UUA position on Judge John Roberts
With President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts, the official process of selecting a new Supreme Court Justice is underway. What's the position of the UUA [Unitarian Universalist Association]? What role should Unitarian Universalists and other like-minded people of faith and goodwill play?
While the Association has a long history of taking positions on public policy issues, we -- like many other religious groups -- have traditionally not taken stands on nominations. UUA policy on this matter changed significantly in June 2004, when the General Assembly adopted a Statement of Conscience on Civil Liberties which called us "as individuals, as congregations, and as an association of congregations" to, among other things, "oppose nominees to the federal appeals courts or the Supreme Court whose records demonstrate insensitivity to the protection of civil liberties."
Since that time, the Association has joined the Coalition for a Fair and Independent Judiciary, a broad effort of more than 100 civil rights, civil liberties, environmental, labor, and religious organizations (see www.saveourcourts.org). We have formally opposed three nominees, Janice Rogers Brown, Pricilla Owen, and William Pryor -- all who had clear records of more than just insensitivity to the protection of civil liberties -- and have raised serious concerns about others.
We have also strongly opposed the so-called nuclear option, an end-run around Senate rules that would have eliminated the filibuster, thus allowing nominations to go through with only a bare majority. In April, UUA President William Sinkford joined other religious leaders in expressing deep concern at the attacks on religious liberty coming from Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist and the Family Research Council. Senator Frist had agreed to take a leading role in the Family Research Council's "Justice Sunday" event, which defines a commitment to preserving the Senate fiibuster as an attack "against people of faith."
Upon the retirement of Justice O'Connor, the UUA and 28 other religious groups sent a letter to President Bush and the Senate saying that "the temperament, qualifications and judicial philosophy of any Supreme Court nominee should be thoroughly and carefully examined by the Senate," and calling for a confirmation process "free of the divisive and dangerous practice of using Senators' and nominees' faiths as a wedge."
So now that a nominee has been proposed, what is the position of the UUA? The short answer is that we have serious concerns about Robert's nomination, but are not yet opposing it. Here's why:
John Roberts has only two years' experience as a judge and a sparse public record, so it's difficult to determine his judicial philosophy. However, what little we do know is troubling. Most significantly, he has written that Roe v. Wade should be "overruled," and, as a lawyer, he worked to allow the government to gag some doctors from discussing reproductive health options with their patients. He has supported school prayer and suggested throwing out the test used to evaluate application of the Establishment clause.
As troubling as these positions are, we believe that more time and research are needed to distinguish between his personal views and his statements on behalf of his clients, and then how his views are likely to be reflected in his decisions. A key factor in our decision-making will be the actions of trusted partners in the civil liberties arena, such as the American Civil Liberties Union. We are cognizant that several of our partners in the reproductive health arena have already announced their opposition, including the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice.
During this process of discernment, however, we are clear on several matters.
First, we will insist on a full and public discussion of Judge Robert's philosophy and qualifications, including calling for the release of important documents. The relative lack of information means that the hearings are particularly important in establishing a record concerning his personal views on the law and its interpretation.
Second, in addition to asking questions and raising concerns about the nominee, we will use the confirmation process as an opportunity to talk about our vision for both constitutional interpretation and the role of the judiciary. The extreme right has demonized the last 40-50 years of jurisprudence as liberal judicial activism. We need to highlight the fact that this period contained unprecedented steps forward for most Americans, and that we are better of because of it. The public needs to know exactly what's at stake.
Third, we will closely monitor the role of religion in the confirmation process, and oppose the use of religion as a political tool. We will not let any group claim that people of faith have a singular perspective, nor will we be "faith-baited" by those who use religion to stymie legitimate inquiry into a nominee's judicial philosophy. We will speak truth about the extreme right's dangerous claim that their role in the 2004 elections entitles them to a nominee who shares their narrow, restrictive views of faith and family. We will articulate our own vision for the role of religion in politics, grounded in a commitment to justice for all people.
I encourage Unitarian Universalists to work with other people of faith and good will in the weeks and months ahead. Talk about your personal views. Share your larger visions. Consider what's at stake. Discuss the nominee. Take action as your conscience dictates. If so moved, write letters to the editor and to your Senators.
In Faith,
Rob Keithan
Director, Washington Office for Advocacy
Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations
Hillary's call for unity irritates some on left
The
Washington Post reports ...
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's call for an ideological cease-fire in the Democratic Party drew an angry reaction yesterday from liberal bloggers and others on the left, who accused her of siding with the centrist Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) in a long-running dispute over the future of the party.
Long a revered figure by many in the party's liberal wing, Clinton (D-N.Y.) unexpectedly found herself under attack after calling Monday for a cease-fire among the party's quarreling factions and for agreeing to assume the leadership of a DLC-sponsored initiative aimed at developing a more positive policy agenda for the party. ..
Come on, people. Let's everyone stop the quibbling, get off your high horses and start trying to find common ground.
Hillary will direct creation of Democrats' agenda
The
LA Times reports ...
The Democratic Leadership Council, an organization of influential party moderates, named Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton today to direct a new initiative to define a party agenda for the 2006 and 2008 elections.
The appointment solidified the identification of Clinton, once considered a champion of the party's left, with the centrist movement that helped propel her husband to the White House in 1992. It also continued her effort, which has accelerated in recent months, to present herself as a moderate on issues such as national security, immigration and abortion. ...
Newspaper punshed for dissing Wal-Mart
The
Pensacola News Journal has learned what happens when it speaks less than respectfully about the god of retailing ...
The store ordered us off their property, told us to come pick up our newspaper racks and clear out.
So we did.
A few people called last week, some even wrote letters to the editor, and wanted to know why they couldn't buy the newspaper at Wal-Mart in the days after Hurricane Dennis.
Some managers at Wal-Mart didn't appreciate a column Mark O'Brien wrote last month about the downside of the cheap prices that Sam Walton's empire has brought to America. We all pay a little less, and sometimes a lot less, at the grocery store and department store because of Mr. Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart. ...
Weblings
On the subject of new religions, a
recent press release announces that
A Knights of Columbus Scribe has begun a project to found a new religious order he calls, "E-Knights of the Cross."
This project has an initial groundwork development period of 20-40 years. This period will end with the creation of a new lifeform, Weblings.
Forward looking churches will see that here's a new source for future members ... dissatisfied Weblings.
Using reverse psychology on John Roberts' nomination
Social Gospel Today suggests that Democrats use a little reverse psychology in commenting on the President's nomination of John Roberts to the Supreme Court.
...if you treat Roberts as if he is someone that wants to overturn Roe and institute mandatory school prayer, the Christian right will believe you. And they'll love Roberts and Bush because of it.
What if instead, you said "We're pleased that Mr. Bush has selected such a well-qualified and moderate candidate to succeed Justice O'Connor. We understand that, in Mr. Robert's previous confirmation hearing, he recognized Roe v. Wade as good law and binding precedent. We believe that Mr. Roberts will support a woman's right to choose and preserve the separation between Church and State."
This would undoubtedly drive the Christian right nuts. They'd realize that Bush hasn't given them what they demanded: someone "solid" on the hot-button issues.
Summer of peace
From the UUA ...
This year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the dropping of the first atomic bombs on the cities of Hiroshima (August 6) and Nagasaki (August 9), Japan. Those two explosions caused the deaths of over 200,000 people and injured hundreds of thousands more.
In his report to the 2003 General Assembly, UUA President William G. Sinkford recalled his trip to Japan that year. He said, "While I was in Japan, I took a day to visit the Hiroshima Peace Park, the memorial to the 250,000 Japanese who were killed when we dropped a weapon of mass destruction on that city.
"I asked our Japanese hosts, 'How could you possibly have forgiven us for our use of the atomic bomb?' After thinking for a moment [our host] replied, 'If we had not lost...we would have become you and it would have crippled the soul of our nation.'"
Today, the danger of another nuclear holocaust still exists. More nations are pursuing nuclear weapons, and tons of nuclear bomb-making material remain unsecured and vulnerable to theft by those who would not be deterred from using a nuclear weapon.
This summer, as war and death continue in Iraq, offers us an opportunity to increase our public witness for peace and prepare for the fall when Congress will debate the The Homeward Bound Act (bipartisan legislation for a phased withdrawal of US troops from Iraq). Several other bills headed for hearings this fall will address nuclear proliferation.
Let us make this summer a summer of peace. Visit http://www.uua.org/news/2005/050720_hiroshima/ to learn about the many intergenerational activities UU congregations can participate in that will mobilize congregants to work for peace and the hope of a better world. From building churchyard memorials, to participating in the Shadow Project, to engaging in advocacy with elected representatives, there are ways for you to get involved!
Deborah J. Weiner
Director of Electronic Communication
Unitarian Universalist Association
25 Beacon Street
Boston, MA 02108
617-948-6104
617-742-7025 (FAX)
Christian Family Coalition email
I have no idea why the Christian Family Coalition is sending
me email, but I just got this. Personally, since we know that Bush is always going to nominate a conservative, I think we need to spend a little time looking at this guy before we automatically fight his confirmation. There's a chance he may not be the worst of all evils.
From: Christian Family Coalition
Reply-To: cfcoalition1@bellsouth.net
To: xxxxx
Date: 21 Jul 2005 07:03:43 -0400
Subject: ALERT - Battle for Supreme Court Begins!
ALERT: It took exactly twelve minutes for left-wing groups and liberal Senators to go on the attack against President Bush's conservative nominee to the Supreme Court, Judge John Roberts:
* People for the American Way is "extremely disappointed" in the President's selection, saying it's "a constitutional catastrophe."
* Alliance for Justice "cannot support Judge Roberts' elevation to the Supreme Court" because President Bush has a "track record of selecting ideologically-driven, divisive candidates for the bench".
* The National Abortion Federation "calls upon the Senate to stand up to President Bush's attempt to destroy the fragile balance on the Supreme Court".
* Planned Parenthood stated, "The nomination of John G. Roberts raises serious questions and grave concerns for women's health and safety."
* Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), whose most recent controversial remarks came when he compared American troops to Nazis, called Judge Roberts a "controversial nominee" who guarantees a "controversial nomination process."
* Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), immediately announced that "I voted against Judge Roberts for the D.C. Court of Appeals because he didn't answer questions [about his views] fully and openly when he appeared before the committee."
* Hinting at a possible judicial filibuster of the President's nominee, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) announced on Fox News, "The fact that Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down creates an extraordinary circumstance."
* MoveOn.org raised $1.3 million to fight Judge Roberts... BEFORE he was even nominated, and reacted to the nomination by calling Roberts "another right-wing crony."
* NOW (the National Organization for Women) said of Judge Roberts that "our hard-won rights will be in jeopardy if he is confirmed," and that President Bush chose "to pick a fight. We intend to give him one."
* NARAL stated that "President Bush has consciously chosen the path of confrontation, and he should know that we... are ready for the battle ahead."
Well, guess what -- SO ARE WE. And with your help, we're going to continue to take the fight directly to the American people -- and we're going to MAKE SURE that far-left Senators like Dick Durbin, Robert Byrd, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and others hear the message LOUD and CLEAR from their constituents... especially for the ones that are facing upcoming elections!
TAKE ACTION: With President Bush's nomination of Judge John Roberts to the U.S. Supreme Court, we have the opportunity to get a judicial conservative on the Court -- a conservative who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws of our country without legislating from the bench.
We must not let the radical leftists sabotage this chance to replace Sandra Day O'Connor's "swing vote" with a solid conservative vote. As we saw in the recent "Kelo" decision to take away our private property rights, ONE VOTE can make all the difference in the world.
We've ALREADY begun fighting in "battleground" states like West Virginia, where Hiram Lewis, a military hero in the liberation of Iraq, has a growing campaign against the far-left Robert Byrd. We need YOUR help to apply pressure to "red state" Democrats like Sen. Ben Nelson in Nebraska and Sen. Bill Nelson in Florida, to make sure that they vote FOR Judge Roberts on the Senate floor. We especially need to make sure the "Gang of Fourteen" judicial filibuster compromisers -- like Sen. Mike DeWine in Ohio, who's up for re-election -- do NOT allow another filibuster to take place.
