Posted on 10/05/2005 7:50:11 PM PDT by goldstategop
Article VI...........
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
JFK must not have read that when he appointed his brother to be Attorney General.
Neither did the Senate who approved him.
Since you have never supported this President, why should I consider your concerns.
Of course, if you don't trust him, then I can see why you'd not be satisfied with his appointment. At this point, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. It's really kind of pointless to do anything else since the only thing we can do is vent anyway.
This is exactly what the Miers nomination boils down to for those of us on the right. I am disheartened at the vicious attacks Freepers have thrown at each other because of this nomination. Debate and dissent is good, and may it never be stifled, but the vitriol has got to stop on both sides.
My position on Miers is currently "need more info." I was disappointed President Bush didn't select someone like Brown or Owens. From what I've read on Miers so far though, it seems she may turn out ok, and I definitely feel better about her.
I keep hearing the objection of "'May turn out ok' isn't good enough! Where's the paper trail?!" I understand because we have been burnt before, but how dependable is a paper trail, truly? O'Connor had a paper trail. Kennedy had a paper trail. Souter had a paper trail. What good did it do in the end?
A nominee can write the most sensible opinions around before getting to the SCOTUS, but does that guarantee anything? Sad to say, but even spelling out their thoughts in a Senate hearing has absolutely no bearing at all on what a person does once they're seated. The most anyone, other than the nominee himself, can do is infer how that person will rule.
I would've liked a paper trail. I would feel so much better about this nominee if there were one, but that's really all it can do. In the end, it all comes back to trusting the President we elected to do his best to fulfill his duty and nominate justices that will uphold the Constitution as the law of this land. I think he's done a good job of that up to this point.
Of course, you can always contact your senators and the President and voice your praise or concerns, as is your right as a constituent. There's no denying that the President has lost trust among some, but it doesn't change the fact that the President is the only person in the US with the power to nominate judges to SCOTUS. Do you trust the President on this or not? Your call.
I do feel SLIGHTLY better about her now than I did. We won't know really until she's been on the court a while.
Although this Oregon case might help us get to know Roberts, who (crossing my fingers) should turn out similar to Rhenquist more or less.
I voted for this president. There is no more significant way than that to support him. But that doesn't mean I have to be a drooling zombie follower. He's far from ideal. He's a mediocrity, really. But he was the best choice. I'm looking out for what I think is important, not necessarily what GWB wants.The idea that he's looking out for us is laughable.
I'm not worried about her abortion stance. I think she's pro-life.
I'm wondering how she'd rule on:
Property Rights
Second Amendment
"phantom" civil rights like sodomy and gay marriage
Just what issue that might come before the Court is about to impact you personally?
They know damn well she is pro-Life but the point is what are they going to do about it. How will they be able to attack Dear Aunt Harriet without looking like the biggest bullies on the block?
This funniest part is the attempt to convince us that she is something other than a Conservative by the Perpetually Pissed Off.
She has also stated that the right to keep and bear arms is a precious right.
Don't know what she thinks of Kelo. Perhaps that question will be asked of her during the hearings.
Wasn't John Kennedy supposed to be a tool of the Pope because he was Catholic?
I would expect that anyone qualified for the Supreme Court would be able to separate out their religious beliefs from their job as a Justice. Miers, or anyone for that matter, ought to be ruling based on the law, not based on their own personal beliefs.
Miers wrote that she believes in the RTKBA (and she is a Texas Republican, after all). In answering a survey to a gay rights group, she said she supports the Texas anti-sodomy law, which also makes gay marriage a non-starter. I don't have anything on property rights, but I hope that comes up during the hearings. So far, so good though.
Bravo Rush!!!
I'm an American. Every year cases go before the court that affect us all personally.
“Do you believe today that the right to privacy does exist in the Constitution?” asked Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chair of the Judiciary Committee, during the Sept. 13 session.
“Senator, I do,” Roberts said. “The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways.”
In discussing his understanding of privacy rights, Roberts pointed to the Constitution’s First, Third and Fourth Amendments, which are part of the Bill of Rights. Among other things, they protect citizens against improper searches and seizures by the government, protect against restrictions of freedom of speech and assembly, and prohibit the establishment of an official state religion.
Roberts added that in the past 80 years, the Supreme Court has recognized the concept of “personal privacy,” as protected under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The high court used this concept of privacy as the basis for its 1972 decision in Roe vs. Wade that legalized abortion, as well as its Lawrence decision overturning sodomy laws, considered to be the court’s most sweeping ruling on gay rights.
Wrong, it is important for all of us to know her, and then let our Senators know how we feel they should vote, either for or against.
The Constitution doesn't allow the President carte blanche to put whoever he wants on the Supreme Court, rather it requires the Senate to give "advice and consent". They aren't supposed to rubber stamp his, or anyone's, nominees. Rather they are supposed to act in the best interest of their constituents. Not in the best interest of the President or their party.
Again, it is important for all of us to contact our Senators and let them know how we feel.
I guess that's enough for some people (like James Dobson), but personally I'm more interested in her views of constitutional law than the frequency of her church attendance.
Even if she [i]is[/i] a secret Clarence Thomas (which I doubt), I still can't get past the fact she's a White House crony. Bush appointed her out of either his personal loyalty to her, or her expected loyalty to him (the expectation that she will grant the executive branch more power whenever it desires it). Neither is appropriate for an appointment to the Supreme Court.
Yes! Thanks to Rush for stating the obvious. Her faith neither qualifies nor disqualifies her. What's wrong with people?
Frankly, you have no idea what you are talking about. I was responding to a statement that John Roberts did not let his judicial philosophy be known DURING THE HEARINGS.
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.