Democrats Tell President Bush: Don't Propose Judges Against Abortion

Life News ^ | 11/13/06 | Steven Ertelt

[hoosierham]

Some here are dreaming if you think President G.W. Bush will suddenly take a firm line;he has been falling all over himself accomadating the DEmocrats just since the election.And how many laws has he vetoed? Didn't he promise to sign more gun control if Congres sent it to him?

Only the principled stand of some REpublican congresmen made the sunset omn the AWB and the liberal gun-haters on both sides will try to bring it back.Think Bush will suddenly discover his veto?

The REpublicans need to make principled stands and fight FOR something;pointing out the other party's faults isn't enough to make people vote for you.

[plain talk]

Well if Bush is asked he should say he rejects any notion of litmus tests. he should fight this battle on his own terms and not allow them to dictate litmus tests. What did Clinton do about Republicans even thinking about applying litmust tests to his judicial nominees?

[Salvation]

Bush can nominate who he pleases. Then we can watch the dimocrats continue to be obstructionists!

[top 2 toe red]

I know, and it makes me rabid...but, at least, this time it is better they did what they did...regardless if it is hard to admit. ;^)

[Fester Chugabrew]

I find it hard to believe anyone with a sane brain would run under the Party of Abortion and expect to get elected. Apparently it happens. The blue dog and moderate dems ought to call the crazy left on this, tell them to kiss grits, and work toward nominating federal judges who are originalist. No matter where we stand in the way of fiscal policy it makes sense to protect the unborn until we are certain both morally and scientifically they are not worthy of protection. Even then it still makes sense. More lives = more productivity and more taxpayers. :)

[BlackElk]

See#27.

[Recovering_Democrat]

This is the result of losing power in Congress. And of course the Republicans never once talked about the need for conservative judges in the '06 campaign.

You conservatives who refused to support Republicans, you too are partially to blame for our current state.

[cpforlife.org]

“How does one pretend to be an innocent bystander at a mass murder.”
Abortion: the Silent Holocaust

Pro-Life PING

Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.

[double_down]

if we had used the nuclear option last year - we would have lost the ability to use the fillibuster next year, when we are the minority.

This argument is so old. First, I have a hard time believing the repubs can muster 40 votes to filibuster any dem nominee to the SCOTUS (See RBG). Second, if the repubs had enough backbone to filibuster a dem nominee, the dems would go nuclear in a heartbeat. I can never figure out why repubs bring a pillow to a knife fight.

[Twinkie]

"The Republicans need to make principled stands and fight FOR something; pointing out the other party's faults isn't enough to make people vote for you."

Good thought and generally the way of the Marquis of Queensbury Republicans, but EXACTLY that less-than-ideal tactic worked perfectly for the Democrats with the help of the MSM.

[montag813]

This is no different than before. They could fillibuster anyone before and can do so now. Jim Webb and Ben Nelson are likely to support Conservative nominees, so they don't really have a true majority.

[IrishCatholic]

Translated for the common person. You will put in who we want.
That's what happens when you have one side that won't play by the rules and the other side has no backbone.

[Redbob]

Does anyone here think one single GOP senator will have the balls to filibuster the Dims?

On anything at all?

[georgiarat]

I voted and voted for the Republicans but they and the President deserved everything that happended to them in this election. They turned against those who worked hard to gain a majority and voted to attain one. I cannot come down against anyone who decided not to vote for someone who did not do what they were elected to do and promised to do during their campaign. Our borders are no more secure, illegal immigration is rampant along with the crime and social consequences it causes, Iraq is a mess, we did not get long-term tax reform, we did not get significant changes to the entitlement programs and actually added tons of new federal programs and spending by a congress that was elected to hold them in check.

I agree the Supreme Court vacancies will be a crisis but I cannot berate someone who chose not to go along with a Congress that turned against them.

[Lancey Howard]

How differently things would have been if Frist had used the nuclear/Constitutional option last year.

Thanks to a few RINOs, the attempt to "go nuclear" would likely have failed. Do you have any idea, any idea on earth what that would have meant?

[antiUNcitizen]

If Pubs dropped the nuclear option last year, no one would be able to filibuster anymore. Wouldn't that be like shooting yourself in the foot, because now the Pubs can use it against the Dems? Or am I missing something here?

[F.J. Mitchell]

The pro-abortion party. Continuing the mass murder of babies is the most important item on the demon dims agenda.

Did the fools that allowed them to win, forget that fact or did they just not give a damn?

[A CA Guy]

LET HIM PROPOSE WHO HE WANTS AND HAVE THEM SPEND ALL THE TIME TRYING TO DENY THEM ALL IF THEY WISH.

Let the people see that for 2008.

[pollywog]

How differently things would have been if Frist had used the nuclear/Constitutional option last year.

.......AND ruffle the feathers of the demo's and moderate RINOs??? sacrasm.......

[Freee-dame]

Hope the Catholics who turned to the rat party of death are pleased.

Many Democrat "Catholics" don't object to abortion either. They didn't just turn to the rat party. They are true believers.