Okay...pretty much the only thing I know about this woman is that she's pro-choice (an automatic loss of points in my book). Not a lot to go on...
What does everyone else think?
EDIT: After digging a little deeper, I've come to the conclusion that her stance on abortion isn't quite solid yet; I'll have to wait and see before I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not this woman is pro-choice.
Aside from that, I'm still not sure where she stands.
(raises Miers' point level back to 0)
After digging a little deeper, I've come to the conclusion that her stance on abortion isn't quite solid yet; I'll have to wait and see before I KNOW beyond a shadow of a doubt whether or not this woman is pro-choice.
You make it sound as though standing up for women's rights is a crime.
Quote:
You make it sound as though standing up for women's rights is a crime.
Of course it is, what's wrong with you? 
Quote:
You make it sound as though standing up for women's rights is a crime.
In my opinion, there is NO right to an abortion, Roe vs. Wade be hanged.
The only time I'd ever agree to an abortion is if the mother's life was in mortal danger, AND if there was no way to save the child's life.
My way of looking at is this: we've already had our time on Earth. The baby has had no time at all. Therefore, the baby has greater priority than the mother.
Abortion? A right of the mother to end the life of the human she carries? Might as well legalize murder while we're at it.
I'm not even going to get into this. Mostly because I'm not in the mood, but also in large part because I can't stop laughing.
Quote:
The only time I'd ever agree to an abortion is if the mother's life was in mortal danger, AND if there was no way to save the child's life.
What about a woman with her rapist's baby?
I'm not taking sides here, just wanting to see what you think of this example. Abortion's one of those things I haven't yet formed an opinion on...
Ultra, Just tell me you aren't like that jerk that was stalking my cousin cause she worked at an abortion clinic. I'd hate to have to exert the weight of the BAFH on you. 
~Rico ("There is no peace, only aggression.")
I can see both points of perspective here
on the one hand abortion could be considered murdering a child
on the other hand Xag brings up the point of unwanted pregnancy. In my opinion this links to nature vs nurture, just because the child is the baby of a rapist does not mean it should be disposed of, the child could easily be put up for adoption or the like.
however the pregnancy itself dould have a huge impact on stress levels and reputation. The labeling of pregnant teenagers and the like, and of course the effect a pregnancy could have on a professional female who has a high maintenence job.
Quote:
Ultra, Just tell me you aren't like that jerk that was stalking my cousin cause she worked at an abortion clinic.
Although I don't know what you're alluding to, I'm not the kind of person who actively searches for abortion clinics to picket/bomb/stalk/something-along-those-lines.
And Xag, I understand what you're saying; after all, getting a baby without one's own consent...well, I don't need to say anything. Even so, as Smeggedoff said, why not put the baby up for adoption?
Quote:
I'm not even going to get into this. Mostly because I'm not in the mood, but also in large part because I can't stop laughing.
I made you laugh? My goodness, I'm good; I wasn't even trying.
And lastly...Rico, do I even want to know what BAFH means? o.o
But back on-topic...
After hanging back and looking at more reports concerning Miers, the more I feel good about her. I don't know where the pro-choice thing came up from, but apparently it was fabricated.
(raises Miers' point level)
Quote:
Even so, as Smeggedoff said, why not put the baby up for adoption?
It's not great for the baby either. Imagine being told that your father raped your mother, who didn't want you, and gave you away.
Nice way to traumatise a teenager.
technically yes, but thaere are options such as simply not telling the child or leaving available records, there are many adopted children who have led unaware blissful lives I'm sure, and not all teens would be trumatised, some would shrug it off, but yes some would use it as an excuse to behave badly etc, this leads to Nature vs Nurture again, it's all choices, those that we make and those that are made for us
Regarding Abortion, I think I'm on the Pro Choice camp.
Lets put it like this if a child is concieved during mutual consent and isnt severely handicapped it should be birthed.
Otherwise i think its down to the indiviuals choice.
