[wagglebee]

"What a lot of people are looking for is do they understand the issue and do they understand that Roe v. Wade is the ultimate example of judicial activism?" he said, adding that rhetoric about appointing only "strict constructionists" isn't sufficient.

Because it's a LIE.

[wagglebee]

Pro-Life Ping

[wagglebee]

Ping

[narses]

+

Freep-mail me to get on or off my pro-life and Catholic Ping List:

Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy Pro-Life or Catholic threads, or other threads of interest.

[alloysteel]

To legalize abortion, or to outlaw it completely, is not a function of the Federal government. That was always one of the issues that should properly be decided on a state or even local level.

Similar approach to civil unions/gay marriages. While as a matter of convenience, most laws concerning civil marriage or cohabitation are accepted by all states if accepted in one state, there is no overall requirement that just because ONE state has adopted some controversial body of law about legal determination, that ALL states are similarly bound. These matters should be subject to a vote in the legislature, and either adopted, or rejected. If rejected, the courts should be constrained by this knowledge, and act in accordance with the expressed will of the representative government. It is not the business of the courts to lobby any legislature.

[processing please hold]

Hunter doesn't have to play the game those three losers are playing. Hunter is already pro-life.

[Darkwolf377]

The problem is that supporting a strict constructionist view doesn't exempt one from understanding that there never was and never will be a strictly constructionist interpretation 100% of the time. When dealing with humans, and a sitting SCOTUS made up of the choices of D and R presidents, there will never, ever be any consistency.

And I'd suggest that if one carefully examine choices one agrees with in the history of SCOTUS, there will be at least some that don't follow such a philosophy. It's the nature of living in a system--there are ALWAYS eexptions to rigorous interpretation that we will say "OK, well, I agree with THAT decision, even if it isn't strictly according to the original intent."

[Enosh]

This is the issue that will sink Rudy.

[Joe Boucher]

Abortion is wrong and partial birth abortion is an absolute abomination.
President Bush and the Republican led congess and senate did what about it It's still legal.

[Condor51]

Michael Franc of The Heritage Foundation told the web site that, ultimately, pro-life advocates may have to settle for a less than stellar candidate and support him over a Democratic nominee who will strongly support abortion.

Oh really?!? They HAVE to???

So... Just because the MUTT has an 'R' there they 'have' to. Well excuse me 'mr' Franc, but go (blank) yourself.

ps: Look up Hubris in the dictionary asshat.

[Clintonfatigued]

Aside from appointing judges who believe in Constitutionalism, there is little to nothing the President can do about abortion. And even the Supreme Court can do nothing more than remove itself from the issue (by overturning Roe vs. Wade).

[WFTR]

The important point is for all of those who are unhappy with the three most popular candidates to vote in the primaries. I won't tell anyone to vote for a particular candidate at this point. The field is still open, and I could change my mind a few times between now and then. However, if we have a huge number of people voting for someone other than one of the "top three," we have a good chance of finding a better candidate.

Bill

[cgk]

Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping!

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to, or removed from, the Pro-Life/Pro-Baby ping list...