Captain Ed has a GOOD ARTICLE on the Harriet Miers disaster.
(There’s also CONFIRMATION FROM BORK that the Miers disaster IS a disaster–from the man who knows more about confirmation disasters than anybody else.)
Captain Ed divides conservative blogger reaction to the Miers disaster into three camps: The (very tiny) Loyalist Army (who support the nomination), the (vast) Rebel Alliance (who don’t), and the Trench-Dwelling Dogfaces (who are caught between the two; the good captain counts himself as one of these).
When it comes to the Harriet Miers nomination, I’m a rebel!
I think that the situation is intolerable, and my views on the matter have hardened as I’ve learned more about it. (Helpful reminder: What’s mine is mine.)
Conservatives have worked for thirty years to have the opportunity to put together a constellation of Supreme Court justices in place that would be willing to overturn Roe v. Wade, which has led to TENS OF MILLIONS OF BABY-MURDERS IN THE U.S. thus far, with MILLIONS AND MILLIONS MORE TO COME.
Bush ran on the promise that he would appoint justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, yet instead of doing so in a straightforward manner and saying, "Hey, this is what I said I’d do," he switches to a stealth nominee strategy, which is precisely the kind of capitulation that gave us Darth Souter.
John "I don’t really have an overarching philosophy of consitutional interpretation" Roberts may well not vote to overturn Roe, and Harriet "I need a crash course in constitutional law before my hearings" Miers may not either. Bush has said that he has no anti-Roe litmus test on his nominees, and one has to take him at his word.
Further, the pressure he feels to go all stealthy with his nominees is a product of the PUSILLANIMOUS WAY IN WHICH HE DEALT WITH THE FILIBUSTER ISSUE IN THE FIRST PLACE (Warning: Evil registration requirement).
John Hinderaker over at Powerline is saying that "it’s time to move on" when it comes to protesting the Miers nomination, but I disagree.
If you’re a Republican first and a conservative second then it makes sense to want to quieten things down lest the party be so ruptured come 2006 that it suffers on Election Day.
But I don’t care a flip about political parties. I care about principle, and BABIES ARE BEING MURDERED OUT THERE (not to mention all the other HORRENDOUS unconstitutional things that SCOTUS has forced on us in recent decades).
Pro-lifers have worked too hard for too long to let a petulant president SQUANDER a chance to save millions of babies lives by shortening the abortion holocaust. This is THE MOMENT for which Bush was elected, and he’s blowing it royally.
I therefore DON’T think that it’s time to "move on." I think that it’s time for pro-lifers to send a STRONG MESSAGE to the Senate and the president that this is NOT what they were put in office for.
If Miers nomination can be derailed, great.
If not, a painful enough lesson can be taught that this DOES NOT HAPPEN AGAIN (and Bush is likely to get a third and even fourth chance to nominate someone).
That lesson may have to wait until 2006, but I’d rather have it learned now.
The sooner the better.
I’m therefore encouraging folks to enlist in the Rebel Alliance!
Call the president, too, and tell him how unhappy you are!
The White House comments line is 202-456-1111.
REMEMBER: ACQUIESCING AND FAILING TO PROTEST THIS DISASTER WILL ONLY ENCOURAGE SIMILAR DISASTERS IN THE FUTURE!
Heavenly Father,
Thou hast given us the gift of freedom
to love and to follow in Thy ways and commands.
Some parents choose to abuse this freedom
by destroying the gift of life
which Thou hast given to their offspring.
Please forgive those who destroy human life
by aborting their unborn babies.
Give these unborn children the opportunity
to enjoy Thee for all eternity,
if it according to Thy ordinance.
Assist me in being one in solidarity with Thy little ones
by taking to heart the words of Thy Son,
“whatever you did for one of these least brothers of Mine,
you did for Me.” (Mt. 25:40)
Therefore, allow me today, Father,
to adopt spiritually an unborn child
and to offer my prayers, works,
joys and sufferings for that little one,
so that child will be able to be born and live
for Thy greater honor and glory.
