Posted on 10/25/2007 10:23:02 AM PDT by Ol' Sparky
HOW IS THAT WORKING OUT FOR YOU?
December 2, 2005; Posted: 3:16 p.m. EST (20:16 GMT)
(CNN) — Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito had a private meeting with the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday as he sought to reassure lawmakers that he would respect legal precedent on abortion rights and put his personal views aside.
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/12/02/specter.alito/
Sept. 13, 2005
WASHINGTON — Supreme Court nominee John Roberts said Tuesday that the landmark 1973 ruling legalizing abortion was “settled as a precedent of the court” as he was immediately pressed to address the divisive issue on the second day of his confirmation hearings.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/13/103353.shtml
The great moral dilemma that I have to answer in the next few months and so many in the early primary states will have to answer with their decisive votes.
Will we stick to our principles or follow expediency?
We should do something about it. Rush to the fore, avast the flotsam, march forwardly into the opaqueness! Only by righteousness's and frequent oil changes can we return to that upon which we have endeavored! And, so forth.....
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Please, be seated!
If I were a "choice" lobbyist, I wouldn't bet the farm on that reassurance, or on Roberts's own promise to "respect precedent." Precedent is not a blanket category. A decision a justice does not believe to be anchored in law is not considered precedent. Roberts said as much in reference to this comment.
In other words, if you respect life, do keep applying pressure to get the right minds on the Court. It's the way to bet. Personally, I'd bet on an inside straight before I bet against Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia.
What is the dilemma?
Not voting to nominate a candidate that couldn’t possibly win the general election should be an easy choice.
This basic premise is completely incorrect. Rudy Giuliani is just as radical as Hillary Clinton (if not more so) on this issue.
Rudy gets nominated and the MSM will be all over his left wingism in order to drive the conservatives away come November
That doesn’t mean anything. Alito and Roberts were just throwing bread crumbs to the Rats to get confirmed.
No funding or political support for years before the 06 elections because of big spending, warmongering, and illegals?
LOL, all this faux concern for the GOP is stunning!
why should we believe him that he has changed?
I wouldn’t vote for Rudy under any circumstances. I doubt I could vote for fipper Romney either
I wouldn’t lie about such a thing. Would you?
That’s what everyone used to say about Dubya - compassionate conservative really means conservative it’s just that he has to say that to get elected. Huh!
The obvious solution is not to nominate Rudy.
If we don’t want to choose between very, very bad and even worse, then don’t nominate him.
If Rudy is nominated, and if as a result hillary is elected, we’ll hear a lot of people bitching and moaning about social conservatives and religious conservatives who declined to vote. Sorry, I’d say the major blame would be on the heads of those who were stupid enough to nominate a candidate who will drive away tens of millions of voters from the base.
Is the average Republican voter stupid enough to nominate Rudy? Or might Democrat pros send their flocks to the Republican polls to vote for him? That’s what nearly happened with McCain in 2000.
No, the party pros need to wake up and smell the roses, as well as the average conservative voter. Nominating Rudy will result in an impossible choice for most moral voters, who will simply not vote for either candidate. Period.
So, stop him now.
Good observation. (Tho I've found a lot of FREEPERS who want to ignore what the MSM '08 emphasis will be)
True but words may influence others who do have a say in the voting.
I’ve upset candidate supporters on this forum just by expressing my analytical opinions of their strengths and weaknesses.
A lot of sensitive people in this audience.
I wasn’t overdramitizing that my little words make others upset.
The Fred Thompson people didn’t like my take on his refusal to vote to remove Bill Clinton from office for perjury.
Mike Huckabee looks like Gomer Pyle-Jim Nabors.
He’s a little too legalistic with his anti-obesity and anti-smoking campaigns.
Guys like Romney and Giuliani will run to the middle once they’ve seduced you into voting for them early next year with conservative talk and one or the other wins.
Romney is probably the biggest flipper of them all.
Anyone upset?
Look, I think there are trolls trying to get us to fight each other, but I refuse to get angry with anyone.
Party unity is more important than ever for politics, but I will still have my principles no matter what.
Voting Pro-life has not been enough. We have all been under the illusion that overturning Roe is the holy grail.
The sad fact is that even without Roe, it goes to the States, which means that millions more will continue to die.
We could continue to vote pro-life and try to get a contstitution amendment for life. It will never be ratified by the States, ever.
So, where does voting pro-life lead us. Nowhere.
I think the pro-life movement needs a whole new strategy on how to end it. Bully pulpits make us feel good because they are saying the right things but millions are dying meanwhile...
If we don’t want to choose between very, very bad and even worse, then don’t nominate him.
That is kind of a circular truism, except for that November election thingy.
If Rudy is nominated, and if as a result hillary is elected, we’ll hear a lot of people bitching and moaning (as always, about everything)about social conservatives and religious conservatives who declined to vote.( If you don't vote, you get what others vote for. Seems rational. Complaining would be..) Sorry, I’d say the major blame would be on the heads of those(that would be the majority) who were stupid enough to nominate a candidate who will drive away tens of millions of voters from the base.(Poor things, didn't get pitch, taking ball and going home and do some serious sniveling)
Is the average Republican voter stupid enough to nominate Rudy?
Sure. We've gotten Nixon, Ford, Hasteret, Cunningham, Craig....
Or might Democrat pros send their flocks to the Republican polls to vote for him? That’s what nearly happened with McCain in 2000.
Depends on the state voting laws. I doubt even after an election such voting behavior could be deduced beyond speculation.
No, the party pros(snicker) need to wake up and smell the roses, as well as the average conservative voter.( What, just average, no extream conservatives?) Nominating Rudy will result in an impossible choice for most moral voters(all eight of them. 99.9% of America is someway on the public teat), who will simply(I love complex actions, mulit varible permutations that are simple. Thank you) not vote(that is the tread over time) for either candidate. Period.( Is that .Period, or Period 2 periods period?)
So, stop him now.(Like Stop the War, Now, or N.O.W., or any of a hundred lefties with their bla,bla,now!)
So, I take it you are not voting for Rudy.
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.