Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
Posted on 11/12/2007 9:57:58 PM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
INDIANOLA, Iowa — Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson today defended his opposition to a federal constitutional amendment to ban abortion and contended it was more realistic to appoint conservative judges to outlaw abortion or let the states decide whether the procedure should be legal.
Thompson's comments, made during a swing through Iowa, where his campaign has languished in its early stages, also came on the eve of his candidacy's expected endorsement by the National Right to Life Committee.
"What I have concentrated on is a way to get to the same goal (to ban abortion) that's achievable. We could not get to first base on an amendment when we controlled both houses and the presidency," Thompson told reporters after a coffeehouse meet-and-greet.
"Now the question is, what do you do about that? Well I think the answer is to get better judges and to appoint people to the Supreme Court and hopefully someday Roe vs. Wade will be overturned. That's my goal. That's my priority," he said.
Thompson acknowledged that prior to the Supreme Court's landmark decision that allowed women to seek an abortion, the individual states had rights to outlaw or legalize the procedure.
"And as I like to say, sometimes states have a right to do things that even Fred Thompson disagrees with," the former Tennessee senator said.
During his stop in Indianola and an earlier visit to another café on the Oskaloosa town square, Thompson said the appointment of judges was second only to national security as a priority that Republicans should consider given the Democratic leadership of the House and Senate and the potential of a Democratic victory for the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at weblogs.baltimoresun.com ...
Will he promise to subject candidates for the Supreme Court to a litmus test to be sure that they oppose Roe?
Did Presidednts Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush subject SCOTUS candidates to a litmus test?
2. David Souter
3. Harriet Miers
no and that is why you can’t count on repealing Roe through the SC. The HLA is a way to bypass the SC but it is really best as a way to make abortion a national issue...part of winning “hearts and minds”
Vague promises about potential judges who may or may not repeal Roe won’t do that
Fred doesn't want a constitutional amendment because Fred thinks infanticide should be "up to the states."
Harriet Miers doesn’t sit on the SCOTUS LOL!
But yes, Bush blew it with that nomination although I don’t remember what her position on roe wade was, it was just a foolish nomination.
The bottom line is, no matter who gets in as prez there is no guarantee we will get good SCOTUS appointments.....they have to be approved and that gets messy. As you pointed out, everyone’s hero, Reagan, appointed a doozy in oconner, he blew it....oh well, other than that he was a great president.
Fred is our best shot at making progress on abortion, Romney is a double talker and cannot be trusted and Duncan is just not going to make it.
1. John Roberts
2. Clarence Thomas
3. Samuel Alito
4. Antonin Scalia
5. Robert Bork
Exactly, furthermore, overturning Roe v. Wade can be undone later if the Supreme Court moves back to left. A Constitutional amendment would preclude that possibility and tie the court’s hands.
Here’s some information for you on your boy Huckabee:
Mike Huckabee. The Socialist From Arkansas. http://www.cofcc.org/?p=811
Mike Huckabee disses Americans, Mexicans, promotes illegal immigration
http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/005609.html
Christians Need To Beware Of Mike Huckabee
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2007/cbarchive_20071102.html
While Gov. of Arkansas, Huckabee was AGAINST proving citizenship in order to register to vote. He called those who were in favor of this “racists”...
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050218/news_lz1e18perkins.html
Huckabee fought hard to kill an Arkansas bill which would have cut off social services for illegal aliens. Huckabee called the bill, “anti-Christian” and “un-American”...
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/01/28/News/316347.html
Huckabee supported in-state tuition for illegal aliens...
http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2005/03/11/News/318458.html
Huck’s opposition to the illegal aliens bill:
http://www.diggersrealm.com/mt/archives/000718.html
Fred comes through LOUD AND CLEAR!
The legal fiction behind Roe vs. Wade predated 4D ultrasound machines. Inertia may keep it in place, but once it's dislodged I don't think it can ever be reinstated.
Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito aren’t conservative enough for you?! So, basically nothing will satisfy you. Okay, got it! LOL
You’d rather wait on an amendment to the Constitution that we have yet to get through the House or the Senate even when we were in charge over a method that, while not perfect, has a much better chance of success? Good luck with changing hearts and minds while the NEA controls the majority of what kids learn in this country. With their dominant position, they couldn’t even get the ERA through, even with the extended time. They used the “change the court” method and got it anyway.
W wanted to make his pro-choice wife happy by putting a woman on the court.
well i can understand where he’s coming from. He wants an incremental approach.
But I argue that only works for liberals. Conservatives need big national campaigns. A contract with America vs Hastert’s muddiness, a flat tax vs lots of tiny tax cuts, the END of the evil empire and not just playing with detente for years. Americans need to hear it loud and clear, this is evil like slavery was and we cannot tolerate it anymore as a nation.
That remains to be seen. I’d love to know if they support overturning Roe v. Wade. They seemed to not have a problem assuring all the democrats that they’d stick to precedent. (Code for upholding Roe)
NATIONAL REVIEW; “Waiting on Fred” Aug 27 2007
The Supreme Court, and judicial issues in general, are Thompson’s strong suit. Not only does he have the background-the Watergate investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee, private practice, and the job of guiding John Roberts through his confirmation hearings-he also knows the conservative legal stars who would likely be candidates for the Court in coming years. But he won’t name names, beyond the men already there, “I like Roberts and Alito and Scalia and Thomas” he tells me. “We’re in a heck of a lot better shape because of Roberts and Alito, and one more gain would put us in even better shape.” Should he become president, Thompson would undoubtedly try to nominate that elusive fifth conservative.”
Bork is not on the Supreme Court!
Miers was pro life but not a constitutional lawyer or scholar.
I’m all for overturning Roe V. Wade. I also support an amendment to take it out of the Court’s hands. I’m not against Fred’s method, he’s against mine. The two are hardly mutually exclusive.
Fredipedia: The Definitive Fred Thompson Reference
WARNING: If you wish to join, be aware that this ping list is EXTREMELY active.
An amendment puts it into the court’s hands. Look what they do to all the other amendments. We don’t need to amend it, we need to abide by it.
I put Robert Bork on there because of his mention of Harriet Miers, who is also not on the Supreme Court. Thus, I am crediting President Reagan with choosing a dyed-in-the-wool conservative without using a litmus test.
Why don’t you lay out for us poor deluded ones just exactly (and I mean be precise and complete for all scenarios) how you would write this amendment to the Constitution, whom it would criminalize, how they would be prosecuted, and how that will allow the individual states to regulate this evil slaughter. Oh, that’s right, you want the federal authorities to regulate this slaughter! Okay, tell us what your amendment would read.
the GOP wouldn’t be a national pro-life party were it not for the HLA. It unites the party. Same goes for the Contract with America. We didn’t end up changing the constitution but we won enough seats to actually make a difference.
Uh-huh. Justices in the mold of Scalia, Thomas, Alito, and Roberts. Giuliani said the same thing.
Did he tell you that at their private residence in the White House, at Camp David or at the Crawford Ranch?
Reality check: did you not read that Republicans could not even get a start on an amendment when they controlled Congress and the Presidency?
And furthermore, a Constitutional Amendment will not protect the unborn anymore than the 14th Amendment protected the unborn. It was a liberal Supreme Court reading into the 14th Amendment whatever they wanted to read that gave us Roe vs. Wade.
The federal government is a morass of confusion, corruption and twisted policy interpretation. They cannot be trusted with decisions over our personal family lives.
Think some future liberal Supreme Court won’t read the 2nd Amendment as being a collective right governing militias? And not an individual right to bear arms?
Think some future liberal Supreme Court won’t rule that a resurrected Fairness Doctrine does not stifle free speech? Or that School prayer is not protected free speech?
The only way to uphold the Constitution is to appoint strict constructionists. Passing a flurry of amendments will not strengthen human life or marriage. And it won’t happen anyway, the votes do not exist and will not exist.
But give states their rights back and people will start to transition to local values again, to values of human and Christian life that existed before the Great Society and the explosion in size and scope of the federal government.
Give states their rights back and limit the federal government both in budget and jurisdiction.
GET THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUT OF OUR LIVES TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT POSSIBLE!
“A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution.”
This makes sense. We know from his record that he’s not a pure federalist on abortion, since he voted repeatedly to federally ban partial birth abortion, and even to federally restrict use of human tissue.
That’s what I figured, all lip and no lex.
Did Rudy Giuliani have a 100% pro-life rating, an endorsement from National Right to Life, Tom McClintock (R-CA), Bob Beers (R-NV) and did Rudy help Chief Justice Roberts through his SCOTUS nomination process?
“Not only does he have the background-the Watergate investigation, the Senate Judiciary Committee, private practice, and the job of guiding John Roberts through his confirmation hearings-he also knows the conservative legal stars who would likely be candidates for the Court in coming years”
that’s why I don’t have such a big problem with Fred. :)
:)
here’s the original version and I like this better:
A right to abortion is not secured by this Constitution. The Congress and the several States shall have the concurrent power to restrict and prohibit abortions: Provided, That a law of a State which is more restrictive than a law of Congress shall govern.
For the last 35 years, pushing for a Reagan style Human Life Amendment has been futile. The Constitutional amendment process sets an extremely high bar for passage. That is why we've had only 17 amendments since the Bill of Rights was written into the Constitution.
Since 1973 there has been over 300 amendment proposals for a HLA. The closet we came to actually passing a HLA was in 1983. It never got beyond the first step and failed in the Senate floor vote (49-50), far short of the 67 votes needed for passage.
Sending the abortion issue back to the states will be a huge victory for the pro-life movement. It will allow the people to finally have a vote on the abortion issue and set the laws they deem proper for their own state. It will also lead to a siginifcant drop in abortions throughout the country.
“Sending the abortion issue back to the states will be a huge victory for the pro-life movement. “
I think that it would create a level of grass roots conservative organizations times 50, that this country has not seen in a long time.
With the maturity and long time experience of our present pro-life movement and the new energy and passion of new grassrooters local to their own state, it could be a rebirth of conservative power nationwide.
Not only is passage of this amendment you propose a fantasy, it would not withstand federal judges from trumping it with Full Faith And Credit provisions of the Constitution.
Full Faith and Credit issues are what compelled FDT to propose an amendment that protects states from each other and not just protect states from the federal government.
You need to understand that Fred Thompson and his circle understand the Constitution and the Law far better than you would ever hope to. And Fred Thompson would tell you so himself in a far more tactful and pleasant way, leaving you with the impression you’ve just been complicated when in reality you’ve just been put in your place.
The HLA sets a high bar but it gives congress something to support...something for pro-life voters to rally behind. Put that off the table and you won’t get a pro-life congress that will approve any judges Fred picks.
Basically it is a part of the campaign to win hearts and minds. Everyone talks about it but this is a real effective way of making it an important issue
“Did Presidednts Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush or George W. Bush subject SCOTUS candidates to a litmus test?”
No, and there were an awful lot of duds picked by those men.
Great points. Well said.
A HLA is on the back burner by default. Over 300 proposals in 35 years and not one even came close to getting off the ground.
Overturning RvW is the way to go. It will unite pro-lifers like never before and help build up the conservative movement. See post #44.
If that’s the case then the amendment can be changed so that you don’t have that problem
But again you’re missing the point. The point is to make abortion a national issue and to unite the GOP behind the pro-life banner. That’s the only way you’ll get the right judges approved.
(btw if one state legalized gay marriage, wouldn’t that mean that all states would have to accept it?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.