Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
To: National Desk
Contact: Amber Matchen of the American Life League, 540-903-9572 or amatchen@all.org
WASHINGTON, Nov. 11 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Judie Brown, president of American Life League, issued the following statement in response to news that White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales is being considered as the replacement for U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft:
"President Bush appears to be doing all that he can to downright ignore pro-life principles. There can be no other explanation for his recommendation of Alberto Gonzales as attorney general. Gonzales has a record, and that record is crystal clear.
"As a Texas Supreme Court justice, Gonzales' rulings implied he does not view abortion as a heinous crime. Choosing not to rule against abortion, in any situation, is the epitome of denying justice for an entire segment of the American population -- preborn babies in the womb.
"When asked if his own personal feelings about abortion would play a role in his decisions, Gonzales told the Los Angeles Times in 2001 that his 'own personal feelings about abortion don't matter... The question is, what is the law, what is the precedent, what is binding in rendering your decision. Sometimes, interpreting a statute, you may have to uphold a statute that you may find personally offensive. But as a judge, that's your job.' Gonzales' position is clear: the personhood of the preborn human being is secondary to technical points of law, and that is a deadly perspective for anyone to take.
"President Bush claims he wants to assist in bringing about a culture of life. Such a culture begins with total protection for every innocent human being from the moment that person's life begins. Within the short period of one week, the president has been silent on pro-abortion Sen. Arlen Specter's desire to chair the senate judiciary committee, and has spoken out in favor of a judge with a pro-abortion track record to lead the Justice Department.
"Why is President Bush betraying the babies? Justice begins with protecting the most vulnerable in our midst. Please, Mr. President -- just say no to the unjust views of Alberto Gonzales."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
That's funny, that's exactly what THEY say.
So we'll just play that game forever.
So the supreme court should never rule on a states constitution?
Do you support Gonzales' strictly enforcing 'some' laws while desiring to reward lawbreakers of other laws?
You can hold to that view, but do not expect me to follow suit.
I do not believe in litmus tests. If I followed the line you advocate I would become no better than Daschle.
He is not unfit to serve the laws of this land because he may be in personal disagreement with them. If you disagree, as it would appear you do, I'm certain you are making your displeasure known to appropriate channels. As I am making known my views as a pro-life advocate that I will not emulate those that demonized an AG's ability to honorably serve the laws of this land because he was a pro-Life Christian.
Jack, please see 27.
Everyone one knows there is no constitutional right to an abortion. Our problem has been we can't get constructionist judges on the bench. the point is that gonzales is such a judge. Why blame him for the suit is flawed from the beginning. That is legislating from the bench. Exactly what we don't want.
Not all vices are to be repressed by law. A law decriminalizing prostitution is intrinsically evil. But St. Thomas Aquinas himself agrees with St. Augustine that a state could do just that.
Summa, Pt. I-II, Q. 96, Art. 2
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/209602.htm
"Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like."
The problem with Roe vs. Wade is that it has overrun laws settled by the majority to govern the behavior of the minority who cannot restrain themselves from murdering their unborn children. Roe vs. Wade is also a judicial assertion that the people do now know how to govern themselves as far as the destraint of vice by the law. This, more than anything else, makes it the antithesis of Catholic legal-politcal-moral theory.
An truly intrinsically evil law is one that uses the power of the state to compel vices - vis. the Chinese forced abortion/one child laws.
Did we learn anything from the Nuremburg trials?
Like what? Don't hold ex post facto show trials with Communists?
Why not? Should they stand on this alleged principle while babies die?
In fact, the existing laws are null since they contradict the natural law. The judges not only can, but must nullify these laws.
I want someone that will enforce ALL our existing laws and not just the ones that don't affect his racial protected choices. Lawbreakers at that!
Not at all. It removed the protection of the law from a class of humans. It did not redefine the meaning of life or what is or is not a human.
The judges' failure to protect innocent unborn life in law is a grievous sin of ommission equal in magnitude to a positive command to mass murder.
Most states allow people absolute impunity under the law to use deadly force with intruders. Occasionally, innocent people are killed because of this. Is this also a sin of omission?
Yes, but they're wrong. Get it? Sometimes evil people lie for their cause. And if they're simply ignorant, they're still wrong, and we still have an obligation to correct them.
Unless you don't believe that unborn babies are human, in which case I'd like you to tell me what they are and why so many people are in such a hurry to kill them.
Let's assume for the sake of argument that that is what he would have been doing. Nevertheless, he would still be obligated to disregard a law that decriminalizes grievous intrinsic evil.
Where is the standing of the Supreme Court to legislate on a State constitution?
Yes, but this vice is not like the others. The natural and essential purpose of the State is to promote the common good, which primarily and necessarily entails the protection of the lives of its citizens.
When a State fails to protect the lives of entire categories of its citizens it can no longer truly be called a State. These rulings strike at the heart of society and are categorically different from laws regarding "victimless" crimes.
You're kidding, right? When did you become a cavilling lawyer?
No. The judges should judge the laws. That's what we hire judges to do.
1. The legislatures are the proper place for such laws to be nullified. In case you'd missed it, the legislatures have been doing their parts by passing laws to limit abortions. The USSC strikes them down, based on the whim of the judges.
2. If we decide that "whim of judge" is the proper standard of law, as you are suggesting, then this standard will be (and is) followed in general. Which explains why we get judges making all sorts of bad laws by judicial fiat -- including the legalization of abortion.
Unborn children are not citizens.
These rulings strike at the heart of society and are categorically different from laws regarding "victimless" crimes.
Prostitution is not a victimless crime. The prostitue is a victim, as is the neighborhood where the trade is plied.
You know, much as I abhor the practice of abortion, there are bigger issues facing the country.
If Al Qaeda gets its hands on a nuke, for example, we won't need to worry about who within the administration is pro life and pro choice.
You seem to be a very short sighted single issue voter which only confirms everything I suspected about you.
>>The real sentiments of certain posters always bubbles to the top.<<
Are these costs to America not of concern to you?
"Illegal aliens displaced American workers at a cost in excess of $133 billion dollars last year according to Harvard Professor George Borjas."
"When an alien criminal gets caught for rape, murder or drug distribution, you pay $1.6 billion annually in prison costs to house, feed and clothe those filling 30 percent of our federal and state prisons."
"According to the Center for Immigration Studies, average annual cost per child K-12 is $7,161.00 and exceeds $109 billion annually per cycle of anchor babies."
"The average head of household illegal alien costs you $2,700.00 in welfare money over and above any taxes he or she pays in their meager paying jobs. With 15 to 20 million illegal aliens in the USA, that figures exceeds $20 billion of your tax dollars. (Source: Center for Immigration Studies, August 2004)"
Would you prefer that this $260 billion dollars be used for foreign aid or to fight the invasion of illegal aliens?
Forums are where you are encouraged to express your sentiments, politely, it is wished by the forum owners.
By the way, your true sentiments are as obvious as a sunrise on a clear day.
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.