This should be interesting. A woman was ticketed for driving in an HOV lane in Phoenix, Arizona with only her unborn son as a passenger. She’s fighting the ticket in court. (Fedora Tip: PowerBlog!)
"I understand the reasoning for the HOV lane. But whether my son is in a car seat versus in my stomach, I don’t get it. It’s the same thing." – Candace Dickinson
Earlier this month, I sang with the Handle Choir of Baltimore at the Red Mass for The St. Thomas Moore Society of Baltimore at Loyola College. Got to see our Cardinal & Bishop along with judges, priests, lawyers, and others. We prayed that God would guide us in all justice and judicial prudence.
The homilist talked much about how God would eventually be victorious in matters of just law. His main point was in regards to abortion. It was very un-P.C. that he would talk about the subject, especially in the manner he did, but I liked it.
He mentioned that Blacks were once not considered human and that Blacks were not to have the same education as Whites. The Supreme Court and other judges upheld it. Yet eventually, it was overturned. He said in the same way that the abortion issue would return to the states, if not outlawed, overturning yet another decision.
Also, earlier this month Ms. Miers, the president, and other high level officials attended a Red Mass just down I-95 from the one I attended.
Would Harriet vote to overturn Roe? The president alluded to it when he thought Ms. Miers’ religion was an important issue. Is this the case? Is he just trying to get people like me in the general population and in Congress to back her? Who knows?
Unfortunately for pro-life folks like me, I don’t think Bush could get someone into the court socially conservative enough to pass Sen. Spector (R) and the Democrats. Nevertheless, I hope if Harriet’s confirmed she’s the right person for the job.
A lot of discussion has ensued over whether Harriet Miers would be a proponent of overturning Roe v. Wade if confirmed to a seat on the Supreme Court. Indeed, for many, this is an extremely important because some see this as the single most important issue a Justice may influence. I believe, however, that those who focus on this issue are doing themselves, Miers, and their country a disservice. It is imperative to realize that the influence of a Justice is farmore sweeping than simply the question of abortion rights.
While not directly criticizing Miers at the moment (I’ll do that later), I believe one must review the overall qualifications and integrity of a Justice long before reviewing philosophy, ideology, and theology, and certainly well before considering the potential Justice’s view on individual issues. Why concern ourselves with these areas, qualifications and integrity, before those which would seem to have a more direct application to decisions and opinions? While philosophy, ideology, and theology may have a much more direct impact on a Justice’s influence, it is my assertion that without well established qualifications and integrity, that we cannot be certain if there will be any consistency to the application of one’s philosophy, ideology, and theology.
This interesting little tidbit of info was in the latest mailing from Grassfire.
"a new bill in Congress…would require the U.S. Supreme Court to televise its public sessions — in essence creating a Supreme Court ‘C-Span’. I believe this is a great way to bring some level of public accountability to the courts."
That sounds pretty cool. I’ll keep an eye on this and let you folks know if anything comes of it.
Apparently, conservatives don't own dictionaries. They seem utterly oblivious to the definition of "litmus test" as well as "irony" and "hypocrisy". I've received a number of alarmist emails from various conservative groups with in this vein:
"Write to your Senators and let them know you don't support any litmus test demands!"
How are demands for so-called strict constructionists who will overturn Roe v. Wade not litmus tests?! Everyone knows that if Bush hadn't nominated a "solid conservative", the loyal base that got him elected twice would have eaten him alive. That wasn't a suggestion. That was demand – a political debt to be paid.
These kinds of hypocritical political tactics will only hurt the pro-life cause. I'd like to see abortion on demand ended as much as the next pro-lifer, but this is not a productive way to go about it. As long as this battle remains Us versus Them, hearts will not be changed and lives won't be saved. Why should we be forced to accept any Supreme Court nominee – or political candiate for that matter – based solely on his position on abortion rulings? Worse yet, in this case, we don't even know for certain what his position is!
Chicken Little, the sky is not falling. There are other ways to reduce abortions than loading the courts with pro-lifers. Also, Supreme Court appointments are for life and there a lot of ways a justice could screw up constitutional law. I'd like to know how a nominee feels about a lot of issues aside from abortion before hounding my senators to accept his appointment. Besides, demanding pro-life strict constructionists is just as much as litmus test as demanding pro-choice "living document" nominees. It makes pro-lifers just as hypocritical as the pro-choicers they demonize, if not worse, and it undermines the pro-life cause.
In the name of the modern Holy Innocents, I beg you to stop.