Posted on 07/19/2005 8:55:06 PM PDT by CHARLITE
NARAL, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League, immediately lashed out at President Bush's nominee for the Supreme Court.
"If Roberts is confirmed to a lifetime appointment, there is little doubt that he will work to overturn Roe v. Wade," a NARAL statement said Tuesday night.
"As deputy solicitor general under the first President Bush, he argued to the Supreme Court that 'Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled,' " NARAL also claimed. Abortion will likely be the most contentious issue surrounding Judge Roberts and his nomination.
When Bush nominated Roberts to the D.C. Court of Appeals in 2003, NARAL complained:
"We believe he was nominated in large measure because of his narrow view of constitutional rights, and it is for this same reason that the Senate should reject his nomination."
The pro-abortion group was particularly irked by Roberts' argument: "The Court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion finds no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution."
Republicans control the Senate's Judiciary Committee by 10-to-8, and the full Senate with 55 seats.
Unless the Democrats filibuster, Roberts is a clear favorite to win confirmation.
If the Democrats do launch a filibuster, Republicans may finally unleash "the nuclear option" and do away with the Senate rule that allows a minority to block the majority will.
(Denny Crane: "Sometimes you can only look for answers from God and failing that... and Fox News".)
I assume since NARAL loves their liberal SCOTUS judges, they are AGAINST a woman's right to choose where she lives (KELO). And AGAINST female babies in the womb "deciding" to survive.
NARAL = Baby killers.
How any of you can condone killing innocent babies and sleep at night is beyond me. Obviously, you have no conscience.
You win the A$$HOLE OF THE MONTH AWARD!
Amusing, but NARAL doesnt know anymore about his intentions than we do
illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives,
If it was not for the seriousness of this statement I would ROFLMAO!!!
HOW MANY LIVES OF THE INNOCENT WOULD LEGAL ABORTION CLAIM???
"If it was not for the seriousness of this statement I would ROFLMAO!!!
HOW MANY LIVES OF THE INNOCENT WOULD LEGAL ABORTION CLAIM???"
*I am a woman who grew up in the era of illegal abortion.
*I support legalized, medically safe first term abortion.
*I believe that the abortion issue does not belong in the political arena at all - it is a medical ethics issue.
*I believe that legal/elective partial-birth/third term abortion is infanticide and butchery.
*The politicized abortion issue is a terrible distraction from serious far-reaching issues which equally affect all Americans.
*I am plain sick of the abortion issue forced into the forefront (for political funding purposes.) It's the opportune time to focus on the ACLU's destructive agenda and its subversive legal/court games, on protecting our borders and uncontrolled illegal immigration, and on national defense and economic strategies (Soros seeks to destroy our economy.)
Get a life! Abortion, by one method or another, has always existed, and whether legal or not, it will persist as a method of voiding pregnancy.
It's just amazing that persons who will never require an abortion, like Lesbians, Gays, MEN, anti-patriarchial feminists, trans-sexuals, impotent "liberal" effetes, peevish atheists, et al, are insanely zealous on this issue.
We have this fed-funded frikkin subsidiary fetus-interuptus industry that makes me ill. HOWEVER! Move the hot spotlight onto issues regarding our constitutional republic's prosperity and security, and defending traditional values.
I agree that tax dollars should not be spent, no matter what. However, I don't think that women should be allowed to have the right to kill another life because it's helplessly trapped inside theirs.
My 16-y/o daughter and I were casually discussing this the other day, in the middle of the doctor's waiting room. (I wsn't troubling to keep my voice down, either.) At one point she said she disagreed with abortion, but thought it was the woman's right to do decide what to do with her own body.
I asked her (loudly), where does her right end and the baby's begin?
{{{crickets}}}
Doesn't anyone recall that Clinton appointed Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 to replace John F. Kennedy-appointed Justice Byron White, a conservative who dissented from Roe v. Wade? (In fact, Roe v. Wade was 7-2 in favor of the pro-aborts, Rehinquist and White were the two dissenters).
In 1991, SCOTUS heard an abortion-parental-notification case. The vote was 5-4. Dissenters were Rehinquist, Scalia, Thomas, and White. (If I recall correctly, the five who struck down the parental notification law were O'Connor, Kennedy, Stevens, Brennan, and Souter.)
Clinton appointed Ginsburg to replace White, and she breezed through confirmation. He then nominated Breyer to replace Brennan and what we have currently is a 6-3 pro-abortion majority on the court.
Nominating Roberts would reverse the move Clinton made when Ginsburg replaced White. Scalia and Thomas being added reduced the pro-abort majority from 7-2 to 5-4 but it did not overturn Roe v. Wade.
When Rehinquist is replaced by Clarence Thomas, and he is replaced by Janice Rogers Brown, it will still be 5-4.
When John Paul Stevens is replaced, that is when the real fun begins. But he will probably end up being replaced by someone like Alberto Gonzales, and it won't matter anyway.
I'm a little off in my SCOTUS hist-wah.
Replace Brennan in my above post with Justice Blackmun and it reads the same.
Souter replaced Brennan (no change there) and Breyer replaced Blackmun.
Which is one major reason that is giving me (and should give every conservative) true pause. I really don't want to see another "liberal-moderate in conservative-but-not-ideologue clothing." Not saying Roberts is, but we've seen supposed 'rabidly conservative' judges go on to be anything but once adorned with the robes of the Justice.
There's enough in that concatenation of circumstances to make feminist heads do the full Linda Blair act for years. ;)
When John Paul Stevens is replaced, that is when the real fun begins. But he will probably end up being replaced by someone like Alberto Gonzales, and it won't matter anyway.
The real fun begins when also Ginsburg steps down. Remember her present health is not in a perfect condition!?!
For some reason I always figure Ginsburg will be around a bit longer than Stevens will.
Pro-life people are patient. They have waited 30 years. People who were against segregation and slavery had to wait a long time too before the Supreme Court reversed themselves.
The closest we have ever got to tipping the pro-abortion majority on the Court was the Brennan vacancy. It was 4 justices pro-life and 4 justices pro-abortion. Then we got Souter. Bleah. But we remain patient.
Well, said. Grandmother's know best. : )
Bottom line: individual's responsibility & accountability!
(To the tune of "Grumble, grumble, profanities!":
Ruth Bader-Ginsberg (burg?) formerly a legal-hawk member of the subversive communist-front organization - the ACLU!
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.