Harriet Miers

[Rainman]

In case you didn't know, Bush nominated another candidate. This time it's to fill Sandra Day O'conner position. Of course, it has to be another woman. I've read a little bit about her views and I'm not completely against her nomination. However, I find it hilarious that conservatives are split over the decision and fighting amongst themselves. That kind of lack of focus killed the Democrats. She's plenty conservative enough to satisfy their thirst for complete government control

Check out the wikipedia article if you want to know more about her.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harriet_Miers

[Starkist]

It's not that conservatives want 'complete government control' it's just that we all have recurring nightmares stemming from the David Souter nomination... There were several good conservative judges available, even women like Priscilla Owen or Janice Rogers Brown. Why Miers? Why someone who has never been a judge? Why a 'crony' for lack of a better term?

[Rainman]

Whatever misgivings you have it's fine by me. I just find it funny to see Republicans yelling at each other for a change.

[Glitch]

Harriet Miers is quoted as saying:

"George Bush is the most brilliant man I know"

yeah. he picked a winnar. :rolleyes:

[Starkist]

yeah. he picked a winnar.

Is your political astuteness as spot-on as your spelling skills?

[Lilith]

The only problem I have with conservatives (most of the seemingly prominent ones, nowadays) is that they continually try and fuck with the line between religion and government. If you're going to be conservative and try to stick with the constitution at all times, why don't you just fucking do it? Seperation of church and state...it's right there, not that hard. I find it unprofessional to drag religious beliefs into a governmental structure that was (although influenced by Judeo-Christian morals) still *trying* to function totally on logic. Not saying the liberals make any more sense sometimes, but come on.

[Starkist]

The thing is, "Separation of church and state" is not a phrase found in the Constitution. However, people on the left bring it up all the time. I suppose it comes from the same place that the "Right to privacy" invented for the Roe v. Wade decision came from.

Overturning Roe v. Wade is a major conservative issue with the court. However, liberal reaction to this agenda is often confused. A good conservative wants the decision overturned not because of personal opposition to abortion, but because it was a faulty decision based not on Constitutional law but on the personal opinion of the judges. I have read the actual decision written by Justice Blackmun and it is the focal point for conservative opposition to judicial legislation.

President Bush, in saying to his supporters that Harriet Miers is an evangelical Christian, is trying to convince them that she does not have a liberal agenda that will come before her job of evaluating decisions on the Constitution.

Before you say that justices such as Scalia and Thomas have some sort of conservative or religious agenda that supersedes their interpretation of the Constutition, try to come up with an actual decision that favors conservatives that comes out of nowhere, like Roe v. Wade did on the liberal side.

[slothman]

"Separation of church and state" is not found but "respecting an establishment" is.
How they differ I don't know.

[Saffith]

The thing is, "Separation of church and state" is not a phrase found in the Constitution. However, people on the left bring it up all the time.The following words do not appear in any English translation of the Bible that I can find: omniscience, afterlife, monotheism, ethics, and inerrancy.
So, apparently, if you think any of those things are important concepts in the Bible, you're wrong.



As Thomas Jefferson himself once wrote, and the Supreme Court repeatedly upheld as an accurate description of the Establishment Clause:

Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

[Starkist]

Your analogy is faulty: The terms you state are after-the-fact definitions for biblical concepts. "Separation of church and state" is a phrase taken, as you point out, from the writing of Thomas Jefferson. Though considered one of the 'founding fathers' his writings are not the Constitution. They can be used to assist in interpreting the document, but the primary source for the Supreme Court has to be the Constitution.

Nowadays, anti-religious folk like to use the phrase 'separation of church and state' when referring to their desire to have a freedom from religion in the daily public life. This disregards the intent of the amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor shall it prohibit the free exercise thereof." John Ashcroft having a morning Bible study with a few coworkers when he was Attorney General does not constitute the establishment of a religion, as detractors claimed at the time. Prohibiting him from doing so, however, does in fact constitute prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

You have to remember that the reason the clause was thus phrased was because many of the American colonies were established in order to flee religious persecution. Several of the states had their own state religion at the time, but the clause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion, requiring membership, and persecuting those who had other faiths. This is what had happened in England, from the days of the Catholic Church until the time of the colonies when the Anglican Church was the official religion of the government, with the king as its head.

