Home - List All Discussions

Roberts will uphold Roe

Roe + "precedent" = government sanctioned abortion continues unabated!

by: whosays

The relevant question for a prospective justice, and it can be asked properly either by a president or a senator, is: "What, in your view, is the legal force of a Supreme Court opinion?" If Roberts believes that Supreme Court opinions are law of some kind, all is lost.

Now comes the news that Roberts says he respects "precedent" – which is another way of saying: We can count on Roberts to uphold the court's previous unconstitutional findings.

These comments come from: http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45596

Perhaps pro-lifers should consider the possibility that the "stealth" status of Roberts - i.e. he has not ruled on a case or gone on the record publicly regarding court-imposed-"legalizing" of abortion - may actually be intended slip him past pro-live conservatives instead of slipping him past liberals.

Daddy fooled conservatives with Sourter. Like father, like son?

reply from: ChristianLott

I can't reproduce the text of the letters I've been sending these self proclaimed Christian/political organizations who've been asking me to sign their stupid petition for their pro abort judge but I've given them an earful.

In the main it goes a little something like this....

THIS IS THE LAST TIME I'M GOING TO TELL YOU STUPID #)(&^^(()()(*)_!!!!!

I'M NOT SIGNING A PETITION FOR A (*^*(&LIBERAL)(&(F---- PRO ABORT JUDGE FOR THE SUPREME COURT YOU F(*&(^*(*AS097&)()(*)(e!!!!

IF YOU SEND ME ONE MORE%(*(*&LETTER ABOUT THIS PRO ABORT JUDGE YOU^)(*)()(MOTH^()*)(&_)(*)(I'LL^*))(*)(*)(*)(*

(*&^*&!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, something like that but I think you get the point.

reply from: sarah

Well, if that's the case, Roberts and Bush have fooled every pro-life organization on the planet as far as I can tell. Including Operation Rescue. I don't think they're so easily fooled.
I find it hard to believe that as active as a pro-life advocate as his wife has been, that she would marry someone who was pro-abortion.
I know that's hardly proof of anything, but that's a pretty big difference to have between husband and wife. It's not like she was just pro-life, she still does pro bono work for Feminists For Life.

reply from: chooselife

Sarah - You may recall that Laura Bush is pro-choice. I clearly remember her interview with Katie Couric on the Today show years back where she was explaining how her and Mr. Bush lived with such a strong difference of opinion. I don't think Roberts is pro-abortion per se.....I could see him passing restrictions and what not....but from what I understand judges are very reluctant to overturn laws that have been around for awhile (like Roe v Wade) because it makes their profession look bad. I certainly hope that I am wrong but if you have read any of Ann Coulter's remarks about this guy she ain't happy!! She makes some very good points that he may have been a good choice if the democrats controlled the senate but they don't. This was a chance for GWB to have a slam dunk, home run, touchdown type of nominee for conservatives and instead he picks a guy who we HOPE is pro-life. The republicans have a horrible track record on this so I am not holding my breath. I just trust that in the end God is in control and will have my peace in that knowledge.

reply from: sarah

Like I said, I didn't think that was any kind of proof. I was also taking into consideration that they were married in their 40's.
How then has he fooled nearly every pro life org. on earth? They're really endorsing him.

reply from: Amy

You might want to consider the judges who ruled on the side of Roe, at one time held abortion illegal...until the right case came along for the right USSCourt.

reply from: Tam

whosays!!! You came back!!!

Right ON! That really makes my day. I totally missed you around here!!

reply from: yoda

I think that's a good point. Just as Dred Scott was overturned, so can any decision or any law be overturned.

reply from: chooselife

I think that's a good point. Just as Dred Scott was overturned, so can any decision or any law be overturned.

Please no one get me wrong....i hope and pray that this is the case. I just don't want to bank on it...I guess there really is no point in speculating. We will all just have to wait and see. However, I am disappointed that Bush did not pick someone who we wouldn't have to be sitting around guessing about.

reply from: yoda

Me too, chooselife. But the up side to that is that his lack of a record on abortion makes it harder for the Democrats to filabuster him.

reply from: Skippy

Well, at least he's not some frothing homophobe. He worked to get Colorodo's anti-homosexual Amendment 2 thrown out. I'm sure the anti-gay sorts amongst you will be so pleased to know that.

Curiouser and curiouser...

reply from: whosays

Oh, really? Try replacing "Roberts" with "Souter" in your comments and think again. For proof that your confidence in some (not "every" as you claim) pro-life organizations may be misplaced, visit the commentaries page on this site and read "Fool me eight times, shame on me" where the likes of the head of National Right to Life and others gave a similar thumbs up regarding David Souter, the last Bush nominated nothing-on-the-record-but-we-are-supposed-to-assume-that-it's-okay-to-be-silent-while-government-sanctioned-baby-killing-continues Supreme Court candidate.

Roberts backing of the homosexual agenda should give any true conservative DEEP reservations and SERIOUS second thoughts about throwing their support behind this guy. http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050804/ts_latimes/robertsdonatedhelptogayrightscase;_ylt=All6N4kAWjd1maH.bdGz1Lqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- to read "Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case" - and note that those pushing the homosexual agenda down your throats "at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

Opps. Founding fathers intended to enshrine homosexual "rights"? So much for "strict" construction!

Fool me nine times? Perhaps the phrase "strict constructionist" is merely a political smokescrene, to avoid having to nominate an IDENTIFIED conservative, like Roy Moore, or even worse an IDENTIFIED (and proud of it) pro-lifer. As Ann Coulter pointed out, if conservative prolifers can't get a conservative pro-lifer nominated by a supposedly conservative pro-life President who himself faces NO re-election at a time when that President's party controls BOTH houses of Congress, you ought to ask yourself why not?

And as far as his wife goes, all anyone needs to do is point to James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin, to show that political opposites are willing and able to co-habitate.

(PS Remember it was National Right to Life that recently worked to DEFEAT a total ban on abortion - not because there jobs at that organization would be threatened, but because "it wasn't the right time" -- really, that's what they said!)

reply from: ForLife

Oh, really? Try replacing "Roberts" with "Souter" in your comments and think again. For proof that your confidence in some (not "every" as you claim) pro-life organizations may be misplaced, visit the commentaries page on this site and read "Fool me eight times, shame on me" where the likes of the head of National Right to Life and others gave a similar thumbs up regarding David Souter, the last Bush nominated nothing-on-the-record-but-we-are-supposed-to-assume-that-it's-okay-to-be-silent-while-government-sanctioned-baby-killing-continues Supreme Court candidate.

Roberts backing of the homosexual agenda should give any true conservative DEEP reservations and SERIOUS second thoughts about throwing their support behind this guy. http://news.yahoo.com/s/latimests/20050804/ts_latimes/robertsdonatedhelptogayrightscase;_ylt=All6N4kAWjd1maH.bdGz1Lqs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3b2NibDltBHNlYwM3MTY- to read "Roberts Donated Help to Gay Rights Case" - and note that those pushing the homosexual agenda down your throats "at the time described the court's 6-3 ruling as the movement's most important legal victory. The dissenting justices were those to whom Roberts is frequently likened for their conservative ideology: Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas."

Opps. Founding fathers intended to enshrine homosexual "rights"? So much for "strict" construction!

Fool me nine times? Perhaps the phrase "strict constructionist" is merely a political smokescrene, to avoid having to nominate an IDENTIFIED conservative, like Roy Moore, or even worse an IDENTIFIED (and proud of it) pro-lifer. As Ann Coulter pointed out, if conservative prolifers can't get a conservative pro-lifer nominated by a supposedly conservative pro-life President who himself faces NO re-election at a time when that President's party controls BOTH houses of Congress, you ought to ask yourself why not?

And as far as his wife goes, all anyone needs to do is point to James Carville and his wife Mary Matalin, to show that political opposites are willing and able to co-habitate.

(PS Remember it was National Right to Life that recently worked to DEFEAT a total ban on abortion - not because there jobs at that organization would be threatened, but because "it wasn't the right time" -- really, that's what they said!)

The Republican track history is one of appointing liberal judges who support causes such as abortion. There is no reason to feel comfortable with the Roberts nomination; he is an unknown quantity. We need to pray that God's Government comes to replace men's governments. As long as we have man-made governments, the results will always be unsatisfactory.

reply from: Amy

Right Skippy, because we all know that anyone who doesn't believe gay people should be a protected class afforded more right to redress because of who they scr...I mean sleep with...and don't think they should be able to force their lifestyle choices on the rest of society...yeah, they're frothing. Sure thing. lol.

So tell me, does everyone who disagrees with you froth?

reply from: ForLife

Right Skippy, because we all know that anyone who doesn't believe gay people should be a protected class afforded more right to redress because of who they scr...I mean sleep with...and don't think they should be able to force their lifestyle choices on the rest of society...yeah, they're frothing. Sure thing. lol.

So tell me, does everyone who disagrees with you froth?

The anus and lower intestine are part of the digestive system and are not part of the reproductive system. The vagina has a thick multi-celled wall while the lower intestine has a thin wall which allows for the exchange of fluids. The lower part of our digestive system was not designed for sodomy; it has other functions to carry out. Sodomy easily tears the walls of the lower intestine and anus. Bleeding and possible permanent damage occurs. Fluids containing pathogenic agents such as HIV and hepatisis enter the blood stream. Because sodomy carries an increased risk of transferring disease; sodomy should be illegal.

reply from: Tam

You took the words right out of my mouth. I am totally appalled about that situation. There were so many ridiculous things about that--unbelievable! Don't get me started! I no longer trust NRLC whatsoever. Whose side are they on, for pity's sake!?

We can't take their word for it--as much as we SHOULD be able to trust an organization SUPPOSEDLY dedicated to protecting the unborn children.

reply from: Tam

Everything but the last sentence is true. But if we start outlawing stuff that carries an increased risk of disease, done by willing, consenting adults, just because it's not the way our bodies were designed--well, we'd have to outlaw a whole lot of stuff. Candy? Because sugar is horrible for the immune system. Fast food? Because it can lead to heart disease. Traveling to foreign countries and drinking the water there? Extended exposure to strong electromagnetic fields? Smoking, for sure! Just as "because it's green" isn't a valid reason for cutting the lawn unless all green growing things should be cut short, "because it carries an increased risk of transferring disease" isn't good enough as a reason to outlaw something. By that logic, the human race would die out, as all women would be required to be lesbians, right? Don't they have the lowest rate of STD transmittal? Anyway, I respect your belief but IMHO we should focus on outlawing the thing that's transferring death to children--abortion--and stop worrying about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, even if it might negatively affect their health. When it comes to sodomy, the old "if you don't condone it, don't do it" applies, in a way that such a phrase most definitely does NOT apply to abortion. Abortion kills a little baby. There is no room for "if you don't like killing babies, why, don't kill any!" Any energy put into trying to stop people from doing certain things in bed is really stolen from the prolife movement, in my opinion, because it won't save a single child and -- unlike abortion, which WOULD be greatly reduced by criminalizing it -- sodomy rates are highly unlikely to drop whatsoever if some law is passed (I think it's illegal in my state right now, actually! But I know people are doing it left and right anyway.) We really need to focus on the 1.3 million babies being killed each year. Any political energy we have should be devoted to stopping that madness. To borrow a phrase from yoda:

"This world is full of things that should be changed. First, though, we must stop killing our babies."

During any hour we spend worrying about what Joe and Bob are doing in their bedroom, nearly 200 babies will die.

reply from: ForLife

Everything but the last sentence is true. But if we start outlawing stuff that carries an increased risk of disease, done by willing, consenting adults, just because it's not the way our bodies were designed--well, we'd have to outlaw a whole lot of stuff. Candy? Because sugar is horrible for the immune system. Fast food? Because it can lead to heart disease. Traveling to foreign countries and drinking the water there? Extended exposure to strong electromagnetic fields? Smoking, for sure! Just as "because it's green" isn't a valid reason for cutting the lawn unless all green growing things should be cut short, "because it carries an increased risk of transferring disease" isn't good enough as a reason to outlaw something. By that logic, the human race would die out, as all women would be required to be lesbians, right? Don't they have the lowest rate of STD transmittal? Anyway, I respect your belief but IMHO we should focus on outlawing the thing that's transferring death to children--abortion--and stop worrying about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, even if it might negatively affect their health. When it comes to sodomy, the old "if you don't condone it, don't do it" applies, in a way that such a phrase most definitely does NOT apply to abortion. Abortion kills a little baby. There is no room for "if you don't like killing babies, why, don't kill any!" Any energy put into trying to stop people from doing certain things in bed is really stolen from the prolife movement, in my opinion, because it won't save a single child and -- unlike abortion, which WOULD be greatly reduced by criminalizing it -- sodomy rates are highly unlikely to drop whatsoever if some law is passed (I think it's illegal in my state right now, actually! But I know people are doing it left and right anyway.) We really need to focus on the 1.3 million babies being killed each year. Any political energy we have should be devoted to stopping that madness. To borrow a phrase from yoda:

"This world is full of things that should be changed. First, though, we must stop killing our babies."

During any hour we spend worrying about what Joe and Bob are doing in their bedroom, nearly 200 babies will die.

I would like to suggest that if sodomy becomes legitimized by government, it will be taught in the schools just as I've had diversity training at work. Sodomy is one agent working for the break down of family. Sodomy is one of various sexual freedom "rights" alongside abortion and will be one of the tools used in the demolition of the family. These things are going to negatively impact laws upholding the child's right to life and the child's support system; the family.

Again, my belief is that sexual relations should only be legal between a married man and wife. It's individuals having sex outside of marriage that leads to an increased desire of the parents to abort. Only by limiting sexual relations to a married man and woman is a stable and safe environment provided for children.

