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
How Would Jesus Rule?
Topic Started: Oct 16 2005, 12:02 PM (78 Views)
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Close enough to what I think...

How Would Jesus Rule? The perils of religious tests for Supreme Court justices
Quote:
 
Harriet Miers' religious affiliation doesn't bother me, but the fact that some people find it reassuring does. This reaction by social conservatives who support her nomination to the Supreme Court suggests they expect her decisions as a justice to hinge on her faith.

Although President Bush insists he wants Supreme Court justices who apply the Constitution instead of twisting it to fit their personal preferences, he invited conservatives to rely on religious cues in judging Miers. Upon nominating someone with no record of taking positions on constitutional issues as a judge, litigator, or scholar, he assured them, "I know her heart."

The White House played up Miers' conversion to evangelical Christianity, her membership at Valley View Christian Church in Dallas, and her church-related volunteer work. It dispatched Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who facilitated Miers' "born again" experience, to vouch for her religious credentials. Although many conservatives remain skeptical, some seem to think Miers' good Christian heart qualifies her to serve on the Supreme Court.

"When you know some of the things I know," Focus on the Family President James Dobson said on his radio show shortly after Miers was nominated, "you'll know why I've said, with fear and trepidation, [that] I believe Harriet Miers will be a good justice....If I have made a mistake here, I will never forget it. The blood of those babies who will die will be on my hands to a degree."

As that comment indicates, abortion is the issue foremost in the minds of religious conservatives as they contemplate the prospect of Justice Harriet Miers. Dobson later explained that "the things I know" referred to Miers' religious identity, her affiliation with "a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life," her campaign against the American Bar Association's support for abortion rights, and her former membership in Texas Right to Life.

But as Dobson's "fear and trepidation" reflects, Miers' opposition to abortion won't necessarily translate into a vote against Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that pulled a constitutional right to abortion out of hot air. For all we know, Miers thinks Roe is a reasonable extrapolation from principles embodied in the Constitution.

Although the possibility that Miers sees nothing wrong with Roe may seem slight, it cannot be ruled out given how little is known of her constitutional thinking. More plausibly, Miers may believe Roe was wrongly decided yet resist overturning "settled law" to which judges, legislators, and millions of ordinary Americans have become accustomed during the last three decades.

The problem with trying to guess Miers' judicial philosophy based on her religion is that one should have nothing to do with the other. A justice who votes to reverse Roe should do it for the right reason: not because abortion is wrong but because the Constitution, properly understood, leaves the regulation of abortion to the states.

The reason matters because abortion is not the only issue the Supreme Court will confront during the next few decades. If Miers simply would replace Roe author Harry Blackmun's result-oriented jurisprudence with her own, shaped by the teachings of her religion, she would be no less a threat to the Constitution than the liberal judicial activists whom conservatives love to condemn.

Not so long ago, the president's partisans were accusing Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee of trying to bar Catholics from the bench by opposing judicial nominees who consider abortion immoral. Since "people of orthodox religious beliefs" are against abortion, the pro-Bush Committee for Justice said, automatically disqualifying anti-abortion nominees is tantamount to imposing a religious test for public office.

Now Miers' supporters are touting her faith as one of her main qualifications for the Supreme Court, which suggests that a nominee with different religious beliefs (or none at all) would be less fit. Apparently religious tests are OK as long as they work in the president's favor.


And Forget Roe and the Framers. Let's Talk Business:
Quote:
 
Conservative howling over Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers echoes unabated since President Bush introduced his friend and confidant to the public on Oct. 3. If anything, the clamor has intensified, with some in the conservative chattering class now hounding Miers to withdraw. But while Bush dodges the brickbats, another critical element of the Republican political base is applauding from the wings.

That would be big business. For the first time in more than three decades, corporate America could find itself with not one, but two, Supreme Court allies with in-the-trenches industry experience -- Miers and newly minted Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. Don't be fooled by the low-key personas they have projected thus far; both are legal wonks who have packed a powerful punch in the corporate world. Together, they could be a CEO's dream team.

...Corporate America so far is nowhere to be found in the emotionally charged furor over Miers. That's because executives are loath to do anything that might turn off their politically diverse shareholders and customers, who might not appreciate their energy company or car manufacturer wading into a debate dominated by divisive issues such as abortion. Still, the Miers nomination has put in stark relief the wide rift between the religious right and the free-market right. Is Miers really Bush's "best choice" for the Supreme Court? That depends on where you stand. But if you're standing on Wall Street, the answer might be yes.
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
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
re Miers good for corporate america

you're durn tootin'!!!
and that's exactly why GW and his tycoon crowd wants her.

as to the pro life bunch, if they're expecting her and Roberts to outlaw abortion altogether, they're nuts.... ain't gonna happen.
but if they're hoping the court will eventually take away abortion on demand, that's reasonable (to me)

but the scariest part of this whole thing (to me) is that we have a man in the white house who was put there by the supreme court....
and with two more republicans on the bench, it looks like that precedent is here to stay.
Hail Caesar!
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
TexasShadow
Member Avatar
Jane
As to how Jesus would rule........
Jesus would rule from His perspective of what is right and wrong, but He has inside info :)
He knows who is really naughty (charlatan/deceiver) or not.
Posted Image "A conclusion is the place where you got tired of thinking."
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Being a free-market conservative I don't see his naming a pro-business conservative to the Court as negative, though I can understand why you do.

The "Hail Caesar!" I can understand better and share some concern there. Bush is not just a big government conservative but a powerful administrative one to boot. Both Roberts and Miers lean that way, but, then, the Court sometimes oversteps its restricted powers and needs some restraint.

I don't see either as her ideology though, still think her priorities are to the Law and Constititution.


Jesus would do the right thing I presume, and presume it would surprise most here.


Striking Roe v Wade would not reverse it. To reverse it would be to do what religious conservatives say is wrong. No, all it would do is put the matter back in th states, which were adopting what we have now anyhow. Nothing would change. The pro-life movement would wither.
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
Bork on Hardball on Miers.

Video: http://video.msn.com/v/us/v.htm?f=00&g=6b2...%20-%20Analysis


Fascinating man, need to learn more.
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
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply