Bush's supreme court nominees

[shmokes]

It's no secret that Bush opposes Roe.  It takes neither clairvoyance nor wild assumptions.

Bush's stated position is that he will not pursue, but supports a constitutional ban on abortion to overturn Roe if the Supreme Court does not overturn itself (exceptions for Rape/Incest).  He has stated this more than once including on Meet the Press and a news conference on his maiden campaign trip running up to the 2000 election.

He has also stated recently, after a partial birth abortion ban in Nebraska was struck down by the Supreme Court that the abortion issue should be left to state legislatures to decide.  Hmm....didn't Roe have something to say about that?

He also said that Roe v. Wade "will not be overturned until hearts are changed. Until then, we should focus on ways to reduce abortion."  [emphasis added]

A lot of my info comes from the Lexis/Nexis database, which I'm sure few of you can check, but you can find references to it here (and considering the name of the source I don't think it should seem like I'm finding biased sources just to help my argument):

http://www.conservativenews.org/InDepth/archive/199903/IND19990322e.html

You have to take a pretty myopic view of the world to look at President Bush and say that you can't suss his stance on Roe v. Wade until he issues a press release.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Smokes,

You have to take a pretty myopic view of the world to look at President Bush and say that you can't suss his stance on Roe v. Wade until he issues a press release.

Maybe. But it's a myopic view born out of distrust, a distrust developed through years of listening to him speak in code. "Until hearts are changed"? F*ck that...if he's appointing two ultra-conservative judges to SCOTUS who have the inherent intent of overturning Roe V. Wade, based on personal views, as opposed to how they interpret the law..then f*ckin'-A right he better issue a press release stating such, in as clear a wording as possible, what his goal is. (Again, to avoid "Conspiracy Theory Drew's" standard issue avoidance of said issue, I'm *not* saying this is Bush's intent, I am saying his intent with his SCOTUS appointment strategy has yet to be made clear)

If overturning Roe V. Wade by stacking the court with judges is the end goal, then it has nothing to do  "hearts being changed" and is instead nothing short of "activist legislation." The American people are owed an explanation. My more narrow point is this will never be spoken out loud, nor issued as a press release, because, it seems to me, those who'd wish to overturn Roe are in the minority. It is an issue settled by LAW, not personal belief and should only be overturned if there is an interpretation of the law that allows that. If Miers is a evangelical, who is opposed to abortion, and who intends on thwarting that established legislation because she is morally opposed...then I call "bullsh!t" as that is thwarting the will of the people (majority)!

"Bush's stated position is that he will not pursue"...I am making the point that *IF* Bush is appointing a judge whom he knows is intent on overturning Roe on principle, then this statement is a FLAT OUT LIE, since I'd consider that "pursuing."

As for Drew citing Ginsberg's testimony, great! Then there is precedence for nominees sharing their views and there is absolutely NO REASON either of Bush' nominees should not do the same. To hide behind shadowy rhetoric is unacceptable.

Personally, I'm not a single-issue voter and I'm not a heavy hitter on abortion either way. I honestly haven't made up my mind on how I feel about the whole thing. I do, however, know that a significant amount of people HAVE made up their mind and they have every right to know what Bush's true intent is with his judicial appointments.

Anyhow, I'll rest my case for now...and await the confirmation hearing (if Miers even makes it that far) before addressing this issue again.

mrC

[ChadTower]

That's edit #1.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

That's edit #1.

Settle down spaz...90% of my edits are grammar/spelling edits...the remaining 10% are to clarify a point, never to change anything I've said. If that helps you sleep at night.

You weren't one of those annoying little hall monitors in grammar school by any chance were you?

mrC

[ChadTower]

No, but I figured I'd point out, the reason I try to stay away from your stuff is that every time I read it, you come back and edit it, so it gets marked new again, and then we have to try and figure out what you changed meaning we have to read it again, and this tends to happen multiple times on many of your posts.

There is a preview button that can be used to proofread long posts before posting them.  I use it frequently.

[Stingray]

Group hug time again?

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

No, but I figured I'd point out, the reason I try to stay away from your stuff is that every time I read it, you come back and edit it, so it gets marked new again, and then we have to try and figure out what you changed meaning we have to read it again, and this tends to happen multiple times on many of your posts.

There is a preview button that can be used to proofread long posts before posting them.  I use it frequently.

