T
Q05
October 13, 2005
The Blue Banner — Serving the Universitv’ of North Carolina at Asheville sinee 1982
Opinion
at Asheville sinee 1982 Page 11
IC(
lisinterpretations
nd Misunderstandings
s
lelj)
am
By Brian Davis
Photography Editor
In last week’s issue, a letter to
le editor was printed in response
an editorial printed in Issue 4
■ pie Blue Banner. The letter’s
jthor brings up several points
lat I would like to counter.
Firstly, I do not believe that the
riginal editorial by Paul
;trequin was comparing homo-
xuality and homosexuals to
idophiles and necrophiliacs, as
le author of the Issue 5 letter
;ems to suggest.
I personally know Paul and I
lel completely comfortable and
aftji Dtifident in
now
iing
omort
end 01
esscj 1
an stil
:h wil
Is wil
of an;
; thot
fore
aes not feel
is way at
In fact
aul is one of
more
en-minded
raight men
low 1 ^ know
id work
'ith here in
sheville.
Davis
In my opinion, Paul was simply
ying to say that no one has the
ght to say you cannot get mar-
ludeii'J someone of the same sex
Hey ■ have the same rights and pro-
tion as heterosexual American
itizens.
The American legal system cre-
les laws to protect individuals,
iws prohibiting sex with a
nor are such an example since
lese laws protect our children.
0 then are the discriminatory
iws against homosexuals pro-
ting?
[These laws are not protecting
lyone; they are only keeping the
aight white male in a place of
iwer and privilege,
econdly, the author mentions
'w he feels the interpretation of
stianity is “about love and
llerance. Therefore, how dare
u tell someone that what they
e doing is wrong,’’ is misguid-
colleji
ofit
Yoi
klOB
>tud(
imci
wiikt
prioiisl
ypi(
dutu:
risk!
itentii
risk!
Younil
;atio!j
stocu
ffereij
fund
jcaus
ivide^
:ks
[In the 21 years that I have been
live, most of those years have
en involved with the Christian
llurch.
[During all my years with the
liurch, the one thing I heard
[lore about than anything else
[as the love of Jesus and of God
or all people.
If this is a misguided interpre-
kion of the Christian Church
hen I suggest someone reeducate
he pastors and leaders of the
aany and various Christian
[hurches throughout America.
Furthermore, not everyone
elieves in the Christian God or
in a god. So what gives you the
right to judge someone by your
standards when they may not
have the same beliefs?
While on the topic of God, I’d
like to also counter the author’s
comment that “if there is any one
who is not tolerant of sin, it’s
God.”
If this is the case, then every
one that sins will go to Hell
because God would not forgive
them of their sins regardless if
they truly repented or not.
Therefore everyone will go to
Hell because as human beings we
are incapable of living without
sinning.
Finally, I would like to point
out that President Bush is an
“elected” official of the US gov
ernment. As such a member of
our government he is to represent
all the citizens of the United
States of America, not just those
that have the same views or reli
gious beliefs as he does.
By President Bush pushing for
legislation that does discriminate
against a group of individuals, he
is not accurately representing all
the individuals in America. He is
only representing those that wish
to discriminate and in this case he
agrees with the agenda to dis
criminate.
I know that it would be virtual
ly impossible for one individual
to represent all the individuals
making up the United States.
However, one person pushing an
agenda, for whatever reason, that
discriminates against a group of
individuals is wrong.
As to which group is in the
majority or in the minority does
not matter if discrimination is
still occurring.
Americans would be getting
upset if legislation was proposed
stating that you could only pro
create with people of the same
ethnic group.
No one has the right to tell you
that you cannot have sex with
someone of the same gender. Nor
does anyone have the right to say
that your same-sex monogamous
relationship is less valid than an
opposite-sex monogamous rela
tionship.
Live your life and let me live
mine. There should only be a
problem if my living keeps you
from living.
And in the case of homosexual
ity and the rights of homosexuals.
