Posted on 01/26/2005 5:29:50 PM PST by Rummyfan
How many instances do you know of, where bad judges were removed based on judicial decisions that were immoral?
Not bad behavior, legally speaking, bad judicial thinking, or for legislating from the bench?
Personally, I think (guarantee), you over turn roe vs wade tomorrow, over 40 states will have abortion outlawed (granted I'm cheating, since over 40 states already have it banned, but roe trumps them), hows this, roe vs wade over turned, how many states in 2 years will have abortion legal?
Goodness, what i am saying is not rocket science.
Just because you change a judge does not mean you cant change the laws, in fact, judges arent supposed to change laws to begin with so this argument is false right from the start!
If we elected moral men to ofice, we would not see judges ursurping the constitution to begin with, our elected officials would be removing these judges forthwith.
THAT IS THE POINT of all this, just because we put one good man in office or the bench, it is meaningless if the PEOPLE who put them there arent moral to begin with, for ANY decision the bad/good judge/politician will make the people upset, and they will vote him out if they can.
That is why the PEOPLE must be good right from the start, and THAT is a moral issue and THAT is why we need to change hearts before we are ever going to see any permanant changes in our political system.
Our nations problems must be addressed from the Pulpit before we can ever expect to see common sense in the bench or Congress et al.
I agree with you there, 110%, and absolutly.
THAT IS THE POINT of all this, just because we put one good man in office or the bench, it is meaningless if the PEOPLE who put them there arent moral to begin with, for ANY decision the bad/good judge/politician will make the people upset, and they will vote him out if they can.
I do disagree with you here, though I do respect your opinion. I happen to think that, the way this country is, we don't remove judges for bad decisions. But if Roe vs Wade was able to go against the will of the people, and still survive, then overturning it, would do the exact same thing. At that point, it all becomes about people electing legislators, and I think that this country has the morals (not always the common sense though) to elect people who can then, finally have the power to ban abortion.
However, abortion, can not be banned now, give me 5 judges on the SCOTUS, and the people, will be banning it or upholding bans on it.
Well, the phrase I quoted would apply more to the radical Muslims--that's what I was thinking of.
"Personally I don't think Roe V Wade will ever be overturned and the only way will be to change people hearts and minds.
We need;
contraceptive education and availability - abstinance only education is NOT working.
a program (either federal but hopefully private) that will pay all pre and post natal care for mother and child for adoptive situations, many women (especially the young) get abortions because they think can not afford in $$ what a pregnancy costs (sad but true)"
I agree completely. Also, I really like your screen name.
Yes, indeed he left for just the period of the march, oh naive one and I will wager that I fought the Democratic line before you were given life. Your self importance is making you ridiculous, Bot!
If, right now, [George Bush and other Pro-Lifers] had already ... changed the hearts of every last person in America ... abortion would still be legal in every state of the union.
It's a "Constitutional right" – taking its place alongside all those other "sad," "tragic" rights guaranteed by the Constitution, such as religious expression, free speech, freedom of assembly and so on. Who was it who said, "Free speech should be safe, legal and rare"?
Only when at least five [Of the DNC activists who occupy space on the bench at the] Supreme Court stop [Lying about] a secret, hidden clause in the United States Constitution, discernible only to members of the American Civil Liberties Union and repeal Roe can Americans finally vote on abortion.
This is a [Constitutional Right] we have been denied for 32 years. In effect, a 32-year gag rule has been imposed on those of us who respect every stage of life. >>
And upon our nation's Founding Law which quite unambiguously finds certain Truths to be self-evident.
And all Men to have been endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights -- and that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness -- and that these Rights are secured only by just Powers deriving from the Consent of the Governed.
Nowhere in that Law can it be found that five activist-totalitarian tyrants posing as "judges" can take upon themselves more tyrannical and despotic powers than that once taken unto himself by the king of england!
OK, I'm completely befuddled; what in the world is "ñ-"?
Wonderful piece, Ann. Please eat!
If we continue to change the hearts and minds of the general public, they will be less willing to stand by silently when the dems filibuster judges who might overturn Roe v Wade, or at least begin to limit the availability of Roe.
A leftist need only to get on one radio program or one TV show to get the word out. The DUmmies rush out to spread the word.
Needless to say, they are so over the top, so ignorant that it helps us.
This is a ten day nation. Overturn Roe v. Wade it will be on the news for a few days then be forgotten. Just as what happen in 1973 when baby killing was legalized.
We need; contraceptive education and availability - abstinance only education is NOT working.
Typical Liberal Speak are you a baby killing RINO?
If children are irresponsible enough to have sex then they are irresponsible not to use contraceptives.
I sometimes cannot believe I have to explain the basics of conservatism on this board. Furthermore it is not the Governments duty to teach our kids about sex that is the role of parents.
You misunderstand me. I am not saying people's heart's can't be changed. I'm saying that it's way too difficult to change the hearts of the masses, which is really what is meant by "changing hearts". Especially the young who have grown up with the notion that not only is abortion legal, but a constitutional right. That's a powerful argument to surmount.
Can you imagine the difficulty in convincing someone about the right to bear arms if it wasn't a constitutional right?
You also have the added burden of so many women who have had abortions. Their consciences are burdened and they will fight to the death to defend what they have done by any twisted argument.
Hearts were changed (in the wrong direction) when Roe became law. Why do you think the pro-aborts were so desperate to take it to the Supreme Court? The only way to change them back is to reverse this tragedy of justice.
Bottom line, I just believe the argument is for those who are too cowardly or can't be bothered with the debate.
Shall we thus infer that laws against stealing, murder, and rape are frivolous?
Eliminating premarital sex eliminates sex ed, eliminates the worries of parents about their kids having sex and getting pregnant.
Overturning Roe vs Wade will reduce premarital sex. Give the sinners some credit for having brains if not morals, when the consequences are harsher the temptation is lessened.
Moreover, good parents should be worried about their kids behavior, as a motivation to take disciplinary actions as needed. Otherwise we will have a nation of irresponsible brats in such a...ahem... hypothetical case.
And those aren't sin?? The topic of her piece was Roe V Wade, not Michael Ross in Connecticut's electric chair.
Give the sinners some credit for having brains if not morals, when the consequences are harsher the temptation is lessened.
Umm, that should have been obvious from what I was saying, that we need to change hearts before we change judges.
Of coarse, but I think you are missing my point.
While it is self evident that not all sins should be legally prohibited (such as overeating, or looking at a woman with lust in your heart etc.), stealing, murder, rape, and abortion so clearly violate another soul's rights that not prohibiting them is simply irresponsible.
In all four cases such prohibitions discourage the behavior with tangible results making us a safer and more just society. In the case of abortion, a prohibition would have the side benefit of slowing the spread of STDs including AIDS.
What does any of that have to do with the need for society to clean up their act before we can expect a 'Good Judge" to have any effect?
Or didnt you read my previous posts?
Yes I did read your previous post. And I have read this last post. I am, to put in nicely, having a hard time seeing any sense in them.
What does any of that have to do with the need for society to clean up their act before we can expect a 'Good Judge" to have any effect?
Presumably "Good Judges" on the Supreme Court would result in the overturning of the Roe vs Wade ruling. This would cause many of the states to immediately prohibit abortion (with more states to follow). Such a prohibition would obviously:
* Reduce the number of abortions with respect to the number of unwanted pregnancies
* Reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.
* Reduce the spread of STDs
* Reduce the sinful activities that produce unwanted pregnancies.
I argue that these things are in fact effects on our society, and further assert they are positive. Furthermore they will help "society to clean up their act".
I am not saying, nor do I wish to imply, it is a bad thing for "society to clean up their act" by other means as well. I do not think that Ann was thinking, saying, or implying this either. I fully expect Ann would continue promoting the idea that abortion is wrong after such a change, especially since the ability to vote on the issue would make it even more relevant (which Ann pointed out quite deftly).
OK. Now I'm starting to understand where your comming from. Your definatly wrong, but it is atleast more clear to me how and why you are wrong.
To the degree that the Supreme Court is activist, it is essentialy a dictatorship. They will serve until they resign, are impeached, or die. Poor legal decisions can not be used as a grounds for impeachment, obliging a moral society to wait until they either commit some crime, die or quit, all things beyond a moral society's control.
Lest you succumb to a "perfect world" argument (again), I stipulate that a completely moral society would have no need for legal prohibitions such as those on abortions, theft, murder, or rape. But no such society has ever existed on Earth. Even if we were to be one of the most moral societies on Earth, there would be some potential crooks among us. Thus, having civil laws helps us be a more moral society--a tradition that seems to have won approval at the highest levels when Moses was up on that mountain.
Under the current American circumstances, the best moral people can do is to try to elect a President and Senate that will nominate and confirm a "Good Judge" when an opportunity is finally availble. A more moral society would have had a president and senate that would have done this by now--unless they were listning to well meaning nay sayers suggesting they should "clean up their act" first.
Thank God for Ann who is promoting the only moral course currently actionable by citizens of good conscience.
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.