Miers withdraws SC nomination

[Mickey]

And what's the numbers on too early to tell.  Because to be honest that's where I would put myself.  Same goes with the second one?  How about the whole story there mickey.

488186[/snapback]

I made no claims other than that Bush's poll numbers stink, bad enough to at least question the idea that his VP would be running from a position of "national power". You said I made them up, I gave you the references. There are lots of polls saying lots of things. I was not seeking to begin a lengthy discussion of the "whole story" of this administration. On the whole, his number are lousier than they have been in a long, long time.

 

I'm not going to debate claims I haven't made, I have enough to do with the ones I have made.

[Mickey]

That stuff about the speeches she gave came out in the last few days.  Her nomination was dead on arrival.  It's not like things were going great until it turned out she wasn't going to overturn Roe.

488173[/snapback]

Maybe she would have, maybe not. I have no idea. I am sure though that religious conservatives will not, if they can help it, permit a Justice to be confirmed who they have any serious doubts over when it comes to Roe. No way. And that is a litmus test.

 

Both sides are pretending otherwise but that is the bottom line. They have to play it that way but we don't have to play along.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Both sides are pretending otherwise but that is the bottom line.  They have to play it that way but we don't have to play along.

488239[/snapback]

 

We do with Supreme Court nominees, as long as we (i.e. "the public") keep making it a litmus test for elected office.

[JimBob2232]

This will get interesting no doubt...Does bush try again to satisfy democrats, or does he try to sure up his base and attempt to salvage his presidency? The two ARE mutually exclusive.

 

Say what you want to about Ann Coulter (i probably agree) but her column today made a very valid point. She basically said conservatives have never really been behind bush on many issues such as government spending, border protection, restrictions on free speech and lack of vetos. But they trusted him on 2 BIG issues. 1) War on Terror and 2) the supreme court.

 

While many conservatives are still with the president on the War on Terror, giving in on the supreme court is not sitting well, and bush is losing the people who will stand up for him; The people that voted for him.

 

Roe v. Wade is not, in and of itself, a republican litmus test. What republicans (okay, excuse me) conservatives want is a Justice who interperets the constitution and puts personal preferences and opinions behind them.

 

I wonder privatly how many people have actually read the roe v. wade decision. I wonder how many people can even state the constitutional reasoning the majority stated in their decision. I dare say that if you cannot answer those questions, you should have no opinion on roe v. wade.

 

Reasonable people will disagree on issues. Medical experts will disagree on when life is formed. To quote Justice Harry Blackmun, "One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion. [The Supreme Courts] task...is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. "

 

This is what the conservatives want in a Justice. Someone who takes all personal beliefs out of the equation and "resolve(s) the issue by constitutional measurement" only.

 

Thats it. And a good conservative justice SHOULD be the same as a good liberal justice.

 

The problem with Miers is that we did have any proof she could hold up her end of the deal. I am of the opinion however that she was the presidents nominee and therefore should have had a chance to be at the hearings and heard.

 

For those who think Roe v. wade is the only issue, tell me, what is John Roberts position on abortion? Dont know? Good. Its irrelavant, and should be irrelavant. He has proven himself to be an outstanding constitutional scholar, and will be an asset to the court, and faithfully interperet the constitution.

 

So does Bush now nominate a Justice with a clear cut record and outstanding credentials? Or does he reach back into the pot and pulls out someone he can push through?

 

Why is it democrats can nominate a very VERY liberal judge (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, ACLU member) and get her confirmed 96-3, and everyone is saying its a bad thing if bush nominates a very VERY conservative judge? Its because there is a clear cut double standard. Neither is right, there should be ONE standard. John Roberts met it with flying colors. Lets hope the next nominee does as well.

[/dev/null]

A chocolate eclair should have been able to beat Bush in '04...

488043[/snapback]

 

A chocolate eclair, nah thats a little too limosine liberal elitist. Need something that can appeal to the working classes

 

HotPockets® in 08!

[Chef Jim]

That plus he likes getting his butt kissed and surrounding himself with sycophants

487884[/snapback]

 

And this makes him any different from all politicians in what way??

[Mickey]

This will get interesting no doubt...Does bush try again to satisfy democrats, or does he try to sure up his base and attempt to salvage his presidency?  The two ARE mutually exclusive.

 

Say what you want to about Ann Coulter (i probably agree) but her column today made a very valid point.  She basically said conservatives have never really been behind bush on many issues such as government spending, border protection, restrictions on free speech and lack of vetos.  But they trusted him on 2 BIG issues.  1) War on Terror and 2) the supreme court.

 

While many conservatives are still with the president on the War on Terror, giving in on the supreme court is not sitting well, and bush is losing the people who will stand up for him;  The people that voted for him.

