Posted on 10/26/2005 7:54:50 PM PDT by USAConstitution
...when you hear the Courts blamed for activism or intrusion where they do not belong...Stop and examine what the elected leadership has done to solve the problem at issue and whether abdication to courts to make the hard decisions is a not too prevalent tactic in today's world....
Where else do we hear a lot today about the Courts.[sic] The law and religion... Abortion clinic protestors have become synonymous with terrorists and the courts have been the refuge for the besieged... 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. Questions about what can be taught or done in public places or public schools are presented frequently to the courts.
The law and religion make for interesting mixture but the mixture tends to evoke the strongest of emotions. The underlying theme in most of these case 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. Remembering that fact appears to offer the most effective solutions to these problems once the easier cases are disposed of... 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...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
The nominee from the dark ages. The Medieval nominee. I like that - has a gothic sort of ring to it.
i think i railed against you...and surely others while i was pro-miers.
please accept my apology!
What a friggin' commie, social engineering child sacrificer she turns out to be!
It's an ordeal, slogging through redundancy (ongoing debate continues), the split infinitive, "the individual women," and the rest of the damnable abuse of English in that sentence; but at least one finds the answer to the mystery of Miers' abortion vote. She regards the debate as a matter of criminalizing abortion or guaranteeing "freedom...of the right to decide for herself" (is English her first language?) It couldn't be clearer, this woman is pro-abortion. Dems will embrace her. Stick a fork in us all, even Ted Kennedy may vote for her now.
Your command of the English language and its proper syntax is very impressive.
Yes, I mean that.
LOL. 1970's. This should be a reminder that Christ casts a wide tent. But then this near atheist would observe that my "religion" does also. Selling a nominee based on religious convictions is not something I favor, shocking as that may be.
In the beginning I supported her nomination but the more I learned about her the less I supported her.
At this point in time, I no longer support her.
Forgive me, I don't have enough cash to buy a hundred vowels. We may soon be adding (questionable) indictments of WH aides to a ridiculous (but damaging) indictment of Delay, to an indictment of a former Republican lobbyist, to an examination of Frist's financial matters, to a potentially embarrassing Senate Judiciary hearing. We are watching our party splinter, while we are having a hard time in Iraq. Am I the only one who sees an ominous trend here?
I think all you're gonna hear are crickets.
Except the "to decide" is actually part of a phrase used as an object, "freedom of the individual women's right to decide ..."
BULL, she says the exact opposite, she says the spineless politicians leave the door open for the Socialist Judges to step in and do the jobs they are afraid to accept.. the hard questions.. Then we complain that the courts are deciding all of the most pressing problems with a liberal solution.. IT'S TRUE, can you deny that.. So what is the real problem, please I am truly interested to hear your case..
The truth sucks, doesn't it?
I just heard on the radio that Concerned Women of America came out against her.
Not shocking at all. I consider myself quite the faithful Christian, and I recoil from the notion of supporting legal arguments with faith-driven conclusions.
> I was prepared to jump all over her on the grounds that she was squishy on abortion and other things, however I have read this speech three times, and I cannot for the life of me find much that I can disagree with as a Conservative..
Did you catch the part where she talks about the need to possibly consider a state tax?
When did taxing more become a conservative value?
STRAWMENS.. Get real, who are you really? And let me ask again, why are you afraid to allow this woman her day in court.. Are you afraid you will be shone to have been wrong, again.. What was your early take on Roberts?
I agree with Ponnoru's interpretation of the speech. You don't. End of discussion between you and I on this topic. You get the last word.
"Buttkisser", "A**kisser", allow me, please, to perhaps add "Bushkisser" to the mix. (I've heard she's 60 & never been married).
I place more weight on her what she converted from - she was raised a Roman Catholic after all.
What was GW thinking? He wasn't. Rove is preoccupied.
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.