I agree with you that Ms. Miers might not be pro-life, and that's the critical issue to me. I'm also curious about the possiblity that she's a lesbian, and maybe a closet lesbian. It has been popular to suspect single-for-life women from her generation of closet lesbianism. Gay marriage?
I'm offended by the President's nomination. We can debate his intelligence, but he must be aware of the insult. I don't mind him choosing her as Counsel to the President based on his personal experience, but a Supreme Court nominee requires more than one good reference.
My opinion is that President Bush feels he is one of God's most important agents on Earth. I also think he's concerned about God being removed from government. He can only feel secure by nominating someone he personally trusts to uphold God-fearing values at the Supreme Court level. Even choosing a qualified candidate who calls himself a christian will not satisfy the President. He needs to know this nominee personally.
I couldn't even begin (nor do I think I should) speculate on the first point.
Insulting. Yup. Pretty much a slap in the face if ever ther was one. Patterico has a hilarious post on this.
Good hypothesis on Bush. I hadn't considered that the nomination might be motivated by some sort of a religious conviction. If it is it is a very strange mix of religion that has a probable pro-choice nominee put up for the SCOTUS.
Paul:
Congrats on the front page link from Real Clear Politics !!!!!!!!!
Hey I got crucified at Polipundit for trying to have a practical discussion on how long she could serve on the court. They rebutted me with, "mom is 91."
Well, it turns out the family health history is bad. Sister dead at 70. Her dad had a stroke at an early age. I just found that link on family health at confirmthem.
http://www.gainesville.com/apps/...09010/1117/
news
Paul,
Am I not seeing something here. Over at PP, they are arguing that this was the best nominee that Bush could get approved. That tells me Bush is weak. Then the exact some posters argue, if the Senate rejects the nominee there will be hell to pay the Senator. That implies strength. Multiple posters are doing it along with the main bloggers.
Is that not an illogical combination for an argument ?
Paul,
One more idea to run by you. I am looking at this in the form of a military risk matrix.
The Republican Senate backed "trust me" Roberts BUT he had a "resume" they relied on. If he votes the "wrong way" the Senators have cover.
IF the Republican Senate backs "trust me" Miers, relying solely on the word of Bush, if she votes the "wrong" way, the Senators have ZERO cover and they cook the entire party.
It looks to me like the risk is way too high. yes/no
Hiya, Paul.
I didn't so much use Miers' religion to suspect her of being pro-life. I more relied on the stance she took wrt the ABA.
Not sure if this makes her pro-life per se, but it suggested to me that she recognizes that the legal position to take is a neutral one -- which, coupled with her relationship with Bush and his assurances to his "base" -- led me to make the inference.
At the very least, I find it suggestive that, as a Justice, she might vote to overturn Roe on the basis that it is bad law.
Oak,
Oh, well. I e-mailed DJ and PP with a link to this article.
We already tried the "Trust Me" approach. That's how we got Casey and Carhart. No more "Trust Me" for me, especially not from a Bush.
You are absolutely right on the risk analysis. The GOP, Hugh Hewitt, Dobson, et al. will be flamed if we proceed on "Trust Me" and Miers does what in all probability she will do. Now with the blogosphere we have a much longer institutional memory. These guys will all get burned. Hugh Hewitt is one of the most vulnerable (also e-mailed him with a warning to this effect).
This is a historic DP (decision point) in history of US politics. It will change many things for the foreseeable future (and we were here on the right side of the fight).
Well done Paul. ... "Birds of a Feather" is right on the money.
I don't agree that because Miers hangs out with pro-choice women and Bush has pro-choice women around him suggests she's pro-choice. My father is conservative and so is a great friend of mine. Does that mean I'm conservative? No, it doesn't. I'm a moderate, who holds more liberal than conservative views. I think a logical argument that builds on her religious affiliation and fundamentalist faith is a more likely determinant of what steers Miers' star- not who she shops for shoes with.
Hey Paul;
PoliPundit himself just flipped if you did not go over there lately.
The debate in the threads is still prtty said. I posted that a filibusters was a theoretical possibility if 41, other than the gang of 14 agreed. I then put in bold letters, "I DO NOT CONDONE THIS."
