Posted on 10/03/2005 4:44:43 PM PDT by MikeJ
[...]
"How does a free society prevent" such crimes, she asked. She then explained:
The same liberties that ensure a free society make the innocent vulnerable to those who prevent rights and privileges and commit senseless and cruel acts. Those precious liberties include free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom of liberties, access to public places, the right to bear arms and freedom from constant surveillance. We are not willing to sacrifice these rights because of the acts of maniacs.
Miers, however, rejected the notion that "precious liberties", including "the right to bear arms," should be sacrificed in the name of crime prevention. Quite obviously, she was referring to the "right to bear arms" as an individual right.
[...]
(Excerpt) Read more at volokh.com ...
Just saw your post. We saw the same chink in the armor, I think.
Ha, yeah, it was the "lack of self-esteem" that caught me eye, as well. Bad sign, there.
Of course we have to address the "root causes" (fatherless homes, unlimited welfare, etc)...but when politicians use the phrase, it's usually code for "Spend more money."
By the way, I'm still on the fence with this nomination. From what I hear, she sounds like the type of person I would have much in common with... but I have no background to infer how she might interpret cases before the court.
>> She'll probably rubber-stamp every WOT executive decision he wants to make. The question is whether the choice will be good for the country.
Paranoia is healthy when kept in check with reality.
The executive will act as his/her power can be projected regardless of any court.
If the WOT scares you now, wait until the rats get control of the agencies administering these new laws.
Lack of self-esteem? Holy mackerel. Criminals have altogether too much self-esteem. That's why they believe that they can take stuff from others.
She's a lib on crime. She's a lib on education. She's a lib on the gay agenda, including gay "marriage" and gays in the military (she's the one who preserved Clinton administration policies in the Bush era). She's donated big to libs up until 1992.
Do you think she's really anything but a lib on guns?
Not to mention, the only distinctions she brings to the job are: 1. She's a female, a qualification she shares equally with over 160 million other Americans, and 2. She's a Bush crony, a qualification she shares with a whole bunch of people who have been promoted miles beyond their ability -- think Julie Myers, the 20-something bimbo Bush is trying to put at the head of the wreck he's made of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
This woman is the most unqualified nominee since Abe Fortas (and yes, that means she was more unqualified than Carswell).
Bush must not care if he does his last two years with a Democratic House. I mean, why should Republicans turn out and vote for alleged members of their party when the only difference in parties anymore is whose cronies get the patronage?
Unqualified. Utterly unqualified.
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
1, 4, 5, and 14 are alive and well, if you are a corporation.
Wasn't Alberto Gonzales the White House counsel when CFR was signed by the President?
Yaaaahoooo: "the right to bear arms" enough to get my SUPPORT:-)
I had initial reservations about Roberts too, but when I read his opinions I was left with no doubts that he thinks powerfully and exactly, expresses himself with concomitant eloquence, and can strictly segregate his emotions from the facts and law before him. These traits suggest to me that Roberts cannot be co-opted, browbeaten, deceived, or shamed into submission by a more powerful and devious mind on the left.
I obtain no such similar assurance from reading Miers' words.
Agreed
I've read some things about Mier that is like but this "self esteem" statement about criminality and it's causes really bothered me this morning when I first read it. That is nothing but muddle headed psycho-babble and attempting to blame shift from the criminal to society in general. Criminals are criminals because they don't respect their fellow man and the blame should be laid at no one else's feet.
I just hope that statement is not a true indicator of her judicial temperment.
We've got Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, and others that I think are pretty d@mn good people. Ok, the FEMA guy maybe could have been better, but I really think he just had bad luck.
We know Roberts is a genius, even if we don't really know what he thinks.
If Bush does anything right, it's pick people to work for him. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on Miers.
He'd defy the court? Not unless he wants to see some big trouble coming down.
The devil is in the details. Kerry was for the RKBA too. So is Sarah Brady. But their ideas of what constitutes the RKBA and what the Founders meant differ significantly. The Brady Boob wants to institute a federally-mandated needs based licensing system for gun ownership. Such a scheme does not in itself negate the 2nd - it merely places extreme obstacles in the way of exercising it. That is more or less what a lib means when he/she says that "I support the RKBA." That's a far cry from the individual absolute right to own firearms free of government interference. Miers needs to be asked exactly what she thinks the 2nd means......and then held to a standard that does not reek of BS.
It would not be the first time. Bush knows this woman well, better than some of the people on this site who are calling him a RINO; I trust him. I do not think he would knowingly violate a pledge as integral to his campaign as he made SCOTUS nominations.
In that case - count me as supporting our new SCOTUS member whole-heartedly!
That is the best news I've seen about her so far.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.