Posted on 09/13/2005 7:51:01 AM PDT by Rutles4Ever
What? I personally don't have anything against Liberal Christians or Liberals in general. I LOVE living in a free democratic society.
What I'm saying about the President, and politicians in general, is that What They Claim To Represent is not a good indicator of their personal OR political behavior.
Show me what a politician has actually done in his personal life and I'll show you his personal beliefs. Show me what he has actually accomplished in his political life and I'll show you his political beliefs.
President Bush represents the Pro-Life community, but he doesn't represent it well.
If Pro-Lifers had refused to back the tax-cuts until AFTER they had seen substantive action then they would have seen some substantive action. Instead all we get is the big show. Talk talk talk talk talk talk.
John Roberts is more of the same. All talk, no walk.
I have. GHWB got weaselly and lost in 1992. GWB got weaselly "compassionate conservative" and lost the popular vote in 2000. He won it in 2004, but only because he was running against Kerry whom even most liberals couldn't stand, and because of the security situation.
Reagan, on the other hand, campaigned as a hard conservative and even won Massachusetts in 1984.
I assume you are referring to his answer during his confirmation for circuit court judge. Since a circuit court does not have the authority to overturn Supreme Court rulings, it was the correct response.
Let's not forgot the explosion in the size of government and government spending under Bush's administration. Compassionate conservativism has always been the equivalent of socialism.
If Bush and the Republicans can't keep their promise to appoint Scalia-like originalists to the court, I'm out of reasons to vote Republican.
If the Republicans are going to behave like losers and not do what the base wants, then it's time to for them to lose for a few election cycles so they will be taught a lesson.
And what of your personal life? Is it flawless? Blanket statements like this don't carry much weight with me. Some of the most righteous, well-meaning folks I have ever known have had troubled children. Some are divorced.
Life isn't lived in a laboratory.
Show me what he has actually accomplished in his political life and I'll show you his political beliefs.
Taking into consideration, of course, the fact that he's not a dictator, and can only "accomplish" what he has cooperation on. He's steering a big ship. Don't expect the moon. You wouldn't get it from anyone else.
President Bush represents the Pro-Life community, but he doesn't represent it well.
Says you. A lot of other pro-lifers would disagree with you about that.
If Pro-Lifers had refused to back the tax-cuts until AFTER they had seen substantive action then they would have seen some substantive action.
Just silly. That's like holding a gun to your own head, like Cleavon Little in "Blazing Saddles".
John Roberts is more of the same. All talk, no walk.
You know Judge Roberts too, now?
Look - I'm out. I am trying to make you see that you're every bit the flawed Christian as the men you judge, if for no other reason than the fact that you don't know them personally, yet that doesn't stop you from talking about them as though you've been listening in on their prayers - or determining from your computer desk that they don't pray at all.
I don't think you should do that, but that's just me.
Can you say for a fact that Roberts will vote to overturn Roe? The justice he is replacing did. So, why in the hell aren't conservatives demanding a sure thing rather than very questionable maybe?
It's very possible this nomination will move the court to the left.
No, I was just condensing what I thought was going on in the current hearings. Looking over other articles on the subject, I can see that he wasn't quite being asked whether he'd uphold it. He was being asked (by Specter) whether it was "super-duper precedent" (which means what? untouchable?). So that does mitigate somewhat the problems posed by his answer.
However, there's something else I found from him that may not be quite so excusable:
"'It is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent,' he said, adding: 'It is not enough that you may think a precedent is wrongly decided.'"
Again, he has a very thin reed to hang onto, depending on the sense in which he was using the word "you". But if he's seriously suggesting that he would ever vote to uphold a precedent that he thought was wrongly decided, that's not good. But it just doesn't sit well with me at all when he hides behind words like that.
First, I would agree that this might very well move the court to the left.
Second, let's look at Dred Scott the way John Roberts might (based on his testimony).
Where was the country? The bulk of it had already decided against slavery in principle entirely. Dred Scott would not necessarily been "a jolt to the nation" if it had been decided on narrow grounds. The Southern ruling class had a bit at stake in principle but hardly anybody had serious money on the table. John Roberts would probably have voted to overturn Dred Scott.
Roe v. Wade? Different story. A LOT of politicians say they are ready to criminalize abortion. The groundwork is NOT there. Forget it. The Pro-Life movement has wasted an enormous amount of resources electing people to the most powerful offices in the nation for nothing.
RR, GHWB and GWB had much higher political priorities than a quixotic attempt at reverse-judicial-activism. Virtually NONE of the ruling elite is willing to criminalize abortion for their own friends and family. That is just too personal for them. You will never be invited to the special parties if you do that.
So you judge the President's "liberalness" by the beliefs of his wife and daughters? You say he is a liberal because he is non-judgmental about his friends and family? You say he is a liberal because he doesnt want to prosecute people for "moral misbehavior"?
I guess Jesus was a liberal, too.
Absolutely.
When did Jesus judge individual sins? Never. Where in the Bible does it say that Jesus will EVER judge people for their individual sins? Nowhere.
I am not concerned about his views on abortion as I am about his views on private property rights, eminent domain.
And since everyone is focused on his standing on abortion we may never know how he really feels about eminent domain.
Amen! A conservative Republican hasn't lost a presidential election since Goldwater, 40+ years ago; why does the GOP keep marching into the quicksand of the mushy middle?
No Catholic, indeed no Christian, could ever be approved for the Supreme Court under your stringencies.
Roberts will be guided by his own conscience. Unspoken is that his conscience will be informed by his Catholic Faith.
He would doom his nomination if he invoked the Catholic Church, in any way.
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.