Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Another David Souter; matbe a liberal in disguise
Topic Started: Oct 3 2005, 09:40 AM (557 Views)
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
Jelly Bean
Oct 4 2005, 05:24 AM

Just my opinion, and I obviously am not in agreement at this point with some of my fellow conservatives.  I may not always feel that way.
I will give her the benefit of my doubt, till I find out differently.

didn't realize the "I may not always feel that way"...comment would come true so soon.

I am now officially bummed and scared:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=46641

Quote:
 
CHANGING OF THE GUARD
Mystery-woman Miers:
New clues to resume
Bush pick supported International Criminal Court, homosexual adoptions, women in combat, tax hike

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: October 3, 2005
8:38 p.m. Eastern


By Joseph Farah
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – 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.


Harriet Miers and President Bush

While some conservative leaders and organizations were stunned by the appointment, most were not alarmed by the lack of a paper trail by the nominee who has never served as a judge at any level.


But a profile of her positions as a leader of the American Bar Association, a Dallas city councilwoman and as presidential counselor is unlikely to ease the concerns of those who were expecting Bush to fulfill his promise to name a justice in the mold of Clarence Thomas or Antonin Scalia.

According to Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, Miers has taken positions as White House counsel that violate the law banning women in combat.

"As White House counsel, Ms. Miers either approved of the Department of Defense's illegal assignments of women in units required to be all-male, which is still continuing in violation of the law requiring notice to Congress in advance, or she was oblivious to the legal consequences of those assignments," she said.

Donnelly believes the actions of Miers could lead directly to a future court ruling requiring women to register with the Selective Service for the draft because they are now being, against the wishes of Congress, assigned to land combat.

"I am very disappointed by the president's choice," she said. "Ms. Miers does not have a judicial 'paper trail,' but her record as White House counsel is a legitimate cause for concern. Democrats and liberals who were willing to use the military for purposes of social experimentation have reason to be pleased."

Donnelly also concludes that Miers approved the Bush administrations retention of President Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" regulations, which, she says, are different from the 1993 law passed by Congress

Meanwhile, during Miers long affiliation with the American Bar Association, she submitted a 1999 report to the ABA's house of delegates that included recommendations to develop and establish an International Criminal Court and the enactment of laws and public policy providing that the sexual orientation of adults be no bar to adoption of children.

Under the heading Family Law and subheading Adoption, the document states: "Supports the enactment of laws and public policy which provide that sexual orientation shall not be a bar to adoption when the adoption is determined to be in the best interest of the child."

Also included, under the heading International Law and Practice, is a recommendation for "the development and establishment of an International Criminal Court."


Along with the proposed agenda was a memo, dated Oct. 28, 1998, that explained the document.

"The Committee urges all Delegates to review this list for items of interest to their constituencies, and to act as the catalyst for further contact and action so that each entity will have the earliest opportunity for consideration and input."

The memo is signed by Miers as chairwoman of the Select Committee of the House.

As a city councilwoman, Miers also said Dallas had a responsibility to pay for AIDS education and patient services. And she courted the support of the Lesbian/Gay Coalition of Dallas in her successful 1989 campaign.

In addition, economic conservatives pleased by her corporate law background may find it distressing that in 1990 Miers voted for a 7 percent property tax increase during her short tenure on the Dallas City Council.


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
campingken
Member
Over 60% of Americans favor legal abortions. If the Supreme Court was to over turn Roe v. Wade some states would outlaw abortions and others wouldn't. Personally I don't care one way or another if someone has an abortion or not. However I do care when the government wants to climb through my bedroom window and tell my wife and me how to live our lives.

Ken
Sequim Wa
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PRT
Member
The World Net Daily article above doesn't scare me. Judges aren't supposed to do morality. They assure that the Constitution and laws are followed properly. This is not about morality or religion.
It's about the law and the Constitution.

Re the AIDS component in Dallas - just as another scenario - let's say I am a citizen of NY and make less than $12,000 a year for discussion's sake.

All citizens of NY who make less than $12,000 a year are entitled to free health care according to the law. It doesn't matter what's wrong with a citizen - if they qualify under the law they are entitled to free health care.

If I can prove that I am a citizen of this state and have a qualifying income, it doesn't matter to the law what the heck is wrong with me. I get health care and it's free. I could have AIDS or muscular dystrophy. My disease is not the qualifier.

On edit. I have absolutely no idea what NY law reads about free health care. Strictly an explanatory scenario here.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jelly Bean
Member Avatar
Member
PRT
Oct 4 2005, 12:57 PM
The World Net Daily article above doesn't scare me. Judges aren't supposed to do morality. They assure that the Constitution and laws are followed properly. This is not about morality or religion.
It's about the law and the Constitution.

Re the AIDS component in Dallas - just as another scenario - let's say I am a citizen of NY and make less than $12,000 a year for discussion's sake.

All citizens of NY who make less than $12,000 a year are entitled to free health care according to the law. It doesn't matter what's wrong with a citizen - if they qualify under the law they are entitled to free health care.

If I can prove that I am a citizen of this state and have a qualifying income, it doesn't matter to the law what the heck is wrong with me. I get health care and it's free. I could have AIDS or muscular dystrophy. My disease is not the qualifier.

On edit. I have absolutely no idea what NY law reads about free health care. Strictly an explanatory scenario here.

doesn't really matter anymore anyway, Christian or otherwise, moral or not,...people will do what they want, and where their hearts are their mouths will speak...
even if it was to be illegal, if folks want to act evilly, they will.
Killing the unborn, the most defenseless of all human beings in the world...has got to be the most atrocious thing we do on the planet.

God help us all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PRT
Member
But, you can't legislate morality. It won't work as you say. We have free will. We make choices.
There's really only one judge that matters. No one appointed Him.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"This is not about morality or religion."

It shouldn't be.

"It's about the law and the Constitution."

It should be.

"you can't legislate morality"

Happens everyday. And adjudicate it, and administer it. We protect life, protect rights, and privileges, like health care, because it is moral, because we decide it is so. It will be short-lived if it's not truly of, by and for the people.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
PRT
Member
cmoehle
Oct 4 2005, 06:21 PM
"you can't legislate morality"

Happens everyday. And adjudicate it, and administer it. We protect life, protect rights, and privileges, like health care, because it is moral, because we decide it is so. It will be short-lived if it's not truly of, by and for the people.

That's not exactly what I meant.

I was really referring to JB's post about people doing evil if they want to.

I probably should have said you can't really prevent immorality just because laws are in place. Laws are moral in nature, as you note, but people have free will and choose whichever path they want.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
I was wondering that, too, but went the other way with it. Yes, you're right too. Society cannot completely prevent immoral actions, can try, through family, schools, community, even punishment, but not prevent it. It's man's basic nature some say.

What I was getting at was more the question of what is moral, and who is to decide. To me the decision-making needs to be systemic, constrained by small, careful changes, and attempts by individuals to solve moral issues, usually with sweeping, unconstrained changes, usually lead to worse problems.

Both points fit here. Mine that such a drastic swing from left to right would leave the nation split and unstable when it needs at this time unity and stability. Yours that even if some activist judge declares some action immoral it won't stop people from doing it, and in worse and more dangerous ways. History tells us both stories.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
DocInBird
Member
Pat, you make a good point, in that morality has nothing to do with religion - it has to do with societal norms and customs. Those that tout piety in religion often have a poor grasp of morality. Witness Tom DeLay, W, et. al. They spout the Ten Commandments, yet want to choose which ones to follow, at any given time.

I believe that you CAN legislate morality.

mo·ral·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "morality" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-rl-t, mô-)
n. pl. mo·ral·i·ties

1. The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
2. A system of ideas of right and wrong conduct: religious morality; Christian morality.
3. Virtuous conduct.
4. A rule or lesson in moral conduct.

Killing people is wrong. Is that not an accepted concept of morality? Stealing is wrong. Is that not also accepted?

