[Syco]

This is the primary reason that Specter needs to be passed over for the chairmanship. It goes beyond simple abortion. It's about how the Republic is to be governed. By the people or through the courts!

[Tax-chick]

later

[farmfriend]

PErsonal list.

[blanknoone]

This is a great expose of how I can be of the opinion that Abortion (with both parent's consent) should be legal...but I think it is imperative to overturn RvW.

[Cicero]

Permit me to say that this is a partly good article. But a) it is too long, and bogs down in its latter half, so most people will throw up their hands and stop reading. And b) it contains at it's core a faulty assumption, that you have to choose between judicial tyranny and contempt for life as the basic principle at issue.

In his image of abortion as a tree that is larger than the whole forest, the writer seems to understand that that issue of priorities is a red herring. Judicial tyranny and the right of every created human being to life are BOTH bedrock principles in our constitutional system. The right to life is the most basic right of all. And freedom is one of the most basic rights as well.

In Roe v. Wade SCOTUS trampled on both these rights. The "inalienable" right of every citizen to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness--of which the right to life is clearly most basic; and the right of citizens to choose freely without the imposition of tyrannical decisions from above. It is a false distinction to imply that you have to choose one of these basic principles above the other. Nothing could be more basic than either life or freedom.

[TChris]

Very well written by Mr. McCarthy. This puts the Arlen Specter debate in it's true light: Should we or should we not support a Judiciary Committee Chairman who promotes judicial activism and constitutional morphing?

[Fearless Flyers]

Ignoring the inalienable right to life and failing to secure the Blessing of liberty to our posterity, over 25,000 unborn babies were killed since election day by abortions.

[cpforlife.org]

Blackmun invented a right to abortion....Roe had nothing whatever to do with constitutional interpretation. The utter emptiness of the opinion has been demonstrated time and again, but that, too, is irrelevant. The decision and its later reaffirmations simply enforce the cultural prejudices of a particular class in American society, nothing more and nothing less. For that reason, Roe is impervious to logical or historical argument; it is what some people, including a majority of the Justices, want, and that is that. Roe should be overruled and the issue of abortion returned to the moral sense and the democratic choice of the American people. Abortions are killings by private persons. Science and rational demonstration prove that a human exists from the moment of conception. Scalia is quite right that the Constitution has nothing to say about abortion.

Robert H. Bork
Constitutional Persons: An Exchange on Abortion
Robert H. Bork is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

.

PING

[HowlinglyMind-BendingAbsurdity]

Right. The totalitarian judicial activism which Specter promotes and the social engineering of American society according to liberal secular humanism are actually quite at variance with the constitutional republicanism of our real form of government.

Liberals want the Supreme Court to legislate as the law of the land every idiotic liberal utopian fantasy they can think of. If they could get the Supreme Court to say that every American deserves a free hot tub they would do it.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Regarding Sen Specter:

SPECTER supported subjecting our troops to trials by the International Criminal Court (ICC)!

[MHGinTN]

McCarthy has nailed the Specter issue with finality. Any discussion should now be about how to keep Specter out of the chair and a strict Constitutionalist into the chair.

BTW: "This philosophy is erected on an unchanging premise: In a democracy, it is to be presumed that great social conflicts will be resolved democratically. That presumption is not beyond rebuttal, but for it to be overcome there must be unmistakable proof that the dispute at issue was removed from democratic consideration by the Constitution.? ... the issue of LIFE, then Liberty, then Pursuit of Happiness is not found in the Constitution. The issue of privacy is also not found in the Constitution. Until we resolve to impeach and remove judges who overstep their authority, we will continue to be slapped up the side of our collective sovereign faces by decisions such as Roe and Lawrence v Texas.

[LiteKeeper]

read later

[Jim Noble]

I agree with this completely.

As long as Roe stands, there is no Constitution.

There is no chance-none-that after Roe is overturned abortion in the first trimester will be banned.

But a Court that can constitutionalize abortion has no limit on its power, and that we cannot live with.