Earlier I looked at how things could go well based on the Harriet Miers nomination. Now let’s look at how they could go ill:
- Harriet Miers gets confirmed by the Senate and goes onto the Court.
- Sometime before November 2006 it emerges that she OR Roberts OR both are not really anti-Evil Decision after all. (This could happen even before her confirmation.)
- Bush is exposed as having FOOLISHLY put pro-Evil justices on the court.
- Pro-lifers are so disgusted, dismayed, BETRAYED, and ANGRY that they STAY HOME on Election Day.
- Pro-Evil people win more seats in the House and Senate, possibly even enough to change which party controls one or both of the houses.
- Or at least there are enough new pro-Evil senators elected that, combined with the weak-kneed and outright pro-Evil Republicans in the Senate (e.g., Arlen Spectre inter alia) that even when a third and possibly a fourth slot opens on the Court, it is not practical to get anti-Evil justices appointed and, in any case, we will be unable to get the needed five votes for the foreseeable future.
- MILLIONS MORE CHILDREN THEREFORE DIE AS THE ABORTION HOLOCAUST IS EXTENDED THROUGH THE PRESIDENT’S FOOLISH ACTIONS.
- The resulting debacle becomes the Exemplar Par Exellence that the OSTENSIBLY pro-life party WILL NOT DELIVER THE GOODS WHEN IT HAS THE CHANCE and results in a permanent alienation of the pro-life movement from that party.
- Unfortunately, the party that is NOT ostensibly pro-life does not suddenly become pro-life either (it already having embraced abortion as a sacrament), leading to pro-lifers having no major party to support that will further their goals.
- This leads to many pro-lifers simply checking out of the political process altogether, refusing to vote for anybody. They thus fail to do the good with their votes that they could do if they weren’t so bitter and demoralized.
- Various attempts are made at forming or envigorating third parties that WILL be pro-life, but that’s a process that will take a generation AT BEST to achieve results, meaning that
- MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS OF MORE CHILDREN DIE.
That’s how things could go badly.
Problem is: This scenario at the moment seems AT LEAST as likely and possibly MORE LIKELY to me than the "How things could go well" scenario.
I don’t think that the president and his advisors realize just how THIN THE ICE IS THAT THEY’VE BEEN SKATING ON.
There is NO ROOM for a pro-Evil justice getting onto the Court at this point. If EITHER Roberts OR Miers OR Nominee #3 turns out to be pro-Evil, the "How things could go ill" scenario begins to unfold, and once it starts unfolding, it may well be unstoppable.
Given the "I don’t have a litmus-test on abortion" hogwash that has been talked up of late, the odds are not at all unreasonable that one or more of these nominees will turn out to be pro-Evil. When the people in the White House (and the nominees) tell us that they AREN’T ASKING the abortion question, I have to take them at their word.
Now, I don’t care a flip about political parties. But I do care about babies DYING, and the prospects that may unfold in the wake of the current Supreme Court nominations could lead to an awful, AWFUL lot of babies dying.
"Trust us" is the message that is coming out of the White House.
I’m sorry, but I’m just not in a trusting mood at present.
Well put.
I’m beginning to wonder why we even trusted them in the first place. Its hardly worth reminding that three of the six pro-evil justices already on the court are republican nominees.
It seems to me that if Bush had picked “strict constructionists” there would have been a fight to get the nominations approved. Obviously I can’t know what will happen but I think the Republicans failed to do the right thing when they supposedly hold all the chips. And, when you consider the talk about nominating Giulliani as the next Presidential candidate you have to wonder what direction the Republicans are heading in and if they really think they can take their voting base with them.
Well put.
I’m beginning to wonder why we even trusted them in the first place. Its hardly worth reminding that three of the six pro-evil justices already on the court are republican nominees.
Oh my goodness! If it isn’t the extremely rare interspersed double post!
Is it leap year again?
Let’s see, Bush could nominate someone blatantly pro-life and watch the spineless Republican leadership fold under pressure as they have done time and time again.
Or he could nominate someone without the clear paper trail and rely on advisors’ recommendations and end up with a possible Souter like his Dad did.