If you look at the things done in the name of God, around the world, you will be shocked. Female genital mutilation, the Taliban (and like sects) regulation of women, the legalized murder of women in Pakistan for "family honor", and the list is very long. All claim that they were within their moral code and all were right.

What is the moral code that Tom DeLay adheres to? What is the moral code that W adheres to? Even Hitler adhered to a moral code, but what was it?

So, what is the moral code of the new nominee? We are not allowed to know until she is confirmed. She is now going through the same training process that allowed Roberts to avoid all questions until confirmed.

--doc
Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Indeed, morals are a social matter.


It's almost ironic if you think back to the 2000 election debates where Bush promised conservative constructionist nominees along the lines of Scalia and Thomas and Gore warned that social conservatives saw that as a code for judicial activism on their agendas re abortion, gay marriage and the like. How true that was, apparently, from the reactions of Rush, Brownbeck, Dobson, Perkins and others. The irony being it took one who sought liberal judicial activisim to see the same liberal desires in social cons who somehow have managed to confuse their radical agendas as based on any sort of conservative principles or construction on the Constitution. Bush may well have delivered--a rarity--on a promise.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
John Cornyn seems to get it: Harriet Miers
Quote:
 
I have been fortunate enough to know Harriet for much of her career. I know that she believes, as I do, that judges should not legislate from the bench. I know that she believes, as I do, that judges are not some sort of elite anointed to impose their preferences on the rest of us. I know that she understands that unelected judges who serve in a democracy have a limited role--to apply the law as it was written by the people's representatives. She aptly described her judicial philosophy on Monday when she said, "It is the responsibility of every generation to be true to the founders' vision of the proper role of the courts and our society." The courts, she continued, have "obligations to strictly apply the laws and the Constitution."

Well, he hits a foul on whether we have a democratic or republican form of government, but he's in the ballpark.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Colo_Crawdad
Member Avatar
Lowell
From those Presidential debates:

Quote:
 
GORE: And when the phrase "strict constructionist" is used, and when the names of Scalia and Thomas are used as benchmarks for who would be appointed, those are code words, and nobody should mistake this, for saying that the governor would appoint people who would overturn Roe v. Wade. I mean, just -- it's very clear to me.
"WE HAVE MET THE ENEMY AND HE IS US." --- Pogo
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fr. Mike
Member
Can being a strict constitutional constructionist be viewed as activism if the result is to reverse previous decisions deemed "judicial activism"?

Many believe that past decisions did in fact legislate from the bench. Reeling in this past activism may in itself be viewed as a new form of activism.
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ

Don't forget to say your prayers!
The unborn have rights too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Mike, I wouldn't consider undoing activist decisions activism if it centers on the Law (precedent, including dissents) and the Constitution (construction). Undoing Roe v Wade would likly return it to the states where the Roe v Wade opinion was already being adopted by most states. But if it swings to an oppositely radical position, as some social cons desire, then it would also be activism.

In my thinking as well the legislative and executive branches can be considered activist if they enact laws or exact policies outside a strict construction on the Constitution. The judicial check on that is not activism.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Fr. Mike
Member
Well I certainly agree that it should be a matter left with the States. I was thinking just yesterday about the problem we have with a Supreme Court or 9th Circuit deciding issues that concern the people of Arizona.

Each state and region has its own mores and social order.

Even though Justice O'Connor comes from the copper state, she hardly understands the concerns of somebody living in Maine. The State Constituiton of Maine should be what the maine citizens use and have agreed to.

Justice Stevens Ginburg, Thomas, Scalia, Souter and the others have no business deciding Arizona issues. They don't live here. The US Constitution should concern itself with Federal issues. We need to use the Bill of Rights as a basis for all State Constituions, but not allow it or the overall Federal Constituion legislate matters that interfer with a states mores. Anyway--that is my humble opinion.
A humble servant of the Lord Jesus Christ

Don't forget to say your prayers!
The unborn have rights too.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply