Posted on 07/19/2005 7:23:47 PM PDT by bimboeruption
You made up the title.
Exactly! -
And you "the sky is falling" types (bimboeruption) regarding every battle, every decision, every time an event isn't going 110% our way, are simply useless (IMO).
Judge Roberts appears to be very good choice. GWB is a d*mn good man, a hell of a CIC and knows much more about Judge Roberts than you do! He has also passed more bills supporting life than any President in modern memory (to me).
Can you please save the "Sky is falling" whines for at least a day -
You're an idiot. SCOTUS voted 6-3 to uphold Roe the last time it addressed the issue; no single nomination could overturn it, it will take 2 or more.
With this nomination it will go from 6-3 to 5-4 in favor of Roe, and I expect to see the ban on Partial Birth abortion upheld due to this appointment.
The State Legislatures would in many cases enact abortion.
But, if a State issue, the people could get petitions to pass law that there should be no abortion except for rape, incest and real medical reasons.
I think under those conditions, only a few states would have complete open abortion.
And they are (almost) powerless to stop him ...
It is Morning Again in America.
We have a mistitled thread. See the link. Thanks
Yawn
This is typical divide-and-conquer mischief from the Washington Post. It's clearly meant to anger conservatives, not to reassure liberals, who will oppose Roberts strongly.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
Actual title:
Roberts Has Solid Conservative Credentials
Roberts argued what President Bush told him to argue. Whether he believed that argument is another matter. I have high hopes that he did.
Was Souter the man people thought he was? Didn't they think they were getting a conservative...did they get a conservative?
True title: Roberts Has Solid Conservative Credentials
You're right. Roe wasn't even mentioned.
"This would indicate that there could be something in his legal views that would prevent him from fully and faithfully applying that precdent."
Plain as day. Exactly what I thought meownself.
Bush had the chance to stop America's Holocaust, but instead allowed the slaughter continue.
I thought we wanted judges that made decisions based on the law rather than personal opinion. My bad.
"Of course, as an appeals court judge he must follow Supreme Court precedent as the law of the land. It's another story as a Supreme Court Justice where he makes the decisions for the appellate and lower courts to follow."
Excellent point. Well, all hell is sure to break loose, I think. I am still suspicious that lurking RINOs will fail to vote for overturning the fillibuster---which I have no doubt the Democrats will institute.
that's true, if by "complete" you mean everything - late term, underage girls - you are right, just a handful of states will go for that.
What is necessary to overturning Roe is to find a case that Anthony Kennedy will go along with (or the retirement of Ginsburg or Stevens).
DING.....DING.....DING......
Yup. Funny how so many people don't understand that.
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.