Re: American Daily column feedback

Does Harriet Miers have qualifications that other court justices have? No.

Wrong... As a matter of fact, she does. She has one very important qualification. She has the confidence of the one man in this country charged with the responsibility of naming the next Supreme Court Justice. Other's might have his confidence too, but clearly not as much confidence. That is the one qualification she has that nobody else has...and it's a very
important qualification, since republican does not equal conservative...

She does have one then...I am still waiting on any others...

What others are necessary?

Experience, education...

"Did GW nominate her? Yes. His judgements are dubious at best."

You are entitled to your opinion. But my opinion is that GWB will be eventually written into history as a President who made many some unpopular decisions at a very difficult time, that turned out to be the right ones...Reagan is still today one of our most "popular" Presidents. But during his time in office, he was like GWB, one of our most unpopular Presidents, also accused of being a cowboy, full of false bravado and black and white vision... It wasn't until much later that people were forced to recognize his brilliance, once the fruit of his labor became visible to all...

Yep, entitled to opinions...GW Bush, Nixon, Cleveland, Hoover, Harding, Grant will be linked together as worst presidents in US History...

People liked Reagan, and you are correct they still like him, but his policies aren't the most popular...the only one that is favorable towards Reagan is "ending the cold war". No Mr. Reagan, ketchup is not a vegetable...

Actually, Reagan was called all the same names Bush has been called and accused of all the same things Bush has been accused of. It wasn't until much later that his hard-headed tough-talk policies became respected, after the fruits of his efforts were obvious to even his opponents. The same will happen to Bush as history is written...in my opinion.

We are definite violent disagreement about this one, it will be interesting to see...

"GW said they never discussed abortion. Obvious lie."

Very likely... not obvious...but very likely.

Yep, very...


GW nominated her because she is an unknown quantity. Harder to look at a record, if you don't have one.

A sure way to avoid the litmus test that isn't supposed to exist in the first place.

I said nothing of a "litmus test"...I said a record, as in being qualified to be a supreme court justice..there are better qualified individuals in America...

Don't be cute... We both know the reason behind today's search for a "record" relates to ones ability to guess what position they will take on the key issues of the day. This is by definition, a litmus test. The reason for wanting to know how Miers "feels" about abortion is to guess how she might "rule" on abortion. Yet this litmus test is not the grounds upon which we are supposed to appoint nor confirm judges to the bench.

I don't think litmus tests are necessary because judges are interpeters of the law(supposedly)...but a record on her judgement would be great going toward to see that she is the "strict constitutionalist" we both are advocating instead of a "crony"...I agree that judge appointments are politicized by both parties...

Activist judges? This phrase-ology just shows a partisan belief by persons who choose to use it. The reasoning is this, a judge that makes a decision that the forementioned agrees with, the judge ceases to be "an activist judge

Not true... not true at all. Example: An activist judge is one who makes "legal" judgments on the basis of their personal political ideologies. Like seeing a right to an abortion hidden in the IV Amendment clearing relating to criminal investigations and illegal search and seizures. Or like making a "legal" judgment regarding a "separation" clause that is written nowhere in our founding documents, even at odds with what is written in those founding documents. This is an activist judge... Forcing his or her political ideology upon the masses via judicial fiat. If I were in search of an activist judge from my side of the ideological aisle, I'd be searching for a judge with an imagination geared more to my personal liking, like a judge who would simply call for a review of these prior decisions for the sole purpose of reversing them on the grounds that there were no "legal" grounds for the decisions. As it is, I simply seek a judge who can "uphold" the
Constitution as it was written, leaving the Amendment and law making process to the legislative branch as was intended by the founders.


Uphold the constitution...I agree, I would like a "strict constitutionalist" but in today's climate it is doubtful we will find a judge that doesn't use their political ideology in their renderings...Under your idea of "activist judges", most of justices are activists, whether that be conservative or liberal...the reasoning being it has to do with who "votes" them in, or
nominates them...

