Posted on 01/27/2016 4:42:22 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
Until Roberts betrayed that trust. He has been critical of him since.
Cruz now says that Roberts was not his first choice for the high court but the best one could expect from GWB.
Cruz has already he is will to shut down the gov on an important principle.
>>>By far the States and the people in them are against abortion<<<<
Where did you read that? I believe most People want limits on Abortion. Incest, Rape and First Trimester Post Viability being the most common exceptions.
The complete banning of Abortion will never happen anywhere with the exception of Islamic Nations.
I find it interesting how Liberals love the European Semi Socialism Model but never talk about Europe’s much more stringent Abortion Laws.
It’s just like they ignore Mexico’s very stringent Immigration Laws while pushing Open Borders for the United States of America..
And that is the problem with Cruz. He can not be trusted and his word is no good.
“Hell, you can’t trust Trump on anything. The guy is all over the map. He’s very unstable man.”
Is that you out there Donald?
Did Roberts ever vote liberal on an abortion case? I don’t think so.
Obamacare is much less cut-and-dry issue. It would be hard to predict how a judge would interpret that bill. It would not be hard to find a judge who knows abortion wasn’t a Constitutional right.
You will get complete abortion bans in many red states as soon as Roe vs. Wade is declared null and void.
You’ll get many more who have exceptions just for life of the mother and possibly rape/incest.
First trimester exceptions will only be in morally bankrupt cesspools with New York values, Philly values or San Fran values.
Justice Roberts - Cruz going to pick more like this?
Roe Settled as Court Precedent: Roberts stated that the landmark 1973 ruling Roe v. Wade legalizing abortion was “settled as a precedent.”3 At the Senate confirmation hearing, Roberts responding to Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Spectator said of Roe, “It’s settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes.“4 Roberts reasoned “I think it is a jolt to the legal system when you overturn precedent....It is not enough that you may think that a prior decision [like Roe v Wade] was wrongly decided.”5 Roberts, however, in 2010, said that precedent could be overturned: “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right. Stare decisis is not an end in itself.â€6 Whether Roe was decided correctly based on Roberts’ views on how the Constitution should be interpreted and whether the unborn have a God-given right to life, however, are two very different things.
Believes State Can Create a Right to Assisted Suicide: In an interview in 1997 with the PBS news program, “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer,” commenting on a Supreme Court decision on assisted suicide, Roberts said that a right to assisted suicide could be created by the people through the legislature. “The right that was protected in the assisted-suicide case was the right of the people through their state legislatures to articulate their own views on the policies that should apply in those cases of terminating life, and not to have the court interfering in those policy decisions,” Roberts explained. “That’s an important right.” 7 States have no right to trump God’s enduring command, Do not kill the innocent. And when applying that comment to abortion, it becomes obvious that Roberts, like Scalia, believes the states can create a right to an abortion and that the unborn do not have a God-given or Constitutional right to life.
Abortionists may use “less shocking” Methods to Kill Unborn: In 2007, chief justice Roberts, agreed with the majority in Gonzales v. Carhart, a ruling that upheld Nebraska’s ban on a partial-birth procedure but legally defined other ways for abortionists to perform late-term abortions. Roberts concurred with the opinion written by fellow justice, Anthony Kennedy, that said in page 30 of the ruling: “The medical profession, furthermore, may find different and less shocking methods to abort the fetus in the second trimester, thereby accommodating legislative demand.” 8 According to the ruling, one praised by most pro-life organizations, killing unborn children, even viable, fully-formed ones, isn’t wrong, only the method of killing them is wrong. The ruling goes on to give abortionists advice on how to kill children more humanely so they won’t violate the law. It allows abortionists to to deliver a late-term baby all the way up to the navel and then kill him. The ruling then builds upon the late-term abortion procedure called dilation and evacuation, which it repeatedly upÂholds as remaining legal, stating (p. 21) that “D&E will often involve a physician pulling a ‘substantial portion’ of a still living fetus, say, an arm or leg, into the [birth canal] prior to the death of the fetus.” Then, the Roberts majority ruled that (p. 22) “the removal of a small portion [’say, an arm or leg’] of the fetus is not prohibited” and that’s after the baby is pulled outside the mother as far as to his bellybutton (p. 22).9 Roberts and the majority go on in the ruling to advice abortionists to conceal the details of how a child is to be killed from the woman undergoing the prodedure (p. 29): “some doctors may prefer not to disclose precise details of the means that will be used... Any number of patients facing imminent surgical procedures would prefer not to hear all details, lest the usual anxiety... become the more intense. This is likely the case with the abortion procedures here in issue.”10As a result of the Gonzales v. Carhart ruling, the Roberts-led court could be considered the most hostile yet to a right to life for the unborn.
See the ARTL documentation at AmericanRTL.org/PBA-fiasco
Please explain why the country would be a failure without social conservatism?
Wow! The “Nazi Gambit”. Indication an argument has been lost if ever there was one.
Pro. Life. What does that mean? Sucking the last penny out of the wallets of millions in order to subsidize those who are too lazy, unmotivated and fecund to use some sort of birth control?
If you don’t know the difference between Planned Parenthood and free contraception, you might be better suited to vote DUmocrat. Oh yea, you’ve already got one running as a Republican.
I can tell you what it doesn’t mean. It doesn’t mean going into Iowa and telling corn farmers that you’re going to increase the boondoggle of ethanol subsidies. That’s what your DUmocrat does.
Why would you vote for a Canadian?
That “birther” dog don’t hunt....Trump the con man put all his lawyers on it and said everything was all good until his poll numbers cratered. Since Trump can’t run on anything other than recycled campaign bumper sticker slogans and slander.
Cruz has made it clear Roberts betrayed his confidence and no longer supports him. He has responded to Roberts' not being what Cruz and many others thought he would be.
It’s gruesome what the American people endorse, as you show here.
When Abortion Suddenly Stopped Making Sense
If you believe so, so be it.
I’m 62 and I will never live long enough to see it.
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.