Posted on 11/01/2005 8:11:58 AM PST by areafiftyone
The President’s selection of Third Circuit Court Judge Samuel Alito to replace retiring Supreme Court Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor must initiate a thoughtful and deliberate process of closely examining and scrutinizing Judge Alito’s record to determine whether he merits a seat on the highest court in the nation. What we currently know about Judge Alito raises serious questions about whether he will be steadfast in protecting our most fundamental rights. I intend to closely examine Judge Alito’s record and qualifications and carefully monitor the Judiciary Committee hearings in order to determine whether he intends to be a guardian of the rule of law who puts fairness and justice before ideology.
I hope that both the President and Judge Alito will be forthcoming during this process so that my colleagues and I can fully discharge our constitutional mandate of providing the President with meaningful 'advice and consent' on his nomination."
What we currently know about Judge Alito raises serious questions about whether he will be steadfast in protecting our most fundamental rights.
since when is killing babies a fundemental right?
What are these "most fundamental rights" for hillary and the other Democrats? Are they "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"? I don't think so.
Behind these appealing words lie some unpleasant realities. The most fundamental right for Democrats is the "constitutional right" proclaimed in Roe and Casey to kill babies whenever it is convenient. The other "fundamental right," proclaimed by SCOTUS this past year, is to commit buggery, advocate it publicly, teach it to small children in public schools, and persecute anyone who disagrees with you as a homophobe guilty of committing hate crimes.
She ought to be struck by lightning for invoking any loyalty to the words "RULE OF LAW" which she and BillyBob trampled again and again throughout his governorships and presidency.
bingo
She is trying to get the center.
She knows she has the left sewn up no matter what she says.
OK. Got it. I took you out of context, I was thinking of Alito and your so statement made no sense. My bad.
What fundamental right?! Why, the right to privacy adumbrated in Griswold v. Connecticut!
Do you see now?
No?
OK, imagine an umbrella. I mean, imagine a penumbra cast by that umbrella.
Get it now?
No? The "right to privacy"--admittedly, mentioned nowhere in the Constitution: it's just a `made-up' term--casts a penumbra that allows us to rip living babies with forks from their mothers and chop them up with abortion shears.
Now do you get it?
No?!
OK, again--listen closely `cause I'm using big words like "adumbrated".
There's this umbrella, I mean penumbra . . .
Thanks, good article.
LOL
Me thinks none on the left was in the celebrating mood. They probably just gathered to plot and scheme.
Hags worked for me! :)
I will stack up Alito's 350 cases against Hillary's 5 (that's right, FIVE) courtroom appearances any time.
HillarySpeak for abortion-on-demand.
She buzzed NYC on her broom. How else could she celebrate? Kissing Lurch Kerry under the mistletoe?
"What we currently know about Judge Alito raises serious questions about whether he will be steadfast in protecting our most fundamental rights."
Doesn't it make you feel all warm and fuzzy about 2008, knowing that the Beast labels abortion as a fundamental right?
Hillary will not win in 2008 if we get a good candidate that is liked by both moderates and conservatives that can beat her. We have to make sure we can do that.
I was referring to Betty Jane's questions. I don't know what caused you to go ballistic and lose control. Your statements make no sense.
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.