Posted on 07/24/2005 10:06:46 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
The Senate's number two Democrat said Sunday that if Judge John Roberts doesn't recognize that the Constitution's right to privacy covers the Roe vs Wade abortion decision, it would "disqualify" him from serving on the Supreme Court.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if President Bush had "the same right" to appoint pro-life justices that President Clinton had to appoint pro-choice justices, Durbin at first insisted, "I'm not looking for a litmus test."
"As important as reproductive rights and women's rights are, I just basically want to know that if the next case involving privacy and personal freedom came up, what he believes," the Illinois Democrat claimed.
Asked, however, what he would do if Roberts "said he did not see a right to privacy in the Constitution," Durbin told MTP host Tim Russert: "I wouldn't vote for him. That would disqualify him in my mind."
Asked whether he intended to question Roberts directly about his position on Roe vs Wade, Durbin said, "I'm going to get very specific. But I've had an experience with him before. He didn't get very specific in his answers when he was up for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals."
I wish the MSM would challenge the assumption that Roe V Wade has anything to do with privacy. Many bright scholars have tried...none have succeeded.
But positive rights are not negative rights. And there is no such thing as a natural right based on gender or human biology.
Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.
So unless a nominee is pro choice, they aren't a credible nominee? Color me speechless.
From the left's viewpoint: "Diversity" means agreeing with their opinion.
Durbin's like a dog that just can't stop itself from rolling in sh!t....
"Catholic" Durbin and Kennedy: "Catholics need not apply".
Pro terrorism should bar Turbin from the Senate!
After arguing against litmus tests for court appointments for decades, the Dems have thrown all that out the window. I suppose there are not to be 'litmus tests' only when Dems make the appointments.
I wonder how "outraged" the 'RATS would become if Roberts compared abortion clinics to Nazi death camps and Soviet gulags for infants. "Planned Parenthood" as Pol Pot? Cool.
Get a life and get out of the way. You are a putz little politico from Illinois, you mean nothing in the scheme of things. Sit down and STFU! We won the election and we mean to change legislation from the bench, and we will do exactly that. Dick, we believe in government for the people and by the people, not by a bunch of elitists. Sit on your opinions for all I care. The People have spoken!
Durbin: Only baby killers who will write baby killing into the U.S. Constitution are qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
*****
Darn ............. that Durbin's Mom didn't............ oh, never mind.
Privacy is now defined as the right to kill someone without the police getting in the way.
Is there a bigger ass in the US Senate?
Liberals have perverted the Constitution by finding hidden meanings in the Constitution, as if they were ancient priests at the Oracle of Delphi looking for meaning in chicken entrails, and then claiming that such fanciful interpretations must never be challenged.
If there is an absolute "right to privacy" in the Constitution, then why can't I marry my sister.....or my brother for that matter?
If the liberals want a Constitutional right to abortion, then they need to ratify a Constitutional amendment that spells out such a right.
To have a Constitution whose meaning is determined by the interpretation of "penumbras" by Justices with overactive imaginations is the equivalent of living in a theocracy where the High Priests decree whatever law they please and then claim that "The Divine Chicken Entrails Have Spoken".
"I just basically want to know that if the next case involving privacy and personal freedom came up, what he believes," the Illinois Democrat claimed.Asked, however, what he would do if Roberts "said he did not see a right to privacy in the Constitution," Durbin told MTP host Tim Russert: "I wouldn't vote for him. That would disqualify him in my mind."
Yo da man Senator! I concur. Wow am I glad you represent me.
If Roberts doesn't believe in MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY and PERSONAL FREEDOM to own and/or posses a fully functional sub machine gun, he should be disqualified!
Huh? What's that Dickie, oh, you didn't mean that pertained to firearms.
Oh, so you don't think a right that IS expressly written IN the Bill of Rights is really a right. Okay I see now .....
In all seriousness, the lack of Roberts' record on the 2nd Amendment does have me a tad concerned. If he's a gun owner and hunter like Scalia that's one thing, but if he's a gun owner and 'hunter' like Kerry - then WE have a big problem.
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.