Or he could nominate someone without the clear paper trail who he can be assured of is pro-life through long term personal knowledge.
Seems to me our President made the most logical and sensible approach to putting a pro-life justice on the Supreme Court.
Jimmy, you nailed it. As a believing Catholic, I worked my way into the “Catholic Republican” mode (God bless Ron Reagan). Then, as they had their real chance to govern beginning with the Gingrich-Contract with America leading to the sweeps of 00 and 04, they consistently disappoint. In 1994, yes, there was initial progress, but they lost their nerve and have for the longest time now seek to please the Democrats and the press at every turn. So, I became self-identified as a “Catholic conservative”. Now? Miers? Roberts? Call me “just Catholic”. And, while of course remembering that final victory over evil is supernaturally assured, in temporal terms I am greatly discouraged and depressed.
In your astute worst case scenario, the rightful defection from the republican party by pro-lifers will yield a situation where we have no real power. And, consistent with my pessimism, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that that would yield conditions ripe for a major persecution of the Church in this country.
Kyrie eleison.
Did I mention I was depressed?
I wouldn’t worry. Folks that know this woman very well have explicitly said she is not pro-choice.
And if this worst case scenario is true, why would it still be immoral to vote for a pro-abortion candidate? Couldn’t one conclude that the holocaust is going to continue unchanged regardless of which party holds office and so trying to end abortion through the political process is a wasted effort? And based on that conclusion, couldn’t one decide to vote for the pro-abortion candidates based on other reasons? Remember, neither party is really going to end the holocaust. So, why are you in mortal sin if you vote for the pro-abort to accomplish some other good? Is that mortal sin or just pragmatic realism?
There is no reason to think that Bush really wants to put a pro-life justice on the court. He has said repeatedly that he does not apply an abortion litmus test to candidates. He also said that he has never discussed abortion with Miers. He has NEVER promised to appoint pro-life justices and has in fact repeatedly promised NOT to eliminate people from consideration because of their pro-choice views.
As for the assurances that Miers is, in fact, pro-life, all we have is assurances that she believes that abortion is immoral. We have no assurances that she has any opinion whatsoever regarding whether the law should prevent people from committing this immoral act, much less whether a 30+ year old Supreme Court decision on this topic should be overruled. I could also provide you with plenty of assurances that John Kerry, Mario Cuomo and a host of other Democrats believe that abortion is immoral. Would you be reassured?
Don’t forget we can continue to pray for the conversion of ALL the supreme court justices.
What always bugged me was Bush’s relationship with Skull and Bones and Bohemian Grove. I just don’t see anyone in those organizations trying to end abortion.
On a human interest note, Miers was raised Catholic, but fell away from the faith into Protestantism, probably along with many others of her generation.
Bush knows that, regardless of who he nominates to the court, his political career is pretty much done. The political consequences of his appointments will mostly have to be paid by others.
That could be reassuring or frightening, depending on your outlook.
Giuliani is an automatic no from me, as is any pro-choice Republican candidate. I don’t think the GOP has the nerve to alienate their base that way, though.
Just who do they think would be voting for them? The middle is mighty slim these days.
pray
pray
pray
How about this: This is all a massive scheme by pro-life Democrats.
Bush will look horrible to his conservative base, who will stay home and not vote for the Republicans in ’06 or ’08. The Democrats will come into power, and the Republicans, left without a conservative base, will begin to whither away. Then the (allegedly 40 percent) pro-life democrats will defect, led by a few pro-life democrats in office. The formerly republican pro-lifers will begin to support them, and then we will have a two party system again, albeit one moved fairly well to the left on most issues aside from abortion.
(No, I don’t actually believe this will or even really could happen. But it would be interesting.)
“I don’t think the GOP has the nerve to alienate their base that way, though.”
Sure they do. Not all of their base is pro-life. Abortion is only a small part of the GOP strategy. Economic issues will always trump life issues.
“Economic issues will always trump life issues.”
Undoubtedly some folks will stay with the Republican Party because of economic issues or they believe that they are still the best hope for settling other moral issues. However since the last two Presidential elections had fairly small margins I would think more than enough votes would be lost to lose the next election.
