Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NARAL: Roberts Will Overturn Roe v. Wade - ("feminazis" screaming for scalps already!)
NEWSMAX.COM ^ | JULY 19, 2005 | Staff Writers

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.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events; Philosophy; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: abortion; activists; antibush; johnroberts; naral; nomination; rights; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

1 posted on 07/19/2005 8:55:09 PM PDT by CHARLITE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

It just don't get any better than this.


2 posted on 07/19/2005 8:57:19 PM PDT by umgud (Comment removed by poster before moderator could get to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

Who's got the popcorn? The keg's out back.


3 posted on 07/19/2005 8:58:19 PM PDT by steveegg (Real torture is taking a ride with Sen Ted "Swimmer" Kennedy in a 1968 Oldsmobile off a short bridge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Good news!


4 posted on 07/19/2005 9:01:59 PM PDT by Salvation (†With God all things are possible.†)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Scarborough tonight said the feminists said the same thing about Souter.


5 posted on 07/19/2005 9:02:06 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
I absolutely love the hysterical outcry from the liberals!

Confirmation of the correct, qualified nominee!

6 posted on 07/19/2005 9:02:11 PM PDT by ncountylee (Dead terrorists smell like victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Ir given the opportunity, Yes he will.

We had an election 8 months ago that settled this question, I understand that Liberals are incapable of accepting defeat in any fashion, but the time has come to denounce these Leftists for what they are....

The left will refer to the Abortion issue as "Reproductive Rights" despite the fact that nowhere in the Constitution is it said that the rights of the unborn are not equally protected. This simple fact turns Roe-v-Wade on it's head

7 posted on 07/19/2005 9:02:12 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
In the immortal words of Slim Pickins YEEEEEeehaaawwww
8 posted on 07/19/2005 9:02:18 PM PDT by Cheapskate (America , -- -- -- -- Yeah!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
Lets see there will be 8 other justices, which means Roberts by himself, doesn't have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Besides, are there no other criteria to appoint a judge, other than 1 or 2 issues?

9 posted on 07/19/2005 9:03:54 PM PDT by mountn man (Everyone brings joy into a room. Some when they enter. Others when they leave)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

How would a SCOTUS Justice "work to overturn" any law?


10 posted on 07/19/2005 9:12:55 PM PDT by digger48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

Sounds like a plan!


11 posted on 07/19/2005 9:15:25 PM PDT by ThaddeusB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

"It just don't get any better than this."

The perfect comment on this. I am having a ball. Opened a beer, relaxed, and I went to visit the DUmmies. For highly entertaining reading I recommend a visit. Laughs 'o plenty. Some are foaming at the mouth and dragging out any old info on him they can find to put him in a bad light, some are somber in defeat. But the most telling thing I have been seeing is how they want to fight the nomination for no other purpose then to obstruct. How do you tell when libs are dying? You start to hear the whimpering. You are right, right, right umgod. It just don't get any better than this.


12 posted on 07/19/2005 9:15:55 PM PDT by commonasdirt (Reading DU so you won't hafta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Sorry, Sweetie-pie, but that's what y'all said about David Souter, and he turns out to be your dream-justice!

Have any of ya heard the tale of the boy who cried "wolf!"??


13 posted on 07/19/2005 9:16:40 PM PDT by Redbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steveegg; commonasdirt

I too went to DU...... it's almost as bad as '04 election nite.


14 posted on 07/19/2005 9:17:57 PM PDT by umgud (Comment removed by poster before moderator could get to it)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

The League of Baby Killers is upset with the man Bush has chosen to replace O'Conner. So what else is new?


15 posted on 07/19/2005 9:18:23 PM PDT by Chewbacca (My car gets 40 rods to the hogshead, and thats the way I like it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Like my tagline states. Abortion is not a choice, it's changing ones mind.

The proper time to make the choice is before conception.

16 posted on 07/19/2005 9:19:07 PM PDT by mlstier ("Abortion is not a choice. It's changing ones mind.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: digger48
How would a SCOTUS Justice "work to overturn" any law?

Shhhhh. You're going to ruin that dramatic 'movie trailer feel' that every leftist special interest group public statement is aiming for.

17 posted on 07/19/2005 9:27:18 PM PDT by MitchellC (Foolishness isn't a mental disorder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Question to NARAL and their supporters:

Why is it so important to you to be able to continue to kill babies? Isn't 40 MILLION enough?


18 posted on 07/19/2005 9:30:08 PM PDT by G Larry (Honor the fallen and the heroes of 9/11 at the Memorial Site.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
We had an election 8 months ago that settled this question, I understand that Liberals are incapable of accepting defeat in any fashion, but the time has come to denounce these Leftists for what they are....

These people are soooo effin perverse. You'd think it might occur to them to actually campaign to get legislation to get what they want instead of cmpaigning to keep the system broken.

They can have anything they want. All they have to do is persuade enough people to support their causes.

19 posted on 07/19/2005 9:35:34 PM PDT by papertyger (Power concedes nothing without a demand. – Frederick Douglass)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

What happened to the crazed 'dump Rove' shouting? They stopped instantly. Michael Savage was right. Bush is playing with the minds of the Democrats.


20 posted on 07/19/2005 9:36:21 PM PDT by ex-Texan (Mathew 7:1 through 6)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: umgud

I am sure it made you smile some of their posts. I am switching back and forth right now.......despite the hour I am tempted to uncap another beer and enjoy the show for an additional hour. A festival of much wailing & gnashing of teeth. LOL


21 posted on 07/19/2005 9:39:50 PM PDT by commonasdirt (Reading DU so you won't hafta)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

A sad fact that Democrats refuse to acknowledge is that at least one cause of legal abortion was the eugenics movement from the first part of the last century.
"The eugenics movement sought to limit the reproduction of `inferior' individuals and races, so as to prevent the lowering of the national intelligence in future generations. Planned Parenthood was founded not simply as an organization for limiting the size of families in general but particularly to reduce the reproduction of the black population in the United States, as Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger herself noted."
From Thomas Sowell's book "Black Rednecks and White Liberals, 'Germans and History" p. 193.

Draw your own conclusions as to why this observation was placed in a largely complimentary chapter on Germans, their culture and place in world history.


22 posted on 07/19/2005 9:40:11 PM PDT by OkieDoke ("Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Moonbats. Barking moonbats.

So what if the court does overturn Roe v. Wade? Nothing will change. The states will dutifully come up with their own laws, as it should be. Those women who are in a raging hurry to snuff the lives of their unborn needn't worry... under state law, their decision (crime? sin?) will be protected.


23 posted on 07/19/2005 9:42:07 PM PDT by SandyInSeattle (Official RKBA Landscaper and Arborist, Duchess of Green Leafy Things)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
The rats are in a trap!


24 posted on 07/19/2005 9:42:20 PM PDT by Brett66 (Where government advances – and it advances relentlessly – freedom is imperiled -Janice Rogers Brown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
So what should Bush do? Nominate a leftist so NARAL will be happy?

These people will never support Bush anyway, so why even pander to them?

25 posted on 07/19/2005 9:42:37 PM PDT by Extremely Extreme Extremist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: papertyger

I think expecting them to understand the legislative Body allows for their views to be realized provided it doesn't conflict with the Constitution and is endorsed by the people is too much for them to comprehend.

Their hysteria is over the top.

First, unless Kennedy has suddenly re-discovered what the traditional role of the Supreme Court was meant to be, we're going to need another judge to overturn R v W.

Second, I don't think anyone can credibly make the argument abortion would be entirely overturned anywhere. Consensus seems to be it's allowable in rape, incest or life of the mother endangered because the majority are sympathetic to their circumstances.

Third, while conceivably possible partial birth will be outlawed in a good number of states, first trimester is unknown. No one really knows what the American people would do, as they haven't had to make the decision in decades. Chances are it would be allowed in most states at this time. There certainly wouldn't be a 50 state ban on it.

This isn't to state my opinion of abortion, but rather a pragmatic take on where the American may be at and it is certainly not cause for hysteria from the pro abortion crowd.


26 posted on 07/19/2005 9:49:29 PM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE
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."

You don't say....?

27 posted on 07/19/2005 9:50:00 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SandyInSeattle

Sandy, our state is going to be a tough nut to crack. I am going to forward something I sent to a few other WA Freepers, since you, too, seem to be a Washingtonian with a heart. (Check your PM).


28 posted on 07/19/2005 9:51:19 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

Comment #29 Removed by Moderator

To: CHARLITE
If they weren't severely disappointed then I would be. What a GREAT day for this nation.

Now, Luttig for Chief Justice, and Pryor to replace Ginsburg or Stevens.

30 posted on 07/19/2005 9:58:06 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182; All

Before everyone gets all excited about this Justice you might want to read this quote from him

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent."

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/topstory/3272452


31 posted on 07/19/2005 9:58:38 PM PDT by Saint Athanasius ("I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Bubba182
We know a lot more about Roberts than we ever "knew" about Souter. There is more to a person than a judicial track record.
32 posted on 07/19/2005 9:59:48 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mlstier

Excellent point!


33 posted on 07/19/2005 10:02:53 PM PDT by scott says
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: herexigency

That's pretty funny, esp. the anti-war, "pro-choice" part. FOR killing the innocent, AGAINST killing the guilty.


34 posted on 07/19/2005 10:06:03 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Saint Athanasius
This statement is NOT a problem. It is a perfectly proper statement from a nominee to an inferior appellate court.

All federal judges from inferior courts are absolutely bound by ALL Supreme Court precedent. NO discretion. But, a justice of the SC is not bound.

His statement was in the context of the circuit court confirmation proceedings. Notice that he did not say he agrees with RvW. He only said that he would follow it (as a circuit court judge).

Now in confirmation he can either ignore the question, or say (accurately) that RvW is the law of the land. It is, for now.

I am a lawyer and absolutely PRO Life, but I would have given the same answer he did during confirmation. Do not read anything negative into it. This guy is the real deal.

35 posted on 07/19/2005 10:08:32 PM PDT by Clump
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Clump

Really, would you please tell that to the Ninth Circuit!


36 posted on 07/19/2005 10:10:14 PM PDT by Saint Athanasius ("I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

Smart move. Place an ultra-conservative that is unknown, yet approved, by the Senate in the past. Roe vs. Wade a big deal now. The Lieberals are already sweating. Let them try a filibuster. Set the "nuclear option" into play and punt. Next, here comes Reinquist. He will announce his retirement and Bush will nominate a conservative woman. Two for the price of one. All this to save America and the Lieberals forgot about Rove!!!!


37 posted on 07/19/2005 10:10:59 PM PDT by Marshall1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: herexigency

Nice rant...I hope you are prepared to deal with the "insurgency"...smoke another joint, moron.


38 posted on 07/19/2005 10:11:18 PM PDT by scott says
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: digger48

Hopefully he is well read in the Constitution and will simply apply it if and when the appopriate case comes up. The overturn of Roe v. Wade will be a logical consequence of said application.


39 posted on 07/19/2005 10:21:15 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Clump

I saw that too. Perfectly explained.


40 posted on 07/19/2005 10:22:58 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

ACLU press release:



ACLU Calls for Full Examination of Roberts’ Positions; Notes Influence In Troubling Reagan, Bush I Administration Cases

July 19, 2005

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Media@dcaclu.org

WASHINGTON -- The American Civil Liberties Union today expressed deep concern about some of the civil liberties positions advocated by Judge John Roberts, President Bush's choice to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court.

While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest.

"All these positions were rejected by the Supreme Court," said Steven Shapiro, the ACLU's National Legal Director. "But the Supreme Court remains closely divided on many of these questions."

As a senior Justice Department official, Roberts was in a position to help shape the government's legal positions as well as represent them.

At a minimum, the Senate should determine the extent to which the positions taken in these briefs also reflect Roberts's personal views.

Judge John Roberts was appointed to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals in May 2003. He received his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard University and clerked for Justice Rehnquist. He served in a number of positions in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations, including as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989 to 1993.

"The Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in advancing freedom," said Anthony D. Romero, ACLU Executive Director. "Without the Supreme Court, the South would still be segregated, illegal abortions would be claiming thousands of lives, the indigent would have no right to a lawyer, and lesbian and gay Americans could be imprisoned for their private sexual conduct."

"The stakes could not be higher," Romero added.

The ACLU will only oppose a Supreme Court nominee on a majority vote of its 83 person national board.


41 posted on 07/19/2005 10:24:17 PM PDT by purpleland (Vigilance and Valour!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scott says

Herexigency: just another frustrated, drug-addled lefty.
To take just one fact from her blather, having survived it myself, CA is definitely not a `true-blue state'. Sure, they have LA and Frisc--btw, they love it when you call it that!--they can have them. Orange county, San Diego county, the agricultural valleys, eg. Fresno, Sacramento, etc., anywhere people make their own beds--'red' as blood.
So, if you're leaving, Herexigency, we'll keep all the food, the wheat, corn, beeves--and produce--and most of the states, and on both coasts.
You can keep your 'piss-christ', other 'art' and 'culture, and bad attitudes.
Waste of a zot otherwise.


42 posted on 07/19/2005 10:27:51 PM PDT by OkieDoke (Conservatives: Controlling America Since 1994)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: herexigency

Why is it that this possibility sounds pretty good, as a whole? Weeelllll, I guess it is because the moronic wanker socialists would dick things up so bad we would have to come in and straighten stuff back out eventually. What?! No net loss of territory, you say? We would get it all back after the leftists had starved, mugged, carjacked, aborted, and backstabbed each other into the dustbin of history. So take your pathetic little ball and bat and go home.


43 posted on 07/19/2005 10:28:04 PM PDT by NC Native ("Bombing begins in five minutes"... Ronald W. Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OkieDoke

I am a