[Syco]

Stop Specter Ping

[hiredhand]

Why is the "left" so stupid? I should think that after the last week, they would realize that we're voting, and acting based on our consciences, and moral values. Maybe they (including Specter) still "believe" the election was stolen.

Given that I don't believe it was stolen, they'll learn soon enough. I "think" we still have a lot of momentum. We're still determined to keep his lot out of power. A vast number of people were motivated to come out and vote, and I believe they will stay motivated for quite some time to retain what we've taken back.

This fight is far from being over folks.

[Salvation]

Catechism of the Catholic Church and what it says about those who support abortion

What does this say about Senator Specter?

[Prime Choice]

...conservative anger over the GOP moderate's comment...

More Leftist water-carrying for the Liberal RINO Specter.

If that jackass is a "moderate," then I'm King of Jamaica.

[Taft in '52]

To me, the most outrageous act of Specter's career was to cite Scottish law to justify his vote against the impeachment of Clinton. Since this is America and not Scotland, he might as well have cited Laotian, Estonian, or Uzbekistani law.

Specter is totally unqualified to head the Senate Judiciary Committee.

[Prime Choice]

His remarks were widely interpreted as a warning to President Bush to refrain from selecting Supreme Court nominees who opposed abortion rights.

Interpreted? INTERPRETED? Sorry, CBS, it wasn't an "interpretation" that's sinking Specter; it's his own idiot words. Stop with the Leftist spin, morons. Ain't nobody buying it.

"I have never applied a litmus test," Specter said Sunday ...

And you never will get the chance, Specter. You're history. Get off the damn bus.

[Shortwave]

Attach the following picture to an email to the Senator(s) of your choosing. You can find their email here: http://fairjudiciary.com/cfj_contents/senators/

[nosofar]

On "Fox News Sunday," White House political adviser Karl Rove said Mr. Bush would nominate only judges who would "strictly apply the law, strictly interpret the Constitution" from the bench.

We must consider that a justice with the above qualifications, even if he is personally pro-life, may still come down on the pro-chosed side of the issue in his rullings. A non-activist judge who would 'strictly apply the law' also means not actively promoting a pro-life agenda, either. The issue still comes back to the fundamental biological/legal classification of the unborn. One might successfully argue that the unborn are not 'persons' in the legal sense and under the Constitution. Short of an Amendment, I think the most that can be done is to allow abortion to be regulated at the state level.