I know that people are so wicked they will not accept such a responsibility restriction being enacted into man's law.

reply from: Tam

Everything but the last sentence is true. But if we start outlawing stuff that carries an increased risk of disease, done by willing, consenting adults, just because it's not the way our bodies were designed--well, we'd have to outlaw a whole lot of stuff. Candy? Because sugar is horrible for the immune system. Fast food? Because it can lead to heart disease. Traveling to foreign countries and drinking the water there? Extended exposure to strong electromagnetic fields? Smoking, for sure! Just as "because it's green" isn't a valid reason for cutting the lawn unless all green growing things should be cut short, "because it carries an increased risk of transferring disease" isn't good enough as a reason to outlaw something. By that logic, the human race would die out, as all women would be required to be lesbians, right? Don't they have the lowest rate of STD transmittal? Anyway, I respect your belief but IMHO we should focus on outlawing the thing that's transferring death to children--abortion--and stop worrying about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, even if it might negatively affect their health. When it comes to sodomy, the old "if you don't condone it, don't do it" applies, in a way that such a phrase most definitely does NOT apply to abortion. Abortion kills a little baby. There is no room for "if you don't like killing babies, why, don't kill any!" Any energy put into trying to stop people from doing certain things in bed is really stolen from the prolife movement, in my opinion, because it won't save a single child and -- unlike abortion, which WOULD be greatly reduced by criminalizing it -- sodomy rates are highly unlikely to drop whatsoever if some law is passed (I think it's illegal in my state right now, actually! But I know people are doing it left and right anyway.) We really need to focus on the 1.3 million babies being killed each year. Any political energy we have should be devoted to stopping that madness. To borrow a phrase from yoda:

"This world is full of things that should be changed. First, though, we must stop killing our babies."

During any hour we spend worrying about what Joe and Bob are doing in their bedroom, nearly 200 babies will die.

I would like to suggest that if sodomy becomes legitimized by government, it will be taught in the schools just as I've had diversity training at work. Sodomy is one agent working for the break down of family. Sodomy is one of various sexual freedom "rights" alongside abortion and will be one of the tools used in the demolition of the family. These things are going to negatively impact laws upholding the child's right to life and the child's support system; the family.

Oh, I'm not saying it should be legitimized and taught. I'm just saying it shouldn't be outlawed. We don't teach kids how to mix drinks in school--because drinking is for grownups. We don't teach them how to roll a cigarette. We don't teach them how to BASE jump.

But, I'm going to homeschool my kids, anyway. The public school system is a complete JOKE. I definitely don't put my energy into trying to fix that mess. So what gets taught there isn't of that much concern to me. Sorry--it's not that I don't care at ALL--it's just that I care about unborn babies about a billion times more, and I can't waste my time worrying about every problem in the world, so I just focus on what I think is most important, and it's abortion.

reply from: ForLife

Everything but the last sentence is true. But if we start outlawing stuff that carries an increased risk of disease, done by willing, consenting adults, just because it's not the way our bodies were designed--well, we'd have to outlaw a whole lot of stuff. Candy? Because sugar is horrible for the immune system. Fast food? Because it can lead to heart disease. Traveling to foreign countries and drinking the water there? Extended exposure to strong electromagnetic fields? Smoking, for sure! Just as "because it's green" isn't a valid reason for cutting the lawn unless all green growing things should be cut short, "because it carries an increased risk of transferring disease" isn't good enough as a reason to outlaw something. By that logic, the human race would die out, as all women would be required to be lesbians, right? Don't they have the lowest rate of STD transmittal? Anyway, I respect your belief but IMHO we should focus on outlawing the thing that's transferring death to children--abortion--and stop worrying about what consenting adults do in their bedrooms, even if it might negatively affect their health. When it comes to sodomy, the old "if you don't condone it, don't do it" applies, in a way that such a phrase most definitely does NOT apply to abortion. Abortion kills a little baby. There is no room for "if you don't like killing babies, why, don't kill any!" Any energy put into trying to stop people from doing certain things in bed is really stolen from the prolife movement, in my opinion, because it won't save a single child and -- unlike abortion, which WOULD be greatly reduced by criminalizing it -- sodomy rates are highly unlikely to drop whatsoever if some law is passed (I think it's illegal in my state right now, actually! But I know people are doing it left and right anyway.) We really need to focus on the 1.3 million babies being killed each year. Any political energy we have should be devoted to stopping that madness. To borrow a phrase from yoda:

"This world is full of things that should be changed. First, though, we must stop killing our babies."

During any hour we spend worrying about what Joe and Bob are doing in their bedroom, nearly 200 babies will die.

I would like to suggest that if sodomy becomes legitimized by government, it will be taught in the schools just as I've had diversity training at work. Sodomy is one agent working for the break down of family. Sodomy is one of various sexual freedom "rights" alongside abortion and will be one of the tools used in the demolition of the family. These things are going to negatively impact laws upholding the child's right to life and the child's support system; the family.

Oh, I'm not saying it should be legitimized and taught. I'm just saying it shouldn't be outlawed. We don't teach kids how to mix drinks in school--because drinking is for grownups. We don't teach them how to roll a cigarette. We don't teach them how to BASE jump.

But, I'm going to homeschool my kids, anyway. The public school system is a complete JOKE. I definitely don't put my energy into trying to fix that mess. So what gets taught there isn't of that much concern to me. Sorry--it's not that I don't care at ALL--it's just that I care about unborn babies about a billion times more, and I can't waste my time worrying about every problem in the world, so I just focus on what I think is most important, and it's abortion.

I edited my last post to list why sex outside of marriage (of a man & woman) should be illegal (reduce abortion and provide a safe and stable environment for children.). You and I both know people are so wicked they will never comply with such a responsible restriction.

reply from: Tam

Oh! I thought you were arguing against sodomy. In fact, you are arguing against homosexual relationships. You would presumably oppose a committed marriage between two persons of the same gender and also oppose sodomy between a man and his wife, I guess. Your argument that sodomy is not a natural biological act and increases the risk of disease is correct--but that doesn't have anything to do with the "marriage should be between one man and one woman and sex should be prohibited outside of marriage" position.

I mean, if it were legal to have sex only with an opposite-sex spouse, that might decrease abortion--but you are absolutely right that people wouldn't even comply, so it's really a moot point.

But I really don't want to debate about sodomy, homosexuality, or marriage--just as I don't want to debate about rape, incest, foster care, contraception, or any of these other peripheral issues. I want to focus on abortion itself.

reply from: whosays

"ROE VS. WADE is the settled law of the land … There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

Thus spoke Judge John G. Roberts Jr. at his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2003... Many pro-life and religious leaders are ignoring Judge Roberts’ 2003 statement. We are being told that Judge Roberts is pro-life and a strict constructionist and that he has co-written briefs arguing the pro-life cause. But it’s tough for me to forget those words.

In the next few months, people will tell you that such pledges must be made by any prospective federal court jurist. We’ll be told, “He doesn’t really mean that. He just has to say that to be confirmed.” I wonder if such a confirmation process is worthy of our government or produces a worthy nominee who acquiesces to it? Other pro-life and religious leaders will urge us to ignore the “wink and nod” nuance of the judge’s statement, arguing that it’s a valid pro-life statement within its four corners.

Some may argue that it’s our duty to uphold any law that’s written - that it is right and proper to say that although we do not agree with a particular law, it is our duty to carry out that law, no matter how unjust. If we believe this, then we owe a great apology to the defendants at Nuremberg. In the years after World War II, we declared that men can’t hide behind unjust laws. We declared that the laws of nature and nature’s God take precedence over unjust decrees, even when those decrees are wrapped in the guise of law. After Nuremberg, this nation and other nations have repeatedly seconded the motion that right and wrong come to us from God and not from the order of a despot or the whim of a majority.

And so again I ponder Judge Roberts’ words. I cannot act like he never said it. I can’t nuance it away or explain it away as proper reaction to an unjust law.

These words were excerpted from http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=355 and I would urge pro-lifers that are being rushed into jumping on the Roberts bandwagon (like Sarah) to read the rest of his comments - as well as the article http://prolifeamerica.com/Abortion_Articles.cfm by Don Feder.

Was the president's father just lying to conservatives when he stuck us with David Souter or was the president's father merely being duped himself? No matter how you answer this question, the more important question now is, Is the Roberts nomination a case of 'like father, like son'? And since son, like father, used the office that was entrusted to him by conservatives to stick conservatives with another 'blank slate' nominee on conservative issues why shouldn't conservatives be viewing this as what it really is - either a cowardly sell-out at the very least or stealthy stab-in-the-back by a wolf-in-sheeps-clothing?

One thing it surely isn't is bold, courageous, conservative leadership. That would have produced a known conservative track record by a man who has proven himself capable of making wise MORAL judgments on matters of law over the course of his career. Unless you believe that there are no such jurists, then you should be asking yourself why won't the president nominate such a person and fight for what is right?

reply from: yoda

Here's what LifeNews has on it today:

John Roberts May Not Think Abortion Law "Settled" After All

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
August 10, 2005

Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- Observers of the confirmation process for Supreme Court nominee John Roberts have been trying to dissect his views on abortion. In a legal brief for the administration for former President Bush, Roberts argued Roe v. Wade was bad law and should be overturned. Later, in his 2003 appeals court nomination hearings, he called Roe "settled law."

In an effort to explain Roberts' views, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, last month, said Roberts was required to say Roe was "settled law" because appeals court judges are not expected to overturn high court precedent.

That left it open for Roberts to decide, as a member of the Supreme Court, that Roe v. Wade could be overturned.

In a Tuesday meeting with Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a Democrat, Roberts confirmed that suspicion.

Wyden said he was concerned by Roberts' answer to a question he posed about whether he still believed the Roe abortion decision is settled law.

Roberts told Wyden the notion of "settled law" depends on what court one is a member of -- opening himself up to the possibility of overturning Roe. The Supreme Court is clearly different from the Court of Appeals, Roberts explained.

Wyden told the Associated Press the answer was surprising.

"I will tell you, based on my discussion with Judge Roberts this afternoon, the concept of what is settled law is not exactly settled," he said.

full article at: http://www.lifenews.com/nat1525.html

reply from: whosays

Given that Ertelt is a mouthpiece for NRLC you can expect to see more stories with this same spin.

Expect to see more quoting pro-abort fears reported so as to keep the pro-life grassroots from getting nervious about this guy. NRLC is in the pocket of the GOP so they'll continue to spout assurances about Roberts, just like as NRLC did for Souter. (See Ann Coulter's commentary "Fool me eight times, shame on me" for the quotes issued to sell conservatives and pro-lifers on Souter)

reply from: Tam

Given that Ertelt is a mouthpiece for NRLC you can expect to see more stories with this same spin.

Expect to see more quoting pro-abort fears reported so as to keep the pro-life grassroots from getting nervious about this guy. NRLC is in the pocket of the GOP so they'll continue to spout assurances about Roberts, just like as NRLC did for Souter. (See Ann Coulter's commentary "Fool me eight times, shame on me" for the quotes issued to sell conservatives and pro-lifers on Souter)

Yeah, let's not forget how pro-life NRLC was in Ohio recently!! I don't trust them to act in the best interests of the unborn.

reply from: yoda

I like Ann Coulter. She's "my kind of woman". And I think she summed it up perfectly in her commentary on Robert's nomination when she said: "I share their hopes and dreams! I also hope it doesn't rain in August. I'm not throwing out all my umbrellas, and I won't be "proved wrong" in that decision even if the rain never comes. This is a fact: Right now, we don't know. "

reply from: whosays

Both Howard Phillips of the Conservative Caucus and Eugene Delgaudio of Public Advocate of the United States released statements saying Roberts was not worthy of support in light of the Romer v. Evans work.

Phillips had taken a wait-and-see attitude toward Roberts... Now, Phillips says, "it seems necessary to withhold support for the confirmation of Judge Roberts to be a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. We do not need another Anthony Kennedy, Sandra Day O’Connor or David Souter."

(From http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45691)

Also note that http://www.conservativeusa.org/supremecourt.htm - Constutional Article III limits, that is! (see ProlifeAmerica.com news item)

Sadly, few other 'conserviative' leaders are likely to exhibit the boldness of Howard Phillips on this issue. Why is it that so many so-called-pro-life-conservatives never get tired of being sold the same bridge?

reply from: ChristianLott

http://www.all.org/activism/supreme.htmPresident Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court

Looks like Center For Reclaiming America isn't the only one p.ssing in the wind.

It's hopeless now. Seriously folks.

reply from: Skippy

Mr. Roberts also did some work on behalf of Playboy magazine. His firm's client prevailed. I'm liking him more and more every day.

reply from: yoda

Even that isn't enough to convince me to oppose him, Skippy.

reply from: whosays

http://prolifeamerica.com/Abortion_Articles.cfm#ID587

Read 'em and weap!

reply from: pragmaticprolifer

Wake up, dude! http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45596, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45480, http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45363... you said you like Ann, well why wouldn't you follow her lead (and the evidence!) on this?

The conservative base that keeps electing Republicans deserve better than a blank slate, but they certainly won't get it unless they demand it. It's time to fight for "out-of-the-closet" conservative, a KNOWN commodity on pro-life, pro-family issues.

Put yourself back in the Souter nomination days and you'd be saying that you 'couldn't oppose him' because there was nothing that would GUARANTEE that he would stab conservatives in the back on every major issue? With all the lives at stake in this fight, why in the world would you be willing to take that chance again with Roberts?

reply from: yoda

I do. Here's what she said: "I share their hopes and dreams! I also hope it doesn't rain in August. I'm not throwing out all my umbrellas, and I won't be "proved wrong" in that decision even if the rain never comes. This is a fact: Right now, we don't know. "

So that's where I am on his nomination....... I don't know. And I certainly don't know enough negative things about him to oppose him, either.

I'm not taking any chances. I'm not supporting his nomination. I'm neutral, until I know something about him that convinces me one way or the other.

You're entitled to your skepticism and your opposition, and I'm entitled to my caution.

reply from: Tam

That is what I've been doing, too.

reply from: ForLife

Republicans have nominated Supreme Court candidates several times without knowing what they were getting. What they got were liberals. The Republicans are either playing dice and hoping for the best, or they really don't care if the candidates are truly conservative.

reply from: pragmaticprolifer

I'm not taking any chances. I'm not supporting his nomination. I'm neutral, until I know something about him that convinces me one way or the other.
And all those who were "neutral until they know something" could say the same thing about Souter - that they were "not taking any chances." But let's be honest Y, that's exactly what you and other pro-lifers who would say such things are doing

You are taking a chance by not demanding someone who is already publicly committed on the issue. You are unwilling to oppose a potential Souter, because there's a chance you might have a potential pro-lifer? Since you "don't know" - as you yourself state - then being willing to silently accept this nominee, means you are taking a chance that he might be a good guy and that, therefore you'd be wrong to oppose him. Bad stratety.

For better results try this: openly oppose anyone who won't openly defend life. If one has established a pattern over the course of their life that makes it cleat that they have not felt the need to speak out in defense of innocent babies and against abortion to such a degree that no one aquainted with them claims to know where they stand on this critial moral issue -- then to NOT oppose such a person is to endorse the "silence-on-abortion-is-golden" mentality and there is no good reason that any moral conservative should have to (or be willing to) take such a chance.

reply from: yoda

That's what Ann Coulter said, and I agree with Ann. I really don't know. I don't believe it's up to me to accept or reject this nominee, that's the job of the Senate. And their hearings haven't even STARTED yet, so I think it's a bit premature to fire the cannons. I've heard it said, "Better to be silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".

If we were talking about a Representative or a Senator, I'd agree 100%. But judges are supposed to try to maintain at least the appearance of impartiality, and I see nothing wrong with a judge keeping his/her private opinions to him/herself as much as possible. That should go with the job, IMO.

reply from: pragmaticprolifer

No you don't. She opposes nominating this or any other stealth conservative. She opposes the Roberts nomination precisely because we "don't know" and she rightly argues that for such an important position we have a need and a right to know.

Liberal nonsense. You won't find that in the constitution. You won't find it in the Federalist papers.

You've bought into a liberal lie that has suckered conservatives into accepting (or should I say not opposing) judges (and other elected officials) on the grounds that their ACLU membership, homosexual practices, pornographic proclivities, adulterous affairs, etc. are that person's "private business" -- ie American citizens can trust that those practicing these and other immoral habits will be sure to not let their immoral/corrupt "private" addictions influence their decisions, so we have no right to know about and must not ask elected or appointed officials about such things. What utter nonsense. <i>That</i> kind of thinking is what has helped moral degenerates like Blackmun and the rest to get "approved" by your elected representatives.

You've got a pretty low standard, friend, not even demanding impartiality but being willing to settle for "at least the appearance of impartiality" -- we normally would call that an illusion, deception or a lie -- but believing in the appearance of something that is not really there will only lead to disappointment.

Anybody else care to jump in and help explain to Y that "impartiality" was never a requirement for a judge -- because it is not possible. We all have biases. And the fact that someone is a donor to Planned Parenthood or a member of NAMBLA or the fact that they are a donor to the Focus on the Family or a member of the John Birch Society <i>(or the Federalist society?)</i> - can tell the citizens of this country {who are hiring this person FOR LIFE and will be paying their salary} alot about what those biases are going in. And to pretend that even if someone could neutral (i.e. neither for it nor against it) on homosexuality, child killing, etc. that this equates to "impariality" is foolish to begin with.

reply from: yoda

Let's try to keep a little reality in this discussion, okay? My statement was that I agree with what Ann Coulter said in her column, which is:
"I share their hopes and dreams! I also hope it doesn't rain in August. I'm not throwing out all my umbrellas, and I won't be "proved wrong" in that decision even if the rain never comes. This is a fact: Right now, we don't know."

I DO agree with that, your disbelief to the contrary, so don't try tell tell me what I believe and don't believe, you're not that good of a mindreader.

I'm not looking for it in the Federalist papers. I'm looking for it in the legal traditions of this country. A judge that displays prejudice for one side or the other is expected to recuse him/herself. For a SCOTUS justice to display prejudice towards one side in abortion cases would be a valid reason to ask that justice to recuse him/herself. Failure to do so would be grounds for impeachment.

What utter nonsense. Is judge Roberts accused of any of those things? Have the hearings even started yet? Can't you wait for them?

Again, what utter nonsense. I'm not "willing to settle" for ANYTHING. I'm not "settling", period. I'm withholding judgement until the hearings are over, and we know all that we're going to know about this man. But if you want to jump the gun and declare him a proabort before he even has a hearing, by all means jump!

I don't think that anyone else will jump to your aid, since they read well enough to know that I have not said anything of the kind. If you want to create strawmen and attack them, help youself, but leave my name off of them. They belong to YOU.

reply from: buyProLife

PragmaticProLifer asked if anyone would jump in and explain to Y that "impartiality" was never a requirement for a judge....

Essentially, judges are judges and not arbitrators. The difference is that a judge is called upon to interpret the law and an arbitrator decides between the parties in dispute. I'm not convinced that the two are interchangeable.

That is the Patrick Lehy line of reasoning, and one with which I have some sympathy. On the other hand, there is a huge difference between taking a position on a case before the court has heard it (prejudice) and having an opinion. The Democrats want to get a pledge to uphold Roe and the pro-life communitiy is looking for a pledge to overturn Roe. Those who want an effective jurist want a person with a conservative judicial temperment (one who will decide a case on its merits based on the law).

It is not possible for a judge to be impartial, so yes, pragmaticprolifer is right. They are called upon to judge impartially and without prejudice (as in deciding a case based soly on their own opinion), so yes, "Y" has a valid point as well.

From our perspective though, we have to see Roberts as a potential Trojan Horse because the Dems are giving him such an easy ride...until the passing of Renquist. If they saw a threat to their right to murder innocent children, I suspect we'd see Bork magnified by Thomas in the pre-hearing smearfest that has become their hallmark.

After the dust settles on the Roberts nomination, we have another one to get through. There will be temendous pressure on the POTUS to pick a squishy in the tradition of Souter. IMO, the greater danger is in what a president bent on making nice with the other side will do and not what the current nominee thinks about a poorly decided case.... If he knows what makes a poorly decided case, he's a far better pick than the past few have been. Can anyone say, Komrade Ginsburg ? ;-)

reply from: whosays

Roberts said that the fact that a case is wrongly decided is not a sufficient reason for overturning a prior court decision.

REALLY? If a case isn't to be overturned because of this, then why overturn any decision ever?

