Dems won’t like Miers’ religious faith
October 4th, 2005A story in Wednesday’s New York Times explores Harriet Miers’ Christian beliefs. She’s a member of an evangelical church in Dallas, Valley View Christian Church, where she was baptized more than 20 years ago.
Some interesting elements to the story:
– Miers is good friends with Nathan Hecht, an outspoken conservative and justice on the Texas Supreme Court.
– Miers has apparently changed her position on abortion, and her conversion to Christ played a role in that transformation.
– Hecht described Valley View as a “pro-life church” and said Miers is pro-life, too. Hecht and Miers attended two or three pro-life fund-raising dinners in the early 1990s.
There’s no way Senate Democrats will take these revelations without foaming at the mouth and going into fits of convulsions. They’ll argue that she doesn’t belong on the Supreme Court because she’ll let her religious beliefs guide her judicial philosophy. And if they decide she’s strongly pro-life, as it appears she is, they’ll do everything they can to hijack her nomination. Because, as everyone knows, to liberal Democrats the only criteria that qualifies someone for the Court is his or her support of abortion.
UPDATE: Wednesday’s Washington Times has its own story about Miers’ conversion.
Thre question is, do Senate Republicans have enough confidence in her to go to the mat for her nomination. The President has some convincing to do.
Supreme Court Nominee Miers and Abortion
After the President announced Harriet Miers’ nomination to the Supreme Court I posted an article titled, “Bush Picks Stealth Candidate for the Supreme Court” and expressed a certain disappointment. Although many pro-life bloggers shared my initial r…
I’m pro-life and a Christian also but I’m certainly not qualified to sit on the Supreme Court. Being pro-life is far from the only issue to consider. President Bush passed over NUMEROUS federal judges who are both pro-life AND imminently qualified to sit on the Supreme Court and gave the nod to one of his cronies with no judicial experience. I’m quite frankly disappointed.
Larry,
I’m not suggesting abortion is the only issue to consider. I’m saying that for liberals, it’s the one issue that can disqualify someone from serving on the Court.
In the mid-90s liberals, in an effort to sway conservatives toward voting for their candidates, promoted the idea that one should not cast a vote based on one issue. In other words, because so many conservatives (of which the heart of our country is composed) refused to vote for pro-choice candidates, they attempted to minimize the importance of the abortion issue and convince some pro-life voters to vote for moderate/liberal candidates.
But when it comes to Supreme Court justices, liberals seem to abandon this philosophy. Abortion is THE litmus test of the left. Yes, other issues are important to the left: gay rights, the environment, etc. But let’s face it, nothing strikes fear into the heart of liberals more than potentially losing the “right” to kill unborn babies.
“Because, as everyone knows, to liberal Democrats the only criteria that qualifies someone for the Court is his or her support of abortion.” — Tim
I am starting to believe that a potential justice’s stance on the abortion issue is the only criteria as far as many conservative Republicans are concerned, also.
So, apparently, whether the most recent nominee has any true knowledge of the law (which, apparently, she does) is actually a moot point. Why even bother with the nomination process at all, really, if it all comes down to politics and religion?
But here’s the difference as I see it, Di. As a conservative, I think there are pro-abortion folks who are still qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. I may not agree with their stance on that issue, but if I was sitting in the Senate with the duty of confirming a Supreme Court nominee, I wouldn’t vote against someone just because I thought they were pro-abortion. If a Democratic president was in office, I would in fact expect a nominee to hold to that position.
I get the sense that liberals, however (like Nancy Pelosi, for one), will indeed vote against a nominee who is pro-life, no matter what his or her other qualifications are, and no matter that a supposedly pro-life president is in office.
Now, maybe some Republicans would vote against a pro-abortion nominee solely for that reason. I would not. I’d vote against a presidential candidate for that reason, but if it was my job to confirm a SC nominee, I wouldn’t let that issue be the sole determining factor.
I agree Tim! I wasn’t commenting on your idea there so much as I was on the wisdom of the president’s choice. Abortion truly is the only issue with the liberals where the courts are concerned.
Gotcha, Larry. I misunderstood. Thanks for the clarification.
When did “pro-choice” become “pro-abortion,” anyway?
I agree that there are many, many issues to be decided by the Supreme Court; obviously, a nominee should not be selected solely for his or her stance on the abortion issue. I just don’t happen to think that liberals have the market cornered on this being a “defining qualification.” Both “sides” seem quite keen on knowing where Roberts and Miers — and any other potential nominee waiting in the wings — stand on abortion; to believe that only conservatives could put that knowledge aside and vote a different way seems unrealistic, to me.
(Or maybe we’re only talking about extremes here?)
