... but this Miers nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court has me to the point of needing to post the following.
Issues of import: abortion (and it irritates me that so many people only mention Roe v. Wade, but never mention Doe v. Bolton), including partial-birth abortion, parental notification for minors, rights of the unborn’s father, and embryonic stem cell research (which gets to the heart of the issue re: personhood). In addition: euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, homosexual marriage, affirmative action, private property rights & imminent domain (the Kelo case), right to bear arms (2nd amendment), the so-called “separation between church and state”, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform debacle, the improper citing of international laws to supercede the Constitution. There are other issues as well.
It’s not just one issue for me…. it’s the whole slew of issues that matter to me. And I want to be assured (not with a simple “trust me” by one politician) that ANY potential SCOTUS or Federal Appeals Court nominee has a long-standing, well-reasoned and well-articulated judicial philosophy that would lead me to believe that their future decisions on these types of issues squares up with my own position on these same issues. There are opposing judicial and legal philosophies with the Federalist Society one end and the ALCU and it’s ilk on the other. How does any nominee stand up to either of these philosophies?
With individuals like Luttig, Alito, Pryor, Estrada, Garza, JRB, Owens, E. Jones, there is a track record… a written record of previous rulings and other writings from which can be gleaned a particular judicial philosophy to determine not just how someone will most likely rule on a given issue, but more importantly how that person thinks and reasons (wisdom and discernment). There is little or no written record for Miers on these crucial issues. And what little has been forthcoming so far has been conflicting at best, and in some cases very disturbing. Senate hearings will produce nothing more than parsed and well-chosen words from a nominee (any nominee) unless he/she is too stupid to know any better. No track record to peruse and examine? No need to nominate. Period. End of story. Don’t care about the nominee’s gender, or ethnicity, or educational background, or religious persuasion, nor platitudes from friends and family. Just the facts, ma’am!
Ten straight years of giving the Republicans a majority in Congress. The last five years of which with a Republican President. There is NO guarantee that between now and January 19th, 2009, any more SCOTUS members will retire or pass away. With every single opening that occurs, each and every nominee MUST (I repeat, MUST) be to the right of O’Connor and Kennedy on these crucial issues. Senate Republicans don’t want to fight for these sort of nominees? TOUGH! That’s their job. Deal with it, Mr. Spector, Mr. Graham, Mr. Hagel, Mr. Frist, et al. If they’re not willing to do their job, then what’s the point of continuing to vote them (or any other Republican) into office? I'm beholden to my conservative principles, not to the Republican Party.
I’ve supported Bush through the GWOT as well as many, many other issues. But I’ve grown very weary of his (and the Congressional Republicans', I might add) continued stubbornness on three key issues:
• Immigration/National Borders (forget the kowtowing to Mexico, and any amnesty ideas, just pass HR3938 co-sponsored by J.D. Hayworth or anything to the political right of that bill, and then sign it Mr. President),
• Federal Spending (don’t care about percentage of GDP, the national debt is over $6 trillion… I want federal spending for each of the next five years to be LESS then each previous year… with NO tax increases. Don’t know what to cut? Tough! That’s your job, Mr. Congressman. Start with the multi-million dollar pork-barrel Alaskan bridge to a tiny island with only 50 residents, and continue from there. It’s not that hard for figure out. Congress refuses and continues to spend, spend, spend? Veto the bills, Mr. President. Don’t want to do it? Tough! That’s your job.),
• And now the Miers nomination (sorry, Charlie... it's blatantly obvious that she ain't even close to being qualified to sit on the highest court in the land, so don't even try to convince me otherwise).
This link to CWFA is one of the most cogent, detailed and reasoned expression of my concerns about Miers and the entire process of nominating and confirming justices to the federal benches.
It's definitely worth reading!
No comments:
Post a Comment