And lastly...Rico, do I even want to know what BAFH means? o.o
He'll probably kill me for not letting him tell you himself, but it means Bastard Admin From Hell. It's actually one of his tamer in-jokes.
ooh, I thought we had swear filters O.o
Quote:
ooh, I thought we had swear filters
We do. They filter Swears.
not in TheCycles post apparantly, or did Bastard get a demotion from swear I wasn't aware of?
Yup.
People, please. The impending arrival of over population, rise of crime and unwanted children, not to mention the backwards step in human rights is doing fine on it's own without having abortion around to help make those things worse!!!
What we need are wanton, stupid amounts of sex and violence to make the world happy and content. 
OH WAIT! Too late!
Oh. Well that explains what BMFH means. o.o
I don't care about her stance about abortion, so much as she doesn't let those views get in the way of her ruling strictly by the law. She is not in a legislative position, after all. It does worry me that she's Bush's personal lawyer and she doesn't seem to have any experience as a judge. However, Sandra Day O'Connor didn't have any judicial experience before her appointment by Reagan either, so.. *shrug*
I think I may be pro-life... I used to be pro-choice a few years back (some of you on this Forum may even still remember me arguing vehemently for it) but my conscience got to me. However, I believe that birth control and the morning after pill are essential to prevent these tragic abortions. (I don't believe that life begins from conception, so it's not contradictory of me). I mean, a lot of the more extreme pro-lifers I know want to treat these women as evil murderers, but it's not like it's a walk in the park for them either. It's best not to end up with unwanted pregnancies in the first place. I wish the crazier pro-lifers would spend as much energy educating and helping women before they get pregnant as they do in condemning them after.
I don't like the "if she was raped it's okay to abort" argument. Certainly, it's terrible that something like that happened, but one bad decision doesn't justify another. Kind of like if a loved one of mine was killed, I could go out and kill the loved one of the murderer. It would be understandable, and maybe sympathetic, but it would not be moral. I can understand a woman not wanting the baby, but it doesn't need to die.
Also, the "if the kid has horrible disabilities, we should put it out of its misery" argument. At what point do you say that "oh, this kid is too handicapped to have a meaningful life"? What is a meaningful life? Some cases may be genuine, like with children that will only be born to die a slow, painful death afterwards, while in other cases, the child, while handicapped, can grow up to be healthy and happy. I understand the argument, but it's such a slippery slope that I'm reluctant to argue it... how do you judge what a meaning of someone else's life will be?
Well said Troop. Well said.
Also, after waiting a whole day, it seems that Miers has shown herself to be quite a good find; the American Center of Law and Justice, Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Harrt, and many people who have known her personally have advocated her as a 'interpreter of the Constitution as it was written'. And that's a SCOTUS Justice's duty: to hear cases and determine their validity in the light of the US Constitution (which is NOT a living and breathing document, subject to reinterpretation as time goes on).
Also, after waiting a whole day, it seems that Miers has shown herself to be quite a good find; the American Center of Law and Justice, Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Harrt, and many people who have known her personally have advocated her as a 'interpreter of the Constitution as it was written'.
Yeah, and a lot of people who knew Bush personally called him a "compassionate conservative". A lot of people who knew Paul Martin personally called him a "determined, focused individual". Just because someone said something about someone does not necessarily make it so. Besides which, I don't see how someone else's words, not Miers' words, let alone Miers' actions, means Miers has "shown herself" to be anything. Explain how this turn of phrase makes any sense of all.
Quote:
US Constitution (which is NOT a living and breathing document, subject to reinterpretation as time goes on).
Um, no. That's why the founding "fathers" wrote it to be so open ended, so it could be flexible enough to withstand the test of time. Countries with incredibly rigid constitutions have alot of trouble because their constitutions have to be constantly rewritten.
Cycle,
Why don't you admit that if she were a liberal lawyer you wouldn't mind?
The US hasn't collapsed, Canada hasn't collapsed, possibly, just possibly other people know what they are doing...
But then again, you could be the smartest person on the planet, with the perfect plan for government, ready to solve the worlds problems, if only we would just listen.
