Luiddig, or someone just like them, someone that was nose to the wind, finger pointing and shaking to the left, well known vocal hard conservative, BUT, if the person put up instead of them is just like that, with the same conservative ideological beliefs, just isn’t a well known confrontational person who will unite all liberals and democrats and milk-toast weak RHINO Republicans against them, then I will choose the Miers over the Owens or Luddig EVERY TIME, because frankly I have NO FAITH in the Republican Senate majority, and while I am more like the judicial Luddig’s and Jones’s, I’ve still seen nothing that yet shows she’s any less conservative than they are. When she gave money to algore, he was pro-life and hadn’t taken the pink liberal without reason pill yet, and since then she has been nothing but a conservative loyalist on all levels, professionally, personally, and religiously. She voted for Reagan in ‘84, she voted for the first Bush in ‘88. Once she became a registered Republican she stayed Republican and voted and worked and donated that way even when clinton was President, even in ‘91 and ’92 when the democrats controlled both Houses of Congress. Not one person who really knows her has come out against her nomination. Frum is the only one I’ve heard of who has worked with her and doesn’t support her, and that was years ago and it’s not as though Frum doesn’t have his own agenda. None of Bush’s judges has disappointed. They’ve all been proven to be very conservative constructionist judges, and there is no reason to believe Miers will be any different. The arguments is stale and smacks of elitism at this point. I prefer someone who hasn’t been indoctrinated by the snobbery of Yale and Harvard liberalism, and has lived most all of her life in very conservative Texas. Even when Texas was majority Democrat, it was conservative and had nothing in common with the radical New England and left coast liberal bases of operation. Instead of being a judge she’s been actually arguing law from the conservative perspective, not sitting on high on a bench disconnected from reality. What is so wrong with that? She will be confirmed, and more and more, I believe she will prove herself to be a dedicated defender of the Constitution and what it REALLY says, not what stevens and souter and ginsburg wish or think it says. Her votes I believe will consistently fall right with Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas and John Roberts, and when that time comes, I hope all here who eviscerated her just because she’s not some elitist insider snob, or a speak first think second hothead that would inflame all democrats and RINOs in the Senate, will remember just how vacuous the opposition to her really was, and just how wrong it has proven to be. Given the past 20 years of her life, I can’t see any rational way she will betray all she has proven to stand for the past two decades. And if you voted for and supported W. Bush last year and in 2000, then for Pete’s sake, show just a little faith and trust in the guy and believe that he would have gotten to know this woman the past 10 years he’s had a close relationship with her. Have a little faith. With faith as small as a mustard seed, a mountain can be moved. I choose to have faith and pray that Harriet Miers will be the conservative strict-constructionist Justice that this nation desperately needs right now, and pray that she will have the strength and wisdom to adjudicate in that way, and continue to display and enforce the beliefs and convictions on the bench, that she has so strongly lived in her life.

Hello. 8)

One thing I would point out in response to your last post is that back when Thomas was put up, he wasn't the "Clarence Thomas" then, that he is now, so really, there wasn't any evidence that he was going to be another Scalia. If I recall correctly, pubs pretty well knew what kind of Justice Scalia would be. I think if Bush 41 had nominated him, Scalie would have been in trouble on the floor. It's one thing for Scalia to get 90 some odd votes on the floor of the Senate when Reagan won 49 states in 84', it would have a different story I think, since Bush didn't spank ducaca like Reagan spanked mondull. That's my big thing with all the conservatives on radio and TV and the net, like her, blasting Miers before the hearings even show what she has to say. That's like going hunting and blasting and leveling the forest because someone thinks they saw a squirrel in a tree from 100 yards. Not wise.

As to the infighting, it's not so much that I think it's divisive beyond full repair right now, but I always tend to think in terms of next week and month, not right now, and I can see this strife, if it continues, as having a MAJOR negative impact on the national conservative movement if people don't tone the rhetoric down. And it’s not so much that there is so much strife against Bush specifically that worries me, it’s any Republican leader in general. Again, I tend to think in tomorrows, not todays. And Bush’s political career is over, he can run again and I’m more thinking in the frame of mind of who’s next to take the mantle, while still knowing how important it is to get judges, fight the war, keep taxes down, cut the budget, etc, NOW, not next year. What worries me is that so many conservatives have so easily become so vocal and against a Republican President, with a total lack of real hard evidence to substantiate that strong vocal opposition. I am very big on not acting rashly without the benefit of hard facts. And so far, there is still a total lack of facts to substantiate this divisive conservative split where so many have come out against Miers, attacking those conservatives that support her or are just waiting to have real reason to not support her. That is just totally unwise, firing into the night, because of what someone thinks they saw. As I've stated clearly before there are several things I want that Bush hasn’t delivered, but when it comes to W. Bush, he has been 100% spot on golden when it comes to his judicial nominees. Even better than Reagan. So it is not logical that Miers, a person he actually knows personally for many years, will be a dud that will betray the conservative ideal. There is that part of me that is scared of being burned by a suterite, but until I have some evidence that it may happen with Miers, something tangible, something I can see and prove, I just don’t think it’s at all prudent to break from faith with Bush, for the sake of the conservative majority and it’s continued need for strength against the liberals, because I’m scared of what may happen with no facts to back up action and words against her. That is why this conservative divide bothers me so much and I really believe it needs to stop. Every day it goes on, the harder it will be to patch and move past and still gain seats in the House and Senate in ’06.

