• 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.

Now We Know Why Bushie Picked Meirs (1 Viewer)

wxcrazytwo said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9593793/

There goes the separation between church and state. We do not need some holy roller deciding cases.
Click to expand...
The fact that you neglected to show anything from the article is telling...We can just go by the headers...

Church ties could shed light on Miers’ thinking
Faith in Jesus has shaped court pick’s personal values

EVERYONE has personal values...The question is whether or not they leave them by the front door when it's time to do their job...

Imagine how many times a justice, Supreme or not, has gone home feeling absolutely crappy because they HAD to judge an arguement based on the law and not their own feelings...

This sentence in your article reveals the OPPOSITE of what you claim...

Hecht and other confidants of Miers all pledge that if the Senate confirms her nomination to the Supreme Court, her judicial values will be guided by the law and the Constitution. But they say her personal values have been shaped by her abiding faith in Jesus, and by her membership in the massive red-brick Valley View Christian Church, where she was baptized as an adult, served on the missions committee and taught religious classes.

They all believe in her ability to "separate personal values from the Constitution"....which is EXACTLY the kind of justice one would wish for...

According to your logic, very religious people could NOT be made justices, based purely on "church heresay" and personal life and not by documents written by the nominee...

If she was involved in a legal argument for or against abortion, what she'd done or what she'd written would be a valid argument...

When she puts her briefcase down and walks back through the front door?...Nope...
 
cnredd said:
The fact that you neglected to show anything from the article is telling...We can just go by the headers...

Church ties could shed light on Miers’ thinking
Faith in Jesus has shaped court pick’s personal values

EVERYONE has personal values...The question is whether or not they leave them by the front door when it's time to do their job...

Imagine how many times a justice, Supreme or not, has gone home feeling absolutely crappy because they HAD to judge an arguement based on the law and not their own feelings...

This sentence in your article reveals the OPPOSITE of what you claim...

Hecht and other confidants of Miers all pledge that if the Senate confirms her nomination to the Supreme Court, her judicial values will be guided by the law and the Constitution. But they say her personal values have been shaped by her abiding faith in Jesus, and by her membership in the massive red-brick Valley View Christian Church, where she was baptized as an adult, served on the missions committee and taught religious classes.

They all believe in her ability to "separate personal values from the Constitution"....which is EXACTLY the kind of justice one would wish for...

According to your logic, very religious people could NOT be made justices, based purely on "church heresay" and personal life and not by documents written by the nominee...

If she was involved in a legal argument for or against abortion, what she'd done or what she'd written would be a valid argument...

When she puts her briefcase down and walks back through the front door?...Nope...
Click to expand...


I doubt it. The decisisions by the SUP.CT are about 80% of the time based on feelings and 20% the law. The law is their guidance, but the true feelings may shape the way they decent. There have been may decisions based on how one feels about the case and only on strong precedent will they make an decision that goes against their feelings..
 
wxcrazytwo said:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9593793/

There goes the separation between church and state. We do not need some holy roller deciding cases.
Click to expand...

Crazy, you're funny! I love the term "holy roller." I have now decided that I oppose her nomination, and not because of this article--it's based upon everything I have read and heard about her.
 
aps said:
Crazy, you're funny! I love the term "holy roller." I have now decided that I oppose her nomination, and not because of this article--it's based upon everything I have read and heard about her.
Click to expand...

It probably would not be a problem, if she had a track record, but now that she is a "holy roller", it totally changes things. I, if I was an attorney would not want to argue cases and have her cite scripture. I get enough that in school.
 
wxcrazytwo said:
I doubt it. The decisisions by the SUP.CT are about 80% of the time based on feelings and 20% the law. The law is their guidance, but the true feelings may shape the way they decent. There have been may decisions based on how one feels about the case and only on strong precedent will they make an decision that goes against their feelings..
Click to expand...
You gotta source for that 80%-20% thing or are you just throwing out numbers?

I like the way you backtrack from 100% decided in your head what WILL happen...down to "I doubt it" & "may shape"...

Notice how facts, or in this case, "lack of", gets in the way of your broad-brush statements?:doh
 
wxcrazytwo said:
It probably would not be a problem, if she had a track record, but now that she is a "holy roller", it totally changes things. I, if I was an attorney would not want to argue cases and have her cite scripture. I get enough that in school.
Click to expand...
So I see my previous statement holds true...

According to your logic, very religious people could NOT be made justices...:roll:
 
cnredd said:
So I see my previous statement holds true...

According to your logic, very religious people could NOT be made justices...:roll:
Click to expand...


Jeese, I just read it. You just like a typical conserv tries to hurry people so they rush to judgment without making a very valid and sound rebuttal. In reference to your last statement "HELL YES." I don't want scripture when I read their opinions or cite the cases they pass down. How the hell do you cite scripture anyways. Exactly, you can't with regards to legal specs.
 
She sounds like another lunatic to me. Just like Bush. If they both believe in Jesus so much, how could they miss his most famous teaching? "Love your enemies"
 
kal-el said:
She sounds like another lunatic to me. Just like Bush. If they both believe in Jesus so much, how could they miss his most famous teaching? "Love your enemies"
Click to expand...

You know of anyone who loves his enemies?
 
kal-el said:
She sounds like another lunatic to me. Just like Bush. If they both believe in Jesus so much, how could they miss his most famous teaching? "Love your enemies"
Click to expand...

this speaks volumes:

onegf.jpg
 
MiamiFlorida said:
You know of anyone who loves his enemies?
Click to expand...

Sure, Ghandi, Jesus, the Dalai Lama. Just because no one now does,does not make it right.
 
wxcrazytwo said:
Yes, the whole Bush Cabinet..
Click to expand...

Haha, you're joking right? They are Satan's entourage, masqerading as Christians.
 
wxcrazytwo said:
Jeese, I just read it. You just like a typical conserv tries to hurry people so they rush to judgment without making a very valid and sound rebuttal. In reference to your last statement "HELL YES." I don't want scripture when I read their opinions or cite the cases they pass down. How the hell do you cite scripture anyways. Exactly, you can't with regards to legal specs.
Click to expand...
This is beautiful...From your first post...

There goes the separation between church and state. We do not need some holy roller deciding cases.

WHO'S rushing to judgement?:doh
 
wxcrazytwo said:
this speaks volumes:

onegf.jpg
Click to expand...


RIIIIIIGHT. As if Republicans actually put that up.
 
kal-el said:
Haha, you're joking right? They are Satan's entourage, masqerading as Christians.
Click to expand...

Dude, you're pretty good at hating your enemies yourself.
 
wxcrazytwo said:
It probably would not be a problem, if she had a track record, but now that she is a "holy roller", it totally changes things. I, if I was an attorney would not want to argue cases and have her cite scripture. I get enough that in school.
Click to expand...

Man, you have no idea how the law works, then, do you?
 
If it were not for the likely cases to be heard in the coming years, ie:

Stem Cell research
Roe vs. Wade
Affirmative Action
Finance reform
etc.....

I would not take into account the level of Christianity a nominee holds in the heart. But, considering the importance of these issues (in my opinion) for the future of this country, I am forced to look at the direction likely to be taken by a fundamentalist (not that she is). I look at the likely possibilities when judging an individual for the SCOTUS.....and would need far more information to make up my mind on her. My hope is she actually answers the questions put to her during the confirmation process.
 
Harshaw said:
Dude, you're pretty good at hating your enemies yourself.
Click to expand...

Maybe so, but I'm not holding a high-regarded political office title, where much of the world has their eyes on me and scrutinizes my every move, not to mention, tries to mimic me.
 
Harshaw said:
Man, you have no idea how the law works, then, do you?
Click to expand...

Uh, I have been in the legal field for 8 years. Yeah, I have no idea how the law works.
 
wxcrazytwo said:
Uh, I have been in the legal field for 8 years. Yeah, I have no idea how the law works.
Click to expand...

Which is where you got your 80/20 rule, no doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom