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 ...
You are probably right, but life has its surprises.
Is there absolutely no recent speech (last 3 years) given by Miers with other clues that can be found?
It is possible that since this speech was given ('93), she's actually seen pictures of aborted babies and had a change of heart.
Pro-life groups get responses everyday from people who turned against abortion once they saw pictures or even found out more truth (the heart starts beating 21 days after conception; the backbone and muscles are already forming by the 28th day after conception).
If Miers has not changed and is still (obviously by this speech) pro-choice --and Pres. Bush knows this, then he has lost my respect and support.
(And yes, I believe pro-life is THE most important issue. Take a look at the link below if you have any doubts that it should be.)
http://www.abortionno.org/Resources/pictures_2.html
I read both speeches available at WaPo. They look like transcripts of spoken words. (Or some really bad typo's like "its" instead of "it's" made it into her handout and lasted over 10 years.)
I'm encouraged by the adamant insistence that legislators must be held accountable, that they should never be given a pass when the Courts overturn the law or when they say they were threatened by a ruling in the future. She believes that law should be written responsibly by the Legislature and not made by judges. This is encouraging.
I'm not encouraged by her phrasing concerning abortion.
I'll post some of the second speech in a new thread.
It all depends on where she's matured and in which direction.
But, I still believe that the President is one of those leaders she spoke of in the second speech (in honor of the first woman mayor in Texas).
I'm a little slow on the uptake tonight, plus I misspelled liar. :)
In a certain sense, you MAY be right in your interpretation of what she said about the role of the Courts. However, it cannot be denied that she came out on the issue of abortion by stating that she favored self-determination. That's your deal breaker.
I think that was "Col. Cassio" in Fail Safe, but I get your point.
I really do trust him on this, because he knows his Dad got skinned and neutered over his choice, and this may as well be his lasting legacy..
There are 281,421,906 Americans in the last census. Not everybody can have a hearing, only the handful qualified for a SCOTUS nomination. No evidence whatsoever has emerged favorable to her candidancy. Her inadequacy is indubitable, and established far above any hearing's poor power to add or detract.
So that is why we shouldn't give her a hearing.
Clearly, she's saying that.
No so fast, she said that was the outcome, not that she favored it.. although I am with you I had to read that passage over and over, and I could be wrong as hell in my own interpretation.. GULP
She was not raised as a Roman Catholic. http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506006.htm
I stand corrected. :)
I understand that from prior posts. Removes any doubt in my mind that she's always been wishy-washy, instead of suddenly becoming that way at some stage in her life.
I think she should be heard for no other reason than you used "indubitable", in your answer.. It clearly shows your are an elitist snob, that doesn't like chicks that went to Baylor.. :)
MSU I think. Give Miers a break.
I read it that way too, that it was written from an attempted objective viewpoint. The problem is, all of her writing I've seen so far has either leaned left or was written with her sitting on the fence.
She seems to want to be liked, not necessarily known for taking tough stands.
SMU
I can't make heads or tails of that sentence. Could you clarify your point?
Talk about strawmen, some of her supporters argue that if she continues through hearings and is confirmed, it is proof that she is qualified and an excellent nomination. It does no such thing. It only means that politics played out to her advantage.
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.