Posted on 11/12/2004 9:07:10 AM PST by cpforlife.org
Here you go ... Why not have these former Prisoners of War, military officers and other among the many far more erudite sources who filed briefs Amicus Curiae in the Gitmo case make the same point?
Granted ... they're just a bunch Losers, like me and the dissenting judges such as Scalia. But the point's still valid ... particularly where we're talking about a decision made by the same Court that upholds "Roe."
IF he gets the chairmanship then he better be on DOUBLE SECRET PROBATION.
There are better ways to fight abortion than to make stupid complaints about AG nominees.
It is a heartening ruling, Cpforlife, no doubt.
Let's hope it works to erode the "right" for Claimants to what is and is not a pre-born person which Carhart upholds.
It is absurd in the extreme that the likes of Edwards can reap a contingency for impersonating an Unborn in order to ante up the trial court kitty yet defend absolutely the Non-Personhood of that same child where concerns the mother-only absolute right to homicide.
These multiple campaigns against Spectre will ultimately have little impact on that decision (other then to make Spectre squirm a little more) but will work against some of those pushing them. Many of these attacks have gone too far in how ugly they are, and are now spilling over into the AG nominee. What next?
As for the scorched earth demands and threats, that is counter productive. People are burning their bridges...before they even get to them. There hasn't been a single Supreme Court nomination made and it's already become an ugly war.
What's it going to be like when the Senate seats Spectre and the President has his AG confirmed?
Anyone arguing that terrorists (i.e., non-uniformed personnel not fighting on behalf of a recognized army) rate any protections under the Geneva Convention is a jihadist sympathizer. Any lawyer who presses suit advocating such in any court should be disbarred at a minimum, and they should be thoroughly investigated for potential subversive behavior.
Farah is an idiot. As for your "behind the scenes" people, they are almost always wrong. The pundits have mis-called Bush's actions for 4 years. Your people have no better track into the President's mind.
If you will recall, the Bush administration doesn't bother to notify anyone of their plans. That is as it should be.
Your cause is just in being pro-life, but this fight isn't worth fighting.
He will not make law. Just enforce existing law.
That is integrity. That is the most prominent aspect of the Bush adminstration and it has fit the majority of Bush appointments.
Hey California, what do you know of him in Texas? Just the last couple of articles dealing with this one ruling which was strictly based on law?
The problem is that Specter has a track record of dishonesty on Supreme Court nominations. He flat-out LIED about Bork and the nature of his contacts and talks with Bork.
If he is seated as committee chair (or on any committee), it must be done on a conditional basis. If he gets out of line, he needs to be automatically booted from all committee seats.
Being chairman of the committee is a position of special trust and honor. He hasn't satisfied me that he actually deserves said trust and honor.
see post 27
I just don't understand why everyone is upset. What does being for or against abortion have to do with being the Attorney General. His job is to enforce the laws on the books... A lot of people on this board A) are starting to sounds like DUmmies and B) just want something to complain about.
=== Anyone arguing that terrorists (i.e., non-uniformed personnel not fighting on behalf of a recognized army) rate any protections under the Geneva Convention is a jihadist sympathizer.
Where will that leave our Black Ops boys and the squads the Executive Branch is now empowered to assign for assassination duty? You think they're going to be stepping out fully uniformed so that we can play by the letter of the law of Geneva?
Are the alumnae of Iran-Contra, for example, or the assassins now a part of our arsenal for the War on Terror somehow barred from any of the basic protections against torture, humiliation or imprisonment without just cause?
I don't understand.
If you want to make torture for certain classes okay, do so. We're equal to doing that where our own unborn we dismember or scald to death by the millions are concerned.
But don't recasting the basic human rights on which Geneva is based as conditional at best.
That's like saying the "inalienable" rights enumerated in our Declaration only apply to those humans who fit the precise definitions of Constitutional personhood as interpreted by our courts, congressional committees and "pro-life" presidents.
Isn't it?
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. >>>
Wrong again.
=== Don't tell me you're jumping on Askel's "Bush is Satan" bandwagon.
This comment's beneath you.
Or so I'd still like to believe, anyway.
The American Life League wants an activist in judicial garb, they are wrong.
If we had less judicial activist, we'd be better off as a nation.
When he is seated it will be because he has satisfied the Senate.
Is that the best you can do? Referring people to post 27?
That is but a small part of the entire thing. Your interpretation is wrong.
You are hysterical right now. Calm down and think about some of the very good comments that are explaining things to you.
Right now, you are in a frenzy running around doing nothing more than posting "see post 27".
Think about what people are saying to you.
AG does not make laws. They only enforce them. The Supreme Court is supposed to do the same thing.
Even if Bush appointed Gonzales to the SCOTUS, he would ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY THERE.
BUT it very unlikely that Bush would go to the trouble to get a new AG in place and then push him up.
Bush is direct in every thing he does. This doesn't even remotely sound like Bush.
Direct your attention to lawmakers.
Read the comments of others. Carefully. Think about them.
Excellent points are being made. You just don't want to see them because they disagree with you.
We must be mindful that it was the idiots who decided Roe who felt and not thought logically to that evil conclusion.
Good point. I lost my head for a minute!
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.