Posted on 07/01/2005 7:14:03 AM PDT by SueRae
Hearing on Fox News
LOL
Yes, we're thinking along the same lines, but I'm not hopeful for 2008. The liberal side of the party is in the driver's seat, much to my disgust.
Well that could be true. I didn't want to get into that myself. I don't want him, but I wasn't sure Bush would nominate him. I'll wait for the real nominee to stand up.
This and the Rhenquist replacement are going to be very important. We'll have to deal with these judges until after I'm gone.
Ping to read all 2,000 posts later...
I woke up to this good news this morning when my clock radio went off! I've been in prayer all day that W makes the Right decision
Well, if not Elton John, maybe Bill Clinton could be his next choice.
"Elton John, or Elton John's boyfriend. Complete nonsense that deserve no serious rebuttal."
Ok, his good friend, Bill Clinton then.
"Were this about spending, illegal immigration etc...his record would determine he not be granted the benfit of the doubt until action determined otherwise."
Judgement overlaps. I don't think it's a given that Bush will make the right choice without pressure.
"Impeachment? I look to the long record held by rehnquist and he's proven to be solidly in the Thomas/Scalia camp in rulings. That is my primary concern. I fault Congress for the impeachment proceedings. They did as they willed, rhenquist or no."
You don't care about the Constitution and the Justice's role in impeachment? HE PRESIDES. People are just hoping for table scraps of conscience, here-- some illusion of conservatism, which is better than flat-out liberalism, I agree. But it's still the wrong path.
just a FRiendly FReeper heads-up , Mark Levin on Fox,coming up in a minute with Cavuto
TY. Wish I could see it. =]
it was quick , Neil and Mark speak well , I think W is in a good position after that insane SCOTUS land ruling , but we'll hear the NAGS all summer,every day,S**T!!!
Thank you for that. Yes. The Great One is right! Eminent Domain gives Bush leverage. FRegards....
I want credit for bringing up a VERRRRRY dark horse candidate for SCOTUS who might be better than any other: Judge Jerry Edwin Smith of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals (admittedly an old friend of mine from his days at Yale and Yale Law when I lived near New Haven).
If we spend money (well-budgeted and accounted for money) on the war against terrorism or the war in Iraq or the War in Afghanistan, I am less worried about the amount of spending than I am about achieving victory as a military outcome. If it means providing first-rate medical care to the soldiers, that's very OK too.
If I knew that we could end abortion only by spending an affordable amount of money (I cannot imagine a real-world scenario on this but just for the sake of argument), I would spend the money as the lesser of two evils. I regard abortion as the single worst evil in our nation's history.
Fortunately, we seldom need to make a choice between fiscal conservatism and social conservatism since the GOP is the primary vehicle for both forms.
There is a Republican Assembly in Illinois but I have never met any of them. In the rural Northwestern areas of Illinois, we are too busy electing conservative Republicans to worry too much about forming internal caucuses much less about giving primary loyalty to groups independent of the GOP. This strategy works. John Anderson (of World Federalist and 3rd party presidential candidacy fame) used to be the congresscritter here. Today, he could not get elected dogcatcher here even by Republicans who might not be doglovers. Don Manzullo, our current Congressman, is one of the most conservative in Congress.
Of course, we are still aspiring to emulate those who have been represnted by Nickles, Inhofe, Coburn (especially Coburn: we are "purely" green with envy). We are trying to see other areas of Illinois be similarly determined to shred Durbin, Blagojevich (or however he spells his name) and Obama (as one Freeper put it, like Lincoln only better, at least in his own mind).
God bless you and yours.
Speaking as one Conservative, he'd better. Many of us have just about had it with his weakness on borders and international trade.
Abortion polling is a LOT more complex than you apparently imagine. Whatever the liars and killers at Planned Barrenhood, NARAL and similar gangs may suggest or claim, your claim of 2/3 favoring 1st trimester abortion is simply not the case. Add in the comoplications: "on demand?" "for economic reasons?" "for social reasons?" et al. and see what happens to the #s.
Those of us who have abortion as a central or THE central issue are more than you imagine and we vote to finish off disagreeing politicos. We decide primaries and often decide elections.
Politics is NOT simply about winning elections. Spending money on elections or writing letters to the editor for or against candidates, or calling radio talk shows, or walking your precinct or maintaining phone trees or raising or giving money are all quite morally permissible political activities and efforts. Even if one assumes that some putative majority of the public has been sooooo deMORALized as to favor abortion of the unborn up to 13 weeks of gestation and pretend that such homicides of the innocent are "moral", making an electoral deal with the would-be killers of innocent babies is NOT moral. The lives lost are not yours or mine to give away. Even if they were, the vicarious homicide of the innocent of any age is beyond our moral authority to grant. I also see nothing whatever in the 14th amendment due process or equal protection clause language suggesting a right to kill so long as the innocent victim is of very youthful age from conception.
BUT! You may say that practicality suggests that we must compromise and give up 90+% of the abortion victims (first trimester victims) in exchange for political "victory" and also "we" will save 10%! Well, the statute may be proposed as simply one that would criminalize and render a felony homicide any abortion after 13 weeks. That way no one agrees to any abortion under such a statute. Next year, using similar language, we can modify the then-existing ban abortions to apply to all of them after 4 weeks of gestation. Repeat tactic as necessary until this holocaust ceases to be legal.
All of this presupposes the overturning of Roe vs. Wade so that we may have our republic and our states and its and their democratic processes back from SCOTUS run amok. Today, we need to replace Sandy Baby (she should pardon the expression) and one more pro-homicide justice. We shall start with the current vacancy. Maybe we will get lucky with presently unanticipated departures of Ginsberg and/or Stevens given their respective advanced ages and precarious health.
There is right and there is wrong. Each and every abortion is the homicide of an innocent baby and therefore wrong as to the result for the baby who is, after all, innocent. SOME tiny handful of abortions MAY be NECESSARY to the LIFE of the mother although this is seldom, if ever, proven: kind of the sasquatch of abortionist politics. If someone believes that the very concept of property amounts to "theft", I need not and will not take such an argument seriously since it has no basis in fact, whatever Marxists may imagine. Likewise the argument that the unborn are not human beings with a general and very real right to live.
There is NOT ONE WORD in the United States Constitution that purports to give to ANYONE the right to kill an innocent unborn child at ANY stage of development after the moment of conception and even the SCOTUS members KNOW IT. Roe vs. Wade and each other decision like it threatens the rule of law generally and the US Constitution specifically. If you want to live under the rule of law and not of men, then Roe (all of it, each and every word) must GO.
The despicable SCOTUS has even suspended 1st Amendment Free Speech rights of pro-lifers on the publicly owned sidewalks in the vicinity of the abortionists' killing mills.
The SCOTUS also used to opine that the RICO (racketeering) statutes were applicable to pro-lifers for what would be constitutionally protected efforts in any other cause (disagreeing with elitist corrupted judges in the 1st degree and IN PUBLIC!!!!). The SCOTUS probably stands ready to apply its elitist and utterly constitionally clueless standards to defend the suddenly discovered "constitutional right" of Lance to do unspeakable things with Bruce's rump and call it "marriage."
BTW, we have a written constitution for the very good reason that Great Britain did not and that one's rights against the government itself required written guarantees given the untrustworthy nature of gummint functionaries with an army and a budget. When the constitution was written, elites could read and obey. Dear long dead days.
No one is seriously advocating banning birth control pills at this stage. If they are, as most are, abortifacient pills rather than contraceptive pills, then they are abortion means and bannable. If the basic principle and fall back position is that babies live and not, as presently, that 1 million + babies are to be sliced, diced and hamburgerized each year, we shall have made substantial but incomplete progress. What else is new? Iraq will not be the Garden of Eden when we are through with it no matter how hard and well we try.
Maybe we should try being brutally honest with the general public for a change. Maybe we should call a homicide a homicide and not try to rationalize it away as a "choice" or whatever fresh euphemism is produced for the Demonrats by the focus groups run by Stanley Greenberg.
Some people here and elsewhere have loved ones who have had abortions. Do not lie to them and help them make believe that homicide of the innocent is a "freedom" or a social "choice" available morally to all. Some people here and elsewhere have themselves committed abortions as "doctor" or "patient." Likewise. If they sincerely repent, God forgives. Who are we to contradict God by failing to forgive the genuinely penitent (so long as that repentance is public enough to gain our attention)?
Who is this "us" who will be losing support by insisting on truth and the protection of innocent human life????? People who want their taxes cut but don't mind if 1+ million innocent babies must die eac year so that they may have their taxes cut???? Their wars won???? Their businesses unregulated or more lightly taxed???? Even their gun rights extended????
None of these goals are achieved by selling out innocent babies. Show me a politician who is not trustworthy in defending innocent human life in the womb or elsewhere and I will show you a political prostitute (actually my apologies to literal prostitutes many of whom probably have a far superior morality to that of pro-aborts) who deserves no support because he/she can be trusted on NOTHING.
The very lives of innocent unborn children are not trading chips for other issues.
At your service!
If Burger did NOT vote in the majority, then the senior justice in the majority (William O. Douglas at that time) would have assigned the decision writing. In that event, the decision might have been competently and coherently written by Douglas's wife or by any pro-abort more capable than Blackmun. In his last published opinion on abortion, Burger admitted that he had long believed Roe vs. Wade to have been wrongly decided and dissented for the first time against abortion to prove it.
CJ = 1.5 AJ. Just my guess.
Very well stated and I agree 100%! Fortunately, I live in Oklahoma where a pro-abortion candidate in the Republican Party wouldn't get to first base. Since arriving here in January 1997, I don't know of any Republicans on my ballot that are pro-abortion.
The biggest scam that was allowed to happen is when the opposition started using pro-choice -- it is pro-abortion IMHO!
It is interesting to me to see over the years how many young people have become pro-life -- the tide is turning and now is not the time for us to compromise nationwide. I admit there are states that a conservative pro-life candidate will not be elected but there are a lot more areas that those are the candidates that get elected like here in Oklahoma. The RAT Carson in NE Oklahoma became more pro-life as every election neared and now he is out of a job as Dr. Tom won the seat.
The Dems know that being pro-abortion does not go over well in the south and flyover country like Oklahoma so they pretend to be more pro-life but it didn't work in our Senate race. People know who are telling the truth for the most part.
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.