Will you stand with us today, to do even more? We plan to run radio ads, television ads, print ads, and of course ongoing internet efforts against the building liberal onslaught. Please make your best donation right away to help us FIGHT BACK against the radical leftist groups and liberal & compromising Senators!
Click here to contribute now:
https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarchpac/?a=33
NOTE: You can also send a FREE message directly to your two Senators at http://capwiz.com/sicminc/issues/alert/?alertid=7853081&type=CO telling them to confirm Judge Roberts quickly.
Be sure to send this Alert to EVERYONE you know who wants to see President Bush's conservative Supreme Court nominee confirmed in the U.S. Senate. Thank you!
Sincerely,
William Greene, President
RightMarch.com PAC
DONATE NOW: https://secure.responseenterprises.com/rightmarchpac/?a=33
If you prefer to mail in your donation, please send it to:
RightMarch.com PAC
Dept. Code 7
2400 Earlsgate Court
Reston, VA 20191
How to interpret the Constitution
Stanley Fish, former head of the English department at Duke University, and university professor of law at Florida International University, in an
Op-Ed contribution in the New York Times, discusses interpreting the Constitution. In it, he carefully argues for and against the various methods of interpretation. Here's a key paragraph:
And that is why the only coherent answer to the question "What does the Constitution mean?" is that the Constitution means what its authors intended it to mean. The alternative answers just don't work: the Constitution can't mean what the text alone says because there is no text alone [because intent came first]; and it can't mean what present-day society needs and wants it to mean because any meaning arrived at under that imperative will not be the Constitution's.
Catholics aren't Christian enough?
According to the
Chicago Sun-Times, an adoption agency says they're not.
A Christian adoption agency that receives money from Choose Life license plate fees said it does not place children with Roman Catholic couples because their religion conflicts with the agency's "Statement of Faith."
Bethany Christian Services stated the policy in a letter to a Jackson couple this month, and another Mississippi couple said they were rejected for the same reason last year. ...
Unbelievable. Maybe we should have a reality show on Fox called
What Christian Religion's The Most Christian?
Can Hillary be Commander In Chief?
USA Today discusses whether or not Hillary Clinton can be elected president when the president is also commander in chief.
Bill Herberger, an 80-year-old former American Legion commander, didn't vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton when she won a Senate seat in 2000.
But when Clinton finished her pitch to save the Niagara Falls Air Reserve Station from closure before the federal base-closing commission last month, the Swormville, N.Y., man and hundreds of other veterans, reservists and military family members roared their approval. ...
Congressman says we could 'take out' Muslim holy sites
CNN reports ..
A Colorado congressman told a radio show host that the U.S. could "take out" Islamic holy sites if Muslim fundamentalist terrorists attacked the country with nuclear weapons.
Rep. Tom Tancredo made his remarks Friday on WFLA-AM in Orlando, Florida. His spokesman stressed he was only speaking hypothetically. ...
Oh, he was only speaking hypothetically. That must make the idea ok, then, huh? Talk about the mouth going much faster than the mind ...
Being a Universalist
Transient and Permanent has a piece called
I am a Universalist. When I saw it, I thought of a member of my congregation (hi, Pat!) so I thought I'd mention it here. It begins ...
A number of people have commented online in the past several years about an apparent surge in Universalists within Unitarian-Universalism. Most of these commentators have been seminarians discussing the climate at their seminaries, and some seem downright ambivalent. There is the sense that a sea change has occurred and that people seem to prefer to claim our Universalist heritage more than our Unitarian; and furthermore, that the claim arises out of ahistorical, rather fuzzy-headed ideas that the Univeralists were more about "the heart" than those repressed, corpse-cold Unitarians we're all supposed to treat with gentle mockery. ...
Possible fatwa against terrorists
The Guardian reports that
Muslin leaders in England are considering a fatwa against terrorists.
Better late than never. Something tells me that if a fatwa is issued, there are going to be some pretty stressed prospective terrorists - who to believe?
Thanks to the Huffington Post for pointing this out.
What one person believes
If you have trouble defining what you believe, listen to this audio post from Jill, describing
what she believes. Click on the "Play this audio post" link when you get to the page.