Then again you could be a normal person who only understands the situation from one point of view, just like me.
Jimro
That's why there's the ability for amendments to be passed and ratified. Want to introduce something to radically change society? Make it into an amendment.
Why don't you admit that if she were a liberal lawyer you wouldn't mind?
Because nobody ever asked, and it pretty much goes without saying. And where the hell did that come from? All I've said in this thread is that US007 makes being pro-choice sound like a crime, that I'm not in the mood for a debate on abortion, that BAFH means Bastard Admin From Hell, and that US007's post makes no sense. I haven't commented at all on Miers herself, nor have I made any political comments at all. The closest thing I've done to inciting debate so far is whining about semantics.
Quote:
US007's post makes no sense.
Personal opinion. 
(shotshotshotshotshot)
Quote:
That's why there's the ability for amendments to be passed and ratified. Want to introduce something to radically change society? Make it into an amendment.
Or just do the easier thing and make laws as usually the laws come first (i.e. women being allowed to vote in certain states long before the amendment ever came) if amendments ever come (i.e. no such thing as something saying that you can't separate people based on race though the court said that it's illegal).
Lots of things are technically "legal" based on the Constitution itself, but rarely does the Supreme Court actually support it if it goes against certain "laws" or the "spirit" of the Constitution.
The idea of the Supreme Court deciding whether or not something is constitutional or not is not part of the Constitution. That was something decided in early court cases and is a "tradition" that has largely been maintained, but it is not the only factor in how the justices can decide a case--and these factors differ by time period and will probably continue to do so. Many things, including the number of justices that can be on the court staying focused on the judicial branch, aren't mentioned in the Constitution that are generally accepted based on "tradition" until something causes a change.
Considering the established role of the judiciary is to determine what the law means, depending on a person's point of view, the judiciary does make the laws. ;p
Just as a person sometimes has to use their head in terms of not taking things strictly literally, justices do the same and have always done the same. Whether or not someone agrees with a justice's interpretation is their own opinion that won't carry as much weight as the justice. ;p
Personal opinion. :cuckoo (shotshotshotshotshot)
Owned!
BTW, the US does not have a flexible constitution. Compared to the UK, anyway.
(Is currently studying this bizarre set of facts at uni)
Miers has withdrawn her nomination as of last night due to mounting complaints from right-wing nutjobs that she isn't conservative enough.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051027.wmiers1027/BNStory/International/
Quote:
Um, no. That's why the founding "fathers" wrote it to be so open ended, so it could be flexible enough to withstand the test of time. Countries with incredibly rigid constitutions have alot of trouble because their constitutions have to be constantly rewritten.
It's even so open-ended, the people behind it can say "Yes, the Bill of Rights guarantees personal freedoms... except when I say so."
Thanks Mr. Patriot Act, for taking a crap on our founding father's unalienable rights! 
I'm glad she decided to withdraw her nomination. They already appointed a far right-Wing Christian with Roberts. They need to have a balance on the Supreme Court, to ensure everyone's views are represented.
Quote:
They need to have a balance on the Supreme Court,
LOL Balance.
Balance is not needed on the Supreme Court. What's needed are originalists who won't legislate from the bench, i.e. make law instead of interpreting it. Also, what's needed are judges who will turn issues away that ARE NOT FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE; there's still states' rights to consider in the equation.
In other words, I'd prefer a Clarence Thomas instead of a Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to interpret law. The way you wish the Supreme Court to be was not phantomed by the founding fathers. The reason there are new regulations is because the Supreme Court interprets the law according to the veredicts of previous courts because with only two exceptions(*), the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction of its own.
I prefer someone who can balance both sides of the issue and come with a solution that will not only benefit the nation but the population as well.
Alas, that's not going to happen anytime soon.
Balance is not needed on the Supreme Court. What's needed are originalists who won't legislate from the bench, i.e. make law instead of interpreting it.
