Science > Abortion > AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
18 Oct 2005 12:24:15 PM |
| Object: |
AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed in 1989 that she would
"actively support" a constitutional amendment that would ban
abortion...
Miers indicated her support for a "Human Life Amendment" on an April
questionnaire she filled out for Texans United for Life as a candidate
for the Dallas City Council. The document, which has been submitted to
the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first reported today by the
Associated Press.
On that form, she also said she would oppose the use of public funds
for abortion and use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off
of city boards and commissions...
< SNIP
.
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
20 Oct 2005 04:15:42 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed in 1989 that she would
"actively support" a constitutional amendment that would ban
abortion...
Miers indicated her support for a "Human Life Amendment" on an April
questionnaire she filled out for Texans United for Life as a candidate
for the Dallas City Council. The document, which has been submitted to
the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first reported today by the
Associated Press.
On that form, she also said she would oppose the use of public funds
for abortion and use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off
of city boards and commissions...
< SNIP
Most of the above is nonsense.
What you are forgetting is while every President current and in the
past will nominate someone he prefers for the USSC and almost in every
case that person has been someone from their party...the politics end
after nomination.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
20 Oct 2005 07:17:17 AM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
arwe@no.mail.no wrote:
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed in 1989 that she would
"actively support" a constitutional amendment that would ban
abortion...
Miers indicated her support for a "Human Life Amendment" on an April
questionnaire she filled out for Texans United for Life as a candidate
for the Dallas City Council. The document, which has been submitted to
the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first reported today by the
Associated Press.
On that form, she also said she would oppose the use of public funds
for abortion and use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off
of city boards and commissions...
Most of the above is nonsense.
Again wee see heishman think that he can alter reality simply by
denying the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gregory Gadow" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To BanAbortion |
18 Oct 2005 01:54:17 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed in 1989 that she would
"actively support" a constitutional amendment that would ban
abortion...
Miers indicated her support for a "Human Life Amendment" on an April
questionnaire she filled out for Texans United for Life as a candidate
for the Dallas City Council. The document, which has been submitted to
the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first reported today by the
Associated Press.
On that form, she also said she would oppose the use of public funds
for abortion and use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off
of city boards and commissions...
I mean, it's not like conservatives oppose judicial activism or support
the rule of law as layed down in the Constitution.
--
Gregory Gadow
techbear@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking,
which leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy."
- Robert Anton Wilson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Opie" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
18 Oct 2005 12:28:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:24:15 -0500,
arwe@no.mail.no wrote:
<> Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed in
1989 that she would
<> "actively support" a constitutional amendment
that would ban
<> abortion...
<>
<> Miers indicated her support for a "Human Life
Amendment" on an April
<> questionnaire she filled out for Texans United
for Life as a candidate
<> for the Dallas City Council. The document,
which has been submitted to
<> the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first
reported today by the
<> Associated Press.
<>
<> On that form, she also said she would oppose
the use of public funds
<> for abortion and use her influence to keep
"pro-abortion" people off
<> of city boards and commissions...
<>
<> < SNIP
What's the point?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Society" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
21 Oct 2005 02:00:32 AM |
|
|
"Opie" <O_Taylor@MayberryRFD.com> wrote in message
news:i4cal155dq74glrji5p6a0rbkf16n6gkpf@4ax.com...
arwe@no.mail.no cut and pasted...
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed
in 1989 that she would "actively support"
a constitutional amendment that would ban
abortion...
What's the point?
Uh, arwe doesn't believe that anyone who opposes
elective abortions has any political rights?
--
Those who support abortion should first
abort their own lives, else they are
hypocrites.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
20 Oct 2005 12:35:40 PM |
|
|
Opie wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:24:15 -0500,
arwe@no.mail.no wrote:
<> Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed in
1989 that she would
<> "actively support" a constitutional amendment
that would ban
<> abortion...
<>
<> Miers indicated her support for a "Human Life
Amendment" on an April
<> questionnaire she filled out for Texans United
for Life as a candidate
<> for the Dallas City Council. The document,
which has been submitted to
<> the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first
reported today by the
<> Associated Press.
<>
<> On that form, she also said she would oppose
the use of public funds
<> for abortion and use her influence to keep
"pro-abortion" people off
<> of city boards and commissions...
<>
<> < SNIP
What's the point?
One point might be that we 'know' almost nothing about this nominee.
Will she, or won't she? She might be a prolife judge who also strongly
supports affirmative action. Or maybe not. We just don't know.
Apparently, her written responses to Senate questions has placed her
nomination on shakier ground than ever. In part, she refers to the
"proportional representation clause" of the Civil Rights Act. There is
no requirement in the Civil Rights Act.
In other words, we have a nominee whose oily grasp of the law might
slip through her fingers.
It's going to be interesting to see how this unfolds. She might be the
first Supreme Court nominee to get open-flamed grilled by all 18
members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
It'll also be interesting to see how the vote goes, if she makes it
that far. Will the Democrats oppose her or support her? How many
Republicans will oppose her?
At the moment, her chances seem to be fading, but like her own
positions and qualifications, we just don't know.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
18 Oct 2005 01:23:27 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:24:15 -0500, wrote:
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers agreed in 1989 that she would
"actively support" a constitutional amendment that would ban
abortion...
