As it stands right now, I cannot see myself supporting Harriet Miers. I suppose there are two issues for which I make my stance. One is of course the item that everyone wants to talk about, abortion. And the second is an issue that no one is talking about, the Patriot Act.
Most conservatives want this nominee to have a vocal opinion against abortion. They feel they are entitled to have a Justice on the Court who will uphold their morals and values. The only problem with this is that Bush is not a conservative. He’s a neocon and they are not concerned with abortion, they are concerned with the Patriot Act.
Neocons are against abortion, but it’s not a priority for them. Abortion is the issue for which they win elections. If the abortion issue is silenced, then so are their campaigns. If the Supreme Court strikes down Roe, what issues will they run on? It won’t be fiscal responsibility. It won’t be smaller government. The gay marriage issue isn’t large enough to sustain an entire campaign cycle. Abortion is their cause and the Patriot Act is their governance.
It’s almost safe to say that parts of Roe will be struck down by the new court. And from someone who thinks the abortion issue is way out of hand and doesn’t entirely agree with the argument that abortion is only a women’s issue; I must admit that the Patriot Act is something that affects us all.
I see Miers as a crony and someone who will side with the Bush government to uphold the Patriot Act. I will try to have more on this later, because I’m sure my sidestepping the whole abortion issue will present many questions. It’s not that I’m trying to downplay the rights of women, because I’m not. I’m saying that the Bush government is not concerned with abortion and that their real motive is the Patriot Act. I think the neocons do an excellent job of exploiting the abortion debate while using it as a cover for their priorities, and this is one case in point.
10.04.2005
Priorities
Posted by Chris at 1:15 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I was sure I would find a post about Miers here today...you don't disappoint...;-)
I try not to :)
I'm just real cool to her appointment right now. That could change tomorrow, but right now I would have to say that I'm not in favor of Miers. Still, though, I do think she will be approved by the senate; but not by Thanksgiving.
Thanks for reading. You don't disappoint either.
I am not too pleased with this nomination either and doubt she will follow in the footsteps of Souter, O'Connor or Kennedy either.
Her association to that independent but thorougly conservative church in Dallas scares me, and there are some (including the priest at that parish) vouching for her "born again" credentials. That really scares me, and until I hear otherwise at the hearings I doubt I could get behind this nominee as well.
She is in one way much worse than Roberts. Mr. Roberts is familiar with the Supreme Court, having argued before it on numerous occasions. He is an intellectual heavy-weight who was forced to anticipate questions that would come his way, and so he was forced to think like a Supreme Court justice.
I don't think Harriet Miers was forced to think like a friend on the Senate Judiciary Committee. On that I could be wrong and we will see at the hearings but she is nowhere near Chief Justice Roberts intellectually.
There are in my opinion only three good things to say about this pick:
1. The president decided against a major political fight, thereby saving us from another filibuster showdown.
2. She has some, albeit limited experience in the political institutions.
3. She reinforces the unofficial rule in preserving diversity on the court.
Other than that there is little to say in her favor and given that she is replacing a moderate swing justice whose rulings on religious establishment, war combatant detention, and civil rights suggests a commitment to fairness and equality, I doubt I could get behind her nomination.
"Neocons are against abortion, but it’s not a priority for them. Abortion is the issue for which they win elections. If the abortion issue is silenced, then so are their campaigns. If the Supreme Court strikes down Roe, what issues will they run on?"
Great point.
Good post.
We discussed this earlier MJ. A 'crony' is not a 'crony' if they are qualified for the job. If you want to talk about real cronies let's talk about people like Madeline Albright, Sandy Berger and Mac McLarty.
Abortion. I'll never understand why this is THE issue for the Left. How could killing babies ever be considered to be acceptable?
Serious constitutional scholars believe that Roe V. Wade is bad law and unconstitutional. But it's the law of the land and it will stay that way. Frankly, I don't view it as a political issue anyway. It's a moral issue. But the Left, playing to a radical constituency, uses it as a rallying cry every two and four years.
Being concerned about civil liberties is a valid concern. But the reality is that the Patriot Act is THE reason that the United States hasn't been attacked again. For your safety and mine, we both had better pray that the Patriot Act stays intact.
