Jay Sekulow calls John Roberts, Jr. an "Exceptional" Choice Who Will Interpret the Constitution

American Center for Law and Justice ^ | July 19, 2005 | Jay Sekulow

[shield]

Thanks for posting this.... ;o)

[Ol' Sparky]

There are many a person, Fred Barnes for one, that don't believe Roberts will vote to overturn Roe. Why in the world should a Christian/pro-life organization not be demanding that each and every nominee have a proven track record of opposing Roe? That IS the responsibility of groups like the ACLJ.

If Roberts gets in and doesn't overturn Roe, the ACLJ and Jay Sekulow are partly responsible for the killing of unborn children.

[shield]

I agree...got to give all this some time...we didn't get here overnight we'll not get there overnight.

[hope]

Maybe Ann is just playing with the lefties on this one.

[csmusaret]

Wasn't the ACLJ created by Pat Robertson to do exactly that;counter the ACLU?

[epow]

If a nominee, any nominee, is truely pro-life, then what he needs to say is this,

"I will fully adhere to the constitution and the rule of law. I also believe that the Roe v. Wade decision was unconstitutional and given the opportunity, I will vote to overturn it.

If Roberts was to say that, several RINO Senators who made the agreement with Dems would probably use that to claim that he qualifies as an extraordinarily bad nominee and refuse to vote for a rules change if one becomes necessary to end a filibuster.

Several years ago Roberts said that Roe was a bad decision and should be overturned. As an appeals court judge he was in no position to overturn a SC decision, and he was sworn to uphold the law as it has been decided by the SC. And like it or not (and I certainly don't) Roe is the law of the land until, God willing, a future SC overturns it.

But as a SC Justice he will be in a position to overturn Roe, or at least to vote for reversal, and I am very hopeful that he will. Besides, if Roberts doesn't make the cut I'm very much afraid that Bush would appoint a more moderate nominee who could be confirmed without a major intra-party squabble which could jeopardize some of his other programs which will eventually come up before Congress for approval or funding. Just my thoughts.

[epow]

and refuse to vote for a rules change if one becomes necessary to end a filibuster.

I meant to add, "and it WOULD become necessary to end a filibuster if Roberts was to say that."

The Dems, and a few Pubs, would NEVER vote to confirm a nominee who made such a statement prior to confirmation, and they would filibuster as long as it took to derail the process. As much as it pains me to say it or believe it, the adamant, unconditional, hardline pro-life segment of the population (of which I am a part) is not the majority in the US today.

[DJtex]

I don't misunderestimate the force of broken-glass conservatives. I admire your efforts and skepticism.

[hope]

bttt