[quote]vroom wrote:
Anyhow, I truly suspect that Bush and Miers know exactly how she would vote, judge or react to sensitive political issues of the day.[/quote]
Yes, that’s why he can truthfully state that he didn’t ask specific questions about abortion and other sensative issues. He didn’t need to because he knew exactly where she stands.
[quote]mark57 wrote:
vroom wrote:
Anyhow, I truly suspect that Bush and Miers know exactly how she would vote, judge or react to sensitive political issues of the day.
Yes, that’s why he can truthfully state that he didn’t ask specific questions about abortion and other sensative issues. He didn’t need to because he knew exactly where she stands.
[/quote]
Geez - I wonder if the left cried as loudly when JFK hired RFK.
Rainjack, too bad it is the right doing the crying these days…
I was referring to you and Mark69.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
I was referring to you and Mark69. [/quote]
Well duh!
Of course you were trying to deflect the issue without addressing the items discussed… no kidding.
Howabout you address the apparent closeness between Miers and Bush and/or the ongoing right wing rabble rousing that is occuring?
Wishful thinking I suppose…
[quote]vroom wrote:
rainjack wrote:
I was referring to you and Mark69.
Well duh!
Of course you were trying to deflect the issue without addressing the items discussed… no kidding.
Howabout you address the apparent closeness between Miers and Bush and/or the ongoing right wing rabble rousing that is occuring?
Wishful thinking I suppose…[/quote]
I have already addressed that. I think they call it reading - I’m not sure, but if you were to actually pay attention to this thread, you would see my position on this has already been expressed.
You must have seen another windmill huh, Don?
Here’s an interesting snippet…
Coming from this article…
Bush: Miers’ Religion Key Part of Her Life
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20051012/ap_on_go_su_co/miers;_ylt=AtfPI4oc.uKORfU8LLmP03Ub.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA4NGRzMjRtBHNlYwMxNjk5
Wink wink nudge nudge?
Marmadogg, you wrote: “Reversing Roe vs. Wade will cause the death of pregnant women.”
How did I “twist your ambiguity?” I opted not to try to explain the concept of causes, but BostonBarrister happened to do it anyway, so please refer to his post.
What is it with this “Can you force” nonsense? Why would I want to force people to take the morning after pill, or to not have sex? That’s their own decision.
Why would I want to make it illegal to kill a child? Because they’re deciding, for a child, whether or not that child should live or die.
As far as this:
What are you even talking about? Setting aside your use of the term “expectant mothers” to describe women who “expect” to have their pregnancies terminated, aren’t you being a bit too specific? Do women who just happen to get pregnant somehow rate more, morally, than women who are not? So what you really should’ve said is something like: “Keeping women alive is a concern of mine.” Or better yet, “Keeping people alive is a concern of mine.”
And if keeping people alive is truly a concern of yours… why don’t babies rate?
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
“You are arguing that people will break the law, and in so doing, harm themselves. Ergo, the law should not exist.”
Nice try at twisting my abiguity to helping your weak arguement.
Can you force people to not have sex? no
Can you force people to take morning after pill which is not availabe everywhere in America? no
Do you want to force people to not have abortions? yes
Is there anything else you want to force people to do?
Keeping expectant mother’s alive is a concern of mine and I am against any law that does not make sure the mother stays alive.
I find it interesting that you don’t care about the life of expectant mothers.
*I hope you like how I did that as that is a page out of your play book.[/quote]
An nice op-ed by John Fund of the WSJ editorial board concerning the Miers nomination, particularly the (in my mind, mini/non-) controversy revolving around Dobson’s remarks – anything involving Roe v. Wade will surely go from brush fire to conflagration in short order:
Judgment Call
Did Christian conservatives receive assurances that Miers would oppose Roe v. Wade?