When it comes to judges, there are only three ideological options. (1) A liberal leaning ideologue, as in Ginsberg (2) A conservative leaning ideologue, as in Thomas or (3) A "constitutionalist" ideologue, as in one that will rule strictly on the basis of constitutionality, as it is written, not as it might be imagined by either option (1) or (2). I prefer option (3) as it is the only one that protects ALL Americans equally.

When it comes to upholding the constitution, there are only two options. (1) Upholding the written constitution, or (2) upholding the imaginary constitution, the unwritten, the one subject to individual ideological interpretations instead of legal interpretations. I prefer option (1)...

I don't think your picks exist, so what is the alternative?

The will of the people on the abortion issue? Do you realize that polls show that a majority of Americans are pro-choice? If you make it a state issue, then still a majority of states are in favor of choice.

This statement is simply not true. However, if you believe it is true, lets put it to a nationwide referendum via the Amendment process, or pass a law legalizing abortion via the legislative branch. If you are so sure that this is the will of people, why do you seek to circumvent the voice of the people by using activist courts to pass laws you know would never pass the legislative branch or the Amendment process? Never forget, polls are meaningless except those cast by the people on a ballot day. Ask John Kerry...all polls had him winning by a landslide, but he lost by almost 4 million votes, making every poll wrong... Make it a state issue, and less than 5 states nationwide would pass legislation legalizing abortion. Lets do it! Lets let the people speak...

Either way, the abortion would remain legal...I do agree it would be close, but if it comes up to a national referendum, it would get out the moderate/liberal votes of this country like "civil union/marriage" referendums of last election did for the Christians...If goes to the states,
it would each individual state voting on if it would be legal in that individual state (Texas votes for Texas, Massachusetts votes for Massachusetts), women would have to travel for legal abortions...

Actually, I'll bet my last dollar that the same people that showed up to re-elect Bush by almost 4 million votes, would show up to block legalizing abortion. While many people claim understanding and tolerance (publicly) in front of their friends, when it comes time to step into a voting booth and pull the lever for killing more innocent unborn children, they will err on the side of moral convictions (privately). Then return to public and behave tolerant...

I'm willing to put it to a vote. Same goes for gay marriage, put it to a vote, let the people decide. I'll bet my last dollar on the outcome...will you? I'll even give you 5 to 1 odds that both would go down in flames...which is why you seek an activist judge.

I agree gay marriage would not win in a national referendum, civil unions would be closer, but probably wouldn't win as well...civil unions is a subject that most politicans will not touch, last election showed that...the popular rhetoric was "it was a state issue"...so under that guise, civil
unions will pass in some states and not in others...so it is an activist judge that says that gay marriage is an equal rights issue? Is it an activist judges that says that gay marriage isn't an equal rights issue as well?

Gay marriage has no chance at all and according to the fact that 40 some of the 50 states have already passed state laws blocking not only gay marriage, but gay unions as well, I'd say its a dead issue as well, with the exception of probably three states, CA, NY and MA, all three of which are also working to outlaw both at present, but have serious opposition.

Good for states' rights. At least the civil rights do exist in some states for gay individuals.

Be careful with the pragmatic tag-line, it has been linked with Darwin through William James."

Pragmatism was around long before Darwin, and it will be around long after
JB.... Thanks for the warning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatism
Pragmatism was founded by William James(friend & contempary of Darwin), his
work was in conjunction with Darwins' findings...What existed pre-pragmatism that could be attributed/contributed to pragmatism is buddhism and the idea of karma according to James' writings...
http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-PHIL/shaw2.htm

I enjoy the conservation...

No matter our differences, I always enjoy an honest respectful exchange of ideas. Be well!

JB Williams
Political Writer
www.JB-Williams.com

Regards,
(BBP)

*This correspondence is reference to below link*
http://www.americandaily.com/article/9544