It also occurred to me this morning about the people complaining about Miers. I wonder how many of them were just one year ago demanding that democrats fold and give Bush the right to nominate for the judiciary who he wanted, that there were consequences to a President being elected and re-elected, so on and so forth. And now, some or many of those same people are saying that Bush doesn't have the right to nominate who he wants because some of the base doesn't like her. I can't quite get that to jibe with the logic used last year when it was the democrats opposing nominees. Miers isn’t who I would have picked. I’d of picked Pricilla Owens first and Edith Jones second and Michael Luddig third, but then, I am not the President, W. Bush is, and over 55 million people didn’t vote for me last November, they voted for W. Bush, and I don’t know Miers, W. Bush does, and he hasn’t failed in putting up firm hard conservative strict constructionist judges. That cannot be ignored or brushed aside in this argument. I also wonder what it’s going to be like during committee when all the democrats rip into her and her beliefs and stands she’s taken on positions, and if all the anti-Miers conservatives are going to side with the liberals in destroying her, or if it will dawn on them that she really is a conservative. The fight against Miers put on by the libs is shaping up to be nastier than Roberts. I really wish that Bush would waive lawyer / client privilege and present to the public all the opinions and papers she’s written for him the past ten years. Oh what a mess. Why couldn’t Bush just have nominated Precilla Owens or Edith Jones. I can only come back to the fact that he knows Miers very well for many years, and doesn’t know either of them, and he is determined beyond all else to NOT get burned by nominating a supposed great conservative that he doesn’t know from Adam, like his father did with Suiter, and Reagan did with o’conner and kennedy. That’s what I keep coming back to. Anyway, that's more what I think about all this and why I said what I did in those two posts you mentioned.

"...back when Thomas was put up, he wasn't the "Clarence Thomas" then, that he is now, so really, there wasn't any evidence that he was going to be another Scalia."

That was then, this is now. That was now proven Thomas, this is now unproven Miers.

"...I can see this strife, if it continues, as having a MAJOR negative impact on the national conservative movement if people don't tone the rhetoric down."

Any major negative impact that may ensue is more properly laid at the door of Bush, Rove and the White House. They have done a miserable job of preparing the conservative base for this and an equally lousy job of defending and/or selling this pick. Don't blame the conservative base for being concerned and asking questions. "Trust me" isn't going to get the job done.

"What worries me is that so many conservatives have so easily become so vocal and against a Republican President, with a total lack of real hard evidence to substantiate that strong vocal opposition."

If you really believe this statement, you're no conservative. Actually, the base has been pretty patient with past missteps by Bush. Not this time--it's too important.

"And so far, there is still a total lack of facts to substantiate this divisive conservative split where so many have come out against Miers..."

The burden of providing facts to support his nominee is on Bush, not the conservative base.

"So it is not logical that Miers, a person he actually knows personally for many years, will be a dud that will betray the conservative ideal...but until I have some evidence that it may happen with Miers, something tangible, something I can see and prove, I just don’t think it’s at all prudent to break from faith with Bush"

More "trust me". Not good enough. The issue is too important.

"I wonder how many of them were just one year ago demanding that democrats fold and give Bush the right to nominate for the judiciary who he wanted, that there were consequences to a President being elected and re-elected, so on and so forth...And now, some or many of those same people are saying that Bush doesn't have the right to nominate who he wants because some of the base doesn't like her."

This is very thin soup and a non-argument. The base neither "likes" nor "dislikes" her. Again, it is up to the President to provide sufficient information to sell this nominee to the base. So far, he hasn't done so.

"...I don’t know Miers, W. Bush does, and he hasn’t failed in putting up firm hard conservative strict constructionist judges. That cannot be ignored or brushed aside in this argument.