I’d argue the heterosexual com
munity is keeping homosexuals
from living their lives. Not the
other way around as people make
it seem.
divid
Blue Banner Staff
mere
Dn)t[
Wbil-I
Fall 2005
Maribeth Kiser
Editor-in-Chief
ing t
iphoj
Tracy Home
Sports Editor
Anne Phillips
Sampus/Layout Editor
Paul Petrequin
Entertainment Editor
Andrds Martin
Business Manager
Adam Hillberry
Circuiation
Brian Davis
Photo Editor
Sarah Schmidt
Copy Editor
Erin Curtis
News Editor
Lindsay LaClair
Ad Manager
Rachel Wright
Copy Editor
Justin Holt
Circuiation
Michael Gouge
Faculty Adviser
CPO 1256
UNCA-KHOD
One University Heights
Asheville, NC 28804
®8) 251-6586
banner@unca.edu
Harriet Miers right for Supreme Court?
Fisher
By Terri Fisher
Columnist
I have mentioned in previous
articles that I think President
Bush has been paying back some
old gambling debts in office. He
has been appointing highly under
—qualified
individuals to
positions they
have little to
no experience
in. The latest
nomination is
just the exam
ple I was
waiting for.
Knowing as
much about
the details of the law as I do
about spelling, I can tell you that
presidents have tried and failed
for years to occupy the open
seats on the Supreme Court with
men and women who they can
count on to interpret the
Constitution exactly as they want
them to.
This method of maintaining
power past your term has been a
tricky one, however. With jus
tices being appointed at a
younger age and living longer,
the white heads of Washington
have plenty of time to dramati
cally change their views.
Harriet Miers, if elected, will
be the first court justice who has
never been a judge. She has
never sat in a comfy chair, over
looking a court room full of peo
ple. Nor has she been in a posi
tion to interpret our aging written
law, which ultimately affects not
only the people in the courtroom,
but many others.
I would never say that being a
lawyer is easy, but I’m sure it is
easier to know who to pull for
after they hand you a very large
check. Supreme Court justices
don’t have that luxury.
They must interpret the
Constitution as they believe the
founding fathers would, or as
they see necessary for the pro
gression of society.
Conservatives in Congress
may be too blindsided by the
nominees’ previous credentials
to see that Miers may be just the
pivotal puppet the nation needs
to turn back the freedom clock
ten years. It is possible, and
some would say likely, that if
appointed, Harriet Miers would
vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Conservatives could take their
family values all the way, and the
next thing you know, Hilary
Clinton is headlining a ‘special
news report’ on the 200 plus
American women who died in
2010 while attempting to have
illegal abortions in hotel rooms
all across the country.
On the saihe note, Democrats
may be equally challenged in the
visual department. Blind to the
obvious lack in Miers’ creden
tials, so much so that they may
actually consider her appoint
ment in fear the next nominee
could be worse.
I believe strongly that the next
nominee will be worse. When
Miers is not confirmed by a
senile Congress, the president
will most likely see the lack of
credentials as the cause and
retaliate with a highly—qualified
and extremely conservative can
didate.
Miers has been prepped to be
the Supreme Court justice of the
American people. She knows
the conservative values that were
necessary to win elections. She
knows what ignites conserva
tives into demanding that their
views are the only honorable
options.
But let’s face it; the average
American has no idea what it is
that protects our right to privacy,
free speech or any other freedom
promised by the Constitution.
Progressive voices on this
campus, do not fret. We have not
gone back in time just yet.
Roberts is a man of great inde
pendence and stamina. You may
be supressed at how he leads the
court, especially after Bush’s
term expires.
I would like to leave you with
the one quote I believe proves
the intimate political relationship
between Harriet Miers and
President Bush. Miers told
David Frum of the “National
Review,” in an interview that she
believes George Bush Jr. is the
most brilliant man she had ever
met.
