I'm dead serious. I'm dead serious. Life, preserving life, to me, is a far more important issue -- we can deal with the racism and the bigotry, that can be canceled out by other justices and so forth. But I mean if you believe in life as I do and the sanctity of life, the more judges on the court we could get that are pro-life and might look at Roe vs. Wade as the bad law that it is and this is an open question about Sonia Sotomayor, 'cause she hasn't said anything about it. And that's rare for a doctrinaire liberal to be silent on this. She's not silent on any other aspect of liberalism from the multicultural curriculum, but she hasn't done anything officially on abortion. We know she's Catholic, Puerto Rican Catholic. It's just something to look at here.
BREAK TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: I misspoke on Sonia Sotomayor and abortion. She came out, she affirmed that there should not be US funds for international abortions. I misspoke. I said she did. I'm going to have to research this to be sure, but I think she's come out and said there should not be US funds, international agencies that promote abortion. Now, given that, there may be something lurking here beneath the surface that we are all unaware of. So on that basis I could be made to support this nomination, if I could be convinced -- and I don't know if I could be -- but if I could be convinced that she's pro-life.
http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_060209/content/01125111.guest.html
If she is I am sure she wont admit it.
I said on another thread that’s the only way she won’t get the seat, if she’s Pro-life. She’d never make it out of committee.
Her decisions could affect literally hundreds of millions of people. Is the chance worth it?
well, well, well, isn’t that interesting. I pray that she is pro-life. That will make some leftists heads explode.
jw
Obama made her eat a fetus before he even considered her.
But just as he didn't thoroughly vet Turbo Tax Tim or any number of other appointees, I think it's pretty clear that Obama isn't great at doing his homework.
The great compounding factor here is that Obama can't admit that he's wrong, and he can't throw her under the bus because he just put her in the driver seat. Unless she shows up wearing an Operation Rescue t-shirt to the confirmation hearing, she'll sail through committee, sidestep any tough questions and waltz into the nomination.
I don't know that she's a closet pro-life or closet pro-choice, only that her views are so close hold as to be unknown, and impossible to divine at this stage. For either party.
she has said a few crazy things, and made a few bad rulings, BUT
pro life is a definite possibility.
She was a prosectuor and almost all prosecutors hate criminals, just like most of us.
She did do international business law and most of them hate regulations.
She was nominated the first time by 41 (ya 41 got souter wrong, but he got a lot right as well).
All in all there is a small chance ZerO will regret she was nominated.
To what extent should parental authority be held supreme, and to what extent should it be subjugated to state authority? Abortion is an extreme case of holding parental authority to be supreme. Too bad leftists don't seem to recognize parental authority in other cases.
In earlier times, and in other cultures, children had no rights except what their parents chose to grant them, but parents could grant any or all of their own rights to their kids as they saw fit. While some mischief certainly occurred as a result, I doubt it was as severe as the mischief that has occurred in the name of "children's rights".
While I wouldn't say that a parent's rights should go as far as killing children outright (abortion/infanticide) I would view the mischief resulting from excessive parental rights as being fairly minor compared from that resulting from overly-curtailed parental rights. Parents who abuse their kids will tend to weed themselves out of the gene pool. A government that abuses children, however, will likely as not expand its power by so doing.