A good point, helpful but not determinative of the issue. But I'm not sure we can say those lower court judicial appointments were all "strict constructionist judges", although most of them were good appointments. This, however, is the SCOTUS we're talking about. The bar is, therefore, set much higher.

"Why couldn’t Bush just have nominated Precilla Owens or Edith Jones."

Same question we're all asking.

Okay, I put a lot of thought into this, so I hope you'll read it all. "That was then, this is now. That was now proven Thomas, this is now unproven Miers."

Don't you see the problem with that? It may have been then, but back then, conservatives didn't feed on their own if they didn't get just what they wanted when they wanted, and they didn't fly off the handle on emotional tirades, set to burn someone to the ground without a basis in fact. If that is what the conservative movement is like now, and you think that's okay and reasonable, then the conservatives need to be a minority again and start from scratch, because how some conservatives have handled this Miers nomination, setting out to destroy someone without a basis in fact to back up their actions, is everything that's wrong with politics, and is NOT what conservative ideology stands for. This rash emotional witch hunt without factual information to back it up is ridiculous, and there's no excuse for it.

Any major negative impact that may ensue is more properly laid at the door of Bush, Rove and the White House. They have done a miserable job of preparing the conservative base for this and an equally lousy job of defending and/or selling this pick. Don't blame the conservative base for being concerned and asking questions. "Trust me" isn't going to get the job done.

The mistake Bush has made is actually thinking that the 55 million people that voted for him last November would actually trust his judgment on someone he's known for over a decade that has picked all those great Judges conservatives love so much. And if "trust me" isn't going to work this time. Why? When it comes to judges, what example of a betrayal of that trust does any conservative have to stand on their opposition to Miers on? I've asked this many times in this thread and no one ever had a response. Name me one judge that Bush has put up that has NOT been a firm conservative constructionist judge? Just one. If you can't do that, then there is NO reason NOT to trust Bush on this nomination. Reagan didn't know kennedy or o'conner. Bush 41 didn't know suiter. Two of those three were made Justices because the first choices, well known conservatives with paper trails failed in the Senate, and the Senate isn't much more friendly to a hard conservative with a paper trail now than 20 years ago. Bush has not failed even just one time in five years to put up conservative judges, and that makes this total lack of trust in him on Miers nomination, totally unfounded.

If you really believe this statement, you're no conservative. Actually, the base has been pretty patient with past missteps by Bush. Not this time--it's too important.

Oh, so because I want facts and want to hear from Miers her philosophy to substantiate burning someone to the ground, I'm not a real conservative. THAT is a stupid statement. It's because this IS so important that people should have ALL the facts before they go off half cocked saying stupid things which have no basis in fact, which only inflame and hurt the situation on the whole. You don't need to tell me how important it is. I've been personally effected by TWO of the supreme court rulings the past year, two rulings that hit me on a very real personal level. NO CONSERVATIVE behaved this way during the Thomas nomination, and that clearly demonstrates a more mature conservative presence in the movement. I wish there was more of that patient, mature, forward thinking, rationality.

Further more, I have yet to find someone here that is as socially and ideologically conservative as I am, and have been since I was several years too young to vote! If being a "real conservative" means treating other conservatives the same as liberals because they want to be patient and get more information, yelling and screaming like a banshee without having facts to back up the complaints, and being so disrespectful like some in the "torch Miers" camp have been here in this thread, then you're right, I'm not a conservative. I refuse to join that kind of irrational emotional speculation driven not fact driven hysteria. THAT is NOT social and ideological conservatism. I challenge you to go read ALL my posts in ALL threads before the Miers nomination, there are more than a few, and then come back here and accuse me of not being a real conservative. Compared to Laz and H20, I haven't said anything here that would lead someone to think I'm not a real conservative.

The burden of providing facts to support his nominee is on Bush, not the conservative base.

And because there haven't been any real hard facts put out on Miers yet, that is the VERY reason that all this emotional frothing wanting to burn Miers to the ground for who she isn't, not who she is, is TOTALLY outrageous, and frankly, inexcusable. You just said yourself facts haven't been put out yet. That proves right there, this emotional loud torching of Miers and Bush, and for that matter those of us not rushing to judgment, is premature, with a total lack of patience and maturity. What I have seen in most of the people against Miers to this point, is a bunch of people given to give in to emotional impulse and a sense of self-importance because they haven't gotten who they wanted, as though Bush doesn't have the right to pick who he wants, especially since it's someone he knows and has known for many years, and of the over 300+ judges he has appointed, ALL of them have been conservative constructionists.

More "trust me". Not good enough. The issue is too important.

