A Rational Look at the Miers Nomination

Not so sure it is a smart pick or not. I am not sure that Pres. Bush is a social conservative like so many believe him to be. The GOP controls both houses of Congress, so it was not like Bush was outnumbered. When Clinton chose SCOTUS nominees he picked blatant Left Wingers like Ginsberg and Breyer. Bush was apparently afraid to choose someone that was blatantly Conservative.

The fact is we don't even know if Roberts will be a leftwinger like Souter or a wish washy justice like O Conner and Kennedy. If Roberts and Miers turn out to be like Scalia, Thomas and Renquist, Conservatives will call this brilliant.

On the other hand if it turns out in 6-9 months that Roberts and Miers are Liberals or Moderates, then the Bush presidency will be stained in that his base of social conservatives will feel betrayed, abandon him and the GOP and that could mean trouble for the GOP in 2006 and 2008.

 

When did it become a sin to be a moderate, especially in the judicate? And since when is a moderate a "wishywashy"? Sounds like more "that person isnt' conservative enough for me" claptrap.

Comments like that make me want to disassociate myself from my conservative brethren. It seems that a many of the strict constructionist judges have had a fair amound of moderation in them. There is such a thing as conservative activism, and such a thing should be avoided at the judicial level, just as liberal activism should be avoided.

 

Who said it was a Sin?

Moderates in general seem to not know what they believe or change their positions if it is unpopular has been my observation.

Actually anyone who reads my overall comments on politics would notice I am more Libertarian than Conservative though I am a strict social conservative. (So you can still associate with Conservative brothers ) This has nothing to do with wanting a judicial activist as your sermon implies but a strict constructionist. Renquist to me was the ideal Justice.

 

That certainly appears to be an implication from time to time (not by you, necessarily).

SOunds to me like moderates tend to hold to their views regardless of how popular or unpopular they are by the more extreme on each side, and don't change their views to placate one or the other. The resule is one or the other being not happy with them from tiem to time.

I concur with you here, and wish to point out that my comments are not directed at you as a specific. If they appear to be, my apologies are in order.

I agree with Renquist, imo. But I do think that activism by either a conservative judge or liberal judge is to be avoided. Scrict constructionism should something that is devoid of the spectrum of political view. It ain't always, but it should be.

 

A rational conclusion is that she is a sleeper who has been vetted by and is loyal to Bush.

 

Then the focus shifts from her to him. Is GWB a conservative or moderate, or just what. He sure isn't against spending taxpayers money for any socialist program the Dem's come up with.

 

I hope that carpro is right but I fear that Kiffen is. Roberts is still a very unknown quanity. We'll have to wait until next summer to find out. I very much hope that I am wrong but I'm not going to get excited about President Bush picking a stealth candidate. Kiffen was right, Clinton picked known liberals in Breyer and Ginsburg, but it appears that Bush lacks the courage of his stated conviction to appoint somone in the mold of a Scalia or Thomas as he promised.

Johnv,

When did it become a sin to be a moderate, especially in the judicate?

Who would you call a model moderate Justice on the recent Court?

There is such a thing as conservative activism, and such a thing should be avoided at the judicial level, just as liberal activism should be avoided.

I hear this argued all the time, but I never hear an example of "conservative judicial activism".

It seems that a many of the strict constructionist judges have had a fair amound of moderation in them.

Agreed, and thanks for the point. I think that many on the knee-jerk left ignore that fact about many of Scalia's and Thomas's opinions (Thomas's U.S. Term Limits v. Thornton decision is a perfect example).

SOunds to me like moderates tend to hold to their views regardless of how popular or unpopular they are by the more extreme on each side,

Are "extremists" on the right any less principled in their views?

 

OK, guys, here is my 2 cents.

I have to agree with Kiffin about the weakness of the Roberts nomination because I do not think that Catholics are reliable allies on social issues and legal issues since Catholic jurisprudence in Europe and Latin America is restrictive.

However, I also believe that Bush is too weak to do much else. He does not have full command of his own party. Mostly it is eastern Republicans who have been liberal and unreliable for over 50 years. The last conservative Eastern Republicans that I can remember were Henry Cabot Lodge, Jacob Javits, and maybe Grandpa Prescott Bush.

But this lady seems to be satisfactory. Bush mentioned that it was done in part for diverstiy reasons so Miers got the job based upon her femaleness.

Let's compare her to the Pillar of Salt, Sandra Day O'Connor, who legalized sodomy in the USA. I am so happy that Sandy resigned!

Miers is not going to legalize sodomy and I will prove it at the end here.

And then let's compare her to Darth Bader. Oh, never mind. Ruth Bader Ginsburg is unfit to hold any public office.

Miers is not a Fundamentalist in my book. Nor is she an Evangelical. I would say that she was a member of a conservative mainline church although her church is independent of the liberal denomination (Disciples of Christ). But she is a Campbellite in my eyes.

Here is why we can count on Miers--here is what she believes from her church:

http://www.vvcc.org/beliefsgo.asp

 

CMG,

The last conservative Eastern Republicans that I can remember were...Jacob Javits

I almost choked when I read that. Tell me you're joking. Javits was notorious as a liberal Republican when he was in the Senate.