Saying that a law is unconstitutional/constitutional is not making law. When has a Supreme Court justice actually signed a bill endorsing it? Never.
Anyone who says that they are "making" laws is being pretty silly, since what the Supreme Court is doing and has been doing for over 200 years is interpret the law based on the principles of the Constitution, judicial precedent, federal laws, state laws, local laws, and ad nauseum. Besdies which, "legislating from the bench" is merely an excuse that Bush is using to try and justify packing the court with yesmen that, in this instance, will bring the country in a direction that, for me, is admittedly a scary one. (I'll admit it - there are Christian conservatives, besides government people, who really, really scare me with some of their proposed ideas for people like me when they rule the US.)
But before you go on and say, "Wah-hey!" I know what you're going to say - "But what about Franklin D. Roosevelt?!" True, I don't think his direction with the New Deal was a bad idea. On the other hand, what he was trying to do was half a toe short of illegal, and it is something he definitely should not have done. It really weakened his position, and on top of that, it was uneccessary for him to pack the Court because he still managed to get some of what he wanted. Eventually, he did relent, he knew it was a bad idea, and it went to show that those presidents who do not adapt to the fact that they won't get everything they want will suffer mightily, especially with the Supreme Court.
Like Bush, who has shown himself unwilling to compromise an iota.
Also, what's needed are judges who will turn issues away that ARE NOT FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE; there's still states' rights to consider in the equation.
Like with slavery, women's rights, sedition and segregation. Damn the government for meddling in states' affairs on those issues! Damn them to hell!
In other words, I'd prefer a Clarence Thomas instead of a Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Yet you don't like Bill Clinton?
Foolish hog. Go drink that Coca Cola over there and be gone from my sight!
Quote:
Like with slavery, women's rights, sedition and segregation. Damn the government for meddling in states' affairs on those issues! Damn them to hell!
[common sense]And those are not the kind of rights I was referring to. What I meant was that it's not up to the federal government to decide everything.[/common sense]
Quote:
Yet you don't like Bill Clinton?
On the whole, no. He made SOME good decisions, but not enough for me to like him.
And as for 'legislating from the bench', let me give you one recent example: Kelo vs. New London.
Silly pastry. Go back to your Dr. Pepper and be gone from my monitor! (shot)
On the whole, no. He made SOME good decisions, but not enough for me to like him.
Said the guy who voted for George W. Bush.
Quote:
Interesting... very interesting.
[common sense]And those are not the kind of rights I was referring to. What I meant was that it's not up to the federal government to decide everything.[/common sense]
But that has been a justification of ruch rights for untold years - that slavery, segregation, etc. were states' rights that were inviolable. And that was the justification up until 1964. And there are still people who think that the Confederate flag is solely a symbol of states' rights, conveniently side-stepping what 'right' it was they were defending.
And as for 'legislating from the bench', let me give you one recent example: Kelo vs. New London.
How is that legislating from the bench? Several of the justices, in their opinions, actually stated that states could and should still impose restrictions on the towns' ability to condemn property for economic development - the circumstances may have favored the town's argument in this case, but states still have a very large amount of control over these types of domain issues so that abuse can be curtrailed.
How is allowing states to regulate towns legislating from the bench?
Silly pastry. Go back to your Dr. Pepper and be gone from my monitor! (shot)
...The Coca-Cola reference totally went over your head, didn't it?
VCP, you owe me ten bucks. I won.
Quote:
But that has been a justification of ruch rights for untold years - that slavery, segregation, etc. were states' rights that were inviolable. And that was the justification up until 1964. And there are still people who think that the Confederate flag is solely a symbol of states' rights, conveniently side-stepping what 'right' it was they were defending.
(sigh) Just because there were a few bad eggs doesn't mean that the whole coop is rotten. I agree; those kind of 'state's' rights were in direct violation of a person's unalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. However, for other matters that do not directly violate Constitutional law should be left to the states. Remember the 10th Amendment?
Quote:
...The Coca-Cola reference totally went over your head, didn't it?
Yes. Yes it did.