Historically presidents appoint cronies; in this case he appointed an unqualified crony. This position requires brilliance and so far from what I have read, and granted there is not much out there about her, she has not exhibited any overt or at least public signs of a brilliant mind. She will tow the line as far as I can see.
By appointing this under qualified born again crony one has pretty much guaranteed the survival of the patriot act .She isn't qualified by a long shot not matter how many times Bush tries to tell us she is brilliant. Brilliant minds belong on this court.
Believe me there are many people who think they are against abortion until they are put in that spot and all of a sudden and their anti abortion right to life stance changes considerably. It is about the right to choose.
Abortion is much more an issue for the right as I see it.
I don’t think Roe v Wade will go down though. I can’t see this being worth a bother to them at this point.
I don’t believe for one minute the patriot act is protecting us and everyone should be concerned about their civil liberties.
Nice post MJ.
Heretic, once again you say it better than me. I don't think you have written anything that I can possible disagree with. The only thing that I would add to your list of three is maybe Miers' support for equal rights including maybe a personal support for gay marriage. But I'm not sure that she is so "pro-gay." Sorry for the term there, I know it's not flattering. But my brain isn't working all that great right now. Thanks for reading.
James, thanks for picking up on that. That paragraph is a point that I make over and over again every day at work. Thanks for reading.
Kent, good to see you around. I appreciate your visit. A crony is a crony no matter the definition or the party. You have your cronies and I have mine. When I think of cronies, Mike Brown of FEMA is the first that comes to mind. But you are right, Clinton was an administration of cronies. I don't think Bush is any different.
It's not just the left that uses the abortion issue. The right has politicized way more. I do disagree with you about that. I think killing any innocent is wrong, babies or not. And that goes for dropping bombs on them too.
There are parts of the Patriot Act that I do agree with. But the document as a whole I disagree with. Thanks for reading.
Alice, you are correct. Until I'm in a certain situation I have no clue how I would react. There are cases in which abortion must be an option. But abortion as a form of birth control I am against. I don't think the abortion debate gets a fair review in this country, mainly because it is so politicized. And to add another personal twist to the debate, I don't think abortion is only a women's issue, or merely a woman's rights issue. Somewhere the man has to come into play, especially if for the next 18 years the male will be ordered by a court of law as responsible for the child. I'm probably not making any sense here, cause I'm getting way off topic. Thanks for reading Alice.
Good post.
I would first like to ask how do we know the Patriot Act is stopping the terrorists? Because the government tells us? The same government that told us that wanted to use terrorism in America and blame it on the Cubans in the 60's (Northwoods memo) or is believed to have started fire to their own ship to start the Spanish American War. It is the nature of governments to lie it is important for us to think for ourselves.
On the subject, the Supreme Court does not have the Constitutional authority to make the law only the legislative branch does so I will not support anyone Bush or anyone else nominates. It is almost funny if it wasn't so sad but the Supreme Court gave themselves this power in I believe 1803. And since nothing is mentioned in the Constituion abortion is an issue in which the states decide. (Tenth amendment.)
Oh I was referring to Justice O'Connor, not Miers to make a point about a potential shift in the balance on the court, nor do I want to associate an automatic pro gay marriage vote with being a fair judge.
While i support gay marriage I do believe there are people on the other side of this issue who nevertheless are or try to be fair towards those of us on the other side of the sexual divide.
Your point on abortion being the only issue - I'm not sure about that. If abortion goes, the Pledge of allegiance, flag burning, pornography, and gay sex still stand as effective fear-mongering non-issues to get the conservative base riled up.
Did I mention school prayer yet?
Whatever. That's besides the point.
Very good girl.
If she does have the same judicial philosophy of Limbaugh, and I suppose that of Bush, then I cannot support her nomination. Nor do I see many senator's supporting her either.
I believe Roe should be left alone and I believe the current Court would uphold civil unions. Someone with a lot more Supreme Court thinking, such as Roberts, would suffice.
Heretic, I agree that the neocons would eventually moveon to other issues, but not immediately. Right now, abortion is their hot-topic. It is what motivates the base. I agree school prayer and God in general does as well, but that whole formation of a solid base is still years away. The abortion issue has had 25 years or more of a strong movement. Right now it's their cause, and that's evident with their outcry for Bush's nominee.
Jake, ahhh judicial review.....I'll leave that up to the Heretic. I'm no Constitutional scholar. But very good point.
Post a Comment