• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Harriett Miers Supreme Court nomination

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

galenrox said:
Ah ha ha, some good old patronizing, that's always a good way to actually discuss ideas:roll:
And you know what, I probably could do all of that stuff if I lived in Dallas and did a lot of research, it's not as hard as you'd think, it's just worded in a way to make people think it's hard.
And I don't know if I like her or not, you want to know why, cause I don't know **** about her!
And about the senate confirmation hearings, that's a frickin joke if I've ever heard one. For the entirity of my entire waking life, barring Clarence Thomas, any real question that could actually build or detract from public confidence in the candidate has gone unanswered. It's gotten to the point where "I can't answer since that might actually apply to what I might actually do as a judge." like for some reason that's not the purpose of the ****ing hearing!
Click to expand...

I won't lable my post sarcasm nor accept your definition of patronizing. I was having fun and being serious at the same time. I pointed out that, and if you read it, not just anyone can do any job. I don't doubt your word that with research you could, I have no reason not to believe you.

I, having fun, pointed out that we have hearings coming up that are part of the process for anyone you may want or not want to be confirmed. Ginsberg or Roberts; you can't ignore the philosophical change in the Democrats depending on who they support. Joseph Biden is completely hypocritical in this matter and you can see it in his side by side recorded moments from both of these hearings, Ginsberg vs. Roberts.

You seem upset that a nominee for a justice position won't give answers on how she would rule on specific cases that may come before her. She will answer questions on settled law which all nominees have before. Ginsberg and Roberts are excellent examples of not judging a case before the media before it comes before them on the bench. Harriett Miers should do the same and the heck with what Joseph Biden thinks. He's partisan in his politics and actions.

Of course, you can research anything so you know this or will, right? :duel :cool:
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Caine said:
This entire article is another reason why I am against Harriet Miers.

Pfffft..... And her religious beliefs have nothing to do with it.....
Click to expand...


Right, her religious beliefs shouldn't matter. And the reason I posted that link is because even some of the deeply religious, and I'm not one of them, realize this too. This Baptist website article warns against using her religion as a qualification. These people understand reason, and the Constitution.
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

tryreading said:
Right, her religious beliefs shouldn't matter. And the reason I posted that link is because even some of the deeply religious, and I'm not one of them, realize this too. This Baptist website article warns against using her religion as a qualification. These people understand reason, and the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I think its funny that her deep religious belief is one of the only things we DO know about her. Its strange, I wonder what message he is trying to send here.
Oh, don't forget she has the "judicial outlook" that George W is looking for. Whatever her judicial outlook is...

Also, from your article something else I didn't like about it...

In a radio interview taped Oct. 11 and aired Oct. 12, Dobson -- founder of Focus on the Family -- said Rove had called him before Bush announced Miers' nomination to reassure Dobson about her conservative judicial credentials. Among other things Rove told him, Dobson said, was that Miers was "an evangelical Christian from a very conservative church, which is almost universally pro-life."
Click to expand...
Should we put someone on the bench who has no experience as a judge and of whom we have reason to believe, already has a strong bias towards something that she may have to rule on?

Now, if she already had lots of experience as a Judge, and had her bias on the abortion issue, it would be different, because we would have documents that show whether or not she has ruled on cases that support her religious beliefs and bias on abortion.

This is my opinion. Thats all.
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

The Constitution is pretty clear that there shall be no religious test applied for one to hold office. That would include those who are religious, even 'born again' Christians, to those who are not in the least bit religious or even strongly anti-religion. Who do you fear most? Somebody who is pro life and might vote that way if Roe v Wade is challenged? Or somebody who is strongly anti-religion and might vote to dismantle the First Amendment during one of its many challenges?
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Caine said:
I think its funny that her deep religious belief is one of the only things we DO know about her. Its strange, I wonder what message he is trying to send here.
Oh, don't forget she has the "judicial outlook" that George W is looking for. Whatever her judicial outlook is...

Also, from your article something else I didn't like about it...
Click to expand...



There are a lot of religious fanatics. I think they can be dangerous if they can acquire any power in the courts, the military, law enforcement, or the government. This is a nation of law, not Bible scripture. I posted the link to the Baptist article, which backs up what I just wrote, to show that there are some religious people who understand the Constitution comes first in this country. They see the big picture, that, like I said, this is a nation of law.

The Dobson interview shows the other side, the ugly side of the beast, in my opinion. He is one of those who, like the Puritans, would try to force his beliefs and laws on all of us. He would make America a 'Christian' nation, if he could. His version of Christian. Might bring back the bodkin.
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

tryreading said:
There are a lot of religious fanatics. I think they can be dangerous if they can acquire any power in the courts, the military, law enforcement, or the government. This is a nation of law, not Bible scripture. I posted the link to the Baptist article, which backs up what I just wrote, to show that there are some religious people who understand the Constitution comes first in this country. They see the big picture, that, like I said, this is a nation of law.

The Dobson interview shows the other side, the ugly side of the beast, in my opinion. He is one of those who, like the Puritans, would try to force his beliefs and laws on all of us. He would make America a 'Christian' nation, if he could. His version of Christian. Might bring back the bodkin.
Click to expand...

Wow, Sounds like the Islamofacists we face in the Middle East today.
And an aide to our president gives this guy info before it is even released to the public? Before the President makes the announcement?
Is this the type of guy that would be considered a political "ally" to this administration?
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Deep religious beliefs.

President Bush said that Harriett Miers has "deep religious beliefs". Can anyone here that is for her because it's unconstitutional to use "deep religious beliefs" against a nominee or - anyone here that is against her because they fear her "deep religious beliefs" - can any of you tell me what her "deep religious beliefs" are? Or is someone with "deep religious beliefs" just like everyone else with "deep religious beliefs"? The Pope = Pat Roberts?

I am pro-life. I can't imagine what it would have been like if I had been aborted. I would like to think each conception can become that person they will want to be just as I did. I am firm in this.

I am for a woman's right to choose. I will never be pregnant and never have to carry a child to term and give birth. I have my own mind and don't claim nor have the ability to claim that I know what is in anyone else's mind. They may say one thing and think another six. If the government passes a law that healthy people have to give up part of their liver or a kidney that is an invasion of privacy. Should we do it involuntarily?

I am pro-life if asked and can only let someone else make decisions for themselves. I have my beliefs and opinions which are mine alone and not someone else's. Tell me that's wrong and I'll tell you that's your opinion and we go from there.

What are "deep religious beliefs". What does it mean to a man that sells shoes in London; a woman who bakes bread in Beijing; a fisherman in San Francisco or; a woman who is a lawyer from Texas.

What it means is a story for our media because it is one piece of something they can seize on and make large enough to lead a story. What does it mean to you? Fear? Fear of what? A woman that believes in the Ten Commandments but won't allow them to be posted in a courthouse? Do "deep religious beliefs" mean that our Constitution doesn't apply. Is this a President Bush appointed her issue? Is this just a conservative vs. liberal issue or can we trust good people to do what's right?

Democrat Senator Joseph Biden says she doesn't have to answer questions about issues she may have to rule on. That was when "she" was Ruth Bader Ginsberg, worked for the ACLU and was a registered Democrat. Now that she isn't Ruth Bader Ginsberg she has to answer those very questions according to Democrat Senator Joseph Biden. I like to think I'm not a hypocrit and don't necessarily like to lable others but what does this sound like to you?

I see no reason that Harriett Miers shouldn't be seated on the court just as 39 other men with no bench experience have been in the past. They sat and we are still the most free nation in the world (the UK taxes you for owning a television). I may change my mind during the Senate Judiciary hearings depending on what I hear. I think those hearings should be just that; a chance for us to hear the nominee answer questions from all sides. I have no "fear" of that. :duel :cool:
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Can anyone in this administration give solid answer about Miers. Besides that fact that she is good friends with Bush?? Because, for me that is not enough. No cheap shots needed...it just isn't enough for me.
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

getinvolved said:
Can anyone in this administration give solid answer about Miers. Besides that fact that she is good friends with Bush?? Because, for me that is not enough. No cheap shots needed...it just isn't enough for me.
Click to expand...

Watch the national news........Just today there were a group of judges from the Texas Supreme Court who said she would be and outstanding jurist........
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

gordontravels said:
Deep religious beliefs.

I am pro-life. I can't imagine what it would have been like if I had been aborted. I would like to think each conception can become that person they will want to be just as I did. I am firm in this.

I am for a woman's right to choose. I will never be pregnant and never have to carry a child to term and give birth. I have my own mind and don't claim nor have the ability to claim that I know what is in anyone else's mind. They may say one thing and think another six. If the government passes a law that healthy people have to give up part of their liver or a kidney that is an invasion of privacy. Should we do it involuntarily?

I am pro-life if asked and can only let someone else make decisions for themselves. I have my beliefs and opinions which are mine alone and not someone else's. Tell me that's wrong and I'll tell you that's your opinion and we go from there.