I write extremely fast and I often have to publish something before I'm entirely happy with it. I'm in a cube with my boss sitting in the cube next time mine. If I have to get up to do something, or he gets up to grab me for something...I try to get it published since I may not have the time to get back to it.

If it helps you, I'll markup any future edits...if they are made, but I'll try to avoid them on longer posts by writing them in Outlook first, then copying and pasting the text.

Deal?

mrC

[ChadTower]

I'm just one reader.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

We'll, I agree it's bad form...and I'd like to avoid it. I have added an 'edit notation' at the bottom of posts in the past, but I have not been consistent either due to time or circumstance.

I will work to make these edits will be a thing of the past, or where they *do* happen to occur, I'll be more vigilant about notation. There's more than one reader here, probably makes sense to do it anyhow.

I hereby solemnly swear.

mrC
P.S. I've got a big post coming up later...so..hehe...It'll be a nice trial run.

[ChadTower]

P.S. I've got a big post coming up later...so..hehe...

Oh, and limit the obscenities.  Keep the big post instances to yourself.   

[mr.Curmudgeon]

P.S. I've got a big post coming up later...so..hehe...

Oh, and limit the obscenities.  Keep the big post instances to yourself.   

I've developed a warning, with the help of the Food, Drug, and BYOAC Political Discussion Administration, that should help you steer clear of any further issues.   


mrC

[Stingray]

I thought I felt a big post coming on earlier, but it turned out to only be a paint peeler.

-S

[shmokes]

Smokes,

You have to take a pretty myopic view of the world to look at President Bush and say that you can't suss his stance on Roe v. Wade until he issues a press release.

Maybe. But it's a myopic view...

  I haven't read the rest of your post, but based on this I think you misunderstand me.  I'm pretty sure I'm on your side in this.

I'm saying that Drew's viewpoint is myopic.  I'm saying that if someone is chasing you around the room trying to stab you with a hunting knife you should be able to say with confidence that he wants to kill you, even if he hasn't issued a press release explicitly stating as much.

edit:  heh...it just occurred to me that you must think I'm totally crazy posting those quotes in an attempt to show that he doesn't want Roe overturned.

[ChadTower]

But no one has held a Congressional hearing on the intentions of the knife itself.

[shmokes]

I hadn't considered that.

[ChadTower]

Nothing happens in this country without a Congressional hearing.

After the Congressional hearing, nothing happens.

Think about that.  Does that make the hearing irrelevant, or does it mean that in order for nothing to happen we must have a Congressional hearing?

[shmokes]

I type really fast too.....between 80 - 90 wpm pretty consistently.  If I don't edit a post after posting it I guarantee that it will not only have typos but will be missing words entirely.  You can almost always tell what I meant to say thanks to context, but...

So anyway, I have a bad habit of hitting the post button and then immediately reading over my post, which invariably leads to an edit.  Most my edits take place seconds after the initial posting, but these damned boards are so active that I rarely get my edit in before my post has been viewed (if you do, the post won't be marked as having been modified.  Once it's been viewed, though, you can't escape the "last edit" marker).

[ChadTower]

Use the preview button before posting.

Nothing any of us posts is so damn important that a few seconds of extra time means anything.

[shmokes]

Preview buttons are for old ladies and pedophiles.

[ChadTower]

No, I don't think Congressman use the preview button either.

[Stingray]

Preview buttons are for old ladies and pedophiles.

I have no idea why this made me laugh as hard as it did.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Preview buttons are for old ladies and pedophiles.

HA! (Goes back to composing in Notepad)





mrC

[ChadTower]

Hit the delete button a few times... try some decomposing.

[mr.Curmudgeon]

  I haven't read the rest of your post, but based on this I think you misunderstand me.  I'm pretty sure I'm on your side in this.

I viewed your post as a response to me saying, "Why do you need to ask for Bush's stance (as it concerns SCOTUS nominees), when it can be sussed out from previous statements. But it's clear now, what you are saying. My post still stands though, but I guess it's now more of a response to Drew.

edit:  heh...it just occurred to me that you must think I'm totally crazy posting those quotes in an attempt to show that he doesn't want Roe overturned.

No, I already think of you as totally crazy. The 'Dances with Chipmunks' photo pretty well cinched it.

mrC

[mr.Curmudgeon]

This just keeps getting better:

Bush, Today:

President Bush said Wednesday that Harriet Miers' religious beliefs figured into her nomination to the Supreme Court as a top-ranking Democrat warned against any "wink and a nod" campaign for confirmation.

