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 ...
"No, because the WH knows how to turn the screws against Conservative Senators.
But when it comes to the RINO's, they claim there's nothing they can do, that the days of keeping the caucus in line are long gone."
The conservative wing of the Republican party CANNOT support a pro-choice supreme court nominee put forward by a Republican president - that's just unthinkable.
If I had any doubts were looking at another Suiter that has ended. Roberts was qualified, she isn't FREEP BUSH.
Remember the longer this drags on the more cases O'Connor will rule on and who knows she might decide to forget about retiring all together. I guarantee if she isn't pulled soon the DEMS will be lobbying O'Connor again to stay.
"As in, abortion clinic protesters are getting a bad rap, being called terrorists?"
I wondered the same when I read it - that was my first reading of it. I'm not taking a position on it, only saying that it seems to be open to that interpretation.
I still predict she'll be confirmed. Not a single Republican Senator has come out against her. Moreover, supporters of the war who are potential opponents of Miers, will circle the wagons for Bush if indictments come down this week....thus helping Miers.
Well, it's in the context of "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."
Which, by the way, is a stylistic atrocity that hurts my inner ear as well as a moral atrocity.
Note the way she splits the infinitive with a couple of words, and then proceeds to split another infinitive with no less than twelve words. But apparently that second split infinitive bothered her at some unconscious level, so she used the word "to" twice, thus commiting a grammatical solecisim, "or to . . . to decide."
I grant that it's hard to know what side she's on, because her style here is so damned vague, fuzzy, and overblown.
It's possible, but put it into context with the rest of what she said. She may not consider them terrorists, but at the very least she tells us women should have the "right to choose"...
"We could, but I'm not sure there enough of 'em to actually succeed. We need 41 votes to do so."
41 is only the magic number if the nuclear option is invoked.. I just cant see Rinos and Democrats ganging up to nuke the filibuster.
See post #26
I think the pro-lifers (of which I am one) who think Miers is the way to go (I do not), are getting a rude awakening.
"Note the way she splits the infinitive with a couple of words, and then proceeds to split another infinitive with no less than twelve words. But apparently that second split infinitive bothered her at some unconscious level, so she used the word "to" twice, thus commiting a grammatical solecisim, "or to . . . to decide." "
I write a lot, but I am an engineer and write "by ear" rather than by grammatical rule. So thank you for the analysis because what I'm hearing is just so awful that I thought I was going nuts.
But of course, you don't have to think to be on the Supreme Court, your clerks do all the writing.
From Family Research Council 5:30 pm tonight, email...
Refer a Friend | October 26, 2005
Miers' 1993 Speech Prompts More Questions
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers spoke to the Executive Women of Dallas in 1993 and offered a troubling assessment of the abortion issue. In a story reported in today's Washington Post (FRC has obtained the text of the speech, which was included in the papers she delivered to the Senate Judiciary Committee) Miss Miers said: "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual [woman's right] to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion." She urged her listeners to remember that "we gave up...legislating religion or morality." She added: "When science cannot determine the facts and decisions vary based upon religious belief, then government should not act."
This is very disturbing. Miss 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.
Additional Resources
In Speeches From 1990s, Clues About Miers Views
holy crap.....looks like i almost got sucker into a souter redu! seems like i was so wrong.....
Game.
Set.
Match.
Tournament.
championship.
Hall of friggin fame.
Get her outa here....
For a long time now, the pro-life side has been working hard to prove with science and data that a pre-born human is still a human, and thus should have rights. However, in my experience it is now the pro-infantcide side of the abortion debate that clings to mysticism as valid grounds for legalizing abortion.
In other words, they cling on to some warped view of life contained in some pre-science era religious dogma (typically a really old Jewish outlook on human development). They use this as a figleaf to justify the legality of abortion - after all, if their "belief system" tells them pre-born life isn't human, how can abortion be illegal?
Hence, they can always throw a "religion" monkeywrench into the works - they make a point of making abortion a religious issue.
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.
there is little doubt about the gist of her thought. She thinks a woman has a right to choose, a right that can be guaranteed by law. If that is not what she means she is the worst writer I have seen in a long time from the legal profession. Either way, she doesn't need to be writing opinions on the Supreme Court.
Don't forget bigot and mob member.
Concerned Women for America's 6:30 pm email tonight...
Dear Friend,
After considerable thought and prayer, we at Concerned Women for America have made a decision that was not easy to make. We are calling for Harriet Miers' name to be withdrawn. We truly wanted to support the President and sought evidence to support this nomination, but we find this Supreme Court nominee unqualified and her record troubling.
Our press release gives you more details about our decision.
We have also done a brief News Flash for our Web site about two speeches Miss Miers gave. I invite you to consider that as well.
More information is available on our Web site, www.cwfa.org.
Sincerely,
Mrs. Beverly LaHaye
Chairman and Founder
P.S. The work of CWA is funded through the generous support of generous people like you. While your activism is critically important, your financial support makes these alerts possible. Won't you please consider making a tax-deductible contribution? We've made it easy for you. Simply go to http://www.cwfa.org/support_cwa.asp.
Notice you haven't made any noises supportive of Miers in the last 2 days... What's up with that?
Here's what I just posted on the other thread on this topic:
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.
Well, Rod Dreher is right. She is more libertarian than conservative.
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.