Mohn
By Chad Mohn
Columnist
With his nomination of Harriet
Miers to the Supreme Court,
President Bush has once again
drawn the ire on both sides of the
political spectrum.
Republicans
are upset
because Miers
is virtually an
unknown who
does not appear
to follow along
the lines of an
Antonin Scalia
or Clarence
Thomas.
She also does
not remotely resemble the type of
judge Bush promised he would
appoint during either one of his
successful presidential cam
paigns.
Democrats are angry because
she is a Bush crony and has no
judicial experience, which is now
apparently an important factor in
taking a seat on our nation’s
highest court.
It’s obvious that Harriet Miers
is, politically, a solid Republican.
It will take some time, however,
before we can infer whether
Miers’ judicial decisions reflect
her current political ideology. If
she turns out to be like a William
Rehnquist or a Thomas, conser
vatives will have a solid majority
on the Supreme Court for quite
some time.
The Democrats, however, are
hoping she follows the suit of
Sandra Day O’Connor, the
woman she must replace.
Liberals certainly have much
more at stake here with the nom
ination of Harriet Miers. They,
unlike the Republicans, are
accustomed to winning their
political battles not in the voting
booths or on the floors of
Congress, but rather through our
nation’s courts.
As Pat Buchanan often reminds
us, the American public never
would have voted to enact affir
mative action or permitted the
desecration of our flag. Your
elected leaders would not have
decided to take the Ten
Commandments out of our
nation’s classrooms or given new
rights to criminals, while taking
them away from law enforcement
officials.
Granted, the citizens of
America would’ve also voted
against civil rights and the inte
gration of schools, but the point
is that the left relies on judicial
activism for nearly all of their
“progressive” victories.
If Miers turns out to be another
Clarence Thomas, then
Democrats can virtually end their
plans to redefine marriage and
take “God” out of the Pledge of
Allegiance.
I’m not saying I agree or dis
agree with either one of those
topics, but those are battles that
obviously need to be won in the
courts.
The Republicans are hoping for
a filibuster so Bush can nominate
a known conservative to the
bench.
We don’t want to take the
chance that she turns out to be
another Sandra Day O’Connor or
David Souter, who was unfortu
nately appointed by Bush, Sr.
President Bush promised dur
ing the campaign that he would
appoint strict constructionists to
the bench and his appointment of
Chief Justice John Roberts cer
tainly satisfied most conserva
tives.
Given Miers is an Evangelical
Christian and considers George
Bush, a close personal friend, it’s
hard to think of her being any
thing other than a right-winged
nut job.
However, our faith in George
W. Bush and the fact that Miers
goes to church every Sunday
does not prove how she will leg
islate from the bench.
Bush had an opportunity to
rally his base and create a solid
conservative majority on the
Supreme Court for the near
future, but he completely missed
the ball with Harriet Miers.
Editor’s note: Each week Terri Fisher, mass communication
student, and Chad Mohn, economics student, will debate a topic
Send submissions to banner@unca.edu
Walking on Gravestones in Bay St. Louis
By Andr6s Martin
Business Manager
Close your eyes for a moment,
and it all seems to go away. Keep
them closed for long enough and
maybe, all the problems will float
off into the blue abyss like so
many lives and dreams.
The uncertain tears that people
offer over their missing, possibly
dead loved ones, will somehow
never matter because we did not
see them, we did not care.
It has been just over six weeks
since Hurricane Katrina ravaged
the southern coast, only to be fol
lowed by Jlita. The two combined
claimed thousands of lives and
displaced countless more, but we
all know that.
We also realize that the tragedy
was the largest natural disaster in
our nation’s history, yet we con
tinue to focus on the superficial
elements tied in with the stories as
to somehow make the situation
less real. It’s time we give a damn.
Put yourself in the circum
stances. Imagine a place engulfed
by the smell of death caused by
the Mississippi sun continually
cooking up the odor. From the
tree limbs hang the corpses of ani
mals washed up by two story
waves and below them rubble that
could belong to houses, cars, or a
number of things.