Guess what ? I still got flamed. "For those (like Oak) counting on a witches alliance of hard liberals and hard conservatives?" The thread commenter could not get beyond emotion and read my BOLD print disclosure.
You know what, I am glad we had this moment. BOTH of us have had it at different times. We do not carry water without question. I was afraid I was getting to the point. Maybe I do drink Kool Aid, but at least it is unsweetened.
Chris,
You raise an obvious objection.
Miers was not brought on board by accident. It is statistically extremely improbable that even a couple pro-choice women are close to the President without this being some criteria of association (only 29% of GOP are pro-choice by one poll, much less when we consider evangelicals in the mix and miniscule when we sample more than 2 from the Bush circle.) Also, remember that these are the halls of power. Positions on these issues are not generally by random (so it is not quite like your situation).
The question is really, “How does such an unlikely group come together is not by design?”
If you like, I could write a post on this. I appreciate you comments and look forward to your response.
Bravo to Polipudit. Poli has a well thought out piece in opposition to Miers that I think all should read.
Thanks Oak. This has been another productive discussion (and I have to believe that there is a correlation between the two, i.e. once the brains are in gear good does come from productive debate, if not instantly than over time).
Paul, my understanding of your comment is that it is therefore statistically probable that the President himself is pro-choice. I'm sure you don't think that do you? IMO, I think Bush may be a moderate, or that he walks a fine line, regardless of his culture of life comments, to keep voters guessing and extreme elements of his "base" rallied. Bush doesn't need his base to win re-election, but his 2006 nominees do. I'm starting to believe more and more that Bush simply used the right to get elected, including all his talk of one man one woman= marriage. I think Miers is a long time friend and that Bush rewards loyalty. He prizes it and rewards it. That said, her religious convictions and sit ins at pro life events tell me she'll vote to overturn Roe.
By nominees I mean potential senate and house Rep. challengers to Dem seats.
Chris,
Actually, you nailed it. Politics are politics but actions initiated voluntarily and without the prospect of reward are something else.
Bush is not pro-life in the political sense of the word. Besides from going along with his constituent's demands, he has taken no initiative except those that could be considered pro-choice (the aborted Gonzales nomination). He could have articulated a pro-life rationale and has not throughout his term as President.
He may be "pro-life" personally, but that is equivalent to being effectively pro-abortion for a person in the position to make policy. The laws induce millions to abort rather than abstain or practice some other form of personal responsibility. Those abortions are due to policy as we have seen with the huge increase in abortions after Roe.
There are other measures that he could take that all could agree on to reduce abortions. In this respect also he has done squat specifically.
Thanks for the post... very well reasoned and presented.
Good food for thought...
Thanks
I saw a funny cartoon today that Bush likes her because of her religious views....she thinks Bush is God.
I don't understand why some Christians get so worked up about Roe v Wade. Abortions will continue if they are legal or not. The government cannot control individual sinners. If it could, we could just pass laws and Christ would arrive tomorrow.
The reality is that government, generically, is the biggest sinner in the world. It encourages death and destruction, trains for war, etc. And, it passes on Satan's lies from one generation to the next. The biggest butchers in history were heads of government. Bush is no exception, but like Washington and Lincoln, he could not resist the power to kill others who fail to meet his moral standard.
Is your post any different? The desire to use the law to persecute sinners is what the stone throwers and the Pharisees did. Fear, pride and greed make people blind, and that is the way of the Devil.
If we want to stop abortions, then we need to put mercy into our politics, not justice. Faith, not fear. Humility, not pride.
As long as children start the day pledging to an inanimate object (the flag) then the paganism of Satan and the Religion of Government will continue to have the upper hand. Christ is waiting on us.
Peace,
Steve
www.behappyandfree.com
Steve,
While much of what you say is true, nations organized and overseen by governments also are the cure for these butchers.
Also, I believe that you are exactly right in your suggestion on how to ameliorate the plague of abortions--and our government has done so little as it has profited both parties to play the politics of demagoguery.
While I believe there is a strong reason for democracies to outlaw abortion as it undermines the intrinsic sovereignty of the individual and is incompatible with the rule of equality, there is also the religious reasons that you specifically asked about.
Peace Over
Commenting by HaloScan
