Posted on 10/14/2005 11:52:28 AM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Stephen G. Peroutka, chairman of the board of governors for the National Pro-Life Action Center (NPLAC), issued the following statement calling for the withdrawal of Harriet Miers' nomination as associate justice of the Supreme Court of the United States:
"The time has come for President Bush to realize and accept that his nomination of Harriet Miers to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court was ill-advised and he should withdraw her nomination. With 45 million children's lives lost to abortion, the stakes are simply too high to gamble on another 'stealth' candidate. If the president remains reluctant to take this step, then NPLAC believes that Ms. Miers should then remove herself from this process.
"The president promised to nominate Scalia- and Thomas-like justices, but there is simply no evidence that he has honored this promise. Adding insult to injury, President Bush, the first lady and their emissaries have resorted to infantile attacks upon conservative opposition to Miers by pretending that the opposition is some form of latent sexism. This is not only insulting to conservatives, but to the collective intellect of the American people, and we implore the president to put an end to this petty tactic.
"It is absurd to accuse a movement that has supported the efforts of great women like Margaret Thatcher and Phyllis Schlafly, and championed the cause of judges like Edith Jones and Janice Rogers Brown of chauvinism.
"Criticism of the president's choice has nothing to do with the fact that Ms. Miers is a woman and has everything to do with feeling betrayed by the president. Much has been written about the high value this president places on loyalty, but loyalty is not a one-way street and pro-family conservatives are now asking for it from this president.
"Harriet Miers may well be a phenomenal lawyer who is pro-life and devoutly Christian, but the fact is, we will never know because of the flawed nature of the modern confirmation process. By adopting the 'Ginsberg cloak of silence,' the Administration has ensured that the American people will never truly know the judicial temperament of Ms. Miers or any other potential nominee. Pro-lifers can no longer accept this lowering of the bar.
"We must fix this process by realizing that there is nothing to be gained by concealing a nominee's judicial philosophy and temperament. Following this practice has led to nothing but repeated disappointment for those seeking to return constitutionality to the Supreme Court and put an end to the plague of abortion."
You claim that Bush has granted carte blanche to Harry Reid to select Supreme Court nominees, and you accuse me of drinking the Kool-Aid?! That's rich!
Can't we wait until she at least has her hearings before bringing out the long knives?
Bush's character, and the character of the other nominees Bush has named to the courts.
I don't understand why the pro-lifers are against her too.
Her politically motivated campaign contributions not whithstanding, the abortion issue is the one (the only one) I tend to believe in her on.
***
Why? And keep in mind I am also pro-life. Everything I have read doesn't amount to a hill of beans. What about the fact that she hangs around with pro-choice people?
And I believe they realize that saying you are pro-life does not equate to overturning ROE as I do.
I don't know, I'm not the President. I'll wager that you aren't either. We (or at least I...I have doubts about some of the rest of you) re-elected GWB because we trusted his character, particularly on the issue of judicial appointments. Now people are howling about how they can't trust him. What has changed in 12 months?
Possibly, based on the 5th Amendment and not being deprived of life without due process of law. But it ain't gonna happen. Better to allow some the states to reflect the will of their people than to work on this one-size-fits-all basis.
It's been 4 years since 9-11 and I've been "betting" we'll have secure borders and enforced immigration laws.
It's been 4 years since 9-11 and I've been "betting" we'll be striving toward energy independence from our enemies in the Middle East.
Shall I continue?
It is time for Stephen G. Peroutka to STFU.
I've been sitting on the fence with this nomination since I got over my initial disappointment that the pick was not Michael Luttig. I, too, was spoiling for a knock-down, drag-out, nuclear-optioned brawl. The wind was knocked out of my sails when I didn't get it.