Already went into that. Because it's so important, the need for mature patience and prayer and faith is more important and more desperately needed, than the rash giving in to emotion and the desire for "WHAT I WANT AND HOW I WANT IT NOW! OR ELSE!!!" And THAT is what the vicious anti-Miers crowd has sounded like the past week. Can you not see and understand that? There isn't much difference in some of the people who want to cut Miers off at the knees before knowing about her, from the radical cooks at moveon.org that always had the camera when protesting the war. That's been what's made me so sick over this whole thing. I never thought it would be possible for conservatives to sound so much like rabid frothing irrational liberals. That's been the single most disappointing thing in all this to me. I hope as months go by, I can forget what I've seen in the behavior of so many conservatives about this. It's really disappointing and destroys the belief I had that conservatives were on a higher level of respect and maturity and rational thinking than liberals. The anti-Miers hysteria sure hasn't demonstrated that belief I have held for the past 18 years of my adult life.

Oh bologna! The anti-Miers rhetoric has been almost nothing but how she's weak, she was a democrat eons ago (leaving out the "conservative lifetime Texas" part), how she's a crony, how she gave money to algore (leaving out the "he was pro-life at the time" part), how she's a light weight, when her career accomplishments prove otherwise. How she has no paper trail, when she has 30 years of well documented professional acts, on and on and on. The whole anti-Miers argument has been totally supposition. It's been half who she isn't, being Owens, Jones, Luddig, etc, when there's no factual evidence she's NOT, and half who she is, being a crony, not experienced, not this, not that, which there is also no evidence to back up, forgetting the fact that she picked all the hard conservative Judges for Bush to nominate the past five years. There is so much more reason to believe she will be a conservative constructionist Justice than there is reason to believe she will not be that. But to listen to those who want to burn Miers to the ground, and Bush with her, you'd think Miers was a card carrying member of the aclu, supported abortion in the 80s, had homosexuals in her lifestyle, made money from an imminent domain case, and had argued for higher taxes, and a smaller military. And NONE of that is true. But that's the tone of the rhetoric against her by many conservatives that don't want her to be a Justice, and it's ridiculous and gets more shrill and supposition driven as the days go by.

Well you're the first person I've seen suggest that not all Bush's judges were conservative constructionists. Can you provide names of ones that weren't? If it were true, would not the rabid kristol anti-Miers gang be chanting those names hourly? Further, that above is not just a "good point", it is THE POINT! Bush has kept that promise to the American people, above and beyond even that which he promised and did on tax cuts, restoring the military, medicare reform, faith based initiatives, fighting terrorism and protecting the country, or any other conservative issue that he promised and then did. Bush has bat 1000 on Judges the past five years, and there is NO reason to doubt him. It is even more encouraging because he KNOWS Miers personally and has for over ten years, has spent nearly every day talking to her for a whole decade! That's far better than Reagan or Bush 41 did with kennedy, o'conner or suiter, and there wasn't all this attacking of Reagan or Bush over them, and there were more question marks with them than with Miers. I mean, conservatives have been saying for over six years, Bush is smarter than libs give him credit for. Now the conservatives against Miers are acting like he's too stupid to be able to read a person in ten years. After seeing him as President for five years, and living in Texas his whole time as Governor, agreeing with most of what he's done, and disagreeing with some, I see no reason to throw patience and rationality to the wind, and turn on him in an area that he's been above and beyond the most conservative of any President in Republican history. Judges.

Same question we're all asking.

The difference is, myself and those like me are asking those same questions, and then praying and waiting to get some facts on the matter, NOT flying off the handle, lighting the torches, and putting together a figurative Spanish Inquisition to burn Miers and Bush out of fear for what might happen, without any facts to support that emotional position, giving fuel to liberals for the next set of elections. I question, but sit and think and wait for facts before acting. Apparently, to those against Miers, all that's needed is displeasure at who Miers isn't, and fact vacant fear about what may or may not happen, and with all that, it's enough to split the conservative movement and feed on their own. Very sad, and NOT what conservative values and ideals stand for. I don't know how you can't see that it is possible to disagree with respect and patience and that you can disagree and be concerned without creating a loud ugly split. You wait until there are facts that prove a supposition to get loud and ugly. And at this point, no facts of that kind have come to light. If all the conservatives against Miers were reacting like Limbaugh, this would be a MUCH more respectful and intelligent and mature discussion, and wouldn't be this split that the kristols and ingrams have turned it into. That kind of rash emotional lashing out doesn't help anything, except give the liberals some great political ads for next November.

