Bush officially says he picked Miers because of religion

TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Bush officially says he picked Miers because of religion

Posted by HardTranceProd on Oct-12-2005 17:22:

Bush officially says he picked Miers because of religion

Ouch.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9673338/

http://blogs.washingtonpost.com/campaignforthecourt/

it's not even funny anymore. This country is grappling with some major demons...

Posted by St_Andrew on Oct-12-2005 21:49:

No suprise really.

The theocracy is spreading to new government instances...

Posted by Q5echo on Oct-12-2005 23:31:

it's the effort to take religion out of where it has always been that makes it appear theocracy is spreading to new government instances.

Posted by HardTranceProd on Oct-12-2005 23:54:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
it's the effort to take religion out of where it has always been that makes it appear theocracy is spreading to new government instances.

you are very wrong... even 10 years ago this country was nowhere like what it is today.. religion has always been important here but not witch-hunt-style-exhibitionist as it is now

Posted by Shakka on Oct-13-2005 00:05:

Posted by Q5echo on Oct-13-2005 00:23:

quote:
Originally posted by HardTranceProd
you are very wrong... even 10 years ago this country was nowhere like what it is today.. religion has always been important here but not witch-hunt-style-exhibitionist as it is now
very wrong? can you tell me how many fundamental atheist hold public office in this country today then? how about 25 yrs.ago? should i refer you to Art. VI sec. 3 of a little document i call the U.S. Constitution? which witch-hunt are you referring to exactly?

besides the point though, really.

the article is purposely misleading.

Posted by Fir3start3r on Oct-13-2005 00:26:

quote:
Originally posted by St_Andrew
No suprise really.

The theocracy is spreading to new government instances...

Maybe it never really left...

Posted by DrUg_Tit0 on Oct-13-2005 16:45:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
very wrong? can you tell me how many fundamental atheist hold public office in this country today then? how about 25 yrs.ago? should i refer you to Art. VI sec. 3 of a little document i call the U.S. Constitution? which witch-hunt are you referring to exactly?

besides the point though, really.

the article is purposely misleading.

It does not matter whether a person in position is a christian or an atheist or whatever, what matters is why that person is put into position.

Posted by Q5echo on Oct-13-2005 23:17:

and what i'm saying is that up until 15 years ago it was never a question whether or not someone was nominated given religion or it's particular's as a consideration (unless you were a Jew. something altogether non sequitur).

atheist, Lutheran, i could care. i see Christians in public office as being under attack from multiple fronts, annd by nature, will wear theie religion on their sleeves with respect for defending what has always been in one way or another.

Posted by Groundhog Boy on Oct-14-2005 01:14:

And when they elected Kennedy, people were worried that the pope would control the country. Now God just talks to Bush instead.

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-14-2005 02:39:

quote:
Originally posted by Q5echo
and what i'm saying is that up until 15 years ago it was never a question whether or not someone was nominated given religion or it's particular's as a consideration (unless you were a Jew. something altogether non sequitur).

atheist, Lutheran, i could care. i see Christians in public office as being under attack from multiple fronts, annd by nature, will wear theie religion on their sleeves with respect for defending what has always been in one way or another.

If those so-called "Christians" are being attacked in office, it is usually the result of their attempts to instill their particular religious beliefs into the government in some way, shape, or form, which more often than not they know damn well that they have no legal means to do so. Other times, such as Ashcroft covering up fucking boobs on a statue, are just outright laughable and ridiculous on the face.

Aside of that, give me some more instances in which Christians are being "attacked" in some way in public office. Make sure they are not attempting to effectively break the separation of church and state in their actions in your instances.

P.S. In regards to Miers and her religion, honestly it should be a fucking nonissue for either side. The fact that Bush chose her as a result of her religious beliefs, at least announcing so publicly is not only slightly disturbing but should not be included in her abilities to correctly interpret and uphold current law. That should be mandated by her past experience (none) and knowledge of the law itself (which we don't really know much about). Unless, of course, the Constitution and Supreme Court decisions somehow are part of the Evangelical Bible somewhere.

But let's not play coy here, we all know damn well why this issue came to front and center. Bush's base is pissed with his decision. Christ, there's reports that Cheney himself was pissed off with the decision (left wing site, so take it with a grain of salt):

http://rawstory.com/news/2005/Report_Cheneys_office_opposed_Miers_nomination_1013.html

This was a means to reassure his base, which he is increasingly losing (some 15 points according to the latest WSJ poll I believe).

But if you don't believe that, then believe some Republican staffers:

quote:

As the White House seeks to rally senators behind the Supreme Court nomination of Harriet E. Miers, lawyers for the Republican senators on the Judiciary Committee are expressing dissatisfaction with the choice and pushing back against her, aides to 6 of the 10 Republican committee members said yesterday.

