[Se7eN]

Aren't Supreme Court justices supposed to enforce law without letting personal feelings get in the way?

[cpforlife.org]

Why yes, yes they are.

[Oztrich Boy]

Aren't Supreme Court justices supposed to enforce law without letting personal feelings get in the way?

Everybody agrees that rule only applies to judges on the "other" side.

[Howlin]

Aren't Supreme Court justices supposed to enforce law without letting personal feelings get in the way?

Yes, they are; but let's not stop those who despise Bush from all their rantings; they do so love it, you know.

[utahagen]

I agree. I am totally opposed to abortion, but I read Gonzalez's supposedly "pro-choice" decision and I think people misunderstand it. Gonzalez was supposed to anaylze whether a particular law (parental notification) was being applied as the legislators had intended. He doesn't have to approve of what the legisltors intended.

[Positive]

"Aren't Supreme Court justices supposed to enforce law without letting personal feelings get in the way?"

I think you cold-cocked this argument right off the bat. As I understand it the Attorney General is about LAW ENFORCEMENT and not about LAW MAKING or LAW CHANGING.

Roe is now law and has to be changed before the Attorney General would get involved, that is unless someone were NOT allowed to get an abortion in violation of the law.

[billakay]

Absolutely...no matter whether their feelings are pro-life or otherwise, judges and the AG are supposed to do only what the LAW says.

I am very pro-life. I recognize the need however for law to triumph over opinion in ALL cases.

[Lurking2Long]

STUPID TROLL!