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 "federalism," i.e., those powers not delegated to the federal government, or prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states and the people. Tenth Amendment stuff.
BUMP
Yes. Said law included a provision for bypassing said notification requirement in specific circumstances. >>>
This is kind of vague. I wonder what the compelling circumstance was? In her case and what's listed in the law. See, laws like this opens up a back door for judges to kill babies and the like, in NJ a 3 strikes and your out law was passed with a back door for the judge to overrule and decide. Guess what? Not one person was ever convicted.
If I'm not mistaken, Gov. Bush appointed pro aborts to the TX supreme court and named a highway after a pro-abort politician.
I know for a FACT, that President Bush did appoint 6 pro-aborts to the federal judiciary in New Jersey. Is he afraid of the skeleton Sen. Frank Lautenberg?
=== Feeling masculine today?
I sometimes have to check my chin for stubble during exchanges with you, you're such a girlie-boy about some things.
Me! ... who hasn't worn but maybe two pair of pants and a couple of Levis since she discovered as a tomboy how much fun wrassling boys could be.
Note that I didn't say "compelling" circumstance, just "specific" circumstances.
The law was written that way by the Legislature. Gonzalez didn't add to it.
If I'm not mistaken, Gov. Bush appointed pro aborts to the TX supreme court and named a highway after a pro-abort politician.
You really need to quit getting your information from the professional malcontent wing of the pro-life movement.
The law was written that way by the Legislature. Gonzalez didn't add to it. >>>
So, if he had the "choice" he could have chosen life instead of death, No? 2 deaths, the fetus and the potential of the girl getting breast cancer in the future.
If I'm not mistaken, Gov. Bush appointed pro aborts to the TX supreme court and named a highway after a pro-abort politician.
You really need to quit getting your information from the professional malcontent wing of the pro-life movement.
>>>
Well am I right or wrong. As I said if I'm not mistaken, so let me know if I made a mistake. And why did President Bush appoint 6 pro-abortion judges (2 democrats) to the federal bench in NJ? Is is that hard to fight the 80-yr.-old skeleton Sen. Frank Lautenberg?
... have read the first 250 posts in this thread (whew) ... early on it was stated that in his 5-4 tie breaking vote, and subsequent 6-3 vote, he voted that way because his job was to interpret law, not make it ...
.. seems to me, it was his and the other 9 to interpret, not make law ... were the 4 and 3 in the minority above trying to make new law ? ... it's implicit in the fact that the issue was before the court that they were there to interpret existing statutes, not make new law ... Gonzales didn't make or not make new law, he simply voted ...
... the question really was, did or did not the girl in this specific case have sufficient maturity and knowledge to know what she was doing ... that would in my view require a very subjective evaluation, and into it would enter alot of gut feel by each of the 9, including their personal values ...
No, he didn't have the choice. He couldn't interpret the law in a more restrictive manner than the Legislature intended. The lower courts did.
Legislating from the bench is bad.
2 deaths, the fetus and the potential of the girl getting breast cancer in the future.
You know, bringing in junk science is not going to help the pro-life movement.
=== You don't honestly believe your posts are important enough to bookmark, do you?
I am not good about keeping my own posts, no.
But, given the fact I repeat the same things over and over and over and over and over and over again, basing those statement on readily available information from public domain "Conspiracy Central" sources like the Congressional Record, Federal Register and speeches of our Public Servants to the Asia Society and such, it's not so hard to reconstruct anything I say.
Can I have some particulars on the "murdering Bush Family" comment you remember so clearly?
Was it the way they've supported abortion or the "hopeful" use of the excess manufacture from Human Farming ? Testified to Congress about the "moral imperative" to depopulate? Engaged in unjust war? Sanctioned assassination? Excused the actions and opposed the actual removal from office of the "Mad Bomber of Sudan"? What?
For the record, I wouldn't call those actions of the "Bush Family" (save for stuff like George H.'s harping on George W. to put in place an Executive Branch power of assassination as part of the War on Terror) ... but, rather, the US Government.
It is not my problem that members of the Bush family have been ubiquitous at the federal level, in the White House and along frontline of the "Drug War" where the borders of key states like Texas and Florida are concerned.