But since then I've been watching and listening, and I think that now I can confidently say I come down on the side of the President. Here's why:
1) A Luttig-type nominee stood a good chance of NOT getting confirmed, as the McCain-Voinovich gang sought to burnish their "moderate" credentials - all for the good of the country, of course. The President could not afford such embarrassment, despite the fact that it would endear him to his base. A rejection would seriously undermine his second-term agenda, which may be in deep doo-doo anyway.
2) A Luttig-type nomination would engender a tremendous fight in the Senate, just the type I was looking for. But why should President Bush seek such a fight if he was confident of achieving his stated purpose without doing so? And by stated purpose I mean appointing judges in the Scalia-Thomas originalist mold. If he knows that Miers will fit the bill, and at the same time avoid a fight, why not? He has to be comfortable with her credentials and philosophy, not us.
3) I trust him. He has never compromised his principles; whether we liked it or not, he has always done what he thought was right; he has never backed down from a confrontation when he knew he HAD to fight.
4) He has done a great job appointing judges so far.
And last, but not leaset:
5) He doesn't need his Conservative base chopping the legs out from under him now. I've come to believe that disagreeing with him is fine, but to so loudly, publically and passionately air our grievences with the leader of our country and our party in times such as these - with so much sniping and back-biting going on already - is unnecessarily self-destructive. Despite the fact that I don't know Harriet Miers from Adam, I'm willing to bet this isn't Ruth Bader Ginsburg he nominated here.
Sounds like they do, and if so, they aren't any better than the rabid pro-aborts. Just give us a justice who will render decisions based upon the letter of the law and the original intent of the framers of the Constitution -- I don't care what they're personal views on any particular issue.
Bump right up to the top. Great comments.
They are not asking the Supreme Court to outlaw abortion. They are merely asking the Court to overturn the bad law of Roe v Wade which took the decision out of the hands of the states, Congress and everyone else and placed it in Constitutional stone with a vote of the people or their duly elected representatives.
Pro-lifers are prepared to let the states decide for themselves but that won't happen while the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade stands in the way.
Imagine if there was a "constitutional right" to gay marriage found by the SCOTUS. The states would have no legal standing not to recognize gay marriage no matter how much the people of that state disapproved of it or what state laws had been passed not to recognize it.
That is essentially what Roe v Wade did for abortion. It basically held that unlimited abortion was the law of the land and anybody who disagrees with it has no legal recourse to oppose it.
"It is time for Stephen G. Peroutka to STFU."
ahhh there's that "love" for the first amendment from "compassionate conservatives"!
The National Pro-Life Action Center on Capitol Hill is located near the U.S. Supreme Court and is a joint effort of Faith and Action, Priests for Life and Catholics United for Life.I also found that they don't have their own Web site.
Here is the Statement from National Right to Life (which does have a Web site) (and isn't exclusively Catholic):
"President Bush has an excellent record of appointing judges who recognize the proper role of the courts, which is to interpret the law according to its actual text, and not to legislate from the bench. We believe that Harriet Miers is another nominee who will abide by the text and history of the Constitution."
No. By then it will likely be too late.
And 65% on THIS forum is pretty damned weak support given that we are the ones who are supposed to be on Bush's side. I still want to know why Harry Reid was high-fiving others and Chuckie Schumer expressed relief when Miers was named. What do they know that the rest of us haven't been told?
YOU SAID..."Is anyone keeping a running tally of the unappeasable Bush haters who are so numerous yet are really just a tiny minority?"
It seems that some arent.
Let me consolidate some of the posting comments Ive read into one...
'Youre nothing but a bunch of whiny haters and traitors...I HATE you!!'
And 65% on THIS forum is pretty damned weak support given that we are the ones who are supposed to be on Bush's side. I still want to know why Harry Reid was high-fiving others and Chuckie Schumer expressed relief when Miers was named. What do they know that the rest of us haven't been told?
***
I posted this on another thread and they have double the respondents as FR. It's from Instapundit, a moderate voice.
http://www.misterpoll.com/results.mpl?id=1289569503
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.