I used to LOVE baseball. My dad and I would watch game after game talking about what the pitcher would throw next, guessing location all that stuff. I grew up a big Cardinals fan. I loved Whitey-ball and the Oz. I always kept up with the minor leagues since I lived in a Texas League city and went to many ball games there. One guy caught my attention, Mark McGwire. Damn he could hit the ball. This was back in the mid-80's when he was still in the minors. When he got called up to the A's I started following them -they had this Canseco guy who could mash too. I guess McGwire to me was as Mantle was to my dad. I watched as many games on TV as I could. We even took trips to the closest big-league parks once a summer to catch a game when the A's were in town. I was married in May of 1995 (yes right after THE strike) the very next day my wife and I drove to Kansas City (from Fairfield Bay, AR) to go to a Kansas City Royals vs Oakland A's baseball game. I got to see Big Mac plant one in the fountain.

Then McGwire was traded to the Cards. I knew it was I sign. He was supposed to be there. Then he really started mashing. I was loving it, all these people jumping on the Big Mac bandwagon and I was making room for them. I have the day he hit 60, 61, and 62 all on tape, with the newspaper wrapped around it. I have another tape that has #70 on it. It was good to be a Baseball fan then. I was oblivious to the whole 'roids thing. I bought in to the Mac isn't on roids he just works out a lot and is more dedicated to working out than most of the other players line.

I had a plaque of McGwire that commemorates his two seasons Calling him the Home Run King. I was upset when Bonds hit 71.

Then came the Congressional Hearings. I watched my baseball hero. I watched him turn from superman to super-dolt. He didn't say anything. He didn't have to. His "lack of a denial" confirmed everything that I didn't want to believe.

I was fooled, lied to, misled, and I wanted to believe it. And to top it off, I feel robbed, because I can't share the good stories with my son about my baseball hero like my dad did with me. I know the Mick wasn't a saint. He drank like a fish and partied like a monster but he didn't cheat the game of Baseball like McGwire and Sosa and Bonds and so many others have done and are doing.

I want to know from them if they think it was worth it. To know that they are responsible for the destruction of the best thing about baseball - the hand me down stories of one generation's heros to the next.

Thanks Big Mac, Bonds, Sosa et al. You are the reasons why I am teaching my son all about football.

Would someone please tell me exactly what would happen if Roe v Wade were to be overturned?  Would abortions all of a sudden become illegal? Actually, no, they wouldn’t.  Roe struck down any state’s laws making abortion illegal.  So there are no states that have laws making abortion illegal.

 

Now I have an ongoing internal debate about abortion.  I am a Libertarian (yes I am a member of the Texas Libertarian Party) I am a conservative Libertarian.  I believe in the Constitution as it is written and I believe in the power of the democratic process.  My wife is more pro-life then I am. I do have a problem with the killing of an unborn life as well as I have an issue with the government deciding who can and can not have children. I am more anti-Roe since it is bad law. 

I agree with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg that Roe is “bad law” and even Justice Harry Blackmun said in the opinion of the court, "Constitution does not explicitly mention any right of privacy.”
 

Let’s go back to the ruling, Justice Blackmun did say that a right to privacy was implied in the First, Fourth, Fith, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments.  Lets look at the text of those.

 

First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

 

Fourteenth Amendment:

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

There are five sections to Amendment 14 but do not pertain to this topic.

 

I do not see in those Amendments how a person that is reading the intent of the Constitution finds “Right to Privacy”.  If you want to be picky you could point out that in the 14^th “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law” would almost seem that the state could NOT allow an abortion without a court ruling.

 

Roe is not the ruling that created “Right to Privacy”.  That is attributed to Griswold v Connecticut (1965) where the opinion of the court found “the Right to Privacy” in the “penumbras” of the Constitution (meaning between the lines, not written but implied).  The 7-2 decision overturned a Connecticut law prohibiting the use of contraceptives.  The dessenting opinion call the law silly but Constitutional.

