Posted on 07/03/2005 9:39:45 PM PDT by SmithL
Employing essentially the same game plan they used to win referendums against same-sex marriage in 11 states last November, evangelical Christian groups said they plan to run a multimillion-dollar church-centered campaign to rouse support for a thoroughly conservative successor to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Conservative religious leaders said the campaign will target 20,000 pastors and congregations using Christian talk radio, satellite television broadcasts, direct-mail advertising and aggressive grass-roots organizing.
"This is the moment that social conservatives have been awaiting for more than a decade -- a real chance to change the philosophical balance of the Supreme Court" and reverse the direction of its rulings on abortion, school prayer, sodomy and religious displays on public property, said Tony Perkins, president of the Family Research Council.
A year ago, Perkins predicted that petition drives for state constitutional amendments to ban same-sex marriage would have an enduring political impact because they would forge local Christian activists across the nation into "hard-wired" networks with names, addresses and telephone numbers of supporters.
That is exactly what happened, he said in an interview Saturday.
"I've heard people say the fiscal conservatives, the business interests, are hoping the social conservatives will be quiet this time. If we're quiet, they won't be successful, because we're the ones who can gear up people around the country. The engine has been idling since the election, and all we have to do is rev it up again," he said.
The revving began within hours of O'Connor's surprise resignation Friday morning, when about 50 members of the Arlington Group, a coalition of evangelical activists that first coalesced against same-sex marriage, held a conference call to discuss strategy for the judicial nomination battle.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
"I'll support them. I'd rather have a Godly pro-American saint on the bench than a pro-European Antichrist lefty."
Me too, but I'd rather have a Robert Bork-clone who believes the job of Supreme Court justice is to enforce the constitution---period, and not make up any type of law---conservative or liberal.
We need to end the rule of the Judges. I don't think it worked very well in the Bible either (but that is not a strong point for me.)
And for the 2nd Amendment folks, time to lock and load. This is a battle for the heart of America!
However, I must say (and as a very serious prayer): "Please God -- we had 8 years of Bill Clinton. Can't you help us before Hillary makes a bid for presidency. I beg of Thee, my Lord and God!"
(It is on our money -- In God We Trust)
The Bible relied on Prophets, not Judges. And God warned His people about having an earthly king...
I believe these folks are pushing for someone who strictly adheres to the constitution.
Inventing marriage as same sex is not in the constitution. Killing babies through abortion is not in the Constitution and is against the strict meaning of the Constitution -- that Life must be preserved first, then Liberty, and then the "Pursuit of Happiness".
"The Bible relied on Prophets, not Judges."
Well, my Bible is weak, but not that weak. I know they have prophets in the Bible. But there is a chapter named "Judges" and it is about a period of time when Israel was ruled by Judges.
GO, YOU GOOD THINGS!!!!
My picks:
For O'Connor: Either Garza, Edith Jones, or Edith Brown Clement.
For Rehnquist: Olson, McConnell, Cornyn, or Ashcroft
If we get to 3 justices (Ginsburg or Stevens), I say Janice Rogers Brown (the roe v wade flipper)
Only if we get 4 justices would i support gonzales.
My picks:
For O'Connor: Either Garza, Edith Jones, or Edith Brown Clement.
For Rehnquist: Olson, McConnell, Cornyn, or Ashcroft
If we get to 3 justices (Ginsburg or Stevens), I say Janice Rogers Brown (the roe v wade flipper)
Only if we get 4 justices would i support gonzales.
"Killing babies through abortion is not in the Constitution and is against the strict meaning of the Constitution."
I disagree. I think the Constitution shoudl be interpreted as it was meant to be interpreted by those who wrote it---anything else is a word game.
The people who wrote the Constitution were not referring to unborn children when they talked about Life.
A strict constructionist court would throw out Roe v. Wade and then let the executives and legislatures pass the laws they deem fit. Passing laws is the job of legislatures. Executives veto or sign them. The court's job is not to make up new laws. Even if the Court makes up good laws, it hurts the country.
Your statement "The people who wrote the Constitution were not referring to unborn children when they talked about Life,", however, contains a tacit assumption that the unborn would be excluded. Abortion was not a concern in those days. Neither was rampant cohabitation and whoredom. There was no cultural force to speak of driving a move to dehumanize the fetus for the purpose of its destruction; that came as a byproduct of the so-called "sexual liberation" movement in the 60's. The best they had to go on for fetal status was "quickening", and of course with ultrasound and other techniques, we know better.
The simplest way for you to substantiate your statement would be to appeal to the fact that slaves were not considered rights-bearers either. And that puts the Roe position where it belongs, right next to Dred Scot.
For Rehnquist: Olson, McConnell, Cornyn, or Ashcroft
If we get to 3 justices (Ginsburg or Stevens), I say Janice Rogers Brown (the roe v wade flipper)
Only if we get 4 justices would i support gonzales.
I don't understand why you would want to have 1 certain judge replace a specific judge.
When it comes to judges, and elected officials, Character is the most important issue. For example, if you feel Ashcroft would be a good replacement for the conservative Rehnquist, would you not also want him for the "moderate"/wishywashy O'Conner, or the liberal whackjob Ginsburg?
Personally, I want the people with the strongest character backed by strong convictions on all seats of the SCOTUS.
And since I want strong character and strong convictions, that eliminates any......
LIBERALS
actually in Judges nobody ruled, that was the problem. Prophets were risen up but the message of Judges was, "There was no King in Israel in those days, and every man did whatever he thought was right."
Judges is a book about men turning completely from God towards lawlessness and against the guidance and laws of God.
It's a neat book.
If it's Gonzales, I hope these evangelical groups will work for his defeat.
I certainly will.
"actually in Judges nobody ruled, that was the problem."
OK, I'll admit I don't have a Bible in the house but will buy one tommorrow. And thanks for your interesting statement, I'll be reading Judges soon.
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.