The More I Hear, The More I Believe

That, as Molly Ivins wrote: "we are in trouble." The Miers nomination is a huge hoax--the joke's on the democrats. This woman is awful.

There is no question in my mind that Miers' chief qualification for this a S.Ct seat is loyalty to Bush. And what that means is that she will be the fifth vote on the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

She's not a genius--she's a hack--as Charles Krauthammer, explained it: "The issue is not the venue of Miers's constitutional scholarship, experience and engagement. The issue is their nonexistence." And that fact makes it easier for her to engage in conservative activism unconstrained by constitutional analysis. In other words I predict she will become the most partisan judge reasoning toward a predetermined political end.

And as I said above, don't be fooled by the old paper trail...Miers' church states on its website that it believes in biblical inerrancy, full immersion baptism, original sin and salvation dependent entirely upon accepting Jesus Christ. Everyone else is going to hell. And without any sense of a countervailing judicial philosophy, That's a scary place from which to reason.


Anonymous said...

You might at least try to hide your know-nothingism behind some more socially acceptable veneer of intellect. Of course, anti-orthodox Christianity is the last acceptable bigotry around, especially in the dope-addled leftist circles you inhabit.

The only great thing about it is that is shows the utter hypocrisy of your views: freedom of thought, expression, and lifestyle for everyone...except those who adhere to beliefs 2,000+ years old and which built our civilization.

Message received loud and clear: no Christians need apply to the public square.

John David Galt said...

For what it's worth, I'm pro-choice, but I still believe that Roe v. Wade should be overturned.

The reason is that Roe is not just about abortion. When the Court decided Roe back in 1971, the "justices" created both a new civil right (privacy) and a new federal power (to trump state and local laws that violate the Court's own very selective view of what privacy means). Neither that right nor that power appear in the Constitution -- they just pulled it out of their backsides, in total disregard of the 9th Amendment -- and in doing so, they changed our whole system from a federal government (look up that word) to a centralized empire, one where state and local authorities have almost no authority to innovate any longer.

The Raich decision was but one of many anti-freedom rulings that have resulted from that power grab.

Granted that the federal presumption in Roe has resulted in one other beneficial ruling -- Lawrence v. Texas -- I still believe the cause of freedom would be much farther ahead if the federal government were rolled back to its original, proper, limited place in the scheme of government in America.

Then if we still want protection for sexual and reproductive freedom against barbaric localities such as our President's home state, let's push for a constitutional amendment to take them properly out of the hands of state governments (and hopefully the feds' as well).