... must stop for the sake of the American people. What is going on here?
I do not know what the shakers and movers in WDC think this means to the rest of the world but I know what it means to the American taxpayer! It's a waste of money, energy, and time; not to mention embarrassing and taxing on our psyche.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, Harriet Meirs is a documented pro-lifer and has sworn publicly to vote against Roe v. Wade any time she has a chance. Would her conservative opponents heave a collective sigh? I don't know but their claim the President has betrayed them indicates they should.
Now, let's add another variable: Meir's is discovered to be a closet lesbian and has shared her alternate lifestyle views with hundreds of little girls while a camp counselor for her evangelical church. After her outing she continues to contend she is opposed to Roe and argues her counseling was done at a time when she was young and under the influence of a Ellen Degenerate wannabe. Would these same critics support her because she continues to publicly oppose Roe? I think they would.
Look, I think these critics, Judeo-Christian and secular conservatives combined, have lost their vision of what this is all about. We want judges with a moral worldview not judges who toe a political line.
I want a Supreme Court nominee who will interpret the Constitution as a strict constructionist, whether I agree with her decisions or not. As much as I hate Roe and agree with Wm, Bennett and his Index of Leading Cultural Indicators as an indication of the decision's damage to our culture, I still want the rule of law to rule in our land as it was intended by our Constitution.
If you give me a SCOTUS that rips Roe to shreads and yet is inept at being a dispenser of justice in a hundred other areas what have I gained? If all you want from this next appointment is the end of Roe, then you are sadly misguided because it takes five of nine to do that ... and there are not four of the current eight on the court that are willing to do that.
Now if you give me a SCOTUS which goes after the root cause of Roe (a legal philosophy which sees the Constitution as a "living document" and which claims a federal right to trump our legislators at every turn), then you have given me a court that will one day correct the injustices of infaticide by fiat and constitutional interpretation by eisegesis.
The data seems to support the contention more than a few are looking at this nomination as a single issue nomination. Many are taking sides on the basis of her evangelical faith. This is all wrongheaded. Render to God that which is God's, but darn it don't confuse Caesar's stuff with God's stuff.
I've got to tell you what SCOTUS has done to the Congress by usurping its legislative role is not nearly as dangerous as what special interest groups are doing to "advice and consent" and the review of federal judicial nominees. The unofficial precedents and roadblocks being established at this time may never be reversed.
UPDATE 22 October 2005: "I support the Miers nomination." Inserted in response to Truth Laid Bear's "Call to Bloggers: Take Your Stand on Miers"; where he will generate a running list of bloggers for, against, and neutral on the nomination. This will be more interesting than the standard online poll, it ensures "one-blog-one-vote" and avoids the usual ballot-stuffing of online surveys.
CRIB RELATED/HARRIET MEIRS:
Harriet Meirs; SCOTUS; Supreme Court
I do not know what the shakers and movers in WDC think this means to the rest of the world but I know what it means to the American taxpayer! It's a waste of money, energy, and time; not to mention embarrassing and taxing on our psyche.
Let's just say, for the sake of argument, Harriet Meirs is a documented pro-lifer and has sworn publicly to vote against Roe v. Wade any time she has a chance. Would her conservative opponents heave a collective sigh? I don't know but their claim the President has betrayed them indicates they should.
Now, let's add another variable: Meir's is discovered to be a closet lesbian and has shared her alternate lifestyle views with hundreds of little girls while a camp counselor for her evangelical church. After her outing she continues to contend she is opposed to Roe and argues her counseling was done at a time when she was young and under the influence of a Ellen Degenerate wannabe. Would these same critics support her because she continues to publicly oppose Roe? I think they would.
Look, I think these critics, Judeo-Christian and secular conservatives combined, have lost their vision of what this is all about. We want judges with a moral worldview not judges who toe a political line.
I want a Supreme Court nominee who will interpret the Constitution as a strict constructionist, whether I agree with her decisions or not. As much as I hate Roe and agree with Wm, Bennett and his Index of Leading Cultural Indicators as an indication of the decision's damage to our culture, I still want the rule of law to rule in our land as it was intended by our Constitution.
If you give me a SCOTUS that rips Roe to shreads and yet is inept at being a dispenser of justice in a hundred other areas what have I gained? If all you want from this next appointment is the end of Roe, then you are sadly misguided because it takes five of nine to do that ... and there are not four of the current eight on the court that are willing to do that.
Now if you give me a SCOTUS which goes after the root cause of Roe (a legal philosophy which sees the Constitution as a "living document" and which claims a federal right to trump our legislators at every turn), then you have given me a court that will one day correct the injustices of infaticide by fiat and constitutional interpretation by eisegesis.
The data seems to support the contention more than a few are looking at this nomination as a single issue nomination. Many are taking sides on the basis of her evangelical faith. This is all wrongheaded. Render to God that which is God's, but darn it don't confuse Caesar's stuff with God's stuff.
I've got to tell you what SCOTUS has done to the Congress by usurping its legislative role is not nearly as dangerous as what special interest groups are doing to "advice and consent" and the review of federal judicial nominees. The unofficial precedents and roadblocks being established at this time may never be reversed.
UPDATE 22 October 2005: "I support the Miers nomination." Inserted in response to Truth Laid Bear's "Call to Bloggers: Take Your Stand on Miers"; where he will generate a running list of bloggers for, against, and neutral on the nomination. This will be more interesting than the standard online poll, it ensures "one-blog-one-vote" and avoids the usual ballot-stuffing of online surveys.
CRIB RELATED/HARRIET MEIRS:
My Guess About Wazzup ...
The Cards on the Table ...
Harriet Meirs; SCOTUS; Supreme Court
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment