Countrymen, Lend Me Your Ears
Since Bush's re-election in 04, TWO of my greatest fears have come true--the loss of not one, but TWO Supreme Court Justices. Robert's confirmation last week has made me a bit bonkers about who is going to fill the next slot, and now Bush has nominated Harriet Meirs. I don't know anything about Meirs yet, but I want to let everyone know how vital it is to keep abreast and get involved in this issue. The appointment of a Supreme Court Justice is HUGE. It affects not ONLY our generation but our children's generation. Everyone has their own hot button issues, and mine is female reproductive rights, which Bush has done everything in his power to make more difficult, or take away. And just the other day, the Senate failed to renew the Violence Against Women Act, (http://www.now.org/issues/violence/100105vawa_alert.html), which should have been a NO-BRAINER. This just pushed me over the edge, and I will now be following Bush, and Meirs, more closely.
There ARE things you can do if you agree with or disagree with her nomination and/or if you want to get more involved in general!!:
Write/call/email your Senators
Sign up for your political party's office in your town
Watch the Meirs confirmation hearings
Write Letters to the Editor
But here is my dumb/naive/asinine question: Bush says that Meirs is a good choice because he knows she will govern "by the law and not on the bench." Which means, he expects her personal opinions not to get in the way of her judgment, which I agree with--BUT-- you cannot tell me Roe VS Wade decision was not made with judgment alone-it was as an emotional issue back then as it is today.
There ARE things you can do if you agree with or disagree with her nomination and/or if you want to get more involved in general!!:
Write/call/email your Senators
Sign up for your political party's office in your town
Watch the Meirs confirmation hearings
Write Letters to the Editor
But here is my dumb/naive/asinine question: Bush says that Meirs is a good choice because he knows she will govern "by the law and not on the bench." Which means, he expects her personal opinions not to get in the way of her judgment, which I agree with--BUT-- you cannot tell me Roe VS Wade decision was not made with judgment alone-it was as an emotional issue back then as it is today.
posted by Aimee | 8:00 AM
2 Comments:
I hear ya, sister.
I finished reading your thesis over the weekend. I love it! I'll send you typo/proofreading stuff later this week.
Aimee, I'm with you on this one hundred and fifty percent. I didn't realize you were such an activist, we should've been talking about this a year ago! Anyway, other justices and Congressmen (anti-choice, of course), have expressed their faith in HM and their belief that she'll "do the right thing." And it isn't so much what she HAS said about her stance, but what she HASN'T said...we can't publicly and adamantly oppose her if she keeps her stance unclear, right? Smart people. I too feel that Roe is in serious danger, the worst it's ever been in. We should talk about this at rez, see who else is interested in getting involved. Grassroots is the way to go!
Post a Comment
<< Home