Posted on 07/05/2005 5:16:51 PM PDT by West Coast Conservative
Democrats are prepared to filibuster to block any anti-abortion nominee proposed to replace Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., said Tuesday.
"The filibuster is on the table. It's been on the table for 200 years," Boxer said when asked what methods could be used to block a Supreme Court candidate who would seek to overturn Roe v. Wade, the three-decade old decision legalizing abortion.
-SNIP-
Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an "extraordinary circumstance."
"It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table," she said.
Boxer called O'Connor a crucial moderate voice, saying the first female appointed to the high court was a strong backer of environmentalism and reproductive rights.
"She has been a powerful voice for moderation," Boxer said. "This is a philosophy her successor should embrace ... We cannot go back to the dark days. Roe must remain the law of the land."
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Think about the result of a revolution. Remember what Ben Franklin said when the Declaration of Independence was signed.
Thanks for your concern - ever since "take your ball and go home" I've felt the love . . .
Go ahead, Babs, act like a bunch of loons. You'll just end up making the American people turn against you even more.
maybe you do shrieking and crying in your letters to your political REPRESENTATIVES. I do not. There is a reason the description representatives is used. Also, public servants.
Guess what? They can't read minds. Make you desires known! Duh.
Calling me a liar? That's pretty strong words, but the lesser courts are pretty much irrelevant. Let's just see what Bush does with this one, but I'm betting Gonzales is the man. Bush has already come out fighting for poor ol' Gonzales, and I think we all can agree Bush is pretty well unmoveable once he's made his mind up.
How ridiculous. From what I understand it was never close to that many.
If they want a fight, let's give them one. No other position is defensible.
Bernard Nathanson admitted that they made the stats up out of thin air. The media were willing accomplices.
I sure hope that this president understands what you have stated because I guarantee my wife & I would leave. I also see that if this happens & he does nothing on illegal immigration the Hildabeast will be the next president.
Let's pray it does not get to that . . .
Given how many generations have been brainwashed with the CHOICE to abort, I would not be surprised if it is even more than 5,000 per year - the logical comparison, however, would be to the number of dead babies through abortion.
I only know what I've read about him, and it appears many on the right are concerned Gonzales is not a strict Constitutionalist. For example, he has stated Roe Vs. Wade is settled law. Would he overturn some of the recent Supreme Court atrocities? Many on the right believe he wouldn't.
It sure seems to me Bush is gearing up to nominate his friend. All I hope for is a strict believe in the Constitution. It protects us all--liberal and conservative. If we get another "living Constitution" judge, I fear all is lost. You know, if the Supremes simply acted as judges instead of legislators, we wouldn't have this frenzied battle over nominees. Yes, maybe each side would lose battles at the federal level, but we'd all be able to have diversity at the state level. To me, that's the beauty of our nation, but we are a LONG LONG way from federalism now.
BTW, I will be the first to apologize if Bush doesn't let us conservatives down.
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.