Attention Pro-lifers; contact President Bush and ask him to pick a pro-life U.S. Supreme Court judge

CNSNews.com ^ | July 1, 2005 | Susan Jones

[Sun]

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Retiring By Susan Jones CNSNews.com Senior Editor July 01, 2005

(CNSNews.com) - Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her resignation on Friday. She said she will stay on until a successor is named.

The White House said President Bush would make a statement in the White House Rose Garden sometime after 11 a.m., but press reports said he was not expected to nominate O'Connor's successor at that time.

The timing of O'Connor's announcement, coming on a slow news day before the long holiday weekend, caught much of Washington by surprise; but for weeks, press reports have speculated that either O'Connor or Chief Justice William Rehnquist or both - probably would step down.

[Sun]

Please contact President Bush and tell him that you want him to select a STRONG pro-life, Conservative U.S. Supreme Court justice. This kind of person will not misconstrue the Constitution in order to kill innocent pre-born babies, censure the Ten Commandments, and take away your property.

Tell President Bush you want judges like Scalia and Thomas. Their history shows that they did not misconstrue the Constitution. Tell him we do not want Gonzales, as he is too liberal, and wants gun control, and is pro-"choice." Gonzales is also very weak on the border issue.

The White House comment line is: 202-456-1111 and the president's e-mail is president@whitehouse.gov

[Prolifeconservative]

PROLIFE BUMP!!!!!!!!!!!

[nuffsenuff]

The nominee doesn't have to be "pro-life".

He or she just needs to be able to follow the Constitution and the rest will take care of itself.

[Rodney King]

I'll call and demand that he pick a strict constructionist and/or originalist. That's better than a "living document" judge who happens to be pro-life in his/her personal views.

[anniegetyourgun]

Bingo....a strict constructionist will do. And that's exactly what he will nominate.

[jeremiah]

You are right, it doesn't matter a lick about the pro-life stand of a nominee. There is not going to be a court case to overturn it in the near future anyway, and it would be easier to confirm someone without a record on this. Appoint another Thomas, Scalia would be OK too.

[nuffsenuff]

Turning this into a "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" debate will play right into the libs hands.

This needs to be about interpreting the Constitution.

We win this battle every time.

Don't cloud the issue.

[Andy from Beaverton]

I just want someone who will stop taking our rights away and follow the constitution.

[BCR #226]

Pro-Life, Pro-Gun, and anti-big government tax!

Mike

[Irontank]

I don't care whether his nominee is pro-life or pro-abortion...so long as he or she understands that their personal view is irrelevant with regard to the fact that this is a state issue

[BMC1]

This is going to be so much fun to watch. The DUMMIES are going to implode.

They will pullout all the stops to trash whomever the Prez nominates.

Maybe not we will get to use the Constitutional option in the Senate.

[johnny7]

You mean... the Constitution doesn't 'live' & 'breath' for you? ;^)

[Constitution Day]

I hope so.

[verity]

No.

[traviskicks]

I'd rather stick with the property rights. In a perfect world Bush would announce what a terrible decision he thought KETO was and then annouce he was appointing someone who was very, very strong on property rights. Justice Janice Rogers Brown:
http://www.neoperspectives.com/janicerogersbrown.htm

Its good policy and good politics. For once they mix.

[Kim]

President Bush seems to like giving leftists a sharp poke in the eye now and then -- so now is the time to re-nominate Robert Bork to replace Sandra Day O'Connor.

[sirthomasthemore]

Justice Janice Brown. She has already been approved. She is thus not "extraordinary". Her opinions on "property rights" are impeccable. It will be near impossible for Dems to politicize her. She is in the mold of Clarence Thomas as an originalist.


Most importantly, we must "bork" any nominee that is not a strict constructionist.


Pzifer: “Viagra won’t cause dementia or blindness". (Except if one wears a Black Robe, whereupon it can cause loss of property and other minor Constitutional rights.)

Clean your muskets and sharpen your pitchforks and get ready to ride to the sound of the guns.(KELO) :o}-

Dems, hello??? We could get out of Vietnam; we can’t GET OUT of terrorism.

[mzbzybee]

I agree. This is not just about pro-life(of which I am), but about following the CONSITUTION period. If a pro lifer is nominated, they will not get confirmed.

[my right]

Also contact your senators, this is what I sent Lindsey Graham, my infamous senator,:

Sandra Day O'Connor retiring!"

What are you going to do when the Dems filibuster this appointment? Are you going to tuck your tail and run? Are you going to be the ole cowboy sidekick to the idiot, John Mclain, when he takes the demorats side? Are you going to try to broker another inside deal with the other party so you will again be in the limelight of the liberal news media?

Tell me Senator, (a person that has given you at least 10 votes on two occasions), which way are you going this time???????

[Spiff]

Turning this into a "pro-life" vs. "pro-choice" debate will play right into the libs hands. This needs to be about interpreting the Constitution. We win this battle every time. Don't cloud the issue.

Whether the "interpreted" Constitution protects the rights of a mother to pay a butcher to dismember her baby in her womb (a heinous act that is carried out 1.3 MILLION times per year in the U.S.) IS THE ISSUE!!! Stop trying to cloud it by putting any other priority ahead of it.