Comments on: Time to take action in the Supreme Court http://atheists.org/blog/2005/10/09/time_to_take_action_in_the_supreme_court A Blog of Atheist Thought Fri, 10 Feb 2012 10:05:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Dangerman http://atheists.org/blog/2005/10/09/time_to_take_action_in_the_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-10643 Dangerman Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-10643 Unfortunately, Charlie, those faith "healers" work a lot of the time. Not because of jesus, holy f**k no, but because of the power of the brain. You can think yourself healthy(sometimes), which is what they do.<br /> <br /> Personally, I hope that she just sits in her house waiting for god to show her the way. Then she will never come out and never bother us again. Unfortunately, Charlie, those faith “healers” work a lot of the time. Not because of jesus, holy f**k no, but because of the power of the brain. You can think yourself healthy(sometimes), which is what they do.

Personally, I hope that she just sits in her house waiting for god to show her the way. Then she will never come out and never bother us again.

]]> By: karen http://atheists.org/blog/2005/10/09/time_to_take_action_in_the_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-10649 karen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-10649 http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1006/p01s01-uspo.html<br /> <br /> <blockquote>An influential blog by Marvin Olasky, a Bush adviser credited with framing the president's "compassionate conservative" agenda, makes the case that a lot about Miers can be learned from her "decade of service in a conservative church," where she taught Sunday School, made coffee, brought doughnuts, and was willing to do whatever needed doing.<br /> <br /> She "totally committed her life to Jesus," and tithed 15 percent of her after- tax income to her church. "Nothing she's asked to do in church is beneath her," he writes, citing an interview with Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who attended the Valley View Christian Church in Dallas with Miers. <b>"She's an originalist - that's the way she takes the Bible and that's her approach to the Constitution as well.</b>"</blockquote><br /> <br /> I was searching for more info on that "fear and trepidation" part of Dobson's quote when I came across this. An originalist who's dedicated to Jesus. <i>That's scary.</i> But at least she can make coffee and get donuts. Gotta keep the women in their place. We've GOTTA get active on this one!<br /> For more insight into Dobson's fear, see<br /> http://mediamatters.org/items/200510050009<br /> http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1006/p01s01-uspo.html

An influential blog by Marvin Olasky, a Bush adviser credited with framing the president’s “compassionate conservative” agenda, makes the case that a lot about Miers can be learned from her “decade of service in a conservative church,” where she taught Sunday School, made coffee, brought doughnuts, and was willing to do whatever needed doing.

She “totally committed her life to Jesus,” and tithed 15 percent of her after- tax income to her church. “Nothing she’s asked to do in church is beneath her,” he writes, citing an interview with Texas Supreme Court Justice Nathan Hecht, who attended the Valley View Christian Church in Dallas with Miers. “She’s an originalist – that’s the way she takes the Bible and that’s her approach to the Constitution as well.“

I was searching for more info on that “fear and trepidation” part of Dobson’s quote when I came across this. An originalist who’s dedicated to Jesus. That’s scary. But at least she can make coffee and get donuts. Gotta keep the women in their place. We’ve GOTTA get active on this one!
For more insight into Dobson’s fear, see
http://mediamatters.org/items/200510050009

]]> By: karen http://atheists.org/blog/2005/10/09/time_to_take_action_in_the_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-10655 karen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-10655 Subpeona Dobson and Rove and dubya for the hearings. I for one, can't wait to watch. Subpeona Dobson and Rove and dubya for the hearings. I for one, can’t wait to watch.

]]> By: reluctantatheist http://atheists.org/blog/2005/10/09/time_to_take_action_in_the_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-10656 reluctantatheist Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-10656 karen: that's just outrageous.<br /> So we're clear on the definition - http://www.answers.com/originalist -<br /> "The belief that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it."<br /> <br /> It also defines originalism as "The actual aim or purpose esp. of the framers of the U.S. Constitution<br /> A conservative theory in constitutional law: only those guarantees intended by the framers and set forth in the text of the Constitution are valid "<br /> <br /> I took a good look at the term 'strict constructionist', & it appears I misinterpreted it. Apparently I am a broad constructionist, in that we should adhere to the spirit as well as the intentions of the Founding Fathers.<br /> <br /> Anyways, she was Shrub Jr.'s personal lawyer. <br /> Do I detect the noxious scent of 'conflict of interest' here? karen: that’s just outrageous.
So we’re clear on the definition – http://www.answers.com/originalist -
“The belief that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted according to the intent of those who composed and adopted it.”

It also defines originalism as “The actual aim or purpose esp. of the framers of the U.S. Constitution
A conservative theory in constitutional law: only those guarantees intended by the framers and set forth in the text of the Constitution are valid “

I took a good look at the term ‘strict constructionist’, & it appears I misinterpreted it. Apparently I am a broad constructionist, in that we should adhere to the spirit as well as the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

Anyways, she was Shrub Jr.’s personal lawyer.
Do I detect the noxious scent of ‘conflict of interest’ here?

]]> By: karen http://atheists.org/blog/2005/10/09/time_to_take_action_in_the_supreme_court/comment-page-1#comment-10659 karen Wed, 30 Nov -0001 00:00:00 +0000 #comment-10659 reluctant<br /> <br /> Tell me, how does an originalist even deal with an AMMENDMENT to the constitution? Particularly an amendement which would never have even entered the minds of the founding fathers? <br /> I may be splitting hairs here, but just asking. What does an originalist do with whatever comes after the original document? reluctant

Tell me, how does an originalist even deal with an AMMENDMENT to the constitution? Particularly an amendement which would never have even entered the minds of the founding fathers?
I may be splitting hairs here, but just asking. What does an originalist do with whatever comes after the original document?

]]>