"People are interested to know why I picked Harriet Miers," Bush told reporters at the White House. "Part of Harriet Miers' life is her religion."



Bush, Oct 4th, 2005:

"President Bush defended Harriet Miers, his nominee to the Supreme Court, Tuesday. "There is no litmus test," Bush said.


Well, at least he's finally being honest. But, unfortunately:


Our United States Constitution, Circa 1787, Article VI:

. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. . . .


mrC
/shakes head....

[Stingray]

Our United States Constitution, Circa 1787, Article VI:

. . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States. . . .

I don't think Bush has ever actually read (or even heard of) that document.

-S

[ChadTower]

That is a misinterpretation.  The religious test refers to a mandated requirement for nomination, not for being part of the overall character evaluation.

They could not mandate that a Chrisitan be nominated.

[shmokes]

That's nonsense.  Mr. C is interpreting it exactly how the Supreme court has interpreted it.  If the director for the EPA in Chicago hired an environmental scientist and publicly stated that one of the qualifications that was considered in hiring him was the man's relious views he would be toast if sued by someone who didn't get the job who was not religious.

Of course nothing will come of it, but holy crap that would be funny if she was confirmed and then the Supreme Court ruled that her appointment was unconsitutional.

[shmokes]

In fact, what would be HILARIOUS would be if a lower court ruled that the appointment was unconstitutional and then the S.C. refused to hear the case (actually I'm pretty sure that this would be one of the few cases where the  S.C. has original jurisdiction, but...)

[mr.Curmudgeon]

They could not mandate that a Chrisitan be nominated.

Given that she, really, has absolutely NO other qualifications...the religious 'evaluation' certainly looks more like a mandate.

Also, he's making a tactic admission that qualified "Aethists, Jews, Mormons, Wiccans, etc" need not apply.

Furthermore, plus his recent statement quite literally shows he was lying when he said he didn't have a "litmus test" for nominees.

It wasn't a smart thing to say, either way.

mrC

[ChadTower]

The directory of the EPA is a different position.

It has not been mandated that Supreme Court nominees be Christian any more than it has been mandated that they be white or female.

I'm sure he was also looking for a woman to replace the departed woman, no one is quoting a similar law saying gender cannot be mandated.

[Stingray]

The job should be given to whoever can hold their hand in a running blender the longest.

-S

[ChadTower]

Dole!

[Stingray]

Okay, nevermind.

-S

[mr.Curmudgeon]

Dole!

Now THAT is funny!

[ChadTower]

The sole criterium was who could hold their hand in a running blender the longest.

Dole would win that, his hand is mostly dead.

[shmokes]

Delete your last post Chad.  Explaining it ruins it.

And it doesn't matter whether it's the POTUS nominating or the director of the EPA hiring.  If it's a federal position it's unconstitutional for a person's religion to be considered.  The Constitution doesn't say, "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification....unless it is done by the President."

[DrewKaree]

I thought I felt a big post coming on earlier, but it turned out to only be a paint peeler.

-S

I did feel a big post coming on earlier, but it was actually a little stone.  daisies.  I hate all stones now.

Preview buttons are for old ladies and pedophiles.

I can't believe you think Chad is an old lady.


As for "nonsense", that's nonsense.  There wasn't any test required, Chad nailed it as Bush assessing her as a human being and his belief that her entire life, including her religion, was used in determining if he thought she'd make a good Justice.  He didn't "require" any such thing, he simply stated it was considered, and MrC's right, it WAS stupid to give ANY reasons why he considered her.  It wasn't necessary, and certainly doesn't make me think it was any better of a choice.

I don't want the lady on the bench no matter WHAT her religious beliefs are.  I believe she'll be an embarrasment to the Court.  My only hope is that she's shot down, but thankfully, this looks to be one area where my two incompetent elected officials who sit on the judiciary committe seem to agree with my views.

Tangerine ---daisies---!

*edited to add invectives*

[Daniel270]

She looks more like Dr. Pulaski to me.



Oh and I hate you for making me post a picture of Dr. Pulaski.

-S

Yeah! Cheesecake!

Errr.... no, not cheesecake...

Beverly Crusher is better looking...

"Human Females are so repulsive....."