You missed the whole point of what I was trying to say. :( I don’t know how to put it more clearly than before, so please go back and re-read it. I was using homosexuality and islam as a general subject for the point of making things like that illegal, because a nation that can do that, can also make things that you do want and support illegal. An example of the dog turning on its master. I’ve always been against abortion, of any kind, early on or late term or partial birth. They’re all murder of a human being with a soul and personality, plain and simple. But the government has NO place making something like abortion illegal or legal. It is a moral issue first and foremost above a human rights issue. Human rights violations occur because of a lack of morality on some people. The lack of morality is exhibited before the violation of human rights. If people had a certain level of morality, there would be no human rights violations because their personal morality would prohibit them from doing such things. And as I said before, you cannot legislate morality. And as much as I hate abortion, I do not want to live in a country where woman who try to get an abortion and refuse adoption or other options are stuck in jail or otherwie detained until they give birth. That is NOT something the founding fathers would approve of, even though they would have clearly abhorred abortion.

I believe that God would be against such measures, and that, as I said before, He IS Pro-Choice. God gives man the freedom to murder. To rape. To steal. To curse Him. And to abort a baby in the womb. That is all part of free will and each individuals right to do whatever is in their power to do, whether it breaks a law of the nation they live in or not. There are plenty of things against God’s laws that are NOT against the laws of the United States of America. And abortion should be one of those. If a woman wants to have an abortion. The U.S. Government should neither deny, nor facilitate the services needed for that abortion. That woman should have the ability to go get an abortion, paid for by her, her non-government funded or subsidized insurance, or planned parenthood or some other organization in the business of killing babies. Afterwards, she will suffer the rest of her life with the psychological and emotional scars created when she murdered her unborn child, and then, someday, when she dies, she will stand before God and receive punnishment for making the wrong choice and murdering her baby in the womb. IT’s God’s call. NOT the U.S. government’s call. I liken a hypothetical federal ban on abortion, making it illegal, to the radical liberal pro-abortion crowd trying to abuse the RICO act so that it can be used to prosecute lawful citizens who are peacefully protesting outside abortion clinics. Both are unacceptable. Roe vs. Wade should be overturned, and the issue of abortion should be solved on the State level with State referrendums decided by each States citizens. NOT the federal government by some bunch of despots up high on some court. It should be decided by a larger group of despots in the U.S. House and Senate either. Let the people decide State by State. Most states would ban it, some wouldn’t, and those who feel the need for murdering little defenseless humans should pick up and move themselves to those few states that would keep it legal. Problem solved. Those who don’t want it, can stop it with a majority of the people, those who do, can legalize it with a majority, and those in both sets of States who don’t like where their State came down on it, can feel free to move to a state that has a majority of people who have spoken the way they feel. And when it’s all over, some day, God will educate those who chose to exercise their freedom to murder a baby in the womb. That’s how I feel about it, and other than those who support sniping abortion doctors and nurses, or bombing or burning abortion clinics, I don’t think anyone can be rationally as pro-life as I am. Just to prove this, because of a mistakingly diagnosed "condition" I supposedly had before birth, my mother’s doctor recommended she abort me. So I was slated to be one of the aborted statistics. So, I have a certain personal feeling on the matter, since I was within a hairs bredth of not being here to argue this.

I understood your previous post perfectly well, and I understand what you are trying to say-- your position is a very common one.

I am glad you did not become a statistic, and are here fighting for the Right along with us!

However, I still disagree emphatically on your reduction of abortion to simply a moral problem that cannot be prevented on earth. If unborn children are living human beings with souls, as you have acknowleged in your previous post, then would you not agree that abortion kills innocent people and is thus murder? I reiterate my point that homicide is immoral and that we will face God's judgment for it, but that does not mean it should be legal. The same is true of my previous example of rape. I just don't see why the fact that an action is sinful eliminates the possibility for legal prohibition of the action.
The goal with banning abortion is to prevent "doctors" from performing abortions, not to put women in jail. The consequences would probably fall hardest upon the abortionist rather than the mother, for he is the one doing the killing, and because many women who have abortions do not fully realize what they are doing. Illegalization of abortion would not land pregnant women in prison, as you suggested, it would make the procedure unavailable. Imprisonment of someone who claimed she wanted to terminate her child would be a violation of due process, so that could not legally happen. You are taking great leaps from allowing the states to restrict abortion within their own borders to throwing pregnant mothers in jail. A reversal of Roe v. Wade would do no such thing.

"because a nation that can do that, can also make things that you do want and support illegal."
~You are right. I do want not to be an accomplice to abortion, but it is illegal for me to not fund Planned Parenthood by refusing to pay taxes. Your point here is very clear, and is the reason I am always extremely hesitant about giving power to the government or allowing to extend its reach with social programs. Abortion is a special case, though, as prohibiting child murder is different from making laws in support of, or in penalty to, a religion or identity trait.

