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-
Have you actually read those cases? The question was whether the state had a compelling state interest to justify discrimination and whether the program involved was narrowly tailored. Gonzales' lobbied to have the administration concede that diversity was a compelling state interest.
Your trespasser analogy is flawed. You obviously do not understand my logic. Your property rights would trump the trespasser's free speech rights, when he is on your property. In fact I could use your analogy to illustrate my point. You have a right to be secure in your person and property. The police should actually assist you in aborting him from your property. If his life depended on remaining in your house and being obnoxious, that would be his tough luck. If he can sustain his own life out on the street, he must be allowed the attempt. He may have to temporarily become a ward of the state in that case. They cannot violate his person in removing him. They can effect a separation between the two soveriegns.
The key is to remember that we each have a right to be secure in our person. No unwanted attachments allowed.
Secure in our person.
Governmentally protectable life begins when no other person's body is required to sustain us.
Right there you reached a conclusion without examining facts. You are assuming, or even presuming, that the mere consideration of an individual's race amounts to discrimination. The University did not use quotas, which meant that there was not a situation where a more qualified individual would have been passed over in favor of a less qualified individual, based on their race, in order to satisfy a quota.
Your biggest problem is your ignorance of what the Constitution actually says.
The First Amendment protects political speech in the public square.
Your house is NOT the public square, and obnoxious is not political speech.
Your First Amendment rights end at the door step of my private property...that's why Jim Robinson can kick out anyone he doesn't want in HIS forum.
"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. "
Oh the irony!
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/738376/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/740685/posts?page=292#292
"Third, whatever we do, we're probably going to have to do some form of "regime change" in Mexico. The problem we have is a product of having a corrupt Third World governmental, economic, and social order right next door to a prosperous, stable, and free republic. That is going to have to change--and probably the only way to change it is to invade Mexico, throw out the regime, and occupy it for 20 years, integrating it into the US." -- Poohbah
Affirmative Action is/was a system of quotas which would theoretically "balance" the ethnic make up of a work force/student body to mirror the ethnic make up of the nation. The University of Michigan did not set quotas for racial admissions, it simply considered the race, and background of the applicant when reviewing their application to gage the individual's achievement against other applicants.
In other words, did the individual overcome great socioeconomic hardships to reach the point in his life where he was being considered for entry into the University's Law School?
Your contention that since Alberto Gonzales argued and won a case that you do not agree with, he's not qualified for the position of AG is flawed, as it is simply based on your disagreement with his argument. In fact, his ability to win the case is exactly what qualifies him for the position; had the opposing view presented a better case, and argued better, they would have won.
My main requirement for an AG in this presidency is the ability to win in Court.
When the solicitor general loses an argument to the attorney, then I say that the wrong guy has the job of solicitor general.
Thanks for those links ... verrry interesting.
Like you, I don't believe the privileges of citizenship (commensurate, as always, with our OBLIGATIONS as citizens), are free for the taking by anyone.
That said, I still believe the "inalienable" rights of our Declaration not only are the basis for the Constitutional Rights we as Americans enjoy or the protections of Geneva we trust will apply broadly to our soldiers but are the rightful claim of any man as a human being.
I think any nation bent on "regime change" round the world as it picks up the thread of Democratization and seeks to best the commies at interventing to "liberate" by force select nations abroad must err on the side of recognizing these inalienable rights, in particular, and the "Constitutional" rights as best it can both at home and in those nations it pretends are ripe for liberation and self-government.
A "strict Constitutionalist" Senate and Congress which spend an inordinate amount of time making things easier for aliens while robbing citizens of their liberties becomes harder to explain each day.
=== Governmentally protectable life begins when no other person's body is required to sustain us.
We're all doomed!!!!
NONE OF US HAS THE PROTECTION OF THE WELFARE STATE!!!
If someone gets points based solely on their race, it is discrimination. Unless, of course, you think that there are true differences based solely on race.
Please see reply 530.
I totally concur.
"My main requirement for an AG in this presidency is the ability to win in Court."
Therein lies the problem. OJ is free because his attorney won in court.
I actually care about justice and the merits of the case.
You don't understand the difference because you don't want to understand the difference.
Buh, bye..
O.J won in Court because the jury wanted to let him go.
No other reason.
=== 110%
Don't you hate folks who support anything MORE than 100%?
God love you, Mark in the Old South.
(Remember, the Americans lost the war between the states. Sad but true.)
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.