Second Thoughts!!
Some very serious thoughts here…
Second Thoughts Anyone?
by Gary Bauer, President, American Values
My friends, I would rather write about anything else than bring up Harriet Miers again. But with each passing day the information becomes more and more troubling. At some point, those who feel they should support Harriet Miers because they trust the White House have got to step back and take another look. At some point, the president has got to revisit this. And I think that point is now here.
For weeks, I have objected to the "stealth strategy" of nominating someone without a clear record, who has not written or said one word about Roe v. Wade or any of the other important constitutional issues of our time. In the past, this failed strategy has been meant to fool liberals. But it now appears as if conservatives are the ones being fooled.In July of 1993, Miers gave a speech entitled, "Women and Courage." She offered glowing praise for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ascension to the Supreme Court and Janet Reno's appointment as the first female attorney general. Not many conservatives were excited by either fact.
According to The Washington Post, Miers "also showed sympathy for feminist causes…urging her audience to support female candidates. She recited a list of national and state female leaders that crossed the political spectrum, including Gloria Steinem, then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison." If I were Senator Hutchison, I would object to being lumped in with Clinton and Steinem! But what conservative would hold up Hillary as an example of progress for women? Unfortunately, it gets worse.
A few months before, Miers addressed the Executive Women of Dallas. (Remember, this more than a decade after her religious conversion and four years after she filled out a pro-life questionnaire.) Here is what she said about abortion: "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."
Notice how she described the issue: "criminalize" versus "guarantee the freedom of women." The pro-life side never talks about "criminalizing abortion." We don't want to send women to jail. That is how Hillary would define the issue. But, let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she was just "playing devil's advocate" and offered an extreme example. That doesn't explain the following statement, and I am quoting from her speech again: "The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes sense."
To be clear, "self-determination" is the legal underpinning of the Left's argument for not only abortion, but also euthanasia and same-sex "marriage."Finally, there was this line, "Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago. Remembering that fact appears to offer the most effective solutions to these problems..."
Who normally says this kind of stuff?
The folks trying to legalize same-sex "marriage," take "under God" out of Pledge, and ban the Ten Commandments from public view. All of our laws are based on morality. From murder to insider stock trading, almost all law is based on the Ten Commandments or some concept of right and wrong. When millions of "values voters" went into their voting booths and reelected George W. Bush and sent more conservatives to the United States Senate, I don't think they had in mind putting someone on the Supreme Court who thought legislating morality was a mistake!
If conservatives at all levels - including those in the Senate - can't stop for a second and reevaluate their loyalties, then we run the risk of losing the chance to make the Supreme Court pro-family and pro-life for the next 20 years.My friends, this is not meant to be a personal attack on Harriet Miers. Not at all. I am sure she is a decent woman, and I think she has served President Bush very well as his personal attorney during his tenure as governor of Texas and at the White House - always looking out for her client's best interests, as any good, able attorney would.
Unfortunately, reading her own words, I am not convinced that Harriet Miers shares the president's conservative philosophy, and I believe her nomination should be withdrawn. As Robert Bork said, it is a disaster on every level.On the grounds of competence, there was at least one glaring constitutional error on her questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the "proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause."
There is no such requirement. That statement and others led Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, no friend of conservatives, to say that Miss Miers needed a "crash course in constitutional law." Other senators have echoed that sentiment.
On the grounds of judicial philosophy, I would also add that her statements on the rule of precedent are deeply troubling. In her questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miers wrote,"…whether the prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests militate against overruling."
To me, that reads like a justification for upholding Roe v. Wade and the continued destruction of one million innocent children a year.Let me say something in defense of the president. I don't believe he knew about the speeches. He told us he had not discussed abortion with her and he did not run for governor of Texas until a year after she gave these speeches.
But now that these things are coming to light, this is a perfect opportunity for the president to say he must withdraw the nomination and appoint someone who clearly shares his values and conservative judicial philosophy.
Second Thoughts Anyone?
by Gary Bauer, President, American Values
My friends, I would rather write about anything else than bring up Harriet Miers again. But with each passing day the information becomes more and more troubling. At some point, those who feel they should support Harriet Miers because they trust the White House have got to step back and take another look. At some point, the president has got to revisit this. And I think that point is now here.
For weeks, I have objected to the "stealth strategy" of nominating someone without a clear record, who has not written or said one word about Roe v. Wade or any of the other important constitutional issues of our time. In the past, this failed strategy has been meant to fool liberals. But it now appears as if conservatives are the ones being fooled.In July of 1993, Miers gave a speech entitled, "Women and Courage." She offered glowing praise for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's ascension to the Supreme Court and Janet Reno's appointment as the first female attorney general. Not many conservatives were excited by either fact.
According to The Washington Post, Miers "also showed sympathy for feminist causes…urging her audience to support female candidates. She recited a list of national and state female leaders that crossed the political spectrum, including Gloria Steinem, then First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison." If I were Senator Hutchison, I would object to being lumped in with Clinton and Steinem! But what conservative would hold up Hillary as an example of progress for women? Unfortunately, it gets worse.
A few months before, Miers addressed the Executive Women of Dallas. (Remember, this more than a decade after her religious conversion and four years after she filled out a pro-life questionnaire.) Here is what she said about abortion: "The ongoing debate continues surrounding the attempt to once again criminalize abortions or to once and for all guarantee the freedom of the individual women's right to decide for herself whether she will have an abortion."
Notice how she described the issue: "criminalize" versus "guarantee the freedom of women." The pro-life side never talks about "criminalizing abortion." We don't want to send women to jail. That is how Hillary would define the issue. But, let's give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she was just "playing devil's advocate" and offered an extreme example. That doesn't explain the following statement, and I am quoting from her speech again: "The underlying theme in most of these cases is the insistence of more self-determination. And the more I think about these issues, the more self-determination makes sense."
To be clear, "self-determination" is the legal underpinning of the Left's argument for not only abortion, but also euthanasia and same-sex "marriage."Finally, there was this line, "Legislating religion or morality we gave up on a long time ago. Remembering that fact appears to offer the most effective solutions to these problems..."
Who normally says this kind of stuff?
The folks trying to legalize same-sex "marriage," take "under God" out of Pledge, and ban the Ten Commandments from public view. All of our laws are based on morality. From murder to insider stock trading, almost all law is based on the Ten Commandments or some concept of right and wrong. When millions of "values voters" went into their voting booths and reelected George W. Bush and sent more conservatives to the United States Senate, I don't think they had in mind putting someone on the Supreme Court who thought legislating morality was a mistake!
If conservatives at all levels - including those in the Senate - can't stop for a second and reevaluate their loyalties, then we run the risk of losing the chance to make the Supreme Court pro-family and pro-life for the next 20 years.My friends, this is not meant to be a personal attack on Harriet Miers. Not at all. I am sure she is a decent woman, and I think she has served President Bush very well as his personal attorney during his tenure as governor of Texas and at the White House - always looking out for her client's best interests, as any good, able attorney would.
Unfortunately, reading her own words, I am not convinced that Harriet Miers shares the president's conservative philosophy, and I believe her nomination should be withdrawn. As Robert Bork said, it is a disaster on every level.On the grounds of competence, there was at least one glaring constitutional error on her questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the "proportional representation requirement of the Equal Protection Clause."
There is no such requirement. That statement and others led Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter, no friend of conservatives, to say that Miss Miers needed a "crash course in constitutional law." Other senators have echoed that sentiment.
On the grounds of judicial philosophy, I would also add that her statements on the rule of precedent are deeply troubling. In her questionnaire to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Miers wrote,"…whether the prior decision is wrong is only the beginning of the inquiry. The court must also consider other factors, such as whether the prior decision has proven unworkable, whether developments in the law have undermined the precedent, and whether legitimate reliance interests militate against overruling."
To me, that reads like a justification for upholding Roe v. Wade and the continued destruction of one million innocent children a year.Let me say something in defense of the president. I don't believe he knew about the speeches. He told us he had not discussed abortion with her and he did not run for governor of Texas until a year after she gave these speeches.
But now that these things are coming to light, this is a perfect opportunity for the president to say he must withdraw the nomination and appoint someone who clearly shares his values and conservative judicial philosophy.
posted by Jason at 10/26/2005 05:30:00 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home