 

Roe v. Wade is not, in and of itself, a republican litmus test.  What republicans (okay, excuse me) conservatives want is a Justice who interperets the constitution and puts personal preferences and opinions behind them.

 

I wonder privatly how many people have actually read the roe v. wade decision.  I wonder how many people can even state the constitutional reasoning the majority stated in their decision.  I dare say that if you cannot answer those questions, you should have no opinion on roe v. wade.

 

Reasonable people will disagree on issues.  Medical experts will disagree on when life is formed.  To quote Justice Harry Blackmun, "One's philosophy, one's experiences, one's exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one's religious training, one's attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one's thinking and conclusions about abortion. [The Supreme Courts]  task...is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. "

 

This is what the conservatives want in a Justice.  Someone who takes all personal beliefs out of the equation and "resolve(s) the issue by constitutional measurement" only.

 

Thats it.  And a good conservative justice SHOULD be the same as a good liberal justice.

 

The problem with Miers is that we did have any proof she could hold up her end of the deal.  I am of the opinion however that she was the presidents nominee and therefore should have had a chance to be at the hearings and heard. 

 

For those who think Roe v. wade is the only issue, tell me, what is John Roberts position on abortion?  Dont know?  Good.  Its irrelavant, and should be irrelavant.  He has proven himself to be an outstanding constitutional scholar, and will be an asset to the court, and faithfully interperet the constitution.

 

So does Bush now nominate a Justice with a clear cut record and outstanding credentials?  Or does he reach back into the pot and pulls out someone he can push through?

 

Why is it democrats can nominate a very VERY liberal judge (Ruth Bader Ginsberg, ACLU member) and get her confirmed 96-3, and everyone is saying its a bad thing if bush nominates a very VERY conservative judge?  Its because there is a clear cut double standard.  Neither is right, there should be ONE standard.  John Roberts met it with flying colors.  Lets hope the next nominee does as well.

488265[/snapback]

Totally disagree. Religious conservatives want a justice who can be relied upon to overturn Roe. That is why they went after Specter and freaked out over Gonzalez and Miers. If your point is that religious conservatives are not driving the bus for the Republican party, again, I disagree and the fate of the Miers nomination confirms that.

[PastaJoe]

Totally disagree.  Religious conservatives want a justice who can be relied upon to overturn Roe.  That is why they went after Specter and freaked out over Gonzalez and Miers.  If your point is that religious conservatives are not driving the bus for the Republican party, again, I disagree and the fate of the Miers nomination confirms that.

488393[/snapback]

 

It's obvious who's running the Republican party. Even former Senator Alan Simpson said that his party has been taken over by the extremists on the right. It's funny when some like Tony Blankley of the Washington Times say that they're not extremists, they have mainstream views. To borrow a quote, they definately "threw Mama from the train".

 

I'm at the point where it might be better for this country if RoevWade did get overturned. In the short term it would hurt poor women who couldn't afford to travel to another state to get an abortion, but in the long term it would hopefully wake up the large number of moderates in Red states who have been sitting on the sidelines and not been involved in voting.

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

It's obvious who's running the Republican party.  Even former Senator Alan Simpson said that his party has been taken over by the extremists on the right.  It's funny when some like Tony Blankley of the Washington Times say that they're not extremists, they have mainstream views.  To borrow a quote, they definately "threw Mama from the train". 

 

I'm at the point where it might be better for this country if RoevWade did get overturned.  In the short term it would hurt poor women who couldn't afford to travel to another state to get an abortion, but in the long term it would hopefully wake up the large number of moderates in Red states who have been sitting on the sidelines and not been involved in voting.

488556[/snapback]

 

Extremists have taken over both parties. Moderates aren't represented by either of them.

 

What someone needs to do is create a "Centrist" or "Moderate" party to challenge the two we have now. I'd guess conservatively that at least half of America isn't represented at ALL by the parties we have now.

[Mickey]

Extremists have taken over both parties.  Moderates aren't represented by either of them.

 

What someone needs to do is create a "Centrist" or "Moderate" party to challenge the two we have now.  I'd guess conservatively that at least half of America isn't represented at ALL by the parties we have now.

488569[/snapback]

Alas, all such parties eventually suffer the same fate as the now legendary IBP. The only thing we agree on is that we don't agree with the platforms of either major party. We failed to reach consensus as to any other issue however, in fairness, we were poorly led. A party can only handle so many scandals involving farm aminals at a time.

[JimBob2232]

Totally disagree. Religious conservatives want a justice who can be relied upon to overturn Roe. That is why they went after Specter and freaked out over Gonzalez and Miers. If your point is that religious conservatives are not driving the bus for the Republican party, again, I disagree and the fate of the Miers nomination confirms that.

