Make Big $$$ In Washington!

[Nephythys]

did you see the Dobson quotes? That most everyone else asked to be removed from consideration?

[Reaver]

Well, I agree. I certainly can't figure it out. So many qualified possibilities, and Bush pics her... I'd like to think there's some sort of strategery at work here, but I've hoped for that too many times with Bush, only to find none. And I'm a Bush supporter! Yikes.

[Not Afraid]

I just have to love the semantics war. Croney, extreme right, blah blah blah. Granted, sometimes it is actually a proper label, but most of the time, it's just extreme and comforting to the user.

[PanTheMan]

If Dobson and Bush say the #1 reason in Picking Miers is her "Religion" , does this make us a Theocratic State yet?

Last time i checked, the only mention of Religion in the constitution is that it be SEPERATE from Government, not incorporated with it.

The only other reason, is that Bush will have a "Proxy" vote for maybe the next 20 years on the court. A direct violation of all conflict of intrest laws.

[Reaver]

Originally Posted by PanTheMan

If Dobson and Bush say the #1 reason in Picking Miers is her "Religion" , does this make us a Theocratic State yet?

Last time i checked, the only mention of Religion in the constitution is that it be SEPERATE from Government, not incorporated with it.

The only other reason, is that Bush will have a "Proxy" vote for maybe the next 20 years on the court. A direct violation of all conflict of intrest laws.

Ok, first, the separation of church and state was originally intended to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. It was meant as a way to keep the government from backing one religion and forcing it on the general public, as was the case in England. Having some Christian people in Govenment is nothing close to this. So far, I've not heard any of them even mention a specific religion. "Christian" covers a wide array of religions...

Second, Bush is only going to be around for another few years. Why would he want a "proxy" vote set up for when he's not around? And even if he did, getting people who's doctrines are similar to his in power is hardly a violation of conflict of interest. If you think the country should be run a certain way, you put people in place that will run it that way. No conflict. And every president since Washington has done the same thing...

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by PanTheMan

The only other reason, is that Bush will have a "Proxy" vote for maybe the next 20 years on the court. A direct violation of all conflict of intrest laws.

???

If someone nominates someone to a position, it will be someone they like, and probably agree with, yes? Wouldn't anything else be silly? Why is nominating someone that he likes to the job a violation of conflict of interest? It's what he's supposed to do.

What do you expect, exactly?

If you want to discuss a viable issue, discuss whether or not she's qualified.

[Name]

Originally Posted by Reaver

Ok, first, the separation of church and state was originally intended to keep government out of religion, not the other way around. It was meant as a way to keep the government from backing one religion and forcing it on the general public, as was the case in England. Having some Christian people in Govenment is nothing close to this. So far, I've not heard any of them even mention a specific religion. "Christian" covers a wide array of religions...

You sir, have contradicted yourself a bit, for you cannot keep governnment out of religion, then allow religion into government, and not then have the religion be "forced" on the general public....

Government policies always impact the general public, and if religion is in government guiding choices, then the minorities of the general public will be left out of the process. And we start getting laws that diminish the abilities of the other religions to practice as they would like. Or we get what we have now, a government that thinks the union of two people should be dependant on the sex of those two people, based solely on a religious viewpoint.

Having christian people in government is not a bad thing at all, but basing all your decisions off your religious viewpoints is a little narrow minded. I respect the religious man that respects other points of view, its the ones that diminish other points of view that get my goat.

Christian may be a broad term used to describe many different sects of religion, but it is mainly used to describe the following of the teaching of one man...... many of which the religions have fallen from the basic message of that man long ago.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

Originally Posted by Cadaverous Pallor

???

If someone nominates someone to a position, it will be someone they like, and probably agree with, yes? Wouldn't anything else be silly? Why is nominating someone that he likes to the job a violation of conflict of interest? It's what he's supposed to do.

What do you expect, exactly?

If you want to discuss a viable issue, discuss whether or not she's qualified.

I'd love a response to this, Pan.

[PanTheMan]

First off, I dont believe the Position should be political, as Robert Bork Stated last night on Hardball. it should be a judicial appointment, not a political one. however reality is a different story.

If I were President , would i want one of my Buddies on the Court? Sure. Would I actually be self involved enough to put my own intrests over the nations? No.

As you know, as just about everyone here knows, I lean left. I also know the People who put Bush in office lean Right. I fully Expected the next SC Justice to be Alberto Gonzales. A Conservative. Would I "Like" it? probably Not. But Given that Bush is who we have as President, Bush should put someone who represents THE PEOPLE who put Bush in office, not a Justice who represents Bush himself. Gonzales is a qualified person, who like him or not (not) deserves the nod LONG ahead of Miers.

Give Miers another Crony Job...perhaps Ambassador to Fiji?