We pray this in Jesus’ name,
in union with the Holy Spirit one God forever and ever.
Amen.
http://www.catholicdoors.com/prayers/english2/p00695.htm
You are, of course, assuming that she will NOT overturn Roe v Wade even though that is the reasonable choice for the judiciary system since they really have no…erm…jurisdiction over it that they don’t make up.
Because if someone tried to get a court order to get abortion banned they would be incorrect. It is not covered in the constitution at all (right to life not applicable under circumstances like killing in self-defense though this isn’t self-defense, but what I’m getting at is the implicit right to life doesn’t need to apply here from a secular perspective) and it should be up to the legislative.
Sorry if people disagree with me, that’s just what I think.
Though tempted, I can’t quite join the rebel camp. Yet. I’m sympathetic to your cause, however. I understand and agree with the issues surrounding the Miers nomination, but the real variable in this equation, for me, is not Miers per se, but Bush. I don’t know how smart he really is, or where his true loyalties lie when it comes to true conservatism (i.e. originalism). I am wondering if Miers is W’s biggest blunder of this presidency, or if she is (to be) his shrewdest achievement. There is a real possiblility that another justice will be leaving before the end of Bush’s term, and three conservatives on the high court will make all (judicial) paths straight once again. Bush may be avoiding the fight this time around in order to gear up for the next one. If Miers is confirmed (and at this point, I am leaning toward the opinion that she probably shouldn’t be) we may, in a few short years reminisce in awe at GW’s shrewd political tact; …or we may all be voting for the constitution (or fill in the blank) party as Hillary sits in the big seat.
…and another thing that Bush may be thinking about is the Senate. Mid term elections are generally bad for the incumbent president. If he can get a conservative on the bench without inspiring the left into a frenzy, all the better.
Maybe it’s the Canadian in me, but count me with the Loyalist Army.
Jimmy, you write as if those in the Loyalist Army don’t care about all the dead babies.
And I think you’ll eventually have to apologize for the “petulant President” remark.
Come all ye young rebels, and list while I sing,
For the love of one’s country is a terrible thing.
It banishes fear with the speed of a flame,
And it makes us all part of the patriot game.
Question:
Isn’t this really a question of procedure rather than substance? That is, even if we could “know her heart” and be confident that she would overturn Roe and uphold all the other conservative principles, isn’t she STILL a bad pick?
I think so…
Doesn’t the whole Robers/Miers fiasco provide a reasonable basis for concluding that there is no significant difference between the two parties when it comes to abortion? Sure they talk a different talk, but isn’t the walk basically the same? And if that is true, doesn’t it mean that we basically have two pro-abortion parties, one that is explicitly so, one that wooes pro-life votes only to capitulate to the pro-abortion side when it really matters? So, maybe the Republicans have been taking us pro-lifers for a ride for a LONG time and it’s time to get off the bus. What does your Voter’s Guide have to say about this kind of situation?
Ukok: What a beautiful prayer. Thank you.
Kosh: It was the legislative’s right until 1/22/73. Now, it’s going to take the equivalent of “Brown” or a Constitutional Amendment.
Decker2003: “Voter’s Guide…” + Ratzinger’s letter = your answer.
Well, Jimmy, I’m gonna have to agree with Steve and Kosh on this one. Count me in the loyalist camp – Bush is, at heart, a CONSERVATIVE person and I believe, as well as many other Americans do, that he has a heart for the unborn child. I believe that to be sincere. I, and most here, share this belief with President Bush. So we all understand how it would be morally impossible for a man with such a belief to nominate someone for whom he had ANY DOUBT about that person’s belief on this subject. These two (Bush and Miers) are good friends, and YOU KNOW that the abortion conversation has taken place, especially in explicit reference to this nomination. Ms. Miers knows what she is to do once she’s on the bench. It’s in her heart as well (just ask Karl Rove or James Dobson).
The issue here is not one of loyalties – the President knows who he’s nominating, even if we don’t. The issue here is bad PR. The administration did a very poor job of packaging Ms. Miers in a way that would appeal to the public and to Congress. In doing so they have created this frenzy that we are participating in. And that’s a bad, bad thing – because we (conservative pro-lifers) were once united, and now we are being split.
Call me foolish (and many will) but I have faith in our President and his decision. I think he knows how these people will vote, no question. He’s just done a poor job of introducing them.
…my mistake, I don’t agree with Kosh , but BillyHW.
Maybe it’s the Canadian in me, but count me with the Loyalist Army.
Let me clarify my remarks by stating that the Italian in me is ready to switch sides at a moment’s notice. And Italians have a very bad record at picking winners, historically speaking.
Not remotely.
A Dem president would have nominated a committed Roe supporter, and neither Roberts nor Miers is that. A stealth candidate, especially one with no particular constitutional qualifications, may be a disastrous and cowardly choice, but it’s hardly the same thing as the ardent pro-abort we would certainly have gotten with Kerry.
I’m not saying that I’m happy as long as Bush’s choices aren’t quite as horrible as Kerry’s would have been. But at this point at least we still have some hope that Bush’s two choices to date might help lead to overturning Roe. With a Dem president we can be sure Roe would be that much more secure.
Also, it is possible that Bush, or his successor, may actually learn from this debacle and give us a more acceptable nomination next time. Good luck on that with Kerry or Hilary.
Count me in the loyalist camp – Bush is, at heart, a CONSERVATIVE person and I believe, as well as many other Americans do, that he has a heart for the unborn child.
I really don’t count Bush as a conservative. You would have to point out to me the “conservative” issues he has promoted. He failed on limited government. He failed on campaign finance reform (which btw, disabused me of the notion that Bush was a strict constructionist regarding the Constitution). He’s a right leaning moderate.
I’m not a loyalist. I’m not a rebel. I don’t believe that Bush intended to upset his base, however, Miers is going to need more credentials than “Bush trusts me.”
“Let me clarify my remarks by stating that the Italian in me is ready to switch sides at a moment’s notice. And Italians have a very bad record at picking winners, historically speaking.”
You’ll notice that I very carefully avoided taking sides. And I don’t even have any French in me.
I am hopeful that Bush knows how she would stand on Roe v Wade, and yet I don’t really think it’s possible for him to know — there’s no evidence (or reason to believe even) that she has considered the kind of issues that come up in constitutional interpretation – and it is a specialized area of the law. Even if one had never been a Judge – but had argued constitutional cases – they would have considered the concept of “stare-decisis” and the existence or non-existence of a general privacy interest. I am a lawyer myself, believe me, those subjects do not come up regularly in the ordinary practice of law.
From a general standpoint because there is no reason to think she is a constitutional specialist – Harriet Meirs was a bad pick – there’s no getting around that. As to how she would rule on a challenge to Roe v Wade, there’s no way to know at this point — and that’s the only thing I really care about. I don’t know what camp to be in. But, I suspect she’s not going to get there anyway.
“Question:
Isn’t this really a question of procedure rather than substance? That is, even if we could “know her heart” and be confident that she would overturn Roe and uphold all the other conservative principles, isn’t she STILL a bad pick?
I think so…”
No. The President can pick whoever he wants, I think (probably wrong). I mean, he can’t pick me (I’m 15!!) but you get what I am saying.
“Kosh: It was the legislative’s right until 1/22/73. Now, it’s going to take the equivalent of “Brown” or a Constitutional Amendment.”
Yes. Which was not supposed to happen. But if they COULD overthrow Roe in a court decision, I would do it (unquestionably, sorry If I didn’t express myself well) but then leave it to the legislators.
“I’m gonna have to agree with Steve and Kosh on this one. Count me in the loyalist camp”
Yay!
“…my mistake, I don’t agree with Kosh”
Aw nuts. But I think, after reading your post more carefully, that you do agree with me. Unless you disagree with my statement that from a secular perspective the right to life may not be applicable.
Let me clarify:
There are certain circumstances that the right for all to live do not apply. Such instances may include Self-Defense, Capital Punishment (yes, in some circumstances it works), and some natural places as well (two people drowning, the boat can rescue one, which has the ‘right’? Bad analogy, but you get it.)
WE know that the fetus is, most definetely, human. It is an undeniable scientific fact. Those who argue that it is a ‘parasite’ or an ‘extension of tissue’ need to go study biology again (if they ever did…which I doubt, or just nix their agenda).
So the Fetus is human. The question is, “[i]Is this one of the situations in which the right to life applies?[/i]”
And THAT is the fundamental question of abortion, in my opinion.
And that is also a question that from a secular perspective there is not a neccessary answer. From a Catholic perspective there is, and we should argue accordingly, but remember that when we are in the world, we HAVE to play by their rules.
We cannot say ‘Abortion is wrong because Jesus said so.’ God does not have us believe anything unreasonable. We need to argue and propose it as such. People who say ‘The war on Terror is wrong because the Pope said so’ are fine if they are talking to other Catholics…but to a secular government that statement is utterly meaningless.
So there is NOT a good answer to the abortion question.
And it certaintly is not covered in the constitution.
So it IS up the legislators. (or should be)
Trish, you say that she has no experiance with the Constitution. You are a lawyer. She is as well. She must have.
While I admit that you need significant more knowlege (heck to grammar, I have a limited amount of time) to judge adequetely, that is just knowlege.
She can gain that whenever.
But what is in her heart (cheesy, but what the hey) is what really counts (that is a cue for a cheesy disney soundtrack)…
“I’m not a loyalist. I’m not a rebel. I don’t believe that Bush intended to upset his base, however, Miers is going to need more credentials than “Bush trusts me.” ”
That may be the point, but why he did it is really unimportant.
“A stealth candidate, especially one with no particular constitutional qualifications, may be a disastrous and cowardly choice,”
Um…if the judge is doing what he is supposed to be doing it shouldn’t matter what he thinks, he should judge based on the constitution, not on what he thinks…so it makes little difference, he could have chosen Kerry, and if he did his job correctly it wouldn’t matter.
And that is also a question that from a secular perspective there is not a neccessary answer. From a Catholic perspective there is, and we should argue accordingly, but remember that when we are in the world, we HAVE to play by their rules.
Does it matter if the writers of the Constitution/Amendment define or understood the word “life” in “…right to life…” to mean from the moment of conception? That seems pretty likely to me, though I haven’t done any research. In such a case a Catholic (or merely “good”) judge would be required to protect life from the moment of conception. I don’t think we *have* to play by their rules.
Perhaps in a generation we may have judges who will interpret the constitution in that way?
By the way, even *they* don’t play by *their* rules.
Cry HAVOC and unleash the dogs of waaar!
Making a stink about this nomination now would be best because it would
A) Show Republicans how important their constituents view the holocaust.
and
B) Scare Bush and the rest of the party into making better choices in the future.
So get up off your feet! “If at first you don’t secede, try try again.” Let them know we are not doe-eyed lap dogs capable of being satisfied with … what is Miers anyway? She does not even amount to lip service for our cause …
She is an embarrassing slap in the face.
“So the Fetus is human. The question is, “[i]Is this one of the situations in which the right to life applies?[/i]”
And THAT is the fundamental question of abortion, in my opinion.”
I think this is a bad way to look at the question. The fact is that the right to life (and liberty and the pursuit of happiness) are not rights that are given by the state. They are rights that one has simply because they are human. They are in the Declaration of Independence and NOT in the Constitution because of precisely this point: the state doens’t grant them. Our nation explicitly recognized them as inalienable rights, rights that cannot be taken away, cannot be “alientated” from you, from the moment it began. In order for a right to be inalienable, it must be based on an objective criteria, and it used to be – does human life exist?
In ruling for abortion in Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court destroyed the inalienability of the right to life. They made it subjective to appearance. If they can destroy that inalienable right, which ones can’t they destroy? The right to life is the most fundamental right there is. If your dead, your right to liberty and pursuit of happiness are pretty much a moot point.
The fundamental question of abortion is, does the STATE have the power/authority to remove our inalienable rights? If it did, we would be doomed. If it doesn’t (and it doesn’t!), then we have to ask ourselves if we are going to give it that power.
BTW, your examples are not at all about rights. Self defense against a person who is trying to kill you does not remove the person’s right to life. Rather, by their insistence to attack you to the point that you have no other option, they give up their right. Giving up a right yourself is nowhere near the same thing as having someone else steal it away from you. Capital punishment is the same, at least to the degree that we only execute those who must be executed to protect society (which can reasonably be argued to be so infrequent as to be necessary only in extremely rare circumstances). The last isn’t a rights question at all. Both the drowning victims in your example have the right to life, and the rescuing party is obligated to at least try to save them both. The fact that they may be unable to save one is a failure to save as opposed to succeeding in killing.
Don’t confuse the right to life with the ability to survive a catastrophe. The victims in the WTC on 9/11 all had a right to life and it was violated by terrorists. The victims of the hurricanes all had a right to life but in that case, their loss of life was not a rights question. It was due to a natural disaster; no one took it away.
I guess that’s the point: if someone loses their life because they recklessly throw it away or because of a natural disaster, it is a TRAGEDY; if someone loses their life because another human being ignored their inherent dignity and kills them, it is a TRAVESTY. Justice and laws can help avoid the first, but their mandate is to avoid the second. So who is on the court matters. The question is, are they going to rule for justice or for a travesty of justice.
Forgive my rant, but this whole thing about “rights” really gets my ire up. I am Catholic, and I believe that every person is made in the image of God, and therefore has inestimable value. But I can argue the point in purely secular terms too. The idea of the right to life, the objective ordering or rights, etc., can be argued on purely rational, logical terms, and will have to be.
Reading for today at Mass:
Luke 11: 42 – 46
42 “But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others.
43 Woe to you Pharisees! for you love the best seat in the synagogues and salutations in the market places.
44 Woe to you! for you are like graves which are not seen, and men walk over them without knowing it.”
45 One of the lawyers answered him, “Teacher, in saying this you reproach us also.”
46 And he said, “Woe to you lawyers also! for you load men with burdens hard to bear, and you yourselves do not touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
The burden of the holocaust of abortion is indeed hard to bear…
Billy, I think that scientifically it cannot be denied that from the moment of conception it is human. Unless they:
A. Are blind.
B. Are following their own agenda (likely).
C. Are saying nonsense, like it is a ‘parasite’.
Yes, he would be required to protect life in any way he could.
(Ken, to answer your statement, would you agree that there are some circumstances when the unalienable right to life can…erm…not be unalienable? Like Capital Punishment(Assuming that this is a case where it is just and good)? Or Self-Defense? Can we agree that there can be times when killing someone would be the best thing to do, a neccessary thing? Or not a crime? While as Catholics we say that abortion is a crime, couldn’t it be argued that in that circumstance that, yes, it IS a mother’s choice? That it might not be a crime? Let’s just say for Rape and Incest, to simplify things. But the constitution (which it is their job to interpret and use that to decide political questions) says nothing about that. So its not their business.
So what I am trying to get that a judge cannot rule for justice if the constitution says nothing about that. You are giving a judge, then, enormous power. You are simply handing it out the other way. Not what was intended.
While, yes, they NEED to be following Gods laws here, they also cannot break the states. Look at Thomas More (yay! Patron Sate!). He was tried for crimes which he did not commit (regarding the act of supremacy, among other things)and could have argued that no, God said that this whole thing was wrong (which he did do in the end, but in a very good argument.) but he began by protecting himself with the law. Same for other lifes, a judge and one in a political positino shouldn’t rule “God says abortion is wrong and I trust the Church on this one. Case Closed.” (Okay, significantly more sophisticated, but whatever, it’s early ><)They have to use the law and reason. God doesn't have us argue unreasonable postitions. Would post more but I must be away!
If the fetus is a living human being (which it is) then he/she has a right to life.
There should always be a heavy prejudice toward life unless there is compelling evidence that it should not be protected, as is the case in self defense, etc…
I have heard nothing that would warrant lifting the protection of the constitutional right to life of fetuses. Nothing even close.
Inconvenience? Financial hardship? Embarassment? Since when are we allowed to kill people to avoid these things? Well, 1973, actually.
Sorry, Kosh, I don’t accept that this is truly a religious/secular argument. An atheist could easily reason this out. All you need as a starting point is “people should not be killed”, and the rest follows quite logically. There ARE no arguments to support abortion, only raw bluster and rage. Their “arguments” are a tissue of self-justification.
It is power politics. Abortion has become, as others have said, the principal sacrament of an entire political movement. It is a natural consequence of a twisted feminism that pits the individual woman against everyone else, including her own children (half of them unborn women). It is a ravening Molech of self-actualization that must be appeased at any cost.
Um…not finding an easy rebuttal for that…because you are right, there are no good arguments that the right to life could be witheld…but do you agree that the constitution doesn’t discuss the issue? So it should be up to the legislative branch?
But I think I agree with you otherwise. But I never said it was a religious/secular argument…did I? I did not intend to.
But would you agree that it should not be argued from a RELIGIOUS perspective? Mabye that’s what I didn’t express clearly, I dunno….
I started to post a long diatribe, but decided against it. The clearest discussion I have ever heard on this topic can be found on EWTN’s website; it is the audio from a program call “Healing the Culture” with Fr. Robert Spitzer. He does an excellent job discussing this in ways that speak to us in terms of our faith and terms that the secular culture can understand, if they are willing to listen.
I will agree that killing a person may be a necessary thing in rare circumstances, but that can only be in the case of preventing a greater or equal evil. Only one thing fits this bill: you MUST be preventing the death of at least another person (equal) or more (greater).
And I would not agree that a judge cannot judge the constitutionality of the right to life even though its not in the Constitution. It is in the Declaration of Independence, which is even MORE foundational than the Constitution, where it is explicitly listed as inalienable. The DoI recognizes it; it doesn’t give it. All the justices can do is say that any law that protects the right to life doesn’t violate the Constitution (because it can’t); in other words, any law that protects one’s right to life IS Constitutional. Therefore, all they can do is uphold it. Period. What they did in Rv.W was to violate the “inalienable” part of the right to life by declaring that the baby was not a person in the eyes of the law and had NO RIGHTS at all. The problem is that they decided that they could determine who deserved the right to life, and they alientated an inalienable right. That’s like saying that I like Mondays, except when they are the day after Sunday.
I give Bush some credit for being smart enough to outfox the demos.
Bush needed the Catholic vote to win, and he was smart enough to win the support of the foundations that fund Catholic front groups
which try to tell Catholics how they should vote, when they should oppose the Pope, when it is ok to agree with the Pope, etc…
The Catholics took the bait.
Roberts is the reward to Catholics. But is it a trojan horse reward…..
Who cares, by the time his voting course is figured out, Bush will be back in the
oil patch. Bush is one character.
He looked Americans in the eye, told then the price of oil, then $18.00 would fall, if he could invade Iraq.
He said the cost of the war, $10 billion per month, would be paid for by Iraqi oil.
Bush was a failure as a businessman, not he has replicated that manuever as President.