Diversity? You may be right but I hope that Constitutional persuasion was his primary criteria. I have no problem with a "female seat" on the Court (nor with nine women there), but I don't want the primary criteria being whether they wear a skirt or pants. Even Bella Abzug wore a dress (uggghhhh, the thought makes me shudder).

Let's compare her to the Pillar of Salt, Sandra Day O'Connor, who legalized sodomy in the USA. I am so happy that Sandy resigned!

Amen!

You know, a big part of what bothers me about Miers is, in addition to her unknownness, is that she was recommended by Harry Reid, Dem of Nevada. That's not to say that any Republican suggestion would have worked either--I almost gagged when I read that Orrin Hatch recommended Ginsburg. Yes, her church affiliation makes me hopeful but not optimistic, much as with with Roberts.

 

So, ftr, that leads to the question. Is it okay for a Christian woman to wear pants under a judicial robe?

(ducking to avoid tomatoes)

 

Did you really say that? Did you really, really say that??? It just sounds funny.

I have no problem with the sodomy ruling. The sodomy law was a stupid law in teh first place. The state has no business legislating what I can and cannot do in private, so long as the rights of others is not compromised. Is it not the conservative view to lessen the role government in our daily lives?

 

You should duck, John, about the issue of women wearing trousers. That one is lost forever, isn't it? I never intended for it to sound funny but it got away from me and it was too late to edit. No pun intended.

Actually, the role of the federal government was increased under the O'Connor ruling in Texas. It took the right of the state away to say that sodomy is wrong, which it is. I have no problem with it remaining illegal. The State of Indiana compelled employees to attend cultural diversity training about gay rights while on the books of the state law sodomy was a crime so you can see that the left wanted their laws lined up on behalf of diversity.

I think that Bush chose her in the hopes of avoiding a fight that he could not win. His majority is on paper only and will not hold up when tested.

Okay, so Jacob Javits is a bit of a stretch but he would be conservative compared to some of these liberals nowadays such as Snowe and Chaffee and probably more of a party man. It has been a long time since he was GOP senator from New York.

As for Reid, I think that he just is saying that he does not rule her out automatically. I am a little sick of him. I don't understand why the Democrats put a Mormon in charge but then I guess we have Mormon officers in the GOP also. I just think that the Mormons are totally unreliable. I really can't blame the Democrats because Mormon financial power is so great that it spills over onto both sides of the aisle and dominates Utah and Nevada.

My 4 grandparents were conservative Campbellites but the denomination went liberal shortly after WW II. They had little or no doctrine and no ground set aside for the conservatives to stand and fight as the laity had not been trained in defense of the faith. The liberal preachers just took over in a silent coup. The Disciples of Christ are headquartered here in Indianapolis but they are a public mess. Jim Jones came from their ranks in the Disciples of Christ denomination.

Meirs is an independent offshoot. LBJ was Disciples of Christ, also, I think. They would be mainline in my opinion although Meirs' church mentions Evangelical in their doctrinal statement.

I think that Miers is okay. I don't think that she is shakey or about to go left. This court issue is lost as a conservative cause because the outcome is anti-climatic because it became only a small victory.

There is still no plan to end abortion and no action underway so to do. Evangelical and Fundamentalist Protestants must develop politicians. We cannot count on our now and then allies to be on the front lines with us.

 

I think sodomy is only wrong when the persons engaging in it are not married. But I have a difficult time with the state legislating such. It seems quite the intrusion into privacy rights to me, which makes my the conservative hairs on my back stand on end. I should be allowed the right to sin, so long as that sin is private and not endangering anyone else's rights. If that includes me enaging in sodomy, taking the Lord's name (not unheard of from Baptist men during the Super Bowl ), or coveting my neighbor's ass, it should be my right, even though those things are morally wrong. And those rights should be secure regardles of whether I'm gay or straight.


BTW, for the record, I'm married, don't curse, and do my best not to covet, especially my neighbor's 2005 Hummer.

 

With all due respect, Amigo, don't let California get to you. Of course, Indiana has a right to legislate in such matters.

The intellectuals and people like Pat Buchanan, who left the GOP, are saying that this lady is unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Personally, I think that she is fully qualified. It is true that she started at the bottom in the White House, but she learned the ropes and worked her way up. She will do okay and she will vote as a good Christian should within the framework of the legal system.

I still have trouble thinking of her as Evangelical but her church calls themselves Evangelical so I have to respect that because the doctrine is sound.

www.vvcc.org

 

I believe she is qualified. I don't know her views on many issues; however, as with Roberts, we are not going to find that out. I would trust her to do the job. She is probably as good as we are going to get from Bush.

PA

 

Priscilla Ann, she is a church-going person with a Bible-believing theology. She is on record as saying that she believes human life begins at conception.

Thanks for saying that she is qualified. I agree with you. She has been a lawyer and has some minor political experience so she should be okay. She is a Texan. I think that we need to look outside of the East for people in order to prevent the East from diverting the government benefits to themselves only.

 

Oh, well, if Buchanan says so, it must be true

Personally I agree with you, and, if I take a step back, all objectivity suggests the same.

"Evangelical" simply means to evangelize. It doesn't mean that all evangelicals are politically likeminded. Again, I personally don't care about her personal private religious views or practices. I care solely about whether or not she will faithfully judge cases based on the constitution and the constitution alone.