"I believe that God would be against such measures, and that, as I said before, He IS Pro-Choice. God gives man the freedom to murder. To rape. To steal. To curse Him. And to abort a baby in the womb. That is all part of free will and each individuals right to do whatever is in their power to do, whether it breaks a law of the nation they live in or not. There are plenty of things against God’s laws that are NOT against the laws of the United States of America. And abortion should be one of those."
~Does the liberty to murder, rape and steal that results from free will automatically justify making such actions legal?

I agree 100% that abortion is murder and kills innocent people. I thought I as much as said that before. It's bothered me for years that liberals put up such a fight to save the life of terribly violent murders, even mass murderers, even murderers of children, fighting to never have them executed, while at the same time, they kill unborn babies by the hundreds of thousands every year.

After reading your last response, I still don't think you get what I'm saying. What I think, and wish were the case in the world, is not compatible with the reality of human nature on the whole, and is not a realistic thing to ever expect from society on the whole, because we do not have forced Christianity in this country, and never should. Abortion shouldn't be legal or illegal. It should never have come before any court in this country. That it did is a complete and total abuse of the legal system. I agree with you in your stand that abortion be "illegal" for lack of another word, and that there were never any abortions, but it will never happen. For that to happen, all Americans would have to be Christians and believe that the unborn are humans with souls. And that will never happen. You can't force morality on people who choose not to have it in their life. In my opinion that is the chief conflict between conservatism and liberalism. Moral because it's right vs. What I want when I want it (immoral) because it feels good to me. That is the biggest fight between us and the liberals in this country. And you just can't bring the pro-abortion (pro-death as I prefer to call them) people to our side because they will never see that. There is a much bigger picture of things they refuse to acknowledge than abortion. Abortion is a symptom of their greater illness, not the cause of the illness itself.

Given all that, and the fact that having it be banned and made illegal would be doing something to the American people that God has never done to any people in history. Removing free will and the God given ability to make terrible, even sinful mistakes, and then some day pay for them before God. Having an action be deemed as illegal doesn't fix it, no matter how justified the illegality of it is. Like you said, rape is illegal, and how well has that worked? It's rampant in this country. 1 of 4 women and girls over the age of 12 in this country have been raped. ONE IN FOUR! Most of them NEVER admit it so they're never part of the recorded statistics, but it's MUCH higher than anyone admits. Child rape is so common place it's incomprehensible, thanks to the sexualization of children by the media, hollywood, and the music, television and clothing industries. No one sane wants kids to be hurt like that, and yet, those industries help sow the environment that creates the statistic. Being made illegal isn't the end all be all by any stretch, and wouldn't make a bit of difference on abortion, other than make it an even more vicious debate. You think the pro-death people are shrill and vicious and venomous now, overturn Roe vs. Wade and see how they get.

Really, there are two things you're talking about. It's a fine line and hard to nail them both down. We're talking about the difference between being granted by God the free will to do something, even if it's wrong and hurts someone else, and then pay for it someday before God, and on the other hand, Congress and the President from on high saying "thus and so is now illegal, and any citizen hence forth that does it shall be fined and jailed". Well, okay, good for Congress and the President, but with abortion, that just doesn't work. It doesn't work because roughly half the people in the country do not believe the "fetus" is an unborn baby, a human, and so to them, it is not a crime. It's not like murder of someone who has been born, or rape or theft or something like that, because the overwhelming majority of people agree those things are crimes, and they are specifically lined out in the Constitution. I believe the founders never thought so many Americans would sink to such depths that they'd abort unborn babies on a whim because of immoral careless lifestyles, and if they did have a clue, they'd of put that in the Constitution stating that "termination of a fetus in the womb, at whatever stage of development, is murder in the first degree, and shall be prosecuted as such" and then it would have be done with because the democrats would never have been able to get the votes in Congress to strike that Amendment. But even if it was illegal, you still cannot legislate a mindset or morality, and the pro-death people just don't believe it is wrong or a crime, so how can you criminalize something that half the people don't believe is a crime, because they don't share the same religious convictions of those who do think it's a crime? How do you really do that? I do not believe it's possible, and that's why I believe it should be left to the States and those who choose to keep it legal will have to take their lumps someday, but States with a majority of people with a conscience, like where I am in Texas, can stand and fight and put an end to it. It is definitely a complicated issue. The difference between what is possible to stop and what's not, not what's right or wrong. Like prohibition. That was a train wreck, and while I agree with much of what was attempted and the reasons, and myself hate that it's legal for someone to go drink till they're barely conscious then go get in their car and kill someone, and not be executed for it, prohibition was still a disaster. And it was demonstrated quite clearly that prohibition only served to increase the proliferation of alcohol in society, not lessen it. There is every reason to believe that making abortion similarly illegal would do the same thing. That has to be considered I think.

