Miers' friends say church is evidence of her viewpoints By Seattle Times news services
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is a devout Christian who follows what she believes to be Jesus Christ's teachings and opposes abortion, according to interviews with close friends and acquaintances...
Miers' longtime on-and-off companion — himself a Texas Supreme Court justice — and other confidants pledge that her judicial values would be guided by the law and the Constitution. But they say her personal values have been shaped by her abiding faith in Jesus and by her membership in Valley View Christian Church, where she was baptized as an adult, served on the missions committee and taught religious classes.
At Valley View, pastors preach that abortion is murder, the Bible is the literal word of God and homosexuality is a sin.
In a news conference yesterday, President Bush said he did not recall discussing abortion or Roe v. Wade with Miers, 60, his longtime lawyer. But he added:
"I made my position very clear in the course of my campaigns. I'm a pro-life president. And I know her. I know her heart. I know what she believes. ... And she knows exactly the kind of judge I'm looking for."...
Miers joined Valley View 25 years ago. She and about 150 other members split off to form a new church within the past few weeks, saying they wanted a more staid and traditional place of worship.
One evening in the 1980s, several years after Miers dedicated her life to Jesus, she attended a lecture at her church with Nathan Hecht, her companion, then a colleague at her law firm. The speaker was Paul Brand, a surgeon and the author of "Fearfully and Wonderfully Made," a best-selling exploration of God and the human body.
Afterward, Hecht said, Miers said words he never had heard from her before. "I'm convinced that life begins at conception," Hecht recalled her saying. According to Hecht, Miers has believed ever since that abortion is "taking a life."
"I know she is pro-life," said Hecht, one of the most conservative judges in Texas. "She thinks that after conception, it's not a balancing act — or if it is, it's a balancing of two equal lives."
Miers' campaign manager in her race for the Dallas City Council in 1989, Lorlee Bartos, recalled she was surprised to learn that her candidate was opposed to abortion rights.
"I wanted her to meet with a group of pro-choice women, and she said she wasn't pro-choice," Bartos said. "She said she had been pro-choice but had changed her view."
Said her friend Ed Kinkeade, a federal district judge: "People in Dallas know she's a conservative. She's not Elmer Gantry, but she lives what she believes. ... I'm like, y'all, has George Bush appointed anyone to an appellate court that is a betrayal to conservatives?" ...
An occasional attendee of Catholic or Episcopal services through college and graduate school, Miers was introduced to Valley View Christian Church by Hecht.
The 1,200-member church is a nondenominational Christian church that does not require members to subscribe to any particular point of view, its leaders and members said. But active members such as Miers generally are attracted by its conservative, Scripture-based philosophy, they said.
"You could certainly say that she is a very dedicated and active member of a conservative, evangelical Christian church," said Barry McCarty, the church's pastor.
Miers maintained her connection with the church even when her job with the Bush White House kept her in Washington.
On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:46:15 -0800, "Dana" <wh...@whoya.com> wrote: >"JOE" <e...@joes.com> wrote in message >news:78c7k11sikla5mv9evn1puu2grb5g26i87@4ax.com... >> Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers is a devout Christian
>So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an issue.
Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of precedent then it becomes a major issue. Preconceived beliefs negate the separation of church/state.
> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an issue.
> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of > precedent then it becomes a major issue.
You are just being an intolerant bigot. Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are wrong like roe, can and should be over turned.
> > >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an issue.
> > Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of > > precedent then it becomes a major issue.
> You are just being an intolerant bigot. > Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are wrong > like roe, can and should be over turned.
You have to understand, Dana is one of those that believes the Constitution really doesn't say what it says, and should be overturned. Basically, a lunatic. Most of us ignore it.
On Sat, 8 Oct 2005 10:52:42 -0800, "Dana" <wh...@whoya.com> wrote: ><wbye...@ireland.com> wrote in message >news:m9pfk19bi5j4m6f9tqmoinbn5mvkab0fqu@4ax.com... >> On Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:46:15 -0800, "Dana" <wh...@whoya.com> wrote:
>> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an issue.
>> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of >> precedent then it becomes a major issue.
>You are just being an intolerant bigot. >Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are wrong >like roe, can and should be over turned.
Roe v. Wade is wrong because Dana says so. After all he ranks right up there with John Marshall as a legal scholar. Let me clue you in. If the Supremes ever outlawed abortion there's be a fight like you haven't seen since Roosevelt's "switch in time saved nine." The overwhelming majority in the US favors abortion and this isn't going to change except in a few backwards states if the court threw it back in the states' laps. Comprende?
> >> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an issue.
> >> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of > >> precedent then it becomes a major issue.
> >You are just being an intolerant bigot. > >Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are wrong > >like roe, can and should be over turned.
> Roe v. Wade is wrong because Dana says so.
Nope, because the Constitution does not even address abortion, hence by the 9th and 10th Amendments it is a state and local issue.
> >> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an issue.
> >> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of > >> precedent then it becomes a major issue.
> >You are just being an intolerant bigot. > >Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are wrong > >like roe, can and should be over turned.
> Roe v. Wade is wrong because Dana says so. After all he ranks right up > there with John Marshall as a legal scholar. Let me clue you in. If > the Supremes ever outlawed abortion there's be a fight like you > haven't seen since Roosevelt's "switch in time saved nine." The > overwhelming majority in the US favors abortion and this isn't going > to change except in a few backwards states if the court threw it back > in the states' laps. Comprende?
If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, it would become a state's rights issue (unless Congress passed a law outlawing it, and that would never happen).
Southern states would outlaw abortion and the poor and teenage residents of those states would be forced into carrying to term their pregnancies, placing a great burden on the state to care for the unwanted children.
States with laws allowing abortions would be funding those unwanted children (currently blue states support the red states through tax receipt redistribution, an illegal action in itself). It would be only a matter of time before those states would rebel against the government and demand their tax dollars stay in the states generated.
In effect, outlawing abortion would lead to a new American civil war.
And if Congress acted to remove the issue from the states and passed a federal law outlawing abortion nationwide, the war would start a whole lot sooner.
> > >> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an > issue.
> > >> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of > > >> precedent then it becomes a major issue.
> > >You are just being an intolerant bigot. > > >Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are > wrong > > >like roe, can and should be over turned.
> > Roe v. Wade is wrong because Dana says so.
> Nope, because the Constitution does not even address abortion, hence by the > 9th and 10th Amendments it is a state and local issue.
Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is truly appalling. Do you really consider yourself informed?
The law is what the Supreme Court SAYS the law is. That's what our Constitution says. Do you believe that all of the laws the Republicans have passed are directly addressed in the Constitution? Please indicate where they can cut taxes. Feel free to take all the time you want. Go ahead, just a single line will do.
> > > >> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an > > issue.
> > > >> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of > > > >> precedent then it becomes a major issue.
> > > >You are just being an intolerant bigot. > > > >Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are > > wrong > > > >like roe, can and should be over turned.
> > > Roe v. Wade is wrong because Dana says so.
> > Nope, because the Constitution does not even address abortion, hence by the > > 9th and 10th Amendments it is a state and local issue.
> Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is truly appalling.
And again, you have no idea of what you are talking about junior. So before you go on and continue making a fool out of yourself, just show us what clause from the Constitution specifically addresses abortion.
> > > > >> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an > > > issue.
> > > > >> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of > > > > >> precedent then it becomes a major issue.
> > > > >You are just being an intolerant bigot. > > > > >Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are > > > wrong > > > > >like roe, can and should be over turned.
> > > > Roe v. Wade is wrong because Dana says so.
> > > Nope, because the Constitution does not even address abortion, hence by > the > > > 9th and 10th Amendments it is a state and local issue.
> > Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is truly appalling.
> And again, you have no idea of what you are talking about junior. > So before you go on and continue making a fool out of yourself, just show us > what clause from the Constitution specifically addresses abortion.
Typical, ad hominem attacks and generalized ignorance.
If you can't answer the question, simply admit it. The Supreme Court found an overwhelming right to privacy in the Constitution. Are you now claiming you know more than the Supreme Court justices? That's what I thought.
> > > > > >> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it an > > > > issue.
> > > > > >> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the face of > > > > > >> precedent then it becomes a major issue.
> > > > > >You are just being an intolerant bigot. > > > > > >Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that are > > > > wrong > > > > > >like roe, can and should be over turned.
> > > > > Roe v. Wade is wrong because Dana says so.
> > > > Nope, because the Constitution does not even address abortion, hence by > > the > > > > 9th and 10th Amendments it is a state and local issue.
> > > Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is truly appalling.
> > And again, you have no idea of what you are talking about junior. > > So before you go on and continue making a fool out of yourself, just show us > > what clause from the Constitution specifically addresses abortion.
> Typical, ad hominem attacks and generalized ignorance.
So you admitt, you cannot show any clause in the Constitution that addresses abortion. See you are learning something.
> > > > > > >> >So what, her religion is not an issue, nor should you make it > an > > > > > issue.
> > > > > > >> Why not? If her religion colors her rulings and runs in the > face of > > > > > > >> precedent then it becomes a major issue.
> > > > > > >You are just being an intolerant bigot. > > > > > > >Precedent does not mean it is cast in stone, those decisions that > are > > > > > wrong > > > > > > >like roe, can and should be over turned.
> > > > > > Roe v. Wade is wrong because Dana says so.
> > > > > Nope, because the Constitution does not even address abortion, hence > by > > > the > > > > > 9th and 10th Amendments it is a state and local issue.
> > > > Your lack of knowledge of the Constitution is truly appalling.
> > > And again, you have no idea of what you are talking about junior. > > > So before you go on and continue making a fool out of yourself, just > show us > > > what clause from the Constitution specifically addresses abortion.
> > Typical, ad hominem attacks and generalized ignorance.
> So you admitt, you cannot show any clause in the Constitution that addresses > abortion. See you are learning something.
In fact, I said nothing of the sort.
Abortion is quite clearly legal under the First Amendment. If you can't figure out why, well, that would be pretty sad. But I'll give you a hint... the concept that "life begins at conception" is a purely religious one.
|
