Posted on 11/13/2004 6:05:41 AM PST by cpforlife.org
40,000,000 fewer liberals isn't such a bad thing.
I'll take the undeleted nature of my posts as a semi-validation then. Thanks for your enormous efforts here to use rational, empirical data to argue against the indefensible.
I'm glad that your math skills stand the test of public scrutiny. That alone shows something.
Let's find judges without opinions?! Good luck finding 9 Mr. Spocks to fit that bill!
Judges are human. They're all opinionated. We need to find judges who are opinionated towards a strict constructionist interpretation of the Constitution. A judge like that would have to overturn Roe v. Wade.
We're NOT demanding activist judges. That's a red herring if I've ever seen one. Roe v. Wade would not OUTLAW abortions. It would merely overturn the court-sanctioned legalization of abortion, return power to the states and then we can fight this battle where it belongs, in the legislatures. If that's not constructive interpretation of the Constitution, you tell me what is?
How could a true conservative oppose that?
BTW, do you consider Rhenquist, Scalia, Thomas and Bork to be "activist judges"?
Shows how little you know.
The pro-life movement is the heart and soul of the Republican Party, its majority, and is the most coherent and organized political bloc in the United States of America.
Call us all 'nutjobs' if you will. But you're only demonstrating your gross ignorance.
The point is that 70% plus view Roe as essentially correct.
That is why it will not be overturned and people should not expect that to happen in the near future.
This is the root of my argument.
Liberals who are allowed to live can grow up. Ronald Reagan was a Union President who signed into law a California abortion bill that paved the way for Roe/Wade and Doe/Bolton. He grew up. The 40,000,000 never had a chance, nor can we ignore the damage to the mothers, the fathers and the overall economic, social and spiritual health of our nation.
Words that would make Margaret Sanger proud.
"The point is that 70% plus view Roe as essentially correct."
Wrong. Roe is ABORTION ON DEMAND FOR ANY REASON EVERYWHERE IN THE US. 60% OPPOSE that view.
Thanks for the post. Life is the standard of all value. We are battling for life on many fronts.
The bible had plenty of infanticide in it. Every society from the beginning of time has this problem. This issue is insolvable and will never go away. Ever.
"This issue is insolvable and will never go away. Ever."
True. Also true of murder, rape, arson, etc.
Thomas is the only one who is true to that mode of thought.
Opinions are like ********, everyone has one.
Bork would have been in that mold. But he was Borked!
As will any more of them.
Unfortunate, but a fact.
Opinions on abortion are the least of my concerns in getting a judge through the congress.
Wow.
As it is currently interpreted, yes. The SCOTUS has that responsibility, and excercised it. You just disagree with the outcome, so you have whined about it for 30-odd years. Ergo, my statement that you too would like activist judges, so long as they are on YOUR side.
"So killing babies to protect the Constitution, you can live with that? 4,000 dead babies TODAY. You can live with that, right?"
First, you and the other zealots wave around figures like that constantly. Do you really believe anyone on either side hasn't heard them yet? And what effect have they had, other than to satisfy some urge you have to repeat them?
And second, once again, not everyone in the US considers all fertilized eggs to be "babies". This is obvious if your numbers are accurate. Might it be time to try another approach?
George W. Bush:
I believe that life is valuable, even when it is unwanted, even when it is physically imperfect. I believe our society has a responsibility to defend the vulnerable and the weak. And I believe our nation should set a goal: that unborn children should be welcomed in life and protected in law. This is the ideal: a generous society that values every life. I know there are many steps on this road. A democracy is ruled by consensus, not by edict. Laws are changed as minds are persuaded.
Source: www.georgewbush.com/News
“Parental Notification Law” Jun 7, 1999
No, that is not what the poll said.
Dear Cold Heat,
"That is a obvious answer. They would fall into the restriction category, of course.
"The point is that 70% plus view Roe as essentially correct."
Ground out to pitcher. Hope you do better next time.
Your first sentence contradicts your second.
In reply to this question from WhistlingPastTheGraveyard:
"Of the three choices ('Generally available' - 'Available, but under stricter limits' - 'Should not be permitted'), which one would those repondents who favor abortion only in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother fall in to?"
you answer:
""That is a obvious answer. They would fall into the restriction category, of course."
Yet, in your next sentence, you lump the "restriction category" in with the group that views Roe as essentially correct.
ROTFLMAO!
C'mon, you can do better than that. Folks who want to restrict abortions to those exceptions are nearly as far from the holdings of Roe as I am! LOL.
But nonetheless, Roe, according to the Supreme Court, permits virtually no limits on abortion. Not on partial birth abortion, not on third trimester abortions. Not on abortions for sex selection. Not on abortions for eye color selection (we're getting there, have no fear).
Thus, 70% don't essentially agree with Roe.
Less than 40% essentially agree with Roe.
Most folks think the law ought to be significantly stricter than Roe.
And that's why it is necessary to overturn Roe, to permit the issue to become one that can be resolved by the PEOPLE, not the COURTS.
Sorry to see that someone who claims to be a conservative is such a judicial activist.
sitetest
Are you for mass marketed youth-rejuvenating/prime-health human immortality or, are you for human death?
Hardly obvious. However, yours shows well, particularly when you and others accuse dissenters of everything from "baby butchering" to being DU plants, to trying to get them banned. Worried about countervailing opinions?
Yeah it is. The options "Available, but under stricter limits" and "Will not be permitted" are BOTH made unavailable by Roe/Wade and Doe/Bolton. That your cognitive skills make it hard for you to grasp that may be so, but the FACTS remain FACTS. Just like the FACT that undoing JUDICIAL ACTIVISM is NOT the same thing as JUDICIAL ACTIVISM.
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.