"Everybody is hoping that something will happen on Miers, either that the president would withdraw her or she would realize she is not up to it and pull out while she has some dignity intact," a lawyer to a Republican committee member said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/12/politics/politicsspecial1/12confirm.html?ex=1286769600&en=2a7f07d442957636&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

Or believe your WSJ White House bitch, John Fund:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110007398

And now you've got everything from threats coming outa Pat Roberts to the GOP who don't support Miers:

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=19453

To the White House itself making threats to its GOP Delay style:

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=61725

I must say this really is fun as shit watching this GOP meltdown. I haven't seen so much eating their own since the movie Alive! I don't know if Miers will even make it to the hearings, and I had my doubts when Reid initially came out and supported her. Now it seems like he just outmaneuvered the GOP once again. Jesus, with this going on, more bogus terror alerts, bullshit Q&A sessions with the troops by Bush, Bush's numbers tanking to new lows, Delay goin' down, Frist being investigated, Rove and Libby in the hot seat, Abramoff connections stretching far and wide, and the GOP punchin' each other out,

Jesus I need another bag of popcorn.

Posted by Gmoney part II on Oct-14-2005 02:42:

The article didn't say that Bush picked her because of her religion. It said that "religion is one of the reasons he picked her". So stop your hysteria. Another reason he could have picked her is because she drives a silver Honda. But since that wouldn't cause any kind of media frenzy, it isn't worth mentioning.

Posted by Alex on Oct-14-2005 02:50:

Posted by MisterOpus1 on Oct-14-2005 03:11:

quote:
Originally posted by Gmoney part II
The article didn't say that Bush picked her because of her religion. It said that "religion is one of the reasons he picked her". So stop your hysteria. Another reason he could have picked her is because she drives a silver Honda. But since that wouldn't cause any kind of media frenzy, it isn't worth mentioning.

That's a cute way of parsing words. No one here is claiming that it was the sole reason why Bush picked her. The fact that it was merely one of the rationales for choosing her, at least stating so publicly is both irrelevant and immaterial to the Supreme Court position itself. I personally don't care if she fucking worships dead rabbits, but making this public as a means of his choice was nothing shy of attempting to assure his fundie base that she'll be a big fat meany to gays and wants to overturn Roe v Wade if she gets the chance, nothing more.

Posted by occrider on Oct-14-2005 04:29:

A half of me really wants Miers to be appointed and have this completely blow up in the face of conservatives, particularly those on this message board who are blindly advocating her nomination. The reason why so many conservative intellectuals or "elitists", as some of you now call them (it is rather humorous to see what happens to the base when there's divergent thoughts and opinions ... god forbid), is because regardless of how well Bush knows Miers personally, he is not a trained lawyer, he doesn't think like a lawyer, and he cannot pretend to know how she would interpret the constitution, how she would uphold precedent, and what kind of judicial philosophy she would uphold on issues that are "conservative" or "liberal" only in the sense that depends upon what angle you are looking at the cards. History has demonstrated time and time again, that supposed "conservative" nominations end up being the most "liberal" justices. One of the ONLY ways to know for sure how a person would rule is through judicial history or clerk work that outlines EXACTLY what a nominee's philosophy is in a court case after court case. Miers lacks this history which provides good justification for the concern of conservative intellectuals.

But hey ... "trust" Bush, because he's been right in the past right? At least this failure, I would be willing to accept.

Posted by HardTranceProd on Oct-14-2005 12:43:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
A half of me really wants Miers to be appointed and have this completely blow up in the face of conservatives, particularly those on this message board who are blindly advocating her nomination. The reason why so many conservative intellectuals or "elitists", as some of you now call them (it is rather humorous to see what happens to the base when there's divergent thoughts and opinions ... god forbid), is because regardless of how well Bush knows Miers personally, he is not a trained lawyer, he doesn't think like a lawyer, and he cannot pretend to know how she would interpret the constitution, how she would uphold precedent, and what kind of judicial philosophy she would uphold on issues that are "conservative" or "liberal" only in the sense that depends upon what angle you are looking at the cards. History has demonstrated time and time again, that supposed "conservative" nominations end up being the most "liberal" justices. One of the ONLY ways to know for sure how a person would rule is through judicial history or clerk work that outlines EXACTLY what a nominee's philosophy is in a court case after court case. Miers lacks this history which provides good justification for the concern of conservative intellectuals.

But hey ... "trust" Bush, because he's been right in the past right? At least this failure, I would be willing to accept.

THUMBS UP !

Posted by St_Andrew on Oct-14-2005 14:10:

quote:
Originally posted by Groundhog Boy
And when they elected Kennedy, people were worried that the pope would control the country. Now God just talks to Bush instead.

Hahahahaha, that quote is pretty hillarious.

Posted by Q5echo on Oct-14-2005 19:13:

quote:
Originally posted by occrider
But hey ... "trust" Bush, because he's been right in the past right? At least this failure, I would be willing to accept.

what? trust him like his dad did with Souter? no thanks dude.

you're giving Bush too much credit (which he may deserve given all the previous judges) for the judicial vetting process and all the other people involved.

Posted by arnoldjch on Oct-15-2005 17:07:

So what that she�s religious? You guys have over exaggerated.. Just look at this man Roberts his Catholic and he goes to church like 2x a week, this man is a truly devoted catholic. The problem is that Bush was an idiot to make that statement.