I thought his response of someone that upholds the constitution instead of trying to make laws was the perfect response.
That was imho the most powerful moment of the whole evening, but one needed to read between the lines. Here's a hint: Can you think of another case in American judicial history involving the relegation of an entire group of people to the status of "property". It was brilliantly veiled, but few people saw it. It will become clearer over time; it must.
Bush should have said he that as in 2000 he likes judges like Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas, and then dare Kerry to say what exactly is wrong with Thomas or Scalia.
He tiptoed around it. He figured anyone who agreed with him would vote for him anyway, and that there was no point in stirring up the opposition by adverstising his position on it. Unfortunately, like so many other things, the question of whether we should appoint conservatives or radical nutcases to the Supreme Court is one on which the nation is divided 50-50. At this late point in the campaign, both candidates are simply trying to push the right buttons to tip the scales on the issues where the nation is not divided 50-50.
The president gave a solid conceptual response. To me, he missed out on a big opportunity to contrast his approach to that of the Democrats. The perfect examples can be drawn by the Democrat filibusters of Miguel Estrada, Priscilla Owens, Bill Pryor, etc., to federal appeals court posts.
The democrats are fanatics that have an pro-abortion litmus test. Just using Estrada as an example, Kerry and the Dems filibustered a wonderful guy who is a real American dream story.
Kerry's phony, greasy claim to respect the beliefs of the lady who asked about partial birth abortion was a perfect 2nd opportunity to nail the point home. The president is right that reasonable people can disagree, but Kerry and the donkeys are fanatics. This litmus test of theirs means that Catholics or other conservatives need not apply. That is not right and the voters should be reminded that Kerry is in lockstep with that fanaticism.
Bush did a great job by letting Kerry show his contempt for the Constitution.
Kerry said that he would appoint justices who would interpret the Constitution according to the law.
They are supposed to interpret the law according to the Constitution.
The Dred Scott allusion pleased pro-lifers b/c it's a comparison pro-lifers make to demonstrate that in Dred Scott, as in Roe v Wade, the USSC deemed some Americans were not considered "persons" under the law......Blacks b/c of their color, and unborn babies b/c of where they reside (in the womb).