Funny. I seem to recall that this is almost exactly how the Whigs went out of business and the Republican Party was formed. Except that the issue was slavery, not abortion.
“…this is almost exactly how the Whigs went out of business and the Republican Party was formed.”
Maybe it’s time for the Republican (and Democrat) party to go out of business.
Sven wrote
“Funny. I seem to recall that this is almost exactly how the Whigs went out of business and the Republican Party was formed. Except that the issue was slavery, not abortion.”
Unfortunately, the abortion issue is not like the slavery issue. All moral arguments against slavery aside, one could always gin up a good emotional argument by having Frederick Douglass speak or reading “Uncle Tom’s Cabin”. The human cost of slavery could be made evident readily. On the other hand, it’s much harder to make the human cost of abortion evident when to so many people the unborn child is just a speck of tissue, and out of sight equals out of mind.
Couple things:
First of all, it is NOT logical to assume that the Fetus is not alive. Calling it ‘a blob of cells’ or (crazy) a parasite is just illogical.
And the constitution does provide rights for ‘life’.
So I think that any REASONABLE candidate is, by defenition, pro-life because it is a logical choice.
But if someone has his/her own agenda then…that is a problem.
And if we DID choose a totaly pro-choice candidate the Dems would probably fillibuster it.
Actually, make that certaintly.
And as for Roberts? Um…look how he’s handling the Euthanasia case. I may be TOTALLY wrong here (I’m only 15) but it looks like he is against euthanasia. Which is good, because he will probably be against abortion.
And Miers believes abortion is immoral? That is good, people. It means that she is very likely to not like abortion in real life!
I again may be wrong, but I would guess that most people try to apply their personal views to their political scheme as well. I mean, John Kerry tried to use that to make himself appear Christian and pro-choice. Went down in flames.
I would be hopeful. Very hopeful.
Just my opinion…
Roberts’ questions today on the Oregon euthenasia case are very encouraging — this was an issue of state versus federal law so I was a little curious how he would come down on that — I think that we have reasons therefore to be encouraged regarding Roberts.
Roe v Wade is teetering on the edge. It would take so little to overturn it — because it is one of those decisions where the court reasoned it’s way back from the conclusion that it wanted to reach – it is not at all well grounded in the Constitution.
We must therefore lift up all of the Supreme Court Justices in prayer — believing that no one is beyond the reach of God.
This horrible precedent that has left so many dead, and wounded can be overturned — and I have to believe that the President knows where Harriet Meirs stands on the issue that no politician will address directly — the Dems call it “privacy” and the President says that he will not have a litmus test — we know that the Dems are not really interested in privacy and we also know that the President opposes abortion.
Another way you could look envision another political split in America would be by separating the Secularists from the “Believers”.
Secularists would be de facto pro-choice and would adhere to the idea that religious beliefs have no place influencing the minds of voters and lawmakers under the present (Klan-inspired deliberately anti-Catholic) understanding of separation of church and state. This group would maintain sexual “equality” by purposely oppressing religious groups (like they do in Canada and parts of Europe now) and would increase pressure as time went on in order to protect what they see as “fairness” and “equality” using the current war on terror and “religious extremism” as a precedent for violent police action. Secularists would also back the legal drug industry and would have a large number of people pushing for legalization (because for them religion, not opium, is the opiate of the masses).
Believers (ie non-secularists — I don’t want to use a negative to describe a positive) would hold that one of best things about religion is that DOES influence people and, therefore government. This group would be constitutionally originalist (because the framers were Believers), emphatically pro-life, and conservatively anti-drug. The Believer party would also be culturally and economically more diverse than the Secularist party (whose only claim to diversity would be actively practicing homosexuals).
If we were to classify lawmakers along these lines today, I think Bush would fall closer to the Secularist side IF and only IF what he says about religion and his demonstrable faith is just a show for votes. Everything else about him screams Secularist.
In the end, I think the best present-day solution would not be to form the dreaded Third Party (unless the Dems also had the same situation) but to form stronger lobbies within the party — a sort of party-within-a-party that would leverage voting pressure against both Republicans and Democrats.