Thanks to Jess's Journal for passing this along.
The issue of theological change
Matthew Gatheringwater, a third year seminary student at Meadville Lombard Theological School, writes about
the issue of theological change. One paragraph from the middle:
All religions must cope, to one degree or another, with theological change. Even the most stable historical faith communities cannot entirely isolate themselves from a changing world. Unitarian Universalists, I contend, experience unusually rapid and localized theological change. A number of factors contribute to this. Without creedal tests, it is hard to challenge the beliefs of anyone who wants to identify as a UU. Tradition holds little authority for us and, with the majority of UUs coming from other religious traditions, our sense of history is sketchy and distorted. New members "identify" with a community that reflects who they already are; there is not an expectation of conversion or transformation. We attract religious liberals, but we don't teach people how the practice the method of religious liberalism. We used to say we were on a quest for truth; now, we often relativize the statement by saying we search for "our truths." We rarely in congregations or as an association endeavor to explore how we know what we know is true, or just what constitutes the "responsible search for truth" we enshrine in our Principles. As a result, our faith is less like a beacon or an anchor than a kite blown here and there by demographic shifts and religious fads.
Definitely worth a full read.
Hard-line Islamists isolated from mainstream Muslims.
The Christian Science Monitor, in an article called
Can Islam's leaders reach its radicals? says the influential Muslim leaders have little influence among the tiny sliver of Muslims who are now prosecuting what they see as a global jihad.
While Islamic preachers speaking out against terrorism play a useful role in efforts to stem the spread of the global jihad, the rejectionist, or takfiri, beliefs of those already committed to extreme violence lead them to tune out any and all criticism of their methods. ...
As much as I would like to believe that there is some sort of communication the West could have with hard-line Islamists, I don't. If anything positive is going to happen to stop this sort of terrorism, I think it's totally up to moderate Muslins to figure how to do it.
And I wish them luck.
Paris disses Cruise
According to
MSNBC,
the city’s leaders have voted not to make Cruise an honorary citizen because of his membership in the controversial Church of Scientology.
In a debate this week, Paris’s City Hall pledged “never to welcome the actor Tom Cruise, spokesman for Scientology and self-declared militant for this organization,” according to Agence France Presse.
Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. Maybe Cruise's deep knowledge of psychiatry (he's studied it, you know) can help him figure out why they came to that decision.
Obama Osama
Ever since I was metaphorically introduced to Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) back around the time of the Democratic convention, I've had a feeling this was definitely a guy to watch.
Now I feel I've been validated by Rush Limbaugh who's been calling Obama names.
Christian Exodus - to Greenville
GreenvilleOnline.com reports that there's a movement to move thousands of conservative Christian families to Greenville, South Carolina.
Their aim: to tip the political scales, which they see as already weighted heavily to the right, further in that direction.
Secession "is a valid option," said [Frank] Janoski, a "state coordinator" for the organization -- but he hopes it doesn't come to that.
"If it's going to be ugly and bloody, nobody wants that," he said.
Well thank the lord for that.
UU Infidels
Just ran across this organization. Their web site is
www.uu-infidels.org. Their web site says, in part,
We are infidels within the Unitarian Universalist Association. We place no credence in supernatural beings such as gods, angels, saints, spirits, messiahs or ghosts. We identify ourselves as Atheists, or as Agnostics, or Skeptics, or Freethinkers or Secular Humanists. We hold scientific method and scientific evidence as the basis of our beliefs, always subject to revision as newly discovered evidence warrants.
Hey, we need another splinter group.
Being a Church-Mart
Killing the Buddha has a piece called
Church-Mart about a church with over 10,000 members.
That is what the church is all about. The megachurch has over 10,000 members, a paid full time staff of 100, and ten departments. Among the departments are a children's department with a themed kids' play land, a worship department with extremely skilled musicians who create worship songs for the people at the megachurch to sing, and a singles department that organizes meetings to help people find godly husbands and wives.
