Posted on 10/07/2005 1:37:16 PM PDT by Southside_Chicago_Republican
I'm not evangelical, so I don't have a horse in this race.
So you're assuming only evangelicals "have a horse in this race" ??
What's it going to take? That she preach a sermon to the Judicial Committee?
No. I used to be evangelical, but it's been a long time since I was, so I don't have a good grip on the dynamics of that community any more.
Interesting article, let me summarize.
Everybody in it who knows Harriet or her church says "Yep, pro-life".
But, two professors of some kind of religious study programs say "Maybe not".
Did I miss anything?
Yeah, that's about right.
Couldn't they have settled by having multiple services with different worship styles with possibly different pastors?
"I'm not sure why this is relevent,"
To Evangilicals it is very relevent!
From what I have read of the beliefs of the Church and Miers...she is rock solid!
To those who think there is a difference between politics and Religion... I would say that you have a very poor understanding of American history and politics!
Make that...American history, politics and Religion.
I would agree that it is very relevant to evangelicals. And, by the way, I do have a good understanding and appreciation for the role of religion in American history, thank you. It's just that the last time I remember hearing a person's religious beliefs scrutinized so closely was when Pope Benedict was elected.
Good post. Let's see.....we are reasonably certain that she is:
a) pro-life
b) pro 2nd amendment
c) pro-business
d) pro-patriot act
This is more info than I have ever had on ANY justice to date. Yes, including Roberts. I wish everyone would STFU and let the hearings begin.
"It's just that the last time I remember hearing a person's religious beliefs scrutinized so closely was when Pope Benedict was elected."
President Bush's beliefs were vetted pretty thoroughly as well!
"I believe in the very depths of my soul this is a Proverbs 31 lady who will defend the sanctity of the unborn, and will read and interpret her Bible and the Constitution like an orginalist."
How right you are!
Did he say why?
Hear, hear! I agree; well, at least she USED to be a semi-stealth nominee. However, those who should be on her side seem to have this insatiable need to smoke her out. Go figure. Sometimes, we are too clever by half.
As Bush's personal friend and personal lawyer, not to mention holding the same position in the Bush White House that John Dean held in the Nixon White House, Miers is just the person Kennedy, Durbin, Biden, Leahy, and Schumer will love to interrogate for hours on end.
By the time its all over, the public won't be able to tell if they just watched a confirmation hearing or an impeachment trial. What did Bush know and when did he know it? We're about to find out.
If we bemoan Supreme Court justices deciding cases based on their personal vies about things like abortion and affirmative action, should we be concerned about Harriet Mier's opinion on these issues. Doesn't that mean we just want her to cheat our way, instead of the other way?
I am far more interested in her judicial philosophy. We should look for people who take a limited view of constructionism and let the chips fall where they may.
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.