Let US Be Clear: Regarding Miers...
I don’t often do this, and I discourage it usually, but in this case I’ll make an exception. It has come to my attention that a particular commenter–who will remain nameless here–has misunderstood our beef with the nomination of Harriet Miers. I received word from Sabrina tonight that is in the middle of an ongoing debate in the comments on this issue. So, I’ll clarify it so everyone can understand it.
We, at the Asylum, stand opposed to the nomination of Harriet Miers. This is not a total opposition to her, but one that will stand until the hearings are conducted. We have questions regarding her, and as yet the White House has failed to answer any of them. We’re hoping some smart senators will be asking them; this especially on the heels of the division within the party over the nominee. Reassure us, gentlemen and madam, that she’s right for the job.
The commenter seems to be focused on Roe; appropo as I did post up the statements from Dr. James Dobson regarding Miers beliefs regarding abortion. Here’s the problem with the logic of accusing us it’s our primary focus in the Miers nomination: It never has been our focus. Our focus has been regarding her judicial philosophy. Anyone can go back over the last two weeks worth of posts to see this.
We have questions regarding how this woman will interpret the Constitution. We dislike activists–be they conservative or liberal. We prefer that jurists on the high court rule on matters, and base that ruling in the law, not on penumbras they create. Roe is, indeed, a part of our problem with the court’s antics over the last fifty years, or so. But it isn’t the focus.
Let’s look at a couple of other issues regarding the court in recent years. What’s her stance on eminent domain? Does the government have the literal power–be they state or federal–to sweep in and take my home? The Kelo decision focused on a misinterpretation of the Takings Clause. That was where they [the justices] substituted "public use" for "public good." I’d like to think that if my home and the property it sat on was needed to build a freeway, a school, or a fire station that I’d be compensated, justly; this is as the Takings Clause states. I’d like to be able to tell a developer to get stuffed if he wants my property for a shopping mall, and not have them file suit in court to throw me out of my home.
How about affirmative action? I believe both are discriminatory, and I believe I’m supported in the Constitution on that issue. Both extend privileges to "minorities" based on race, color, and gender; benefits that I myself am not allowed to take. It’s been deemed that I’ve already reaped the benefits through the subjugation of these people. Um, I haven’t. Really. Yet, through both programs I’m told to shut up and accept them for slights I had nothing to do with. The court has ruled that affirmative action stands, as is, for Michigan Law School (in Grutter).
Roe is but a piece of her philosophy that I’d like probed, but direct cases can’t be questioned. They won't be answered, and can't be under legal ethics. Instead, I’d like to know if she truly believes we have an all encompassing right to privacy, as decided in Griswold? I never believed that, and the Constitution doesn’t state that. The Fourth Amendment deals with illegal search and seizure carried out by the government. To cite this in Roe was foolish, at best, as there’s no searching and/or seizure by the government involved in the act. So, I fail to see the logic. To argue it from a point of jurisprudence would take a full post in and of itself. I’ve done a few of those, and if the commenter would care to peruse them, they’re in our archives. (To be exact, 16 September of this year was the latest. The link is below.)
http://sydandvaughn.blogspot.com/2005/09/one-of-my-favorite-subjects.htm
We’d like to know where she stands on a variety of issues, but the primary one is her judicial philosophy. Will she abide by the law, as it is written and understood, or will she act like activists of the past, and rule based on assumed shadows and penumbras? We would hope she wouldn’t, but the same was assumed by O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy. Quickly, we were disappointed in these three. I’d hate to be disappointed in Miers.
And while it’s all well and good that some do support her for a number of reasons (Republican Jen being one of them, as she posted today on her site. Link below) we do have our concerns. Do they rest solely on Roe? Not at all. We have other concerns that come before Roe; long before it. I stated not too long ago that I doubt if Roe will be overturned in my lifetime, and I can’t see it going down in Marcie’s lifetime. So, until it is overturned, we live with it. On a personal side, I find it deplorable. On a legal side, I find it, and the logic behind Roe–in addition to the decision itself–reprehensible.
http://journals.aol.com/republicanjen/RepublicanJen/entries/1667
But this woman will be on the court for the next twenty, or so, years. I want to make sure she’s going to stick the right interpretation of the Constitution. I despised the decision in Kelo, and I’d hate to see yet another right stripped away on a whim, which is what I gauge Kelo to be based on. It was anything but solid, sound jurisprudence.
Publius II
I don’t often do this, and I discourage it usually, but in this case I’ll make an exception. It has come to my attention that a particular commenter–who will remain nameless here–has misunderstood our beef with the nomination of Harriet Miers. I received word from Sabrina tonight that is in the middle of an ongoing debate in the comments on this issue. So, I’ll clarify it so everyone can understand it.