Miers indicated her support for a "Human Life Amendment" on an April
questionnaire she filled out for Texans United for Life as a candidate
for the Dallas City Council. The document, which has been submitted to
the Senate Judiciary Committee, was first reported today by the
Associated Press.
On that form, she also said she would oppose the use of public funds
for abortion and use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off
of city boards and commissions...
That was 16 years ago. What does she have to say about it now?
< SNIP
.
|
|
|
| User: "Brian E. Clark" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
19 Oct 2005 11:17:01 AM |
|
|
In article <7cfal1142ed8mjcjelkgo53mpu913f0fft@4ax.com>, John
Baker said...
On that form, she also said she would oppose the use of public funds
for abortion and use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off
of city boards and commissions...
That was 16 years ago.
What of it? The record of her past deeds and opinions matters
most, not her crafted responses to questions now. (Furthermore,
where do you get the idea that 16 years represents a long time,
for a woman her age?)
You've got it backwards. Unless there is solid, documented
evidence that her position has changed -- her answers at a
confirmation hearing count for nothing in this regard -- we
should assume that she still holds her earlier opinions.
What does she have to say about it now?
That's almost irrelevant. At this point she'll repeat whatever
noncommittal twaddle the GOP writes for her, or she'll refuse to
answer certain questions altogether.
Think of Thomas and Scalia, both of whom provided comforting and
attenuated responses during their confirmation hearings, then
bounced straight back into full-blown conservative activism once
they'd donned their robes. Miers will do the same.
You seem to be suggesting that we ignore what a candidate has
actually said and done, and concentrate instead on the PR-
friendly image of the candidate concocted to win the
appointment. No thank you. That's the same bait-and-switch game
the Republicans have used to great effectiveness in past years,
and people here at home and all over the world are suffering
mightily because so many Americans played along.
A confirmation hearing is supposed to be a vetting process, not
a formality in which the candidate clucks out pleasant cliches.
Such hearings were intended as a brake on presidential power,
not a rubber stamp.
--
-----------
Brian E. Clark
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
20 Oct 2005 03:58:03 AM |
|
|
Brian E. Clark wrote:
That's almost irrelevant. At this point she'll repeat whatever
noncommittal twaddle the GOP writes for her, or she'll refuse to
answer certain questions altogether.
Think of Thomas and Scalia, both of whom provided comforting and
attenuated responses during their confirmation hearings, then
bounced straight back into full-blown conservative activism once
they'd donned their robes. Miers will do the same.
Thats not exactly fair to Thomas. He has a rather conservative judicial
philosophy, but its constiutionally based, hense Thomas's rather
scathing dissent on the Raich decision on medical marijuana. Scalia on
the other hand seems more of an activist dressing up his arguments in
conservative philosophy.
But at least Scalia tries to dress it up. Miers will just vote on 'what
she feels is right' rather than interpreting the law.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
19 Oct 2005 12:25:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 12:17:01 -0400, Brian E. Clark
<reply@newsgroup.only.please> wrote:
In article <7cfal1142ed8mjcjelkgo53mpu913f0fft@4ax.com>, John
Baker said...
On that form, she also said she would oppose the use of public funds
for abortion and use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off
of city boards and commissions...
That was 16 years ago.
What of it? The record of her past deeds and opinions matters
most, not her crafted responses to questions now. (Furthermore,
where do you get the idea that 16 years represents a long time,
for a woman her age?)
I'm as old as she is. 16 years is a long time to me.
You've got it backwards. Unless there is solid, documented
evidence that her position has changed -- her answers at a
confirmation hearing count for nothing in this regard -- we
should assume that she still holds her earlier opinions.
Probably. But not necessarily. My opinion has changed on quite a few
things in the last 16 years.
What does she have to say about it now?
That's almost irrelevant.
Is it?
At this point she'll repeat whatever
noncommittal twaddle the GOP writes for her, or she'll refuse to
answer certain questions altogether.
Think of Thomas and Scalia, both of whom provided comforting and
attenuated responses during their confirmation hearings, then
bounced straight back into full-blown conservative activism once
they'd donned their robes. Miers will do the same.
Perhaps. I know nothing about the woman. That's why I'm asking.
You seem to be suggesting that we ignore what a candidate has
actually said and done, and concentrate instead on the PR-
friendly image of the candidate concocted to win the
appointment.
I wasn't suggesting anything. I was just asking a simple question.
No thank you. That's the same bait-and-switch game
the Republicans have used to great effectiveness in past years,
and people here at home and all over the world are suffering
mightily because so many Americans played along.
A confirmation hearing is supposed to be a vetting process, not
a formality in which the candidate clucks out pleasant cliches.
Such hearings were intended as a brake on presidential power,
not a rubber stamp.
Nice rant. <G>
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: AP: Miers Would "Actively Support" Constitutional Amendment To Ban Abortion |
19 Oct 2005 08:20:26 AM |
|
|
This is not a suprise. The dems need to rally together for once and put
on a full court press against her ASAP. This is what the country gets
for electing a total loser.
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