 

Now, back to my point. What would happen if Roe were overturned?  I think the issue would be handled the way it SHOULD be handled; by a VOTE of the people.  Look at England, abortions are legal because the people voted them to be legal.  Every now and again the issue is brought up for another vote, but it is decided by the people.  This is what I want to see happen; Roe overturned and allow the people to vote if abortions should or should not be legal.  I will not support any government body declaring abortions legal or illegal without the vote of the people.

 

I am tired of the Pro-abortionists screaming that "if Roe is overturned our girls will be forced to a dirty back-alley abortion that puts their life in danger".  Hell I guess by me posting this, I could never be a Supreme Court Justice.  That is so sad that all qualifications for being a Supreme Court Justice go out the window based on how one answers the "is there a Right to Privacy in the US Constitution?"

Help me understand something; Ruth Bader Ginsburg was the General Counsel for the ACLU (a well known left of center group).  She was confirmed by the Senate 97-3 in 1993, at that time the Dem's were in control of both houses and the Presidency.

 

She was on the US Court of Appeals for DC from 1980 to 1993.

 

She had a track record of being very liberal judge

 

Why then is it a good thing that Justice Ginsburg to be on the Supreme Court and such a bad thing for Judge Alito to be nominated?

 

Last time I checked the only "requirements" to be a Justice on the Supreme Court is that they must be nominated by the President and approved by the US Senate.  The US Constitution says NOTHING about the Senate being able to filibuster a judicial nomination.

 

Please tell me why a Liberal, like Ginsburg, can get a "free pass" but someone that is conservative (with "qualifications" at least as equal to the liberal) would be considered an evil force to the world?  Senator Schumer sings the praises of Justice Ginsburg but felt that now Chief Justice Roberts was too radical for the Supreme Court – I just love that double standard.  If Ginsburg is good for the court then there should be NO opposition to Judge Alito.

 

Now, I know I am bouncing around here; I don't have a problem with Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer being on the bench, they were appointed and approved in accordance to the law of the land. {I do not like how they rule in most of their decisions, mostly because they make our Constitution subservient to other legal documents, but that is how they feel they should judge.  I firmly believe that a Justice should interpret US law based on US Law, Starting at the US Constitution -- But I am a "Constitutionalist" and think that it should be applied as written.}  I believe that a nominee’s ideology should not be the sole deciding factor in a Senator’s approving or rejecting a Supreme Court nominee.  I believe that the Senators should look at the nominee’s background, their legal capacities, and their understanding of the US Constitution and the legal decisions that define the US Code.

 

Note: It was the "liberal" wing of the Supreme Court (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) that ruled in Kelo v. City of New London that eminent domain had no bearing if the private entity would be providing more tax revenue to the jurisdiction.

 

 

As a part of my blog/rant process I want to review and discuss my beliefs.  One thing that I do not like is hypocritical beliefs or ideas that counter each other.  So today lets look at the issue of homosexuality.

 

First lets start with some of my core beliefs:

1. I am a Christian

2. I am a Conservative (I firmly believe in the mantra: The government governs best that governs least)

 

Now looking at those two items you will automatically assume that I am totally and completely against anything dealing with homosexuality.  But, I want to counter with how true Christians and Conservatives should be thinking about this topic.

 

First let us take a look at this from the "I am a Christian" aspect.  I don't think it is MY job as a Christian to determine if someone else's lifestyle is wrong.  I live under "don't judge another least ye be judged yourself" and "love thy neighbor" wing of the Christian beliefs.  I believe that Christ wants us to spread His word to all people - not certain people.  We are to be the delivery system not the judgment system that is His job.  He is the one that decides if homosexuality is a sin, not me.  I am to let everyone know that Christ loves them (see I have the easy task).  But, you may ask, "What about the 'a man shall not lay with another man as one would lay with a woman' line in the Bible?  Or the sacking of Sodom?  See it is a sin!"  That is for the follower of Christ to deal with, himself or herself.  My God is about love and living a good a life as one can, no one can live the perfect life as Christ did.

 

"But," you may counter, "so you are fine with homo's being church leaders or teaching YOUR children?"  I believe that if a person is living a Christ inspired life, their sexuality really does not matter.  I believe that if they are teaching the Word it shouldn't matter the vessel.

 

Now let us look at this in the "I am a Conservative" aspect.  Does being a homosexual matter a hill of beans? No.  Does being gay require special privileges or special laws in dealing with "those" people? No.  Listen, in my belief system EVERYONE is treated the same no matter if they are white, black, brown, red, green, yellow, pink, purple, or shades of plaid or paisley.  I don't see it anywhere in the U.S. Constitution where it is the job of the government to decide who should and should not be married.  It is not the job of the government to decide who is to get special treatment in accordance to the law.  I believe that once we get all the laws giving preference to one group over another and then getting rid of the hyphenation of our society then and only then will discrimination/racism go away.  People should not be "punished" for whom or when they marry.  I can remember when it was a "societal no-no" for a white person to marry a black person.  I see no difference in that treatment and the current treatment of "homosexual couples” Also, I firmly believe that if there were not laws "forbidding" gay marriage, then it would not be a big deal at all.  The reason why it makes so much news now is because it is "against the societal norms"  I don't hear of a big to do about gay marriages in other countries.  I think that is because they don't care who gets married.  Call that a Liberal belief if you want, I call it a TRUE Conservative belief because True Conservatives don't want to restrict the freedoms of anyone that is obeying the law.

 

Honestly answer this question: "What would it matter to you if your next-door neighbor were a happily married, law abiding, homosexual couple?"  If your first reaction was "not in my neighborhood" or "I just wouldn't deal with them" or "yech" then you know what, you are judging these people.  What is the difference if it were an Indian couple, a Latino couple, a Black couple, an Asian couple, or even a mix of any of those?  It shouldn't.  Remember go back to "love thy neighbor..." if you treat everyone as you wish to be treated then this would be one step closer to the ideals that were taught when He walked the earth.

First, the nomination of Harriet Miers to fill the Supreme Court seat of the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Conner -- To the "Hard-Core" Conservatives: SHUT UP!  We don't know much about Ms Miers but you know what, I don't think she would have been nominated by President Bush if she didn't agree with his core principles. 

 

So she isn't a issue oriented person that drives a wedge between people just by mentioning her name.  Personally, I don't WANT a Justice to be an ideologue.  I want a Justice to be a judge that looks at the Law of the Land (the Constitution) to decide the case.  If you want a person to be a justice that has issues driving their decision then you are not getting a judge but a politician.  We have enough politicians in court these days as it is.  We need more true judges.  I think we are off to a good start when Chief Justice Roberts was sworn in earlier this month.  I truly believe that he is the mold of what President Bush is trying to get the court to look like.  Since Harriet Miers was on the team that selected Justice Roberts, she has the potential to be in that mold.

 

Now to the liberals that are screaming "She isn't qualified, she is just a crony, she'll make abortions illegal"  You too get a SHUT UP!  I would like to say that you are starting to annoy me, but you aren't.  I know that you will oppose anything that GW Bush proposes and have to find some way to "make your position look good" no matter how shallow it is. 

 

The Appointment and Confirmation process will help to see if she is truly fit to be justice, but when you have senators like Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, Dick Durbin, Dianne Feinstein, and Patrick Leahy and all they do is attack attack attack regardless of the facts you don't have a good confirmation process.  If they would - just one time - question a nominee with questions that are not so shallow or factually incorrect just so they can appease their "base" then I might start to respect them.  I have no problem with someone being a liberal when they have a firm stance on their liberal views.  It is when a liberal takes each and every side of the issues then calls you wrong for not agreeing with them is what I cannot stand.

 

Finally, could there have been "better" people to nominate than Harriet Miers, possibly.  But we won't know until she has gone through the process.