[Saffith]

Your analogy is faulty: The terms you state are after-the-fact definitions for biblical concepts. "Separation of church and state" is a phrase taken, as you point out, from the writing of Thomas Jefferson.Not at all. I'm making exactly the same point you are: if the words aren't there, neither is the meaning.
If they meant "separation of church and state," then, by God, they'd've written it. After all, how could there possibly be any other phrase that might reasonably be interpreted the same way?


Though considered one of the 'founding fathers' his writings are not the Constitution. They can be used to assist in interpreting the document, but the primary source for the Supreme Court has to be the Constitution.While it is true that their later writings are not in the Constitution, Madison and Jefferson wrote that amendment, so I should think they knew what it meant.
If you want to say that the Constitution should be interpreted exactly as it was written rather than as the writers themselves said they meant it, I suppose you're free to do so.

But if you're going to do that...
You have to remember that the reason the clause was thus phrased was because many of the American colonies were established in order to flee religious persecution. Several of the states had their own state religion at the time, but the clause was written to prevent the federal government from establishing a national religion, requiring membership, and persecuting those who had other faiths.... Then I don't see why the reason it's phrased the way it is should be relevant, either. Consider only the exact phrasing, or consider the intention as well. You can't pick some of each.


John Ashcroft having a morning Bible study with a few coworkers when he was Attorney General does not constitute the establishment of a religion, as detractors claimed at the time. Prohibiting him from doing so, however, does in fact constitute prohibiting the free exercise of religion.I won't disagree with you on that. The way I understood it to be, it sounded perfectly acceptable. But that certainly doesn't mean that every similar claim is incorrect.

[Lutraphobiac]

Nowadays, anti-religious folk like to use the phrase 'separation of church and state' when referring to their desire to have a freedom from religion in the daily public life. This disregards the intent of the amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, nor shall it prohibit the free exercise thereof." John Ashcroft having a morning Bible study with a few coworkers when he was Attorney General does not constitute the establishment of a religion, as detractors claimed at the time. Prohibiting him from doing so, however, does in fact constitute prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

Oddly enough this member of the "anti-religious folk" agrees with you. Seperation is not a part of the constitution. People freak out way to much over religion. I don't care if that group of kids wants to pray in school or run around with bibles. It also seems that if any political figure in power derives his views from Christian values he is trying to establish a religion. The constitution strictly provides the freedom to practice any religion you choose.

Seperation of Church and state is precedent though, and precident is extremely important in judicial matters. This was set in order to avoid the tragedy that was european monarchies that gave godly endowed power to rulers. Don't agree with the King? You are disobeying God and are thus a sinner. Any policies that reflect a movement towards something like this are what I consider a violation of this Seperation of Church and State. While I don't believe the president is particularly to blame for this, there does seem to be a such a movement in the US. People view the president as not only a polical but a religious leader. One who is fighting for their religions values.

Now beyond this I believe a President should, as a representative of the entire United States of America, show respect for other religions and philosophies. Closing every speech with "God Bless America" might be argued to be a respectful acknowledgement to the Christian heritage of America(of which I do not believe), I think it makes some groups feel excluded, and that their leader is not representing them. I believe that if the President wanted to show his religious convictions he would dedicate to improving the lives of his fellow man just as Jesus did. Upholding the core religious beliefes found in the Ten Commandments and Beatitudes should be much more important to him than some obscure interpreted lines.

This may seem like a deversion from the topic, but I think this goes to the core of why I am disappointed with the nominees. While they be nice and intelligent popel, it is no doubt that they are put in place for religious reasons. So much time and effort has been put forth by the religious right to put their "judicial activism" into place. Wish we could of put a more inspired and experienced person than Ms. Miers in place.

[slothman]

I also agree that it might be reasonable for Ashcroft to do that. I havent heard that particular one but it looks more like a private meeting that has a few friends and coworkers than a public assembly.
As for seperation, I don't think of it as "from" but as "from" only from gov't. The people can practice all they want but the gov't can't.
It seems odd but there is a big difference from a non-public student leading a prayer and a gov't appointed teacher.
In any case fortunately SCOTUS seems to be less partisan than other branches. It still can have leanings though and has had more of them recently. Hopefully she or whomever is approved will put those aside and use the Const., not opinion, to determine judicial law, i.e. constutionality of laws.