Not far off stands tents huddled
together claiming the property
you’re near as their own and any
further inquisitions will be
answered by the way of a gun in
case you missed the sign that
read, “You loot, we shoot.”
The distribution lines that offer
victims the means they need to
survive must be patrolled by
police or military as to ensure no
violent acts can ensue.
The only item that doesn’t seem
to be in short supply is spray-
paint, used to mark the number
dead or missing from a house.
Where there is no house, the con
crete slab where the house once
stood will make due. Welcome to
Bay St. Louis, Mississippi.
On my own trip into “Ground
Zero” (as termed by the locals) I
had the unfortunate coincidence
of witnessing an elderly couple on
their first trip into the area. They
pulled up on a driveway that led
only to a concrete slab. After exit
ing their vehicle and noticing the
neon-orange spray-paint, they fell
towards each other as to somehow
support the weight of their tears.
They walked back to the car, not
to leave, but instead return to put
up an American flag.
The concrete slab was not a
foundation to a house anymore. It
was a gravestone, with the only
difference being that people were
buried above ground. Don’t close
your eyes...These people should
never be forgotten, especially
while they still need our help.
Andres Martin, senoir man
agement student,
traveled to Mississippi with
Alpha Phi Omeaga and
Hearts with Hands.
To help donate, visit
Heartswithhands.org.
Harriet Miers ‘The right man for the job?’
By John D. Noor
Columnist
With the controversial nomina
tion of Harriet Miers as the 110th
associate justice to the Supreme
Court last week, questions about
her qualifications and ability to
be an independent justice have
ensnared the minds of political
pundits and politicians alike. A
relative unknown among
Washington’s elites vying for the
position, Miers is not what many
considered to be “the right man
for the job.” Despite Miers hav
ing been nominated by President
Bush, the big objections could
possibly come from the
Republican Party.
Little background and a lack of
definitive information on how she
stands on any major issues have
kept some senators on both sides
of the isle from jumping out in
support of the nominee. After
reports had confirmed that she
gave money to the Gore presiden
tial campaigns back in the ‘80s
many on the far right are not con
vinced that Miers is a person who
will judge with the perspective
necessary as a Supreme Court
justice.
But Republicans are not alone
in their suspicions. Democrats
looking at her resume have not
been impressed with her rather
policy—oriented past. As both
White House counsel and White
House deputy chief of staff for
policy, Miers has for the past five
years been in key positions which
promote and defend the policy
agenda of the current administra
tion.
However, the most important
qualification for this nominee, or
any other, is the ability to under
stand the law and pass unbiased
judgment on the cases which will
come before the court. The quali
ty of the Supreme Court is deter
mined by the breadth of experi
ences that form it. Of the justices
on the court today few can com
pare to John Robert’s accom
plishments as a constitutional
lawyer. But being a constitutional
lawyer, a judge, or any other job
in and of themselves are not the
best qualifications for the posi
tion. Many justices have come
from non- traditional back
grounds and were able to be qual
ity judges. For example, the late
Chief Justice William Rehnquist
had never sat a day as a judge, a
majority of Justice Antonin
Scalia’s professional career was
spent as a law professor and
Justice Lewis Powell Jr. worked
exclusively in the private sector
of law before he was confirmed.
It is too early to determine
whether Miers has the qualifica
tions for the position to which she
has been nominated. We have had
hardly a week to look into the
background of a woman whose
career has covered decades.
Those who have already cast
judgment on her I would doubt
have ever had more than a five
minute conversation with the
woman.
The upcoming conformation
hearings will give us the best pic
ture of who Miers is as a person,
and whether she is, or is not “the
right man for the job.”
Editors Note:
John Noor is a junior politi
cal science and economics
major. He is currently partici
pating in the UNC in
Washington, D.C. program
where he is working as an
intern for the Senate
Committee on the Judiciary.
; ’ r \
' I >,