Not that anyone asked, but I consider myself to be pro-life. I believe that life begins at conception, and I really don’t understand how anyone who has any knowledge of biology could think any differently. Those are MY views, of course, so I KNOW they’re right.
; )
I am also pro-choice. NOT pro-abortion. I don’t believe in abortion, I would hope never to be faced with even the remote possibility of having one, under any circumstances or for any reason … but if I am, it should be MY choice to make. Not any of yours, nor any of my fellow citizens in this great country of ours. I will know it is wrong and I will believe it is a sin, and I will have to face the consequences throughout the rest of my life and the hereafter.
(Sorry to venture *slightly* off-topic there.)
So Di, then should you have the choice to pull out a gun and shoot anybody that you don’t like, knowing that the only consequences you face will be from your own conscience?
I just can’t understand that position at all. If life begins at conception, if what is growing inside a womb is a human being, how can you say that it shouldn’t be illegal for someone to terminate its life? How is terminating an unborn baby’s life any different than killing someone who’s 27 years old?
I’m all in favor of people having freedom of choice when their choices don’t affect someone else. But, as Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the right of you to swing your fists ends where my nose begins. Abortion ends a human life — a life that deserves protection under the law.
The most profound statement is Western literature begins “All men are created equal…” For the past 200 years we have struggles with who “men” are and what equal means. We have extended “men” to mean women, slaves and 18 year olds. We have extended equal to include blacks, children and the elderly. Once you name a person a person, the rest is academic.
Thanks to the Constitution, I AM free to pull out a gun — and thanks in no small part to the NRA, it could probably be a semi-automatic weapon, if I happened to have one handy, or maybe the handgun I’m packing in my sock — and I very well could make a choice to shoot someone. Ultimately, no one except me could really stop me before I did this deed — and what might stop me would be the knowledge of what kind of punishment could await me, legally, afterwards, depending on the circumstances surrounding the shooting … and my relationship with God, and knowing that, yes, I do have to consider what I know to be right and wrong.
One of the problems with legislating against abortion is that there is no real consideration of circumstances. It’s an all-or-nothing proposition, with no first- or second- or third-degree whatevers attached — or even anything comparable to “self-defense” (i.e. situations in which allowing a pregnancy to continue would definitely end a woman’s life; how is the law protecting her, in this instance?).
Believe me, Tim, I understand what you’re saying, and this is an issue on which I have struggled to define my own stance, over the years. I have known women who have had abortions for ALL the “wrong” reasons — to my way of thinking, that is — and in my perfect world, these women all would have found alternatives that would not have involved having an abortion. However, I’ve not been there, in their shoes … and as much as I care about these women, some of whom I have been and am close friends with, I am unwilling to make the decision for them. And I am certainly not entrusting my government to make the decision for them.
The point isn’t that Roe v. Wade is the law, it’s that it’s BAD law. This is about federalism. It’s an issue that should be left to the states and/or Congress. Roe v. Wade was classic liberal legislating from the bench.
I’m curious, Di, do you support a ban on partial birth abortion?
OK I can’t leave it at that….
I have to confess that I find Di’s position to be more morally naive (giving the benefit of the doubt there, as opposed to saying its morally repugnant) than the typical pro abortion position. The abortionist can at least believe (or convince him/herself) that the fetus is a blob of tissue that is something less than human. Di acknowledges that it is undoubtedly a human life, but that its OK to rip it out of the uterus and kill it.
People who say, “I’m personally pro-life but am pro-choice in the sense that I believe I can’t force someone to make the decision I want them to make” are just trying to have their cake and eat it too. That’s what politicians say when they are trying to get everybody’s vote. I see no middle ground that can be held consistently. Can your conscience permit the killing of an unborn baby or not?
If you believe that abortion is really and truly wrong - morally wrong, sinful, whatever term you like — then why is it NOT the responsibility of government to prevent it? Isn’t the point of the law to prevent what is wrong and promote what is right? And of course the law can and often does consider circumstances (as in the person who is found not guilty of murder because of self defense) - every credible piece of legislation I’ve heard of does give consideration for circumstances like those you mention.
Anyway…. I’ll stop.
Di,
I disagree that you are free under the Constitution to pull out a gun and shoot someone. Using your arguments, you make it sound like the government serves only a punitive function when it comes to people harming others — that the government can’t do anything until you really do harm someone. But the government also has a preventative function. If you’re in a crowd, pull out a gun and aim it at someone, the authorities are not powerless to do anything to you until you pull the trigger. They can take action if they perceive you are threatening the well-being of another.
That’s why it’s inconsistent to say that you believe life begins at conception, but that the government shouldn’t dictate whether you can or can’t have an abortion. The government prohibits people all the time from inflicting harm on others — not just by punishing wrongdoers, but by preventing harmful action in the first place.
And I’m perfectly OK with making abortion into something that’s not an all-or-nothing proposition. Most abortion advocates always throw out the circumstances of rape, incest or life of the mother. Fine, let’s make abortion legal in those instances, but illegal in all others. (I’m not saying I think abortion is OK in those circumstances, because I don’t. But such a law would reduce the number of abortions, and fewer abortions are better than more abortions). The only problem is, most abortion advocates won’t accept those terms.
You and I were typing at the same time, Alex.
No, no, no, Tim: I am NOT saying the Constitution allows me to shoot someone — it allows me the freedom to have a gun, and I am glad to have that right to bear arms. Seriously. The choice to shoot someone would be my own — and the things that guide me would be my knowledge of right from wrong, as well as the circumstances I happened to be facing. (I know you used the hypothetical of shooting “anybody [I] don’t like,” but I have no intention of doing that … unless I really, REALLY don’t like them.)
(Just kidding! I also do NOT pack a handgun in my sock … or sox … or however you spell it.)
: )
More in a minute. I want to respond to Alex’s questions, or at least some of them, but it’s the top of the ninth in the Red Sox-White Sox game. Back in a flash!
I’m not sure this is going to answer any of your questions, Alex, except to admit that, yes, maybe I DO want to have my cake and eat it, too … and if that makes me “morally naive,” well, I guess I can accept that characterization — especially since, for a very long time, I was afraid I had grown completely jaded and cynical toward just about everything.
I wish there were no such thing as an abortion — partial-birth or otherwise. I most certainly wish that reasons such as “unwanted” or “ill-timed” or “inconvenient” weren’t used as justifications for having abortions — just as I wish there weren’t the kind of evil in the world that could result in a pregnancy because of rape or incest or any other “special circumstances.” I wish there were some kind of middle-ground to be found in all of this … and maybe Tim’s right, maybe it doesn’t have to be an all-or-nothing proposition, but could all sides live with that? I wonder.
As far as my conscience permitting the killing of an unborn child: If I am not the one making the choice to have an abortion, then I don’t see how my conscience is involved. I am responsible for my actions and the consequences thereof. I can’t impose my will on someone else and expect them to do what I want them to do in every given situation; I can only be open and honest about how I feel, and what I believe, and if that has a positive effect on someone else, well, then, that’s great.
Maybe I’m the one being “naive” here, and I am definitely asking this question in a sincere way, but isn’t the idea of “except in cases of rape, incest, threat to the mother’s life” also wanting to have your cake and eat it, too? On the one hand, Tim and Alex are saying basically that if you believe abortion is wrong, you can’t morally allow others to do it (or can’t allow the gov’t to sit back and not act to protect the unborn), yet Tim has said that he supports allowing abortion in those oft-named “exception” cases. What’s the difference? And again, I’m asking this seriously, not just picking a fight. (I hope you haven’t already lost interest in this thread, too, Tim!
hehe…just kidding)
steve
If I think a woman should be able to make the choice to kill her unborn child then I am pro-abortion - period. This nonesense of “I wouldn’t have an abortion but I won’t stop you from having one if you so choose” is a bunch of double-speak. It’s fence straddling at its finest.
Problem here is the other human being in the equation, the baby, isn’t given a choice. If we believe aboriton is murder we should oppose it in all circumstances whether the baby is ours or someone elses and regardless of the method of the baby’s conception.
On the filp side, if we don’t believe abortion is murder then why do we oppose it at all, even under personal circumstances? I mean if its just a mass of tissue, go ahead and remove it like a mole or a tumor, what’s the big deal?
Steve,
I thought it was pretty clear in my post above, but I’ll try to be clearer. I would support abortion in the cases of rape, incest and life of the mother as a political compromise in order to reduce the total number of abortions. Does that mean that abortion in these cases is OK? Of course not. I still think it’s murder. But if the only way to outlaw abortions of convenience is to offer these exceptions as concessions, then I’d be willing to make such concessions.
It seems pretty simple to me. Which is better — more abortions or fewer abortions? Obviously, fewer abortions. In a perfect world there wouldn’t be any at all. But if allowing some abortions is the only way to reduce the total number of abortions, then that’s what we should do.
Think of it this way. Let’s say this issue is on a ballot and you have these choices:
A. abortions without restrictions
B. abortions only in the cases of rape, incest or life of the mother
C. no abortions at all
If you knew that C had no chance of winning, isn’t B a much better choice than A? Of course it is. That’s not having your cake and eating it too.
Tim, with all due respect, that’s a very “relative” approach to the topic, and I’m not sure I buy the argument. I can agree to disagree with you, but I think that the relativism of our culture (less evil is better than more evil) is a problem, and I do still see your explanation as something of straddling the fence.
You disagree with me on that, and it’s ok. Thanks for explaining your view.
