Posted on 11/15/2007 4:23:30 PM PST by wagglebee
The main reason it doesn’t matter, is because Rooty Toot has NEVER said that he would appoint pro-life justices, in fact he has indicated that he wouldn’t.
Here is what Rooty Toot said on July 21, 2005 on Hannity & Colmes:
“Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them.”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163223,00.html
Not exactly.
Rudy Giuliani:
"Presidents, going back to the beginning of the republic, generally appoint people on the Supreme Court that they believe agree with them."
- Thursday, July 21, 2005, Hannity and Colmes Fox News interview
Yep, that interview shows EXACTLY what type of person we could expect Rooty Toot to appoint. He said that Ruth Bader Ginsburg was just as qualified as John Roberts.
Alan Colmes is a liberal and honest about it, Hannity is a RINO but unwilling to admit it. Colmes shows a lot more integrity than Hannity does.
The four of them can burn in hell together for all I care.
Ping!
The sad part is, I trust NEITHER Giuliani, Romney or Thompson (my favorite) to appoint strict constructionist pro-lifers.
High time. Several years ago, Pat more or less gave a pass to the ChiComs for their forced one child policy. I think he was angling for broadcast rights there or some such thing.
Makes perfect sense, Rooty is a liar and though he is clear about not supporting pro life, we have every reason to beleive he will appoint pro life judges because WHAT????????????? He SAID SO???????????? are you f@#$ing kidding me?
Contrary to what Pat Robertson and the other Rooty Rooters would have us believe, Rooty Toot has NEVER indicated that he would appoint pro-life judges.
I’m glad he spared us the “God told me ......” speech.
That’s reserved for health shakes.
Robertson’s endorsement of Giuliani makes sense if you believe we must have a president focusing on this country’s security for any future hope of discussion of social issues, and if you believe Giuliani is that person. I think the first is probably true, but I believe none of the candidates can provide the leadership of a Lincoln.
The country’s existence remained unchallenged since the Civil War, so we forgot the Constitutional priority for defending a country in which civil liberties would reside. Federalist Papers 28 and 74 discuss the subject; also the dissenting opinion of Robert Jackson in Terminiello v. City of Chicago. Jackson as chief prosecutor at Nuremberg of Nazi war criminals understood preservation of a democratic society as a precondition to civil liberties and rational discussion of social issues. I’m not about to compromise a pro-life stance, until I see some extraordinary leadership potential. But then wouldn’t that person also probably possess the integrity and common sense to be pro-life?
Hannity is not a rino...just a little immature “let’s beat hillary” cheerleader
Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani makes sense if you're a Robertson fan. If the nation's secuity is Pat's primary concern, he's got a stable of Republican candidates who can deliver, some like Hunter and McCain with actual experience in the field. No disrespect intended for Rudy's contension that a Mayor's supervision of the police force equates with the position of CIC.
No, he’s a RINO. Hannity has spent the entire year pushing Rooty Toot every chance he gets, he has done everything he can to obscure Rooty’s pro-abortion stance, pro-homosexualism, pro-illegal alien, gun grabbing agenda.
Rooty Toot turned the NYPD over to a criminal.
That’s the problem. It’s not just that Rudy isn’t pro-life. he also doesn’t have integrity
Sadly, Pat’s a few verses shy of a full sermon and has allowed his old Democrat ways make a come back.
Go Fred go.
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.