 

I think you are making too much out of roe. I personally want roe overturned, not because i am against abortion, but because its bad law. I dont care if you get an abortion. I have my own personal views on the issue, but that shouldnt impact on the law of the land. What should impact the law is legal precedent and the constitution. And the kind of judge who interperets constitutional law they way I feel it should be interpereted is exactly the kind of judge who would overturn roe.

 

I find it funny though how supposedly republicans have a litmus test that you must be pro life to be a SCOTUS Justice, yet it is okay for democrats to come out and vote against any judge who will vote in favor of overturning roe. Its absolutley insane.

[Mickey]

I think you are making too much out of roe.  I personally want roe overturned, not because i am against abortion, but because its bad law.  I dont care if you get an abortion.  I have my own personal views on the issue, but that shouldnt impact on the law of the land.  What should impact the law is legal precedent and the constitution.  And the kind of judge who interperets constitutional law they way I feel it should be interpereted is exactly the kind of judge who would overturn roe.

 

I find it funny though how supposedly republicans have a litmus test that you must be pro life to be a SCOTUS Justice, yet it is okay for democrats to come out and vote against any judge who will vote in favor of overturning roe.  Its absolutley insane.

489008[/snapback]

I am not taking either to task for having a litmus test, I am just tired of the right pretending that they don't. Clearly they do.

 

What part of Roe is bad law and why?

 

How do you feel the constitution should be interpreted?

[Albany,n.y.]

To quote a former radio talk show host in the Albany area (Dan Lynch-a moderate independent) "How do you know a politician is lying-his lips are moving"

The reality is that while the religious conservative base population wants to overturn Roe v Wade, the conservative politicians can't afford to have Roe v Wade overturned. It's one of their key wedge issues. As long as abortion is legal, the politicians can count on this base to come to the polls and vote for them. Take away the Roe battle and the right wing politicians are going to have to find a way to get gay marriage legalized.

[JimBob2232]

I am not taking either to task for having a litmus test, I am just tired of the right pretending that they don't. Clearly they do.

 

What part of Roe is bad law and why?

 

How do you feel the constitution should be interpreted?

 

If you read the text of Roe v. Wade, you will see that the decision was decided on the basis of "the right to privacy".

 

This so called right is NOT in the constitution. And even though its not there, the majority used the so called "penumbra of the constitution" to try to read between the lines and derive a "right to privacy".

 

What the constitution does however, is provide a means of ammending the constitution, which we have done many times. If we want a right to privacy, let congress put it in the constitution. We have a clear cut method of doing so. We do not have a living, breathing, constitution. If its not there, its not there. And if it should be, add it. The supreme court should not be derriving rights from the constitution.

 

Keep in mind though, that even if roe v. wade was overturned, that would not make abortion illegal (which is how it should be). It would simply mean that states could make their own laws making abortion illegal. I would venture to say that half to 3/4 of the states would maintain current legality of abortion laws.

 

So we have 2 options here...

1) Ammend the constitution to give americans the right to privacy, or

2) Faithfully follow the constitution and Overturn Roe v. Wade and give the issue back to the state level.

 

All this said, i am much more worried about the recent Kelo vs. New London case which gives the government the right to seize private property for economic development.

[slothrop]

I think Brownie could be a nice fit....

487825[/snapback]

 

He's about as qualified for the SC as he was for FEMA. Why not? Give it a flyer georgie!

[slothrop]

If you read the text of Roe v. Wade, you will see that the decision was decided on the basis of "the right to privacy".

 

This so called right is NOT in the constitution.  And even though its not there, the majority used the so called "penumbra of the constitution" to try to read between the lines and derive a "right to privacy".

 

What the constitution does however, is provide a means of ammending the constitution, which we have done many times.  If we want a right to privacy, let congress put it in the constitution.  We have a clear cut method of doing so.  We do not have a living, breathing, constitution.  If its not there, its not there.  And if it should be, add it.  The supreme court should not be derriving rights from the constitution.

 

Keep in mind though, that even if roe v. wade was overturned, that would not make abortion illegal (which is how it should be).  It would simply mean that states could make their own laws making abortion illegal.  I would venture to say that half to 3/4 of the states would maintain current legality of abortion laws.

 

So we have 2 options here...

1) Ammend the constitution to give americans the right to privacy, or

2) Faithfully follow the constitution and Overturn Roe v. Wade and give the issue back to the state level.

 

All this said, i am much more worried about the recent Kelo vs. New London case which gives the government the right to seize private property for economic development.

489226[/snapback]

 

I have one question for you. Do you feel Marbury v. MAdison was decided correctly?