'Born Again' Klegal Robert Byrd sez:
"Wow, some conservatives think I'd be a good choice for the Supreme Court. Me and my fellow Klansmen never thought we'd see the day!"
Posted on 10/26/2005 5:18:51 PM PDT by Stellar Dendrite
Miers' 1993 Speech Draws Fire from Pro-Life Groups
Pro-life organizations are expressing concern over statements made by Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers in 1993 to the Executive Women of Dallas in 1993.
During the speech, which was recently provided to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miers gave several examples of contentious issues, including abortion, which she said involved religion and law. She stated,
"The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women’s right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."
"The law and religion make for [an] interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes the most sense. Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago."The Family Research Council, a widely respected national conservative and pro-life organization, called Mier’s statements "disturbing":
... Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act.
[Miers'] words are a close paraphrase of the infamous Roe v. Wade decision. Her use of terms like criminalize abortion to characterize the pro-life position and guarantee freedom to describe the pro-choice position should have sounded alarms in the White House during the vetting process.
When we defend the right to life, we hearken back to the Declaration of Independence, not to some strictly sectarian view. Science has long ago answered the question of when human life begins. The constitutional and legal question is whether we are going to defend innocent human life from lethal assault.
This speech raises very troubling questions about Miss Miers' views of constitutional matters. Operation Rescue reacted strongly, promising to "actively oppose the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court of the United States if she refuses to withdraw her name from consideration."
Concerned Women for America (CWA), the nation's largest public and pro-life policy women's organization, also called for Miers' nomination to be withdrawn.
"CWA was founded to provide an alternative to radical feminists – who claim to speak for all women – and who seek to impose policies that do not respect unborn babies, family or God. Too often these radical feminists found success, not through democratic means, but through activist courts," said Wendy Wright, executive vice president.
"Harriet Miers has shown respect for Christian values by attending an Evangelical church. But her professional and civic life leaves us questioning whether she chooses to reflect and advance the views of the group she's with at the moment. Though she attends an Evangelical church known for its pro-life position, during the same time period she advanced radical feminists and organizations that promote agendas that undermine respect for life and family," said Wendy Wright. "This drives us to rely upon her actions, her deeds, her words as opposed to the endorsements of those who have worked with and known her.
Matt Staver, Liberty Counsel president, told the Washington Post, "This concept of self-determination could clearly be read in support for things like abortion or same-sex marriage, and it's a philosophy that cuts a judge loose from the Constitution."
Kyleen Wright, president of the Texans for Life Coalition, called Miers's principle of self-determination "troubling" and was concerned about Miers's choice of words in characterizing the abortion debate. "In the pro-life movement, we don't recognize a right to decide who lives or dies," Wright told the Post.
Additional reactions from pro-life bloggers: click here.
Actually rudman was from New Hampshire and also john sunnunu also recommmended souter. GHWB did not know souter.
OH BTW, guess who was the hatchet man was for firing the elder sununnu, it was GW Bush.
I've commented on the disturbing echoes of pro-abortionist language in several parts of this speech. Now I want to call attention to another brief passage that I don't think anyone has noticed yet:
"Where science determines the facts, the law can effectively govern. However, when science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."
This is virtually an echo of the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade, with its jargon about three trimesters in the life of an unborn child. "Scientists don't know when human life begins," Roe says in effect, "so let's just chop up babies from all three trimesters until science comes out with more precise answers."
No, sorry. Science says that an embryo is human from the moment of conception, and it also says that it is living from the moment of conception.
This is very odd stuff coming from a so-called Evangelical, because it's virtually an echo of the Darwinists. Religion is in one category, science in another, and never the twain shall meet. And if you want the truth, look to science, not religion.
Either way she's a loser for the home team.
<Sigh...>
First of all, everything we do is fundamentally religious, whether we do it unto God or unto god (ourselves). Secular humanism - the a priori religion that dominates our schools, workplaces, and government - is every bit as much a worldview held on faith as Christianity. Practically, it serves as a religion or praxis-guiding worldview and ought to be regarded as such. The free ride (i.e. they don't believe in God therefore secularism isn't a religion and is therefore exempt from the same discrimination due Christianity) is OVER... or ought to be.
Now that's out of the way... We've gone far enough down the get-along-with-'em road with President Bush. We've compromised. There are some things, though, that we must not and cannot compromise. Faith, and our fundamental rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness are among them. These are things worth fighting and dying for.
Miers should be pulled at this point.
Groupthink. It's real.
Thank you. More people need to see that.
Hecht said he had never asked Miers how she would vote on the issue of abortion if it came before the Supreme Court. "She probably wouldn't answer; she wouldn't view it as appropriate," he said.
"Yes, she goes to a pro-life church," Hecht said, adding: "I know Harriet is, too." The two attended "two or three" anti-abortion fund-raising dinners in the early 1990s, he said, but added that she had not otherwise been active in the anti-abortion movement.
"You can be just as pro-life as the day is long and can decide the Constitution requires Roe" to be upheld, he said, referring to the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade that found a constitutional right to abortion.
Can't support anybody making this innocuous claim. All legislation is based on moraility of some sort.
Give her the hearing and vote No.
Time for Dubya to find somebody else.
'Born Again' Klegal Robert Byrd sez:
"Wow, some conservatives think I'd be a good choice for the Supreme Court. Me and my fellow Klansmen never thought we'd see the day!"
Okay, I've gone from optimistic to cautiously optimistic to cautiously pessimistic to flat out pessimistic over the last week or so. I guess you could now accurately label me as a former member of the Pro-Miers crowd. And, based on past experience, I would consider myself a pretty good bellwether of the views of the typical hardcore pro-life evangelical. Which means the last bastion of support for this nomination has just dried up. I expect Dobson to start backtracking as well, if he hasn't already.
You or anyone else can bust on me or rub it in or whatever, but I was willing to compromise on almost every other point to get a solidly pro-life Justice. But if Miers is not that, then there's nothing left.
BTTT
I will give this just to think about. If Roe vs. Wade is overturned it will go to the states and most states will pass some type of legal abortion. Except Utah. Far less human beings will be killed mind you. This would be a great thing don't get me wrong. I know, my family volunteers for a pro-life organization where we live.
Having said that, we can get a pro life candidate with any of the staunch constructionists we wanted in the first place, plus a whole lot more. Property rights, 2nd amendment rights, tax restraints, equal protection and not affirmative action, etc. etc.
No reason to settle. We deserve nothing good from The Lord due to our fall. We do deserve to have all of the above from an administration that promised us just that.
Her questionnaire was mostly gibberish. She couldn't have made less sense if she wrote it in wingdings.
No doubt the hearings will be even less revealing.
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.