October 03, 2005
Who Will Be Made the Fool on SCOTUS?
George W. Bush nominates his long time associate and friend Harriet Miers to become the SCOTUS replacement for O'Conner. I hear all over the news about how she is pro-life and an evangelical Christian. I just heard an interview from her close friend and church pastor attesting to the fact. But, when questioned directly about how he thought she would rule on church/state issues he sidestepped.
Like Roberts she is touted as a Christian but when pressed the conversation dodges into the professional/generic uphold the constitution rhetoric that means SQUAT!! Face it; we are being saddled with unknowns. When democrats run for office they hide their beliefs. When republicans nominate judges they do the same thing.
For more reaction we get Harry Reid - democratic senate minority leader.
“I like Harriet Miers. As White House Counsel, she has worked with me in a courteous and professional manner. I am also impressed with the fact that she was a trailblazer for women as managing partner of a major Dallas law firm and as the first woman president of the Texas Bar Association.Someone is about to be made the fool but oddly I don’t think it is George Bush or Harry Reid, it may be the Republican base. We now have two wild card justices on the table and I hope they turn out to be what Bush promised.“In my view, the Supreme Court would benefit from the addition of a justice who has real experience as a practicing lawyer. The current justices have all been chosen from the lower federal courts. A nominee with relevant non-judicial experience would bring a different and useful perspective to the Court.
I just saw Mary Matlin explain how "we had the same concerns about John Roberts and see how that turned out" on Fox. Well guess what, we still don't know anything about John Roberts. Getting confirmed does not make him a conservative, which remains to be seen.
I have to say I am amazed how the left has turned domestic over the Miers nomination. Either they know something, they are being taken for a ride or they are sheep falling in behind their masters. If these two nominees turn out to be staunch conservatives Bush will deserve the Nobel Prize in political maneuvering. Until that time I intend to reserve judgment.
More links at Wizbang here and analysis here at CQ.
Posted by Sid at October 3, 2005 06:01 PM | Politics
Comments
I am sitting here hoping that both of these justices turn out to be moderates. I want my state seperate from the church and I think that a law banning abortions would cause far more problems than programs that reduce the situations where an abortion is desired.
Posted by: jeff at October 4, 2005 11:34 AM
I dont' see abortion ever being banned again. If it is, it will be state to state and even then it is a long shot. A national ban has no chance in hell. That horse is out of the barn. The overturn of Roe V. Wade will allow sanity back into the debate. Things like parental concent, elimination of state funding, waiting periods, counciling, etc.
That said you don't want judges making law unless you like having your property taken from you because someone else could provide better tax revenue. Besides, courts are focused more on telling religious people what they cannot do so I think the danger of the state forcing religion on people is rather small. Well, that is unless things like "In God We Trust" on your money traumatizes you.
Posted by: Sid at October 4, 2005 12:44 PM
That property decision was what I would consider a liberal decision. A moderate or conservative should have voted against that. How it happened is beyond me.
As far as Roe v Wade the items you mention are not controlled by that decision. All it does is allow a person the right to have an abortion. The public funding and issues related to minors are all seperate decisions. Repealing Roe v Wade will not solve those problems.
As for religion it seems that an inherent aspect of most faiths is the need to be evangelical and convince others to join in their beliefs. I want the courts to keep those efforts in the private sector. The use of government property to facilitate the message of any faith causes more problems than it is worth. To the best of my knowledge the courts have not infringed on the rights of any religions activities in the private sector. If I am wrong then you might have an argument depending on the facts of the case.
Posted by: jeff at October 5, 2005 12:01 PM
