Posted on 11/25/2004 10:01:13 AM PST by nickcarraway
Pro-life judges are no more desirable to me than pro-abort judges. I want pro-Constitution, pro-republic judges. Deferring authority to the Legislature is not equivelant to being pro-life. It means that the question properly resides outside the jurisdiction of the courts. Similarly, one can be anti-Roe without being pro-life, in theory anyway. I want Scalias, meaning objective referees, not idealogues of any stripe.
Pro-Constitution judges ARE pro-life.
Exactly!
If President Bush puts up a pro-abort judge for the SCOTUS where will be civil war in the GOP, you can count on that!
Here's the deal. If you are willing to ACCEPT pro-life judges, then you will get your conservative, constitutional judges. If you are not, you won't.
It can be argued, of course, that the right to life is constitutional, that it is the most basic of the inalienable rights, which the Founding Fathers declared to be "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If your life isn't safe from arbitrary seizure, then what good are liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
In any case, the practical point is that those who don't care about the abortion issue, or even those who are somewhat pro-abortion, can afford to compromise. Those who are pro-life will not compromise. They haven't for 30 years since Roe v. Wade, and they never will. So why not welcome them as allies of the conservative cause?
It is my understanding that Laura I. clerked for Clarence Thomas.
This is constitutional. This is how the system is suppose to work. That is the big problem with Pro-Abortion judges. They want to circumvent the legislated process and they do it with more then just abortion.
They ARE?!?!?!
Whoda thunk!!!!
Not necessarily. I think Scalia would toss it back to the states, which is not a pro-life position, it's a pro-Constitution position.
Unless you think abortion violates a constitutional right to life. Not sure that one's ever been argued. Live by the penumbra, die by the penumbra I guess.
One can argue, as you point out, that a constitutional right to life makes abortion unconstitutional. That is not the view, so far as I know, of Scalia, and yet Scalia is acceptable to me.
Therefore, for me, a strict construction of federal authority is more important to me than is the assertion of a constitutional protection of prenatal life. I think that is an important difference.
Doesn't mean I can't play in the sandbox with pro lifers. Just means the issue to me is judicial activism, not abortion.
Those top six sound like mighty fine choices. I have been very critical of the President for going left, but if he nominates any of those six and fights for them I will be glad to eat my words.
Nick: Thanks for all the valuable insight on this subject. Did it ever enter your mind that most average people already know all this stuff? They do.Sharing all this easy to obtain info as if it's the greatest stuff since sliced bread makes even dull folks wonder about you.
Get a hobby that keeps you out of the public eye...OK?
Who said there won't be a litmus test? Bush himself said he would use a litmus test, in that he will nominate someone who interprets the constitution, not imposes personal opinion. That is a constitutional litmus test, and it makes sense. You have to have some standards for nominating these people.
Think of it as access to a "Colgate invincible, tungsten cowhide, turbo encabulated spade shovel" digging us out of a hole, slowly but surely.
Actually, there is an explicit litmus test. The president has said over and over that he is comitted to appointing only strict constructionlists. These judges are, almost by definition, anti-roe.
Overturning row does not negate abortion on demand btw. It defers the question to the states and legislatures, as it should be.
The opposite is true of liberals, who believe that the constitution is a living document and that unelected judges tell the people that there must be abortion on demand, and that marriage is defined by the judges' political ideology; that basically, the citizens just need to suck it up and live with it.
Liberals (and many of their ideas) cannot win through the balot box, so they use judges to impose their agenda on voters. It is no more complicated than that. I would think that jack and jill six pack are tired of someone like chuckie schummer telling them that a strict constructionlist judge is out of the mainstream. Actually, chuckie and his party are out of the mainstream. The ballot boxs of 2002 and 2004 proved it.
Bump for reading when the time comes....lol
Gee, what a long lost concept! : (
btw, you spelled 'litmus' wrong. (Go back to your talking points memo and check that out, K??).
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.