I still think the best solution would be to overturn that joke of a ruling and then leave it up to a State by State vote so the people of each State, not their representatives, the actual people are forced to stand up and be counted, and decide to allow abortion in their State or not. Then, God willing, all the people against abortion will create a mass exodus from the states allowing abortion to those who have decided not to, having the added benefit of further guaranteeing that liberals never control the country again. Anyway, that's how I see it after years of tossing it around.

It's people's hearts that have to be changed, not their actions. You can't change what someone does without changing their mindset that causes them to do it. Simply removing the vehicle for them to do what they want doesn't fix them, they'll just find a different way of doing it, like back ally abortions or crossing borders to get them, etc so on. Changing their hearts where they see that abortion is a terrible immoral murderous thing is the answer, and there is no legislation from any body of legislators that can accomplish that. You can't change hearts with legislation. There is only ONE thing that can do that, and He has deemed that people must have the freedom to do things He despises, and then pay for it at the time of His choosing. Including abortion, even as disgusting and revolting as that act is.

"What it all boils down to is this: you believe "trust me" is good enough for a SCOTUS nominee and I don't. Ten thousand more words of hissyfit going over the same points isn't going to change that fundamental disagreement. "

Arghhhhh!!! No, you still don’t get what I’m saying. Geeze. I am NOT saying "Just trust W". That’s become the talking point of the anti-Miers camp they toss at those not against her. I’m really sick of that. Not fussing at you, I’m just sick of that after the past week. :) I’m not saying "just trust him". I’m not saying that because I have all the same reservations that you do about her. The difference is that I have faith that because he knows her and has known her for over a decade and no one has worked with him as closely as she has, that he knows what her judicial philosophy is, because he knows her personal beliefs, he knows her professional beliefs, he knows how she interprets the Constitution, and knows that after 30 years, she knows it front and back, and that, along with all the other very well known thoughtful conservative people who are the bedrock of the conservative movement, who have known her personally and professionally for many many years have put their reputations on the line saying the same about her as Bush has said. Were she not a dedicated Christian for so many years, and were it not established that Bush is the same for many years, I would be much more nervous and would sound much like the anti-Miers camp. However, because of all this above, (and THIS is what I am saying FIRST AND FOREMOST ABOVE ALL ELSE in this issue) I am withholding judgment one way or the other until I hear her speak and see what she has to say, because at this point, there is NOTHING to substantiate a position against her nomination. Supposition and speculation from people who never met and don’t know a person is NOT a credible reason to oppose their nomination to the Supreme Court. It smacks of ego and elitism among many, and arrogance and self-importance among others because they didn’t get what they want. That’s what I’ve heard from most of the people on the news and radio, and some here, against Miers. And that is just an irrational emotion driven response without the benefit of facts to support it.

It would be much better for all concerned, especially the conservative movement as a whole, if people would wait to actually have something she’s said or done recently that gives cause to have concern as to what kind of philosophy she would bring to the SCOTUS. So far, that is absent, so I wait to have something real and tangible to oppose. WHY is that SOOO hard to understand? I am neither pro-Miers or anti-Meirs. There is not enough out there to be either way, though weighing the facts that are out there thus far, there is more reason to be encouraged than discouraged as to what kind of Justice she’d be based on what we know of her so far. Bush’s 1000% batting average on judges the past five years, and Miers position as the chief person who vetted all those judges before they went to Bush, are two VERY big reasons to be encouraged instead of discouraged. It’s not being against her or opposing Bush that bugs me about this argument. It’s the fact that so many people have rushed where angles fear to tread with no facts and less personal knowledge of the woman, prepared to burn her to the ground because of who she isn’t that troubles me so much. That kind of rash impulsive rush to react instead of analyze and be sure to take the correct course of action is what I expect from liberals who act based on their emotions not factual analysis. Would it have been so hard for the anti-Miers people to swallow their pride for a few weeks, grumble under their breath, and hold their fire until they hear from her and see the hearings before wanting to burn her at the stake? I mean, it’s going to be pretty embarrassing for you guys, ALL the anti-Miers folks, in six months after she has an established record of rulings deep into the current session, and it shows she votes with Scalia and Thomas most if not all the time, much more than o’conner did in either case. That IS the ultimate goal here that has been lost in all this vitriol. WHO takes that position is NOT the important thing. HOW they vote IS the important thing. That has been greatly ignored and overlooked because of the fervor to be so upset over who she isn’t. I don’t get how this can’t be understood by so many. Patience! Not trust. Patience. And prayer. Bush’s track record on judges doesn’t hurt either.