God bless.
steve
Your position is naive, Steve (hey, that rhymes). Let’s say someone in authority comes up to you and says this: “You have two options. Either abortion will be legal in all circumstances, or it will be legal only in cases of rape, incest or the life of the mother. The choice is up to you. Which do you choose?”
Based on your argument, it sounds like you’d say, “Neither. We need to have no abortions at all, and I won’t settle simply for restrictions on abortion.”
Now, that sounds all fine and good, and it sounds like you’re making your stand against relativism and all that, but your failure to act would result in no change to the existing laws, which allow abortions with no restrictions.
The fact is that the lives of millions of unborn children are at stake. This isn’t something philosophical that has no practical implications. There are innocent children dying because of abortion. And if you refused to accept restrictions because you want abortion outlawed altogether, maybe you’re making your stand against moral relativism, but you are in essence allowing the murder of millions to continue. That’s something I’m not willing to do. If we can reduce the number of abortions in any way, it is the right thing to do. It’s not morally relativistic. It’s not straddling the fence. It’s right. And it’s a step in the direction of eliminating abortion completely.
I don’t know why this is such a hard concept for Christians to grasp.
Eliminating abortion completely will never happen … though, of course, there exists the possibility that the practice will return to the “back-alley days” sometime within our lifetime, which brings up a whole ‘nother set of ethical and moral questions.
Tim, first you gave three choices in your previous reply and said I would be naive to pick the best of the three choices. Then in your later response, you narrow it down to two choices. Which is it? We have not been given only two choices in our government, so your hypothetical reduces the argument to a false set of choices.
I haven’t read too many of your posts, but I’m already getting the idea that you don’t handle differences very well. It’s just “I’m right, you’re wrong, why don’t you get that” or even “I’m tired of this thread, so I won’t even address your logical response.” (and yes, that’s relatively tongue-in-cheek from the fact that you took the time to tell me in the Jaci Velasquez thread that you were tired of it, but didn’t take the time to address what I actually wrote, which is exactly what you were criticizing others for in that thread). I posed a sincere question on this thread, and your parting shot is “I don’t know why this is such a hard concept for Christians to grasp.”
I’m sure we have a lot in common in Christ, but your tone at least in this forum is not conducive to reasonable discussion.
I didn’t have a problem with your original question and answered it honestly. I asked why this is such a hard concept for Christians to grasp because even after I explained it clearly, you still think it’s straddling the fence — which it clearly is not.
You’re not understanding the point here, Steve. Is fewer abortions better than more abortions or not? That’s what this whole discussion has been about. I’m arguing for the good of anything that reduces the number of abortions in this country, and you’re taking issue with me on it. That tells me a lot.
You are right about one thing — we don’t have only two choices in our government. Right now we have one — abortion on demand. I’m saying that anything less than that is an improvement, at least for the time being. But apparently you don’t think so.
And now I’m tired of this thread too.
Hmmm, I was thinking just a few minutes ago that I was very appreciative of the overall tone of this thread, in particular — especially since this is a topic on which everyone, obviously, has such strong feelings.
Tim: If fewer abortions is our only alternative to lots of abortions, I obviously would agree that it is better. I never said it wasn’t better. I was just frustrated that you were presenting an incomplete set of options. And I do have to chuckle that you actually did narrow it down to just one choice now. I didn’t think you’d go that far with it!
(THOROUGHLY tongue-in-cheek)
Seriously, though, the point I was trying to make (albeit apparently less than acceptable) is that “less abortions” is not our only alternative to continue to push for. We do both agree that NO abortions would be the ideal. I think we differ, though, in that people are willing to settle for “less evil”. I’m not willing to settle for that.
Di: sorry if my tone was offensive to you. I did not mean it to be such.
steve
Steve,
You’ve finally understood what I’ve been saying. The options I presented were to make the point that you’ve finally grasped. Never did I say that “less evil” was all we need to settle for, and you misunderstood if that’s what you thought I was saying. My point all along has been that “less evil” is better than “more evil.” Not the best, but better.
Consensus! Finally!
Woohoo!!! Consensus!! How did we manage that?
steve
Steve: Your tone wasn’t offensive to me, so no apology needed!
I was just mentioning, in earnest, that, to me, the overall tone of this thread has been conducive to mostly reasonable discussion — although we pretty much left Harriet Miers on the curb, and she is/was what the thread was supposed to be about (I think?) — of a very volatile topic.
(Stepping over deceased tenderized carcas of horse) I realize this discussion may be done, however this story came across in the past few days and was somewhat, almost pertinent to the original post, mostly in that it involves Harriet Miers. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,171832,00.html
Apparently, she (gasp) owned a gun at some point and time. For that matter, an old one. Maybe trying to channel Annie Oakley?