Monday, October 17, 2005 12:01 a.m. EDT
Two days after President Bush announced Harriet Miers’s Supreme Court nomination, James Dobson of Focus on the Family raised some eyebrows by declaring on his radio program: “When you know some of the things that I know–that I probably shouldn’t know–you will understand why I have said, with fear and trepidation, that I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice.”
Mr. Dobson quelled the controversy by saying that Karl Rove, the White House’s deputy chief of staff, had not given him assurances about how a Justice Miers would vote. “I would have loved to have known how Harriet Miers views Roe v. Wade,” Mr. Dobson said last week. “But even if Karl had known the answer to that–and I’m certain that he didn’t because the president himself said he didn’t know–Karl would not have told me that. That’s the most incendiary information that’s out there, and it was never part of our discussion.”
It might, however, have been part of another discussion. On Oct. 3, the day the Miers nomination was announced, Mr. Dobson and other religious conservatives held a conference call to discuss the nomination. One of the people on the call took extensive notes, which I have obtained. According to the notes, two of Ms. Miers’s close friends–both sitting judges–said during the call that she would vote to overturn Roe.
The call was moderated by the Rev. Donald Wildmon of the American Family Association. Participating were 13 members of the executive committee of the Arlington Group, an umbrella alliance of 60 religious conservative groups, including Gary Bauer of American Values, Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation and the Rev. Bill Owens, a black minister. Also on the call were Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court and Judge Ed Kinkeade, a Dallas-based federal trial judge.
Mr. Dobson says he spoke with Mr. Rove on Sunday, Oct. 2, the day before President Bush publicly announced the nomination. Mr. Rove assured Mr. Dobson that Ms. Miers was an evangelical Christian and a strict constructionist, and said that Justice Hecht, a longtime friend of Ms. Miers who had helped her join an evangelical church in 1979, could provide background on her. Later that day, a personal friend of Mr. Dobson’s in Texas called him and suggested he speak with Judge Kinkeade, who has been a friend of Ms. Miers’s for decades.
Mr. Dobson says he was surprised the next day to learn that Justice Hecht and Judge Kinkeade were joining the Arlington Group call. He was asked to introduce the two of them, which he considered awkward given that he had never spoken with Justice Hecht and only once to Judge Kinkeade. According to the notes of the call, Mr. Dobson introduced them by saying, “Karl Rove suggested that we talk with these gentlemen because they can confirm specific reasons why Harriet Miers might be a better candidate than some of us think.”
What followed, according to the notes, was a free-wheeling discussion about many topics, including same-sex marriage. Justice Hecht said he had never discussed that issue with Ms. Miers. Then an unidentified voice asked the two men, “Based on your personal knowledge of her, if she had the opportunity, do you believe she would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?”
“Absolutely,” said Judge Kinkeade.
“I agree with that,” said Justice Hecht. “I concur.”
Shortly thereafter, according to the notes, Mr. Dobson apologized and said he had to leave the discussion: “That’s all I need to know and I will get off and make some calls.” (When asked about his comments in the notes I have, Mr. Dobson confirmed some of them and said it was “very possible” he made the others. He said he did not specifically recall the comments of the two judges on Roe v. Wade.)
Judge Kinkeade, through his secretary, declined to discuss the matter. Justice Hecht told me he remembers participating in the call but can’t recollect who invited him or many specifics about it. He said he did tell the group that Ms. Miers was “pro-life,” a characterization he has repeated in public. But he says that when someone asked him about her stand on overturning Roe v. Wade he answered, “I don’t know.” He doesn’t recall what Judge Kinkeade said. But several people who participated in the call confirm that both jurists stated Ms. Miers would vote to overturn Roe.
The benign interpretation of the comments is that the two judges were speaking on behalf of themselves, not Ms. Miers or the White House, and they were therefore offering a prediction, not an assurance, about how she would come down on Roe v. Wade. But the people I interviewed who were on the call took the comments as an assurance, and at least one based his support for Ms. Miers on them.
