[finnigan2]

" How do we know she is pro-choice? Let's see evidence before we make such a claim."

- I've been skimming through these posts and am truly amazed at the one issue people out there. How they have determined that she's a "pro abortionist" so quickly is quite astonishing.
I think Bush wants a strict constitutionalist on the court and, by picking someone he's worked closely with for years, he's sure that he's got one. The fact that she has no record of decisions from the bench with which to attack her makes her virtually bullet proof. MoveOn.org, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood must be pulling their hair out.

[4everontheRight]

I agree. The woman is obviously a Christian through her associations with the groups Bush mentioned she has worked with. Plus, I am pretty sure she was wearing a cross this morning which is pretty bold to me. It has gotten to the point in this country that declaring yourself a Christian by wearing the cross is putting a bullseye on your chest.

That being said, it depends on if she is what I like to call a "new wave Christian" or a strict Bible Christian as to whether she is pro-life. I personally have never understood how a person can call themselves a Christian and be anything but pro-life but thats just me.

[Racehorse]

- I've been skimming through these posts and am truly amazed at the one issue people out there. How they have determined that she's a "pro abortionist" so quickly is quite astonishing.

Abortion is not a skimpy issue.

And . . . if she does support abortion, it does say something unpleasant about how she interprets the Constitution.  It says she can find and support virtual rights where real ones do not exist.

We'll eventually find out.

[pangaea6]

But there are so many other people that are for "certain" pro-life that Bush coulda picked. Why do we, as Conservatives, have to guess what kind of judge we get for our re-election efforts.