:duel :cool:
Click to expand...

I'm surprised you didn't get some response from these paragraphs. But I'm not confused, I have a similar opinion, or feeling, about abortion. I think abortion is wrong. If the fertilized egg, from conception to normal childbirth, is aborted, something that was going to be a human being will now be nothing.

Having said that, I also do not think that you can, or should, in this country, force a woman to grow another human being inside her body if she does not want to. Many do not experience this dilemma on this issue, because of their religious beliefs. I don't have religious beliefs, so I search my personal database which helps me determine right from wrong. And it tells me that a woman who may be considering abortion should be informed of her options, if she wants to listen to them. She should be counseled, if she wants it. She should be told and shown how important and loved she is and the baby will be by everyone close to her. Then she should be able to get her abortion, if she still wants it.
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

tryreading said:
I'm surprised you didn't get some response from these paragraphs. But I'm not confused, I have a similar opinion, or feeling, about abortion. I think abortion is wrong. If the fertilized egg, from conception to normal childbirth, is aborted, something that was going to be a human being will now be nothing.

Having said that, I also do not think that you can, or should, in this country, force a woman to grow another human being inside her body if she does not want to. Many do not experience this dilemma on this issue, because of their religious beliefs. I don't have religious beliefs, so I search my personal database which helps me determine right from wrong. And it tells me that a woman who may be considering abortion should be informed of her options, if she wants to listen to them. She should be counseled, if she wants it. She should be told and shown how important and loved she is and the baby will be by everyone close to her. Then she should be able to get her abortion, if she still wants it.
Click to expand...

What you say is contradictory......If you think the fetus in the womb is a living entity then how can you say its all right to murder it?

You have compassion for a woman who maybe forgot to close her legs or had a bad hair day but where is your compassion for the innocent,defenseless baby in the womb?
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Navy Pride said:
What you say is contradictory......If you think the fetus in the womb is a living entity then how can you say its all right to murder it?

You have compassion for a woman who maybe forgot to close her legs or had a bad hair day but where is your compassion for the innocent,defenseless baby in the womb?
Click to expand...

The fetus is definitely a living entity, and deserves compassion. I don't think its all right to murder it. I think abortion is wrong. I would do anything I could to help any woman in my life avoid having an abortion. I understand that it must be very difficult in some cases for the woman to have the child, but I think it almost always has to be a better choice to have it.

What I said is definitely contradictory. Abortion is a difficult issue for me. It is also more difficult for you, I think, than you indicate above. The questions I asked you to answer the other day, on the thread you started, were not easy, were they? I give you credit, you did try to answer them. Most people won't, especially if they are anti-abortion.

I have compassion for the woman, too. But I don't feel sorry for her, if that makes any sense. I think she is making a mistake in most cases (except for known brain death of the fetus, etc., life endangerment of the woman) if she has the abortion. But, like I said, I think she has to have the right to have the abortion.

Thats the contradiction: I think abortion is wrong, but I wouldn't take away the right.
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

As far as learning about Harriett Miers there will be hearings beginning before the Senate Committee on November 1st. This is what hearings are for: to question the nominee; to build your own reputation whether the nominee or the Senator asking the question; a chance for the nominee to answer proper questions (proper, not how he/she will adjudicate a particular case); a chance for Senators to complement or crucify; and, camera time which any Senator will tell you is better than a filet and tail.

As for abortion - I am Christian and am against abortion. In this country I am allowed to be that way and say it. In this country we have laws that are to protect privacy rights and abortion falls under these rights with many case finding before many courts, not just the Supreme.

Harriett Miers has opposed abortion. The Senators that use this as the "one issue" will try to use it against her. Problem is that there is a difference in what one does as an attorney which is to take sides and argue one or the other and what a judge does. Harriett Miers is experienced as an attorney and understands what a difference a judge has when it comes to the courtroom. I mean, if I understand that and you understand that then you have to figure a woman with 30 years experience in the legal system knows that too.

I am against abortion but I have no power to stop a woman from doing what she decides is best for her. To use my Christian values to impose such values on another person of not like mind is wrong. My beliefs are for me to have and use in the context of a free country. If abortion were on the ballot I wouldn't support it. Would I be sending a woman to death at the hands of an abortionist without qualifications? Sorry, but I can't answer every facet other than to say I am against abortion and a woman must choose for herself. If she asked me I'd tell her what I think but then, we both have a right to think. :duel :cool:
 
Re: Harriett Miers supreme court nominee

Well said Gordontravels. :applaud
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom