BS: Miers withdraws

Subject: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Janie
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 10:13 AM

Who next?

Blickifier too slow. Go to www.cnn.com.

Miers apparently has good judgement.
She did the right thing for the right reasons, I think.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 10:46 AM

The right reasons? Her letter of withdrawlal Click Here emphasizes only one thing. The defense of secrecy in the Oval Office which might have been breached by inquiries during confirmation.

What is so precious secret about the executive office that she had to fall on her sword to keep it hidden?

The othe rpossibility of course is that the letter is all Bush-wah, and Georgie just asked her to back out so he could save some ugly face.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 10:48 AM

I don't know. As liberal as I am, there were some interesting "unknowns" about Miers that I was willing to watch unfold. The republican ultra-conservatives have managed to force Miers out and now there is a deeper line in the sand that we now need to fear--that an acknowledged christian zealot will be nominated to the supreme court. Bush is trying to keep his base intact, so will he offer them what they want? (This is keeping Miers in the category of "he could have done a lot worse," not saying that she was the best for the job).

There were questionnaires and "assurances" about Miers floating around to appease the conservatives, but a very light collection of policy writings. She isn't the first nominee for which this is the case. The press have published long lists of "inexperienced" justices. But this is an unmarried woman who apparently has a discreet long-term relationship with an unmarried man. It offers a glimpse of someone who has made some choices that are unlike other conservatives in the Bush administration. When one chooses to flaunt social convention and stay unmarried and "just good friends" with a partner, one has made a series of choices that probably scare the bejesus out of those conservative folks. Having gone that path myself for many years, I found it an interesting anomaly in the Bush plan.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 01:59 PM

Romantic discretion, if that is what it is, doesn't qualify her to interpret the country's Constitution -- just her own! :)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:02 PM

The left and right agreed: This was not a good appointment.

The right that disagreed with it were philosophically consistant -- they did not want a nominee (judge) who was picked for the expressed purpose of one result -- in this case, presumably, pro-life.

The consistant right that opposed this nomination included most of those on the right who have also consistantly opposed Bush on the war and on his spending money like a drunken sailor. -- People like George Will, John McLaughlin, Pat Buchanan. Not "extreme".

They opposed the nomination because the one thing they wanted is exactly the same thing the left has been claiming that it wants -- a court that upholds the constitituion -- not a court that writes law from the bench.

It showed admirable consistancy, in the right that opposed the Weis nomination, that they would oppose someone who might vote as they wished on one issue, and instead demand a nominee who would promise to uphold the constitution.

It is EXACTLY those who were supposed to be appeased by the religious leanings of Weir who were defeated by the withdrawl of this nomination. Those who fear the religious right should be dancing in the streets.

How hypocritical to act outraged by this withdrawl when one knows good and well that the left would have demanded a down vote on confirmation.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Amos
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 02:20 PM

John:

I'm sorry -- I didn't mean to act outraged by the fact of her withdrawal which I think a Good Thing. It was the surface PR management and her letter which annoyed me.

Too much controversy for Bush to handle, resulting in his asking her to do him a Big Favor and back out?

Or, as she said in her letter, a compelling need to defend Executive Privelege not to reveal the inner traffic of the Oval office (for reasons unknown but certainly interesting)?

A

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:01 PM

Extrapolation was all we had with this candidate, Amos. I'm simply looking at a position somewhat outside the party line and wondering if that carried through elsewhere.

One of these days someone is going to pull it off, getting past The Party. Working under cover of the conservative mantle but actually coming out as a liberal once confirmed. (Wishful thinking, eh?)

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Elmer Fudd
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:11 PM

A timely withdrawal so the country doesn't get screwed AND knocked up AND stuck with the consequences for the next twenty years or so.

Elmer

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:30 PM

I've been tuned in to the echo chamber all day, and no one buys the reason (executive privlege) given in the resignation letter is the real reason behind the withdrawal. It's a no-brainer folks. You don't nominate the White House counsel (or anyone else who holds a position in the current administration), and expect that the Judiciary Committee won't ask for the documents. Playing the executive privlege card was the "falling on her sword for her president" tactic to allow the White House to push the nomination reset button. It just allowed Bush to save face on what has been a disastrous nomination, and 'do-overs'.

We will soon see if in fact the mildly paranoid theory currently floating aroud, ie that yet another brilliantly evil Rovian plot is unfolding according to plan. That plan being that an extreme right wing ideologue will be nominated in the wake of the Miers withdrawal, and be confirmed as they never could have been without the Miers debacle or something similar to manipulate the process well enough to squeak through another Scalia snake with 51 votes.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 03:35 PM

Sorry, meant to say that IMO, I think it was a somewhat stupid political move, possibly in hopes of using a new nominee to steal the news cycle from the media, and steer it away from the White House indictments frenzy about to ensue. This is more of a long term strategy--in hopes of getting another nomination through before the State of the Union. If Bush can't turn it all around by the State of Union, he is a very well done duck.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Janie
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 04:13 PM

Like SRS I had kind of been watching and waiting on Miers, even though I am a dyed-in-the-wool knee-jerk liberal. Lets face it--whoever he nominates is not going to be a liberal.

By the way--did any of you hear Justice Breyer on Fresh Air the other night? Very interesting and illuminating--his decision-making process and his observations about the Court.

Janie

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 05:22 PM

well...I'd have BET that this is what would happen. And she got it done before the bigger furor starts tomorrow about indictments.

'Twill be interesting to see what nice, uncontroversial nominee Bush offers next!

Poor Sandra O'Conner...she may be sitting there for 3 more years! *wry grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: GUEST
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 06:16 PM

Actually, now that I just heard the news reports on the oil companies record profits--the hugest of the hugest price gouge in history, using Katrina as a convenient excuse--I believe the timing of the Miers withdrawal may have been to deflect the media from seizing on the record oil company profits taken in the 3rd quarter.

For the first time in the history of the world--yes, that's right--for the first time ever, ever, ever--a corporation has earned over $100 billion in a single quarter.

Guess who?

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: DougR
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 07:55 PM

I'm not surprised she withdrew. The president never should have nominated her. The Senate Judiciary Committee would have had her for breakfast, and she doesn't deserve that.

Now, hopefully, Bush will appoint a true conservative judge with a history to back up his conservatism. There will be a big fight, no doubt, in the senate over his/her nomination, but this time the conservatives will prevail. The U. S. Supreme Court will be turning to the right, folks, no doubt about it.

Bobert, get out your crying towel! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Charley Noble
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:29 PM

I wonder why George Will didn't like her.

Given who Bush will feel compelled to nominate next, we'll probably miss her...

I bet it's a senator! Maybe even the chairman of the Judiary Committee.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: DougR
Date: 27 Oct 05 - 08:44 PM

Perhaps, Charlie, but my money is on his nominating a sitting judge with proven conservative credentials.

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 12:37 PM

"Proven," hell. All they have to do is say they want to overturn Roe v. Wade and the conservatives will fall all over themselves to force the candidate through. That is the ONLY litmus test that is in use right now, despite the lip service to other criteria.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Ebbie
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 12:49 PM

Ted Koppel had David Frum and George Will on last night's Nightline.

They made sense to me. Their position, especially Will's, was that Miers was a lawyer, pure and simple, who had showed no interest or expertise in the Constitution or the judicial opinions of the Supreme Court, and had shown no signs of intellectual growth in her career and that the fault was Bush's for thinking otherwise. (The 'intellectual growth' is not a direct quote but it was implied.)

He said that if she were deemed 'good enough', there are 1.4 million other lawyers in the country who also are appropriate for inclusion on the Court. And that, he said, is nonsense.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:07 PM

""Proven," hell. All they have to do is say they want to overturn Roe v. Wade and the conservatives will fall all over themselves to force the candidate through."

um.

The whole issue with the Miers controversy was that, according to the likes of Dobson, Belz, et al, they were given exactly those pro-life assurances...

...but Will, Buchannon, Kristol, Limbaugh (need I go on?) did NOT "fall all over themselves to force the candidate through".

I know it fits into a nice little mold of what liberals think conservatives believe. It has no basis in reality, and you are, especially in this case, provably, observably wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Amos
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:15 PM

They weren't prepared to take on the risk based on the single issue (Roe/Wade). They want support for the long-term march toward Large Corpratism in Amerika, not just a single issue, and that a moral or religious one. The financial and power issues are the ruling factors; the incursions on individual liberty only important when they serve these.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:27 PM

Yeah, and they all listen to Mark From Michigan too.

They (conservatives) want a court that will uphold the constitution and not write law from the bench. The fact that that is more important to them than one issue (like RvW) -- and that they just demonstrated that fact beyond a doubt, in full light of day, for anyone to observe, clearly shows the fallacy of SRS's contention that they would do otherwise, no?

That you think that the constitution has "no guns" and "abortion" clauses, and would support a court that saw the constitution that way....and you call that "wishing for a court to uphold the constitution".

...and I see a constitution that protects individual's property rights (among other things that the left half of the court now does not believe constitutional) and would wish for a court that saw it that way....and I call that "wishing for a court to uphold the constitution".

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:28 PM

3rd paragraph should begin with "You", not "That".

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:33 PM

While I tend to the liberal side on most issues, I have to agree with George Will and others who maintain that the big issue with the Miers nomination was her qualifications, or lack thereof. I recognize and accept the fact that a conservative President will nominate a conservative to the Court, but I find it insulting when he nominates someone with no apparent credentials and says, in effect, "trust me".

Nobody really had a firm grasp on Miers's views, and the process wasn't likely to shed much light on them. The confirmation process has unfortunately evolved into a game of nominating "stealth" candidates and going through an elaborate dance whereby they avoid answering any questions of substance; and while the formal confirmation hearings hadn't yet started, that process was already well underway. But in the end, I think that neither conservatives nor liberals were prepared to confirm this nominee based on nothing more than the President's good opinion of her.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:45 PM

The conservatives would be funny on this if it weren't so scary. They say they don't want a judge to "legislate from the bench"...and then they say that Bush's choice is "not conservative enough" and does not "pass litmus tests"...etc....

They simply want a judge that will push conservative agendas and vote "the right way" on key issues, no matter WHAT former courts have said about the interpretation of the constitution! The issue of abortion, for example, is considered "settled law" by most courts, since it has been reaffirmed several times. Even John Roberts said he accepted it that way(although there is evidence that he ONLY sees it that way as a lower court judge). But folks like Alberto Gonzales don't want the court to be bound by any decision they disagree with....they want (1) all decisions to be open to change and (2) the court to be packed forever with judges who will vote conservative, no matter how many freedoms are trampled on in the process!

There is such a thing as a centrist judge, who will try to understand the Constitution, interpret it sanely and fairly, and not be an ideologue...but the new breed of conservatives quail at the idea of having a majority of judges that they don't control and who might see that the interests of the majority take precedence over the narrow moral views of a minority.

   I can best express what I am trying to say with an example:
If, somehow, it came about that there were only 17 Christians left in the country, the judges and courts and laws *I* favor would still give those 17 people full rights to worship God, practice their religion, not have abortions...etc... But if there were only 17 atheists left, I would expect that the courts, laws and judges would allow them to not be bound by religious practices and not be required to attend church ...and be allowed to employ abortion if it fit their belief standards!
    In short, there are areas that should not BE subject to majority vote...by judges, by legislators or by public opinion. We need to understand and define what there areas are...and the US Constitution, it seems to me, is a good general attempt to do that. It provides **freedom**, and suggests basic ways to ensure freedom. Unfortunately, 250 years ago there were situations that the frames could not anticipate, so the Supreme Court and Congress, working together, need to clarify into settled law, as best they can, how to maintain freedom so that one clever group of folks with special vested interests cannot stack the deck to impose their narrow views on others.

If this is not done, I would expect someday to see abortion be made a crime, no limits on guns, the 10 Commandments on every wall, all textbooks pushing creationism, and Christian prayer required at all events. Ridiculous? Not to listen to some of the fundamentalists *I* have heard! They'd vote for that setup in a minute! They dont want just to have their rights...they want their rights to be the standard!

And yes...this IS different in kind from what liberals would do if they could influence things reasonably.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 01:58 PM

Bill D,

The conservatives already mentioned in this thread (Will, et al) have just demonstrated that they do not believe as you think they do. They just demonstrated that, if they have a "litmus test" it is in upholding the constitution. It is the liberal who demands a litmus test. Unless Bush nominates a pro-choice candidate, the left will vote against that candidate. THAT is a litmus test.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: GUEST,Whistle Stop
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:18 PM

All of these terms that we throw around -- "settled law," "litmus test," "legislating from the bench," "strict construction," "original intent," etc. -- mean different things to different people. Most of the people in this debate tend to think in terms of issues, and frame their arguments around those issues; then many will marshal arguments that support their positions on those issues, without necessarily referring to them directly.

Take "settled law," for example. Sure, Roe v. Wade is "settled law," but so was the Dred Scott decision in its time, or Plessey v. Ferguson, or various other decisions that were questioned and/or overturned later. One might be in favor of giving due deference to settled law on the abortion question, but decidedly less so on other decisions. The reality, of course, is that it was the Supreme Court that "settled" those laws, and it is the Supreme Court that is empowered to change them. Anti-abortion rights advocates should not be to discouraged when they hear that Justice Roberts believes Roe v. Wade is settled law, just as abortion rights advocates should not take too much comfort in it.

"Liberal" and "conservative" are subject to intepretation, too. These are all labels of convenience, to be employed when they support your position, and left alone in favor of others when they don't.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 03:45 PM

excellent analysis, Whistle Stop.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 05:43 PM

" Unless Bush nominates a pro-choice candidate, the left will vote against that candidate. THAT is a litmus test."

yep..in an awkward way, I suppose it is--though I doubt that "the left" will do any such thing. Roberts was confirmed, though hardly pro-choice....as were Scalia and Thomas.

There is quite a difference between a litmus test that asks for a nominee that will allow free choice, and a litmus test that demands a nominee that will force everyone to behave as you do, hmmmm?

EVERYONE has a position and an agenda of sorts, but if liberals have the majority, the conservatives get to do 'mostly' what they usually do...except where that involves imposing personal views on the populace at large. When the conservatives have the majority, a large number of "Thou shalt nots" amd "Thou SHALTS" seem to arise.

Abortion is among the easier issues to show this: No liberal tells anyone you MUST have an abortion, but many (no, not all) conservatives want to tell you that you MUST NOT. It is a very subtle and hard to prove point, but listen to the exponents of both sides and you will see one side saying "you ought to act like I do. whether you like it or not", while the other side is saying "you ought to think like I do, so you will not make such silly rules".

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 06:23 PM

Roberts is hardly an indicator...

1. he avoided the question for the most part (as he correctly should do), but of what he did answer, he uttered the "settled law" phrase -- making him, essentially more pro-choice than pro-life.

2. his credentials were second to NO ONE. He tried more cases before the supreme court than all the other justices COMBINED. He had the education, the history, the whole nine yards. Those that voted against him merely showed their non-constitutional intent. When George Will makes the astute observation about Miers that she had no more creds than thousands of other lawyers ... well, in that regard, Roberts is the anti-Miers. There aren't 5 lawyers in the county MORE qualified.

.....and still the litmus-test liberals voted against him.

Who's got the litmus test?

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 06:28 PM

....oh, and the "thou shalt nots" have been in steady decline over the years. You'd have to be looking pretty hard -- and have a pretty perverse standard to think otherwise. I can't think of one social standard that is less lax than it was even twenty years ago. Nope, not one.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 06:32 PM

Asking that people prove that a baby is not a baby before killing it is asking too much, I suppose. But "telling people that they must behave as (I) do" is not the same thing as working toward keeping people from the extreme of killing (as one side attempts toward abortion while the other tries to impose regarding capital punishment).

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:16 PM

we are both in error by conducting this discussion as if there were only 'two sides'. That enables you to point to "litmus test liberals" and claim that "thou shalt nots" are in decline...and allows me to infer that conservatives all want to meddle. (I did say 'many', but it was weak)

No...sorry, but "thou shalt nots" are NOT in decline...they have not won all of their demands, but they sure are yelling and preaching! Perhaps, having lived in Kansas for many years, I am a bit sensitive to it all.....*wry grin*.

As to the issues of 'killing a baby'.....it seems obvious that it (the metaphysical status of a fetus) is clearly not a matter that allows "proof"- one way or the other. I can see no other way than to respect each other's belief and not interfere. You may be surprised that I feel the same way about capital punishment. It is, sadly, sometimes necessary and appropriate....but like abortion, should not be done in haste.

and....to be totally honest, I was startled that Bush appointed someone of John Roberts ability and stature! I may not end up liking all his decisions, but he clearly is competent to hold the job. I suspect that Bush & Co. know something I don't...but....*shrug*

I think one of the most interesting questions about being human is "how can two people look at the same issue, the same evidence, the same arguments...and reach diametrically opposite opinions?"...and of course, part of the answer is that they start with different presuppositions about what what correct answers are supposed to look like. So the problem then becomes 'how can we educate people to THINK, rather than just have knee-jerk reactions to their own prejudices?'

I'm still working on myself....hoping I don't make TOO many errors as I quibble with others. A lifetime is not long enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 10:39 PM

John--

As you should know, abortion is not the only issue likely to come before the court on which John Roberts appears likely to take a position unfavorable to the liberal view. Property rights, especially the takings clause, as it relates to endangered species, the church-state issue, regarding the 10 Commandments, creches in town squares etc. and his pro-business stance in general and background are other reasons. Liberals had plenty of legitimate reasons to oppose his appointment, if little chance from the start of any success in this.

Furthermore, as many posters have already said, the goal in Roe is only to prevent those who consider themselves the moral arbiters on the subject from preventing women from making their own choice on abortion. It's not as if they're eager to do it--it just should not be removed as an option if a woman feels it's necessary.

I just hope that if Bush comes up with another Court choice who is also assured by Bush minions to be against Roe-- (as in the recruiting of James Dobson to the would-be Miers bandwagon),-- reasonable Republicans (Spector possibly) will throw it back in Bush's face. If neither side knows how a candidate will vote on Roe, that's all that can be expected of a Bush appointee. It's definitely not acceptable for the religious Right to demand that a candidate kowtow to their position, and I think there are a lot of Republicans who realize this.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bobert
Date: 28 Oct 05 - 11:33 PM

Since Roe V Wade seems to be the litmus test here, lets not forget that the rich white women were gettin' abortion back in the 50's and 60's, 'cept it was in discret clinics, mostly in Mexico... Yeah, they's just take taht little "vacation"... (Wink, wink...)...

Seems this ain't get no air time these days...

Is uspect tha if Roe V. Wade gets overtirned it will be back to the 50's... Rich (Repub) women will be takinh' more vacations and poor women will be gettin' messed up in nasty makeshift rooms behinf gas stations and tannin' joints...

This ain't got one thing to do with religion but everything to do with privelge and class...

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:14 AM

"As to the issues of 'killing a baby'.....it seems obvious that it (the metaphysical status of a fetus) is clearly not a matter that allows "proof"- one way or the other."

I hate to disagree because I enjoyed and agreed with much of your last post, Bill D. But on the above ... it is not "clearly not" a matter that allows proof one way or the other...

MOST of Americans believe that a "fetus" at 6-9 months is a baby -- because almost all of us know at least one baby that was born VERY prematurely (I know 4 who were born in the 24-25 week -- all quite "normal" today). So we know that when the pro-choice folks are demanding the right to have late term abortions, they are demanding the right to kill what most of us are sure -- and is quite demonstrably -- a baby.

No, it's not "clearly not a matter that allows proof one way or the other". Nor is it metaphysics.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:27 AM

So don't have an abortion yourself, John.   But don't try to legislate it away--your views on the subject are neither unquestioned nor unquestionable.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 07:28 AM

Even if I was allowed to own or not own slaves in 1860, I would have fought against your right to own them. It wouldn't have been enough to just refuse to own them myself. The "live and let live" attitude you suggest doesn't bode well for the slaves of 1860.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Ron Davies
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 07:48 AM

The parallel doesn't hold. In fact you are seeking to make women prisoners of your moral view, just as slaveowners would not allow their slaves freedom.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 11:10 AM

The parallel does hold. The women are not prisoners of any moral viewpoint. They are "prisoners" of nature. If they participate in the volitional act of sexual intercourse, it is nature, not some moral or religious point of view that "imprisons" them.   They cannot then decide to kill the product of their volitional activity.

They have the absolute right to decide not to participate in reproductive activity. Once they have decided to participate in the activity though, it is an act of nature, not religion, that makes them pregnant. And it isn't religion that makes a society that does not allow one person to kill another for inconveniencing them. The non-religious believe in the rights of life too.

If a woman volunteerly picks up a hitchhiker, she cannot decide to kill that hitchiker (unless, of course he threatens her life) just because she suddenly wishes that she hadn't picked him/her up in the first place. The time for her to have decided not to have a hitchhiker in her car was before she picked one up. The hitchhiker is no less a person just because it's riding in her car.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: dianavan
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:41 PM

"They have the absolute right to decide not to participate in reproductive activity."

So do men but they do not have to worry about who will care for them while they remove themselves from the workforce. Nor do they bear the burden of deciding who will care for the child.

When men decide not to participate in reproductive activity, so will women and you know that will never happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Amos
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 12:55 PM

The issue is not when conception becomes "separate individual life".

The issue is whether or not such an opinion -- and it is never more than an opinion whether inspired by religion or some other frame -- should become the basis for law and that at a national level.

Morals are not the business of the Constitution. The business of the Constitution is the protection of the core vision of liberty and human freedom and citizen's rights.

George Bush, for example, would like to make that remarkable vehicle carry the burden of his opinion about gay marriage. Roe versus Wade protects certain citizens from having morality pushed down their throats by the Federal government, and for that reason alone it should be preserved.

The court in which the argument about morals and abortion should be held is NOT a Federal one, but an ordinary human one, through the exercise of free speech.

There's a certain amount of hypocrisy in asserting that all the Administration is interested in is protecting the Constitution (which clearly says that rights not specifically called out herein are reserved tot he people and the States severally) while pushing as hard as possible to make the Federal standard turn those people and States into reflections of D.C. opinions, if you see what I mean. That's not protecting the Constitution worth a shit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 01:34 PM

"oh, and the "thou shalt nots" have been in steady decline over the years. You'd have to be looking pretty hard -- and have a pretty perverse standard to think otherwise. I can't think of one social standard that is less lax than it was even twenty years ago. Nope, not one." John Hardly

Did you misspeak, John? "Thou shalt nots in decline". (Surely a "shalt not" is a strict construct?) "social standard that is LESS lax" Surely "less lax" translates to "stricter"? How do "Shalt Not" in decline" and "less lax" say the same thing?

"A lifetime is not long enough." Bill D   I agree. See you in the next life? *G*

"So we know that when the pro-choice folks are demanding the right to have late term abortions, they are demanding the right to kill what most of us are sure -- and is quite demonstrably -- a baby." John Hardly

You are arguing two different points here, imo, John. Abortion of early term pregnancy and abortion of late term pregnancy are very different- and call for very different approaches. A late term abortion must be a rare thing and for a very specific purpose, surely. An early term abortion when cells are forming and combining are what we are talking about when abortion is discussed.

To argue FOR late term abortion to me is the other end to arguing AGAINST contraception. To me, either view is defensible only for specific, rare needs.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 05:02 PM

*whew*...when you get into some of these discussions, it is not good to sleep late....you get WAY behind! But Ebbie has just said a lot of how I would respond.

The thing is, John, I wasnot even thinking of late term abortions when I used the term 'fetus'....I, also, would not approve of abortion when the baby is beyond 6 months without a VERY good reason (look up 'triploid syndrome'...had to deal with that one myself)...and would have serious reservations at 4-5 months. Very few 'pro choice' advocates are in favor of parents having the right to just summarily decide at the last minute, "no, we'd rather not have a baby." Horror stories about late term abortions are usually red herrings to cloud the matter.

The **ISSUE** is mostly about fertilized eggs/embryos in the first couple of months...'usually', the first 3-6 weeks, after a woman says, "ooops"! In reality, embryos fail to develop fairly often, and nature deals with it, but those of certain religious persuasions claim that a 'soul' enters the embryo at the instant of conception...or some similar claim. Now that is the "matter that does not allow proof", and that is what fuels most of the bitterness, whether it is stated formally or not. Some are sure it IS true, some don't believe in 'souls' at all, or feel that birth, or 'viability' is the measure. In that sensem the argument IS metaphysics. And we still don't know hown many angels can dance on the head of a pin. With so many disparate notions, how do we decide? Must we always take the very most conservative position on all issues, just to avoid upsetting the most conservative believers?

The real issue is not when a set of cells becomes 'human', but who gets to decide how to approach the question, and under what circumstances. Like many questions, there are gray areas, and clever rhetoric can make gray seem black in comparison to other colors.
.

Hard to tell sometimes.........

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Ebbie
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 05:45 PM

"The real issue is not when a set of cells becomes 'human', but who gets to decide how to approach the question, and under what circumstances. Like many questions, there are gray areas, and clever rhetoric can make gray seem black in comparison to other colors." Bill D


And that is precisely why my very conservative brother, although he personally was against abortion, felt that the powers that be should have no role in the question, that the issue was between the parties concerned, i.e. a woman and her doctor. And her God, if that was her desire.

My brother has since died, but I really respected his views on it. He believed that law and the courts should be involved only in tangible things. For instance, love is an intangible- therefore law has no role in deciding who can love whom. Law has a role in it only when a being needs protection, whether because of being a minor or of being incapable of making an informed decision.

A person can apply that view to many things, and find that it would greatly simplify the legitimate role of the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 06:03 PM

*smile*...Ebbie...next Getaway, remind me to sit and talk to you a LOT more... You make more sense in less space than some of us wordy types.

Your brother sounds like a guy I could respect and deal with.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:05 PM

I can't cartoon Miers because its simply not her fault.

However this crossed my mind...

The Harriet Principle: A situation where a person does not last long enough or is not competent enough to prove the Peter Principle.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: robomatic
Date: 29 Oct 05 - 10:22 PM

I have a strong opinion on the abortion issue, but I fear that it is last generation's issue. Technology has already appeared which make a good deal of the abortion issue moot.

I'm worried about the NEXT big issues, among them the right to privacy in context with individual medical and financial records and property. Do I have the right to my own DNA? There is new ground to be covered and we need to get on the ball or the ball will roll over us.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 12:45 PM

"Very few 'pro choice' advocates are in favor of parents having the right to just summarily decide at the last minute, "no, we'd rather not have a baby." Horror stories about late term abortions are usually red herrings to cloud the matter."

Actually, Bill, I disagree (surprise!). There is no great rush from the pro-choice side of the debate to clarify this point, or reach a reasonable compromise on the issue.

The call to restrict late term abortions -- a social compromise, a social middle ground --- comes from the pro-life side, and is met with vehement disagreement from the pro-choice side (demonstrating that it is they who are at the social "extreme").

The pro-choice side fights vehemently and politically for all they are worth for any abortion, any time. And they characterize any wish to restrict late term abortion as "extreme" even though, even as your own post would intimate, most don't agree with "any abortion, any time".


Ebbie,

I've scanned my "thou shalt not" thingy. It reads fine to me. Sorry, do you not understand? Really?

I'm saying that there is no social issue that American's standards are not more lax about than they were 20 years ago. Did you really not understand my point?

It doesn't matter how vocal some "moral majority" might be. The reality is that the social standards are still more and more lax no matter how that "moral majority" may bellyache.

You really think there are more restrictions on personal and social behavior now than there were 20 years ago? Really?

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Ebbie
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 02:41 PM

Paraphrased:
"Thou Shalt Nots have been in steady decline. I can't think of one social standard that is stricter than it was."

OK, John. I do understand now. I always did know what you meant but my mind didn't wrap around it properly. Sorry.

By the way, does anyone have a guesstimate on who will be nominated next? Will it be a woman, you think? Hispanic male? In other words, will Bush stay within the symbolic token spectrum?

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 03:26 PM

As I understand it right now, there is much less chance it will be a woman because several of the women who would be likely candidates (last I heard, the number was at least 4), have asked that they not be considered.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 03:30 PM


The pro-choice side fights vehemently and politically for all they are worth for any abortion, any time.

hmmmm? I guess I don't get out enough. That's not what I have seen and heard. Are you asserting that the mainstream liberal voices are doing this? Maybe we just read and associate with different groups. I'm used to conservatives taking an 'all or nothing' approach to issues like gun control (no bans against ANY guns)...but I seem to hear 'mostly' reasonably people arguing sensibly. I guess I'll have to do some more research and see who is really advocating what....with what caveats.

Most of the hot-button issues are going to require some compromise by both sides, but it has been my experience that the left has usually been more willing to compromise.

(I can go out and find raving fools on BOTH sides of any issue: I'm sure the left has theirs....I just don't see many.)

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: dianavan
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 07:53 PM

Ebbie - Why would anyone (man or woman) want to run in the next election and inherit the mess that the Bush administration will leave behind? It will take a lifetime to undo what Bush has done at home and abroad and only if our environment can sustain us that long.

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Oct 05 - 09:53 PM

I started exploring views on various abortion positions today, but had a lot of other stuff to do, so barely got started.....but then I sat and watched the TV program "West Wing" about an imaginary presidental campaign, and wouldn't you lnow, they had an entire program showing how complex and awkward the issue is.

They have a Democrat who is Catholic and is against abortion, but believes in free choice - running against a Republican who is not even religious and ALSO pro-choice, but desperately needs the conservative vote and thus is trying to 'seem' like he will favor pro-life legislation...etc...etc... In the process of writing the script for this unlikely show, they managed at least to make my point that there are several levels of the discussion: (1)what do you actually BELIEVE about the basic issue...amd why! (2) what should be done socially and politically about the issue, no matter what you believe, and (3) How can we manage to keep the debate fair, honest and clear? That is, how can we be sure we understand the other side's real stance and respond without arguing past each other with shaky logic, skewed statistics, out-of-context quotes and cloudy, partisan rhetoric?

It seems to me that a lot of the problem is that many on both sides don't WANT clarity and fairness...they just want to 'win'...that is, get a stacked batch of judges and legislators and get THEIR position temporarily enacted into law in some sort of perversion of the idea or majority rule.

I, for one, am sick of the hypocracy, distortion and outright ignorance that fuels issues of this type. I may not always get all my facts straight, and I am no doubt influenced by some of my own history and culture..etc...but I DO approve of a bit of thinking and reasoning, rather than just rote reacting, when dealing with serious social issues.


*putting soapbox aside for now* I didn't START this post to rant...it just happened as my own indignation grabbed ahold of me...*wry grin*

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 09:43 AM

That's what you get for watching "West Wing" and calling it "an education in politics".

Everyone knows that the only TV show that gives serious political insight is "The Simpsons".

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: Bill D
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 01:36 PM

well, 'almost' everyone knows. I watched maybe 15 minutes of the Simpsons maybe 10 years ago, and my insight took a serious hit from my aesthetics..*grin* (I have not seen a cartoon show with deep, penetrating insight since "Rocky & Bullwinkle".)

Subject: RE: BS: Miers withdraws
From: John Hardly
Date: 31 Oct 05 - 02:13 PM

For all who have driven by my house and noticed that my 8' Homer-as-Dracula yard ornament had fallen down .... all's well. It was just a fuse. Homer's standing tall again.