The reason to have such a large church is so it can meet the needs of most of the congregation. The idea is that Americans like their churches like they like their Wal-Marts -- they want one place where things are easy to find and accessible, a place that can satisfy every faith need they could possibly have. So, the church's theology is simple: Believe in Jesus and you'll go to heaven; don't believe and you'll in end up in hell. In between, let God help you live a successful life on every level: family, business, community. Like Wal-Mart, the church has a culture of simplicity and convenience. And it works.
Sounds like being a member of that church is pretty easy and satisfying. We know that being a Unitarian Universalist isn't easy. Is it satisfying?
Disproportionate punishment
If someone who has a gun that you don't know about gets in your car and shoots at another car and no one gets hurt, how much jail time should
you get?
How about 35 years to life? That's what happened to a 16 year old in California.
A thirst for more articulated theology
Sometimes someone else says something that so matches what I'm thinking, it's hard to believe. This from
Jess's Journal:
There's something tangible happening in Unitarian Universalism. There's a thirst, a drive, a hunger, for more articulated theology, something I thought only I and a few select other folks were feeling. But I'm hearing it from lay folk, ministers, religious educators, spouses and partners of seminarians and ministers, everyone I see. We want an identity. We want an articulated moral foundation. We want to know how to communicate our vision to the wider world. We want to spread the good news of Unitarian Universalism to the far reaches. ...
UU vs anti-mainstream Christian
Jess's Journal, in response to describing a negative reaction to an offer to sing Faure's "Pie Jesu" at a Vespers service (because of the "Jesu"), says
Whether or not you believe in Jesus as Messiah, isn't his story one of taking light into the world? And, can't we learn from that, whether or not we accept it as gospel?
I think that Unitarian Universalists have become so much about being against the "mainstream" that as a movement we have forgotten how much spiritual fodder there is in our history as a Christian church. ...
Overturning marriage as we've known it
Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, and author of
Marriage, a History: From Obedience to Intimacy, or How Love Conquered Marriage says, in the
New York Times that it's not marriage rights for gays and lesbians that would upend marriage as we know it.
Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too. ...
Value evangelicals
Noah Feldman (professor at the New York University School of Law, fellow at the New America Foundation, and author of
Divided by God: America's Church-State Problem -- and What We Should Do About It) has a long article in the Sunday New York Times called
A Church-State Solution. The article is adapted from his book.
In the article, he appears to coin the term "value evangelical":
In our own era, two camps dominate the church-state debate in American life, corresponding to what are now the two most prominent approaches to the proper relation of religion and government. One school of thought contends that the right answers to questions of government policy must come from the wisdom of religious tradition. You might call those who insist on the direct relevance of religious values to political life ''values evangelicals.'' Not every values evangelical is, technically speaking, an evangelical or a born-again Christian, although many are. Values evangelicals include Jews, Catholics, Muslims and even people who do not focus on a particular religious tradition but care primarily about identifying traditional moral values that can in theory be shared by everyone.
What all values evangelicals have in common is the goal of evangelizing for values: promoting a strong set of ideas about the best way to live your life and urging the government to adopt those values and encourage them wherever possible. To them, the best way to hold the United States together as a nation, not just a country, is for us to know what values we really hold and to stand up for them. As Ralph Reed recently told an audience at Harvard, "While we are sometimes divided on issues, there remains a broad national consensus on core values and principles."
On the other side of the debate are those who see religion as a matter of personal belief and choice largely irrelevant to government and who are concerned that values derived from religion will divide us, not unite us. You might call those who hold this view ''legal secularists,'' not because they are necessarily strongly secular in their personal worldviews -- though many are -- but because they argue that government should be secular and that the laws should make it so. To the legal secularists, full citizenship means fully sharing in the legal and political commitments of the nation. If the nation defines itself in terms of values drawn from religion, they worry, then it will inevitably tend to adopt the religious values of the majority, excluding religious minorities and nonreligious people from full citizenship. ...
The Revealer has a good commentary on the article.
42% want impeachment if Bush lied
According to a poll by
Zogby International,
In a sign of the continuing partisan division of the nation, more than two-in-five (42%) voters say that, if it is found that President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should hold him accountable through impeachment. While half (50%) of respondents do not hold this view, supporters of impeachment outweigh opponents in some parts of the country. ...
Thanks to
Think Progress for pointing this out.