The conference call will no doubt prove controversial on Capitol Hill, always a tinderbox for rumors that any judicial nominee has taken a stand on Roe v. Wade. Ms. Miers meets today with Sens. Dianne Feinstein of California and Chuck Schumer of New York, both stalwart Roe supporters, who surely will be interested to learn more about her views. After Mr. Dobson’s initial comments about “things . . . that I probably shouldn’t know,” Sen. Arlen Specter, the pro-Roe Judiciary Committee chairman, said, “If there are backroom assurances and if there are backroom deals and if there is something that bears on a precondition as to how a nominee is going to vote, I think that’s a matter that ought to be known.” He and ranking Democrat Pat Leahy of Vermont threatened to subpoena Mr. Dobson as a witness.
Some participants in the Oct. 3 conference call fear that they will be called to testify at Ms. Miers’s hearings. “If the call is as you describe it, an effort will be made to subpoena everyone on it,” a Judiciary Committee staffer told me. It is possible that a tape or notes of the call are already in the hands of committee staffers. “Some people were on speaker phones allowing other people to listen in, and others could have been on extensions,” one participant told me.
Should hearings begin on Nov. 7 as is now tentatively planned, they would likely turn into a spectacle. Mr. Specter has said he plans to press Ms. Miers “very hard” on whether Roe v. Wade is settled law. “She will have hearings like no nominee has ever had to sit through,” Chuck Todd, editor of the political tip sheet Hotline, told radio host John Batchelor. “One slipup on camera and she is toast.”
Should she survive the hearings, liberal groups may demand that Democrats filibuster her. Republican senators, already hesitant to back Ms. Miers after heavy blowback from their conservative base, would likely lack the will to trigger the so-called nuclear option. “The nomination is in real trouble,” one GOP senator told me. “Not one senator wants to go through the agony of those hearings, even those who want to vote for her.” Even if Ms. Miers avoids a filibuster, it’s possible Democrats would join with dissident Republicans to defeat her outright.
There are philosophical reasons for Republican senators to oppose Ms. Miers. In 1987, the liberal onslaught on Robert Bork dramatically changed the confirmation process. The verb to bork, meaning to savage a nominee and distort his record, entered the vocabulary, and many liberals now acknowledge that the anti-Bork campaign had bad consequences. It led to more stealth nominees, with presidents hoping their scant paper trail would shield them from attack.
President Bush has now gone further in internalizing the lessons of the Bork debacle. Harriet Miers is a “superstealth” nominee–a close friend of the president with no available paper trail who keeps her cards so close to her chest they might as well be plastered on it. If Ms. Miers is confirmed, it will reinforce the popular belief that the Supreme Court is more about political outcomes than the rule of law.
Personally, I don’t see a problem with a President choosing someone who echos his beliefs.
It used to be a given that the Justice was going to reflect the Presidents beliefs. Oh sometimes they were sold as this or that sort of Justice. But in the end the President used to get a pass on this.
Harriet Miers will work to over turn Roe V Wade (and I’m smiling about that right now as I post this). Is that a big shock to the liberals? Bush is Pro life!
Zeb, if Roe is overturned, do you think there is a good chance that your state will pass a law making abortion illegal? Serious question. It would be interesting bow many states would do so.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Zeb, if Roe is overturned, do you think there is a good chance that your state will pass a law making abortion illegal? Serious question. It would be interesting bow many states would do so.[/quote]
I think Texas would outlaw abortions the second R. v. Wade is overturned.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Zeb, if Roe is overturned, do you think there is a good chance that your state will pass a law making abortion illegal? Serious question. It would be interesting bow many states would do so.[/quote]
The good part is that states would then get to decide and you can bet that some would be opposed to any sort of abortion short of rape or incest. Some would have other criteria for abortion relative to timing during the pregnancy.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
Zeb, if Roe is overturned, do you think there is a good chance that your state will pass a law making abortion illegal? Serious question. It would be interesting bow many states would do so.[/quote]
That is an interesting question Mike, even though it wasn’t directed at me. I suppose one could sort of guess – there are a list of states/districts that absolutely would not pass any restrictions – namely all the “solid blue” states like MA, CA and NY. Then there are the ones that would probably – the “solid red” states like Texas and Utah.
