Bush Picks Miers for Supreme Court Slot

Personally, I thought that Roberts was an outstanding candidate, someone who has the intellect to perhaps match the great justices of the past.

Unfortunately, I'm not sure Ms. Miers has the qualifications to be on the court at all. She happened to be a long-time friend of GW Bush. That's about all I see.

 

Roe v. Wade is not a law, it's a Supreme Court decision whose precedent has invalidated pro-life laws all over the land.

 

BiR...again, you miss the whole point of the terminology "legislating from the bench." It is not that they go through the exact same processes as does the legislative branch and come out with a "law", rather, in case after case, they overstep their bounds, go way beyond the constitution and make decisions that SHOULD be made in the legislative branch, by the PEOPLES elected representatives. As such, they legislate from the bench, usurping the power that was reserved for the legislative branch. Go back and read the Federalist Papers and you will not find such power vested in the Judicial Branch.

 

One does not have to be a judge to be appointed to the court. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist and many others were never judges. I don't think that John Marshall was a judge beforehand either.

Nor is she a Bush crony as she had a career long before she started working for Bush.

Does anyone know her religious affiliation? I understand that she attends some sort of independent Christian church and that she is or has been a Sunday School teacher.

What I am having trouble with is the problem of should a Christian work for the lottery?

 

Oh, I got lucky:

Miers has been a member of Valley View Christian Church in Dallas for 25 years.

http://www.vvcc.org/

It sounds to me like a form of Campbellism with a little more doctrine than usual. They are independent.

 

It was. The Connecticut State Legislature passed that law and the Supreme Court upheld the right of the legislators of individual states to pass such laws as they saw fit.

That's really a counter-example.

And what does the US Constition say about private property rights?

Which is exactly what they did do. Did you read the opinion?

 

I have no such allegiance. But I'm not a judge. I expect a judge to uphold a law (presuming that such law is constitutional) even if the law stinks.

 

In her 1989 run for Dallas City Council, Harriet Miers filled out a questionnaire from the Lesbian/Gay Political Coalition of Dallas, where she indicated her support for full civil rights for gays and lesbians and backed AIDS education programs for the city of Dallas...

Source The Drudge Report

 

I know her brother, so she does have family. I believe she also has another brother I have not met. </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps I should have been more specific. She doesn't have her own family as in husband and children.

I think that is a fairly important perspective since most of us are not completely career absorbed and single.

 

How can you possibly say that? Remember when there was talk of Bruce Babbitt being nominated by then-President Clinton? Remember how Rush Limbaugh was criticizing this pick, noting that Babbitt had never been a judge? I do......</font>[/QUOTE] I think Limbaugh is opposed to this pick also... but he doesn't speak for all conservatives and more than Barbara Boxer speaks for all liberals.

 

That's my impression as well, thus meeting the criteria for an adequate candidate. </font>[/QUOTE]Yes, I hear Sean Hannity saying this all the time. Rush Limbaugh does too. Could someone please show me any legislation that has actually been written by the courts?

Regards,
BiR </font>[/QUOTE]That a woman has a "right" to an abortion. Whether you believe it should be legal or not, you cannot derive that right out of the Constitution without inserting your opinion between the lines of text.

Most recently the SCOTUS ruled that gov't's have the right to take private property from one person and give it to another person if they believe it will be more beneficial to "the whole". This is a new right that directly contradicts the property rights established by the founders.

 

Attorney Jay Sekulow supports Miers. He knows her first hand. Sekulow has actually worked with her. I happen to have a bit of respect for Sekulow, as his views tend to be not politically swayed. His opinion is sufficient to put to rest concerns, at least for me.

 

BTW, BiR/Daisy, Are you denying that the predominant view of the Constitution amongst liberals is that it is a "living document" that can be molded as the judiciary sees fit?

 

I believe that there is a process for amending the Constition and that process should be followed. It involves theCongress or the individual states.

Personally, I don't believe that the Constitution as ratified in 1789 (with the addition of the Bill of Rights) is perfect and it does require change over time.

How could the original framers have forecast full rights for blacks and women, world wars, ubiquitous communications, space travel, etc.?

 

My only concern with her is how she explains working for the Texas lottery. If Sedulow and others say that she is okey, she probably is, at least, from the GOP point of view. Medved speculated that she was chosen because the President knew her personally and trusted her. It sure is dirty work having to clean up the Texas Lottery. I myself would not want to work for the lottery.

 

I didn't say I wanted to deny anyone any rights, I just cut and paste from The Drudge Report. All I see is that we have two new "stealth" nominees to the SCOTUS. "Stealth" usually means moderate to liberal, we can only wait and see if this holds true for Roberts and Miers.

 

Harriet Miers, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, is on record as supporting the establishment of the International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, a major local tax increase and women in combat, WorldNetDaily has learned.

Source: WorldNetDaily

 

Oh, well, if WND printed it, then it must be true.

I'll take the opinion of Jay Sekulow over WND any day.

 

I believe that there is a process for amending the Constition and that process should be followed. It involves theCongress or the individual states.

Personally, I don't believe that the Constitution as ratified in 1789 (with the addition of the Bill of Rights) is perfect and it does require change over time.

How could the original framers have forecast full rights for blacks and women, world wars, ubiquitous communications, space travel, etc.? </font>[/QUOTE]I agree.

If you read their writings, the Founders intentionally made the Constitution hard to change to prevent the kind of stuff liberals have empowered the courts and to a lesser degree Congress and the Executive to do over the past 75 years or so.

I don't think they ever envisioned a "living document"- in fact, just the opposite. I think they envisioned a very concrete and limited document that would necessarily be amended by popular assent as time progressed. What liberals have done in expanding the power, rights, and scope of government in the name of the Constitution is contrary to the ideals of the Founders.