We, at the Asylum, stand opposed to the nomination of Harriet Miers. This is not a total opposition to her, but one that will stand until the hearings are conducted. We have questions regarding her, and as yet the White House has failed to answer any of them. We’re hoping some smart senators will be asking them; this especially on the heels of the division within the party over the nominee. Reassure us, gentlemen and madam, that she’s right for the job.
The commenter seems to be focused on Roe; appropo as I did post up the statements from Dr. James Dobson regarding Miers beliefs regarding abortion. Here’s the problem with the logic of accusing us it’s our primary focus in the Miers nomination: It never has been our focus. Our focus has been regarding her judicial philosophy. Anyone can go back over the last two weeks worth of posts to see this.
We have questions regarding how this woman will interpret the Constitution. We dislike activists–be they conservative or liberal. We prefer that jurists on the high court rule on matters, and base that ruling in the law, not on penumbras they create. Roe is, indeed, a part of our problem with the court’s antics over the last fifty years, or so. But it isn’t the focus.
Let’s look at a couple of other issues regarding the court in recent years. What’s her stance on eminent domain? Does the government have the literal power–be they state or federal–to sweep in and take my home? The Kelo decision focused on a misinterpretation of the Takings Clause. That was where they [the justices] substituted "public use" for "public good." I’d like to think that if my home and the property it sat on was needed to build a freeway, a school, or a fire station that I’d be compensated, justly; this is as the Takings Clause states. I’d like to be able to tell a developer to get stuffed if he wants my property for a shopping mall, and not have them file suit in court to throw me out of my home.
How about affirmative action? I believe both are discriminatory, and I believe I’m supported in the Constitution on that issue. Both extend privileges to "minorities" based on race, color, and gender; benefits that I myself am not allowed to take. It’s been deemed that I’ve already reaped the benefits through the subjugation of these people. Um, I haven’t. Really. Yet, through both programs I’m told to shut up and accept them for slights I had nothing to do with. The court has ruled that affirmative action stands, as is, for Michigan Law School (in Grutter).
Roe is but a piece of her philosophy that I’d like probed, but direct cases can’t be questioned. They won't be answered, and can't be under legal ethics. Instead, I’d like to know if she truly believes we have an all encompassing right to privacy, as decided in Griswold? I never believed that, and the Constitution doesn’t state that. The Fourth Amendment deals with illegal search and seizure carried out by the government. To cite this in Roe was foolish, at best, as there’s no searching and/or seizure by the government involved in the act. So, I fail to see the logic. To argue it from a point of jurisprudence would take a full post in and of itself. I’ve done a few of those, and if the commenter would care to peruse them, they’re in our archives. (To be exact, 16 September of this year was the latest. The link is below.)
http://sydandvaughn.blogspot.com/2005/09/one-of-my-favorite-subjects.htm
We’d like to know where she stands on a variety of issues, but the primary one is her judicial philosophy. Will she abide by the law, as it is written and understood, or will she act like activists of the past, and rule based on assumed shadows and penumbras? We would hope she wouldn’t, but the same was assumed by O’Connor, Souter, and Kennedy. Quickly, we were disappointed in these three. I’d hate to be disappointed in Miers.
And while it’s all well and good that some do support her for a number of reasons (Republican Jen being one of them, as she posted today on her site. Link below) we do have our concerns. Do they rest solely on Roe? Not at all. We have other concerns that come before Roe; long before it. I stated not too long ago that I doubt if Roe will be overturned in my lifetime, and I can’t see it going down in Marcie’s lifetime. So, until it is overturned, we live with it. On a personal side, I find it deplorable. On a legal side, I find it, and the logic behind Roe–in addition to the decision itself–reprehensible.
http://journals.aol.com/republicanjen/RepublicanJen/entries/1667
But this woman will be on the court for the next twenty, or so, years. I want to make sure she’s going to stick the right interpretation of the Constitution. I despised the decision in Kelo, and I’d hate to see yet another right stripped away on a whim, which is what I gauge Kelo to be based on. It was anything but solid, sound jurisprudence.
Publius II
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:38 PM
2 Comments:
You state my position more clearly than I do. I also oppose the nomination and the biggest factor against my opposition is that the President has a constitutional right to nominate anyone he desires. I also have a right to disagree but his right trumps mine. I anxiously wait for the hearings to evaluate her demeanor and what she has to say. Rawriter
Yes, Roe isn't the only subject to worry about. There are plenty of other cases where the court has written bad law.
Post a Comment
<< Home