Also, Roberts said that he does "SEE A RIGHT TO PRIVACY" in the Constitution, which means that (A) he on no account can be considered an "origionalits"/"STRICT constructionist" as most conservatives understand these terms and (B) he is willing to "SEE" things in the constitution that are not there - and therefore he is letting EVERYONE know that he is willing to do the same thing when it comes to future decisions should he be confirmed.

reply from: chooselife

When I was watching the news coverage of this yesterday Brit Hume pointed out that even though Judge Roberts said he did think the Constitution had a right to privacy it did not necessarily mean the right to privacy that allows women to seek abortions. The other attorney on the show agreed and said that the way he answered did not pin down for the democrats that he would support Roe v Wade. Kennedy and Biden (sp?) came after him pretty hard yesterday and I think he played it smart and did not give them alot of ammunition to use against him later. I guess time will tell.

reply from: Tam

Yes, I recently became aware of these two pieces of information as well. Very disturbing. I can't support Roberts at all under the circumstances.

reply from: yoda

No, that is not a litmus test. The constitution contains a prohibition against "unresonable search and seizure", which can be interpreted as a right to privacy in a limited way. As you say, time will tell.

reply from: scopia1982

If I can remember my American Government class from high school which I got decent grades in, the Supreme Court doesnt actually revist previous decisions and overturn them. What would happen is a seperate case would come before the court over the constitutionalty of states abortions bans like in RvW. which said that states couldnt totally ban abortion. DoeVBolton was the case that said abortions could be performed pretty much anytime for any reason. So we could have another case that says that the states can totally ban abortions or another that would allow states to severely restrict abortions. These new cases and new rulings would nullify both RvW and DvB. A classic example of this would be BrownvsBoardofEducation which said that segregation in schools was unconstitutional it nullified Plessy V Ferguson that said segregation was constitutional.

reply from: chooselife

Yoda - I think that is what they were talking about. They said the right to privacy can also be applied to gay/lesbian acts, etc. I was very skeptical about Roberts but I watched almost the whole hearing yesterday and had a better feeling after hearing him speak. This may sound ridiculous but he has a kind face and kind eyes. If you have ever seen the people that work for NARAL and PP they just look mean. They have no glow about them. I can almost always point out a godly Christian woman because they just have a certain radiance. Maybe others know what I mean. I just get the sense from Roberts that he is a good man. I sure hope I am right.

reply from: Navynate

Mandi,

You are exactly right about that one. People who do have faith in God do have a glow about them. And the people for NARAL and PP sure don't have it. They also seem to be very mean as well. I still can't get anything posted on Bush V Choice, they choose who can post and who can't, sounds pretty open minded to me (note sarcasm). And if you look at how many people have posted messages there, you will not find alot of messages posted on much of anything there. I guess they hate anyone who disagrees with them and then goes on and proves them wrong on their own website. Here anyone can post as long as they are total jerks and act like spoiled kids.

Nate,

reply from: yoda

I know what you mean, even if I don't know where it comes from. People who are kind, warm and friendly do seem to have a glow...... and Roberts does make a good impression on TV.

reply from: pragmaticprolifer

That is the kind of gobbledy-gook is what provides the rationale for any judge who wants to "interpret" this or any other clause of the constitution so as to claim that it says something that it DOES NOT say!

The "prohibition against unresonable search and seizure" should be "interpreted" as a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Words mean things and when you or anyone else is allowed to change the words by "interpreting" them instead of READING them, then you cannot possibly be said to be seeking the "origional intent". The "origional intent" was expressed by the choice of the words that were used. Do you think that they didn't know how to say "a right to privacy" and, if they did know how to say this and elected NOT to say this, isn't it possible that they did NOT 'MEAN' this?

Why would any body be so crass as to suggest that he/she knows how say ('intrepret') what the writers of the Constitution meant better than those writers did? I would suggest that they do so ("interpret") in order to give themselves "artistic liscense" to justify whatever decisions they want to make. And those who countenance this practice have no right to complain the lousy rulings that they get as a result.

"Intrepret"? For goodness sake the document was written in ENGLISH, not Hebrew or Greek! Just read the damn thing and either abide by the words as written or ammend the Constitiution to say "right to privacy" but for goodness sake don't pretend that it is there (by "interpreting" it as such) when it is not!

reply from: Tam

That is the kind of gobbledy-gook is what provides the rationale for any judge who wants to "interpret" this or any other clause of the constitution so as to claim that it says something that it DOES NOT say!

The "prohibition against unresonable search and seizure" should be "interpreted" as a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Words mean things and when you or anyone else is allowed to change the words by "interpreting" them instead of READING them, then you cannot possibly be said to be seeking the "origional intent". The "origional intent" was expressed by the choice of the words that were used. Do you think that they didn't know how to say "a right to privacy" and, if they did know how to say this and elected NOT to say this, isn't it possible that they did NOT 'MEAN' this?

Why would any body be so crass as to suggest that he/she knows how say ('intrepret') what the writers of the Constitution meant better than those writers did? I would suggest that they do so ("interpret") in order to give themselves "artistic liscense" to justify whatever decisions they want to make. And those who countenance this practice have no right to complain the lousy rulings that they get as a result.

"Intrepret"? For goodness sake the document was written in ENGLISH, not Hebrew or Greek! Just read the damn thing and either abide by the words as written or ammend the Constitiution to say "right to privacy" but for goodness sake don't pretend that it is there (by "interpreting" it as such) when it is not!

Hear, hear!!

reply from: whosays

Everybody 'knows' that supporting the 'right to privacy' is code for supporting the 'right to abortion'.

reply from: yoda

The "prohibition against unresonable search and seizure" should be "interpreted" as a prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Did you not see the word "limited" in the quote you took from my post? I thought that anyone reading that would understand that to mean "limited to searches and seizures". Before you jump down my throat, why don't you take the time to read my posts?

It is the duty and assignment of the justices of the court to "interpret" how the WORDS of the constitution apply to situations in cases brought before them. When a case involving the right to bear arms comes before the court, for example, don't you think that the SCOTUS has to "interpret" what the section of the constitution means when it refers to a "well armed militia"?

Before you get too high on your high horse, you ought to give this stuff a little more thought.

reply from: yoda

Please see my response to pragmatic.

reply from: yoda

Yes it is, among abortion supporters. Among homosexuals it's code for supporting their agenda. But when a Prolifer says it while being questioned by a group of proaborts in the Senate, it may not mean any of the above. He may mean the right to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. We don't know yet, IMO, we'll have to wait and see.

reply from: whosays

A false presupposition, given the current discussion. Since Roberts is not willing to identify himself as a "Pro-lifer," I would dare to say that for any true prolifer to do this 'for him' is nothing more that completely groundless wishful thinking.

Dream on.

reply from: sarah

I watched and listened to the hearings. Oy, my gut says look out. I know that's hardly a reliable predictor, however, I kept thinking what Judge Bork said when asked about the "right to privacy". He came right out and said there is no such thing in the constitution. Of course, he got "Borked" much to my deep sadness.
I was thinking, if Judge Roberts learned from Bork and is just trying to lay low and not say anything to make waves, but really disagrees with RvW and the idea of a right to privacy, then we have someone who can be intellecutally dishonest, so that's not a good thing.
But, if he meant what he said about there acutally being a right to privacy in the constitution and can apply it to RvW then that's not good either.
I also was nervous about all this "precedent" he was talking about. That didn't bode well either as far as I could tell.
But, I guess there isn't anything we can do about it anyway, he'll get voted on and be appointed to the SCOTUS as the cheif justice no less.

Now, it's the next one Bush nominates that will be the real battle, that is if he appoints someone like Scalia and Thomas.

reply from: pragmaticprolifer

All true prolifers that back this guy have to believe that this is exactly what he's doing - decieving the Senate into believing that he has no intention of and would not vote to overturn Roe, when in fact he can be counted on him to do exactly that. And they rationalize that his lying in this case is okay, because... oh, how should I put this... the ends justifies the means. (But is a deciever really the best we can do?)

And for those who "read my post" earlier, you might want to ask yourself if perhaps the founders knew how to say "LIMITED right to privacy" and then ask yourself, if they knew how to say this but elected not to do so, then why would anyone take it upon themselves to presume to put these words in their mouth?

Finally, it's been sometime since my 8th grade government class, so could some constitutional scholar out there refresh my memory and tell me what Article and Section of the Constitution says "It is the duty and assignment of the justices of the court to "interpret" how the WORDS of the constitution apply to situations in cases brought before them." I didn't think this was in there, but I could be wrong about the founders electing not to say this either. [Of course, I know that the power-hungry men that wear the robes at the SC and all of the lesser courts want to grant this power to themselves, but I didn't think that the Constitution actually gave them the assignment to "interpret" the Constitution.] So if anyone would like to help settle this point of confusion between pro-lifers please jump in.

reply from: sarah

All true prolifers that back this guy have to believe that this is exactly what he's doing - decieving the Senate into believing that he has no intention of and would not vote to overturn Roe, when in fact he can be counted on him to do exactly that. And they rationalize that his lying in this case is okay, because... oh, how should I put this... the ends justifies the means. (But is a deciever really the best we can do?)

And for those who "read my post" earlier, you might want to ask yourself if perhaps the founders knew how to say "LIMITED right to privacy" and then ask yourself, if they knew how to say this but elected not to do so, then why would anyone take it upon themselves to presume to put these words in their mouth?

Finally, it's been sometime since my 8th grade government class, so could some constitutional scholar out there refresh my memory and tell me what Article and Section of the Constitution says "It is the duty and assignment of the justices of the court to "interpret" how the WORDS of the constitution apply to situations in cases brought before them." I didn't think this was in there, but I could be wrong about the founders electing not to say this either. [Of course, I know that the power-hungry men that wear the robes at the SC and all of the lesser courts want to grant this power to themselves, but I didn't think that the Constitution actually gave them the assignment to "interpret" the Constitution.] So if anyone would like to help settle this point of confusion between pro-lifers please jump in.

Oh oh. This is looking worse and worse. I don't believe there is anything about "interpeting" the Constitution in the Constitution.
Have you ever heard Thomas or Scalia address this? I haven't that I can recall and wonder how they feel about it?

reply from: Tam

Please see my response to pragmatic.

Oh, yoda, I wasn't disagreeing with you. I just meant "hear, hear" about the lecture pragmatic was giving to the SCOTUS. I guess when I re-read the post, it sounds like you're the one being lectured--but I don't think that you are the one who needs to hear the lecture. I know that you would never interpret a prohibition against unreasonable search and seizure to mean the "right" to kill a baby! The problem is that the SCOTUS has "interpreted" the document to include such a "right". I agree with pragmatic that the document is written in plain English and doesn't need to be "interpreted" in the sense of "extrapolated"--which is basically what the current SCOTUS means by "interpreted!"

I don't know the exact wording of what the constitution says the judges are to do, sorry. I can look it up when I have time. It's my contention that the constitution doesn't contain any wording about abortion and that therefore that decision was meant to be left to the states--in fact, the only part of the constitution that can be construed as referring to abortion would be the preamble where it refers to posterity.

For now, I just want to say that I don't trust Roberts. I agree with Sarah. I'm not at all convinced he's the best we can do.

Ok, I went and looked it up. Here is Article III:

reply from: yoda

You're right, it is wishful thinking, and I will dream on until he does something that turns the dream into a nightmare.

reply from: yoda

That's the bottom line, isn't it?

I could give you my reasons for why I think he may have answered as he did, but then those on this forum who are convinced that he's a proabort would tell me how foolish I am...... so I'll just wait and see.

reply from: yoda

We don't seem to be speaking the same language, is there an interpreter here? NO ONE claimed that the founders said any such thing, or that they intended to, or that they should have..... that was MY statement in reference to the fact that the ONLY issues related to privacy in the constitution ARE "freedom from unreasonable search and seizure"........ and IN MY OPINION that is a LIMITED right of privacy..... okay?

reply from: yoda

You got that right.

Main Entry: in·ter·pret 1 : to explain or tell the meaning of : present in understandable terms

For anyone to say that the constitution is so clear and so full of detail that everyone of good conscience will agree as to exactly what it says and precisely how it applies to every situation that has come before the Supreme Court over the past 200+ years is a childish notion, IMO. "Interpret" is NOT a dirty word, it DOES NOT mean to intentionally change the meaning of the constitution....... (that's what happens when it is interpreted INCORRECTLY and without BASIS, as in Roe and Doe).

Now, what are "judical powers"? Is it not a judicial power to decide the meaning of laws and constitutions? Of course it is, that's what judges do. Lawyers argue their "interpretations" all day long, and at the end of the day the judge decides who and/or what is right.

Here's the example (that was ignored before) that illustrates that principle well: Ammendment II says "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Now what EXACTLY does that mean? What is a "militia"? Must we be in a militia in order to own firearms? Why do we have to have a license for a firearm? Can we own any "arms" we want to, like tanks, cannons, and atomic weapons?

The framers of the constitution worked hard to get a consensus, and to do that they had to be a little ambiguous in some sections, and leave some subjects out altogether (like slavery). So to claim that judges are not entitled to "interpret" it is just not rational, IMO. But they have a responsibility to do it right.

reply from: pragmaticprolifer

And when some athiest rules "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" IN THEIR OPINION that means a SEPERATION of church and state" what do you say?

When you grant yourself the 'artistic liscense' to reword the words of the Constitution to words that you think clarify or better express the intent of the writers than those words themselves, then you grant have no grounds on which to argue when others want to take the same liberties and take their OPINION as a basis for rewording (via 'interpretation', clarification or whatever) other portions of the Constitution in ways that you would consider going beyond the founders intent, because you are willing to do it yourself even while others (like me) would consider your 'spin' on this clause going beyond the founders intent .

reply from: yoda

I say that they have ruled based on the basis of their bias rather than on the text of the constitution.

I have granted myself no such license. I challenge you to post anything that I have said to indicate that.

If you are referring to my use of the word "limited" with regard to privacy, I never in any way hinted that the word "limited" was in the constitution. I characterize the two rights that are in the constitution, that of freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, as "limited" to those two. Indeed it is common sense that to be protected against those two things is a type of "privacy", albeit a limited one.

I do express my opinion of things here, and if that's offensive to you I then suggest you not read my posts.

reply from: EllenMyers

It's no surprise a pro-abort like Bush would appoint another pro-abort. Bush is all about lining his pockets. He made great claims about being a Christian and having compassion for others but he's only interested in bleeding people dry while giving his friends billions of dollars. He fought a war so he could give Cheney's Halliburton no-bid contracts, now the devil answered his prayers by allowing him to give more contracts to Halliburton to clean up after the hurricaine. At least when people vote Democrat the Democrats are honest enough about their intentions to be godless, Bush and the Republicans will pretend to be Christian then spit in God's eye. I'll probably vote Democrat in the next election just to show Bush I don't appreciate his wolf in sheep's clothing tactics. He promised to restore honesty and dignity to the White House but he just told bigger lies and stole more money than Clinton could do in a hundred years.

reply from: Tam

What? Who on earth would you vote for in that party?

reply from: EllenMyers

It's called a protest vote. Have you been so closed to world history that you've never heard of it?

reply from: Skippy

I don't think Roberts is pro-abortion. He's simply a brilliant legal mind who places the law above his personal beliefs, which is precisely what a good judge should do. He'll do a fine job.

Now let's see if Bush can make it two for two with his other appointment.

reply from: sarah

It's called voting pro-abortion.

reply from: yoda

So, as a "protest" you'd vote for a proabort?

Jinx, sarah!

reply from: prolifejedi

If Roberts was pro ABORTION, Planned Parenthood wouldn't be objecting to his nomination.

reply from: Tam

Yeah, Ellen, I'm an ignoramus who had no idea what you meant. Wow, you sure put me in my place!

Or maybe not.

Seems that yoda and sarah (awww, you guys are so awesome) have already made the point quite clear--you are thinking that somehow voting for a proabort will help the pro-life movement? Excuse me while I fall off my chair laughing.

They're called OTHER PARTIES, Ellen. Have you been so closed to current events that you've never heard of them?

If you want to vote for someone OTHER THAN a Republican--that does NOT mean you must or should vote for a DEMOCRAT. Do you get that?

I have NEVER voted for a Republican OR a Democrat, and I never intend to! By your logic, I should be voting for the Republicans to protest the Democrats AND voting for the Democrats to protest the Republicans. Brilliant!! I'm sure they'll all get the message!

reply from: ForLife

Both sides are unreliable. Clearly, the Democrats have a commitment to support the right to abominable behavior.

Since the Bible is primarily a message about God's Government vs man's government, I'm inclined to go along with Shamgar that we need to wash our hands totally of man's government.

Last night I caught a few minutes of American Guy while changing channels. They mocked those who wanted to remove sexual deviancy from the airwaves as freaks who just sit around looking at their aquarium all day for entertainment. What a perverted world we live in. Nothing can be done about it by any man. Perversion is coming to a classroom and job diversity course near you! Maybe the Amish had a good idea, withdrawing from man's system.

reply from: whosays

If Souter was pro ABORTION, Planned Parenthood wouldn't be objecting to his nomination.

Opps!

He is...

...and they did.

(See Ann Coulter quotes on this -- available on the ProlifeAmerica.com commentaries page)

reply from: whosays

Straight from the ProlifeAmerica.com headlines

Specter seeks another Roberts-like nominee

Yeah, prolifers have no reason to expect conservatives who claim to believe that all babies in the womb are entitled to life, should nominate judges that would express the same view. Seeing self-serving GOP leaders argue that the same confirmation process that saw Ginsberg get approved is the standard by which this (and therefore future) nominess should also be evaluated -- instead of protesting that any system that could get her approve is NECESSARILY corrupt and should be utterly rejected -- is sickening.

We need to keep voting for and supporting politicians who will give us judicial nominees that are supported by radical pro-abort Arlen Specter but opposed by Planned Parenthood.

Now THAT'S balance!

reply from: ForLife

Republicans typically pick liberals for the Supreme Court and have stacked the court with a pro-choice majority. Why would Roberts be any different? Has anyone heard him say he'll defend children? Of course not.

reply from: pragmaticprolifer

Roberts isn't the only one getting tough questions these days.

I heard that Bush was asked about his opinion on Roe versus Wade

and he said I don't care how they get out of New Orleans.

Sorry, I couldn't resist passing that one along.

reply from: ForLife

The problem; doing things man's way (also known as the way of death; examples: abortion, sodomy, etc):

Statement by John Roberts: "I don't look to the Bible. My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don't look to the Bible or any other religious source."

The proper perspective:

Statement by our country's first Supreme Court Chief: "Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

The above quotes are from repentamerica.com. America has chosen to go down the path of death.

reply from: whosays

One has to wonder if the talk matches the walk.

It seems the ultimate example of a supreme court judge is that they should be "like Scalia or Thomas", as Bush has said this repeatedly.

Why then do you suppose that when Bush had the chance to put his stamp of leadership on the Supreme Court by apointing the Chief Justice (that will have even that much more influence), did he not name Scalia or Thomas to be Chief Justice?

Bush had the chance not to pick name a Chief Justice that was LIKE Scalia or Thomas, but to ACTUALLY PICK Scalia or Thomas, but instead, he picks....

someone to lead the Supreme Court (probably for decades to come) who says:

- what I did in my early (read Reagan, more conservative) days is no reflection of what I will do in the future

- that he "sees" a "right of privacy" in the constitution (See, Yoda, your not the only one)

(and my personal favorite assinine statement)

- the fact that a decision was WRONGLY decided is not enough to overturn that decision

Pray tell, how do you think it will sell the next time Bush tries to use that "someone like Scalia or Thomas" line?

(Hint: I suspect that line has already been deleted from the President's speechwriter's computer's "throw the conservatives some bait" file for inserting standard lines that are used to keep the base in line.)

reply from: yoda

Just for conversational value, here's what some of the opposition has to say about Roberts: (not that I am vouching for any of it)

Abortion Advocate Says John Roberts Will Overturn Roe v. Wade Decision

by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
September 14, 2005
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- While Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was careful to avoid taking a specific position abortion and whether he would overturn Roe v. Wade, a leading abortion advocate says Roberts' answers provide a framework for how Roberts could shepherd the high court to reverse the landmark decision.

Kim Gandy, the president of the pro-abortion National Organization of Women told DemocracyNow in an interview that Roberts showed the ground he could use to overturn Roe.

"What he said repeatedly was that he was not willing to state his position beyond what his writings were on Roe v. Wade, but did give, in my opinion, and in the opinion of a number of people, he did give a roadmap for overruling Roe," Gandy explained.

"He basically laid out several ways that a Roberts court, unlike the Rehnquist court, could and I think would, overrule Roe," she said.

Gandy said Roberts "went through the bases for overturning" the abortion decision by saying a precedent like Roe could be overturned based on erosion, workability and reliance as well as “extensive disagreement."

Gandy indicated that press reports erroneously said Roberts expressed support for a blanket right to privacy, used as the foundation for establishing a legal right to abortion in Roe. However, Gandy said Roberts showed support for privacy only in limited circumstances and not the general sense the court used in 1973.

That media interpretation causes concern for Gandy and other abortion advocates.

"[T]here was a tremendous amount of consternation," among abortion advocates, Gandy explained, when the Associated Press gave "people the idea that he had endorsed Roe or had done so in so many words."

Gandy says Roberts' answers about respecting judicial precedents are meaningless.

"Of course, every precedent, however ridiculous, is entitled to respect, which means to be – it means recognition, in a legal sense, not respect as in the way – that you think it was rightly decided," she said.

Gandy also criticized pro-abortion senators on their questioning of Roberts saying they were creating problems "with inadequate questions or inadequate follow-up."

http://www.lifenews.com/nat1616.html


2017 ~ LifeDiscussions.org ~ Discussions on Life, Abortion, and the Surrounding Politics