I *do* understand what you are saying, but I disagree with the way you translate theory into policy.

"I still think the best solution would be to overturn that joke of a ruling and then leave it up to a State by State vote so the people of each State, not their representatives, the actual people are forced to stand up and be counted, and decide to allow abortion in their State or not."
~ I think our debate began when you said that overturning Roe v. Wade was not important to you. Your statement of "the best solution" is obvious. That is what all of us who want to overturn the Roe-Doe-Stenberg-Casey series of decisions want. That is what reversing the precedent would do.

"It's people's hearts that have to be changed, not their actions. You can't change what someone does without changing their mindset that causes them to do it."
~ I of course want people to become truly pro-life, but simply illegalizing abortion would make it much more rare. I have known people who have little sense of personal morality, but feel it is wrong to violate the law, and avoid doing particular things for this reason alone. This combined with the fact that many secular Americans conflate law and morality would prevent many babies from dying.

"Simply removing the vehicle for them to do what they want doesn't fix them, they'll just find a different way of doing it, like back ally abortions or crossing borders to get them, etc so on."
~ This was not that common before Roe v Wade mandated abortion in all 50 states, so I don't know this would happen now. My experience with women considering abortion is that many of them feel they have no other options and that it is what they are expected to do. Where abortion is illegal, the "other options" are the only ones they will able to pursue, and they would not likely feel "expected" to do something that is against the law.
Law does affect culture. Race relations were altered significantly when segregation was made illegal. Hearts changed as a result when the two groups became acclimated to one another.
Regarding abortion, we have been changing hearts for decades, and most polls suggest we have public opinion on our side. This has done little to improve the legal situation, however, and more and more women are having repeat abortions, which keeps the number up. The hearts that cannot be changed by education or exposure to the Gospel may need to be prevented from action by law. It is worth a try. Having an ineffective law prohibiting abortion is better than having laws that encourage it. There is symbolic importance to the law- if laws meant nothing culturally, Lambda Legal would not have devoted itself to the repeal of unenforced sodomy laws.

Of course the abortion issue is much bigger than Roe. The point is that we are tightly restricted in the legislative and cultural realms so long as Roe stands.
Yes, people could travel to other states to have abortions if their state banned it, but if you look at the sociological data regarding abortion "choices," people do at statistically significant rates choose against abortion where abortion is deemed inconvenient. Many women don *want* to have an abortion, and may well decline to follow through when the procedure becomes very inconvenient. My experience with women considering abortion is that many of them are desperate for an excuse to not go through with what they feel they are expected to do, and a 500-mile drive could provide just that. Many women also change their minds over the course of a waiting period. The waiting period imposed by travel could well be sufficient.
Should any of these circumstances save just one baby, it would well be worth it, and I think that there is symbolic value in making the heinous act of abortion inconvenient and difficult to execute. If one is willing to kill another person, one should be willing to inconvenience themselves with a road trip in order to do it.

"Well that's interresting because all the Pro-Life experts over the years have never contended that overturning Roe vs. Wade would significantly reduce the numbers of abortions"
~ Rule #1 of effective debate is avoidance of the word "all." Your opponent can easily prove you wrong with exceptions, rendering your argument futile and your appearance obtuse. Specifically, you are wrong in saying that no one has ever connected availability of abortion and abortion rates. If restriction made abortion more appealing, as prohibition did with alcohol, pro-lifers would fight against measures such as parental notification rather than for them. That the national abortion rate fell by 200,000 in the years after the passage of the PBA ban and legislation against the transport of minors across state lines to obtain abortions, along with an increase in state parental notification and waiting period laws, suggests a positive relationship between regulation of abortion and its frequency.

"If minds are changed about the fact that abortion is murder, and finally most people understand that, RvW becomes unimportant whether it's overturned or not. And to do that, what is needed is prayer and constantly talking to those for the choice of death."
~This is a fairly obvious point where the majority, "normal" segment of the population is concerned. There are, as I mentioned earlier, however, people who will avoid a wrong behavior simply because they don't want to face punishment or a blemished record. Illegalization of abortion will have an impact on this group of people. Generally, though, this point is moot, as you and I were discussing the legal and legislative realm, rather than the sphere of cultural practices and religious beliefs.

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.