I guess the main question is concerning the close states, like NM, FL, OH, etc. And I guess it depends on whether they’re close because they’re more economically liberal but socially conservative, or vice versa.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
That is an interesting question Mike, even though it wasn’t directed at me. I suppose one could sort of guess – there are a list of states/districts that absolutely would not pass any restrictions – namely all the “solid blue” states like MA, CA and NY. Then there are the ones that would probably – the “solid red” states like Texas and Utah.
I guess the main question is concerning the close states, like NM, FL, OH, etc. And I guess it depends on whether they’re close because they’re more economically liberal but socially conservative, or vice versa.[/quote]
If abortion laws vary from state to state, how long will it be before the SC begins to re-regulate abortion using the interstate commerce clause?
The USSC couldn’t do that, as the Commerce Clause grants regulatory power to Congress. However, as I mentioned above, I would be surprised if this version of the USSC, given its recent jurisprudence (particularly Raich v. Ashcroft) would stop Congress from regulating in that area if it wanted to. The link to interstate commerce is tenuous at best, but so are a lot of the other links they’ve let slip through since Wickard v. Filburn.
[quote]BostonBarrister wrote:
BostonBarrister wrote:
If abortion laws vary from state to state, how long will it be before the SC begins to re-regulate abortion using the interstate commerce clause?
The USSC couldn’t do that, as the Commerce Clause grants regulatory power to Congress. However, as I mentioned above, I would be surprised if this version of the USSC, given its recent jurisprudence (particularly Raich v. Ashcroft) would stop Congress from regulating in that area if it wanted to. The link to interstate commerce is tenuous at best, but so are a lot of the other links they’ve let slip through since Wickard v. Filburn.[/quote]
BB - You’re always free to chime in. 
What BB said is true. The Supreme Court can’t regulate anything. It can only declare a law unconstitutional. Also, even if a law is declared unconstitutional, the legislature can go back and “try again” by passing a different law that would pass muster. Frequently, USSC opinions will hint at what a legislature could do to make its law constitutional.
The more interesting question here is whether the federal government would try to pass an abortion law. The irony of that would be that the conservative judges, Scalia et al., who obviously are anti-abortion, would actually declare the law unconstitutional as not within the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
And if keeping people alive is truly a concern of yours… why don’t babies rate?
[/quote]
Is that the best you can do?
You are pathetic.
Come back to me when you can form a logical idea based in intellectual honesty.
The Interstate Commerce clause only applies if Scalia says so…got it.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
BB - You’re always free to chime in.
What BB said is true. The Supreme Court can’t regulate anything. It can only declare a law unconstitutional. Also, even if a law is declared unconstitutional, the legislature can go back and “try again” by passing a different law that would pass muster. Frequently, USSC opinions will hint at what a legislature could do to make its law constitutional.
The more interesting question here is whether the federal government would try to pass an abortion law. The irony of that would be that the conservative judges, Scalia et al., who obviously are anti-abortion, would actually declare the law unconstitutional as not within the scope of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause.
[/quote]
It’s possible, but I don’t think so – with the filibuster to contend with in the Senate, it would never pass unless the Republicans were willing to force cloture (the “nuclear option”) on a regular piece of legislation – a highly dubious proposition.
If there is questionable resolve to force cloture in the Senate when any fair reading of the Constitution would clearly prohibit any filibuster with respect to Presidential appointments, then there surely wouldn’t be the political will to force cloture on a vote for which consituents would be both paying attention and holding the politicians accountable.
That’s my prediction anyway.
Of course, that would change were social conservatives (not Republicans) ever to gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate – though that seems a pipe dream at this juncture.