And it's not my fault in the least that "all roads lead to New Haven" where research on this nation's Culture of Death is concerned.
If you don't like what I have to say, contest it with a FACT or two. I'm sick of you and Sinkspur misrepresenting me any time you're on the ropes.
(For the record ... I'm happy to provide the Precise Link about which Sinkpur and you tend to bitch the most. I do know where that is. It's just that I got sick and tired of linking it FOR Sinkspur every time he brought up this deceiptful charge on which you two rely. I love that thread and am happy to resurrect it for you, if you wish. China -- like abortion -- being a Rosetta stone of naked truth where the so-called "two-party" or "mandate" canard is concerned. "The Message They're Sending is Essentially the Same" ... don't you forget it.)
The law as written was upheld, it was the after the fact actions that were in question. As I understand it. That was where the problem lies.<p. I want a judge that is a strict constitutionalist. There by when Roe V Wade finally makes it to the supremes it will be held unconstitutional. and the nightmare of abortion will be ended. We can't be guilty of the same thing we are screaming at the lefties for doing.
bttt
Actually, it isn't even close to irrefutable--there are legitimate studies available to support either side. That makes it "junk science," because it isn't solidly established yet.
The constitution does not apply to unborn persons and foreigners, and both are non-citizens. Foreigners don't have constitutional rights.
The only persons subject to the jurisdiction of the US and given the protection of the constitution are citizens. Unborn children are not citizens. Period. Not even resident aliens get this protection, which is why we have the Alien and Sedition Act. It is perfectly legal to apply laws unequally between citizens and non-citizens.
You are confusing moral issues with constitutional and legal issues.
Unborn persons deserve the protection of the law morally. But constitutionally, the document is silent on that subject other than to exclude them as citizens.
tame: of COURSE. a judge ruling against ANY unconstitutional ruling is acting correctly. Now the appeals courts, SCOTUS, etc., won't let him have his way.
But that hardly abrogates HIS responsibility to do what is correct, and it hardly means HE's the one who is wrong.
stuartcr: I disagree. Please show me where that is spelled out in the Constitution, etc.?
My point was simply that a judge has a responsibility to interpret and apply the Constitution correctly in his rulings, regardless of what other judges may do.
You then wrote that you disagree!
Are you actually arguing that he should NOT?!? Please show me where THAT is spelled out in the Constitution.
The burden of proof rests with you to show that a judge SHOULD MISinterpret the constitution. a Peculiar position, to say the least.
Sure it could, and is. Again, most states allow the use of deadly force against intruders. But there are enough cases out there of some innocent fool getting his head blown off by trying to enter the wrong house in the middle of the night drunk, etc. Shooting someone in such circumstances is murder by my understanding of the word, and the corner will classify the death as a homocide.
You are confusing morality and law. I agree that abortion should be illegal. In fact, it is illegal in most states, other than the fact that prosecutions for the crime will be thrown out under Roe vs. Wade. But we do ourselves no credit by exercising wishful thinking to create things int he law that are not there.
This sentence seems ambiguous at best, and incoherent at least. What do you mean by the "it"?
If you can't readily name that event from the description above, you are arguing from a point of abject ignorance on this issue, and all your table-thumping about the 5th and 14th Amendments will do you no good.
i ask you again, what "event" are you referring to??? Re "abject ignorance", that is pyschological projection, and argumentum ad hominem. You do have a tendency toward fallacies.
If you cannot handle a little sarcasm, then maybe you should grow a slightly thicker skin.
You're still not making sense.
I hate to tell you this, but you should not comment on others' writing lacking clarity when your own is so poor.
Nice try, but your sentences don't make sense, while mine do.
There is a fundamental defect in common law that affects all right-to-life cases. This defect must corrected in statutory law. It goes back to the event I asked you to name above.
This is no way answers my question. Please refer back to it.
Now, either you're an ignorant individual, or you know what I'm talking about and are hell-bent on dodging the issue
Poohpooh, your projection is ironic. You lecturing me about ignorance is like John Kerry lecturing George W. Bush about consistency.
You're not the brightest bulb (which is why I long ago recommended Irving Copi's Introduction to Logic textbook to you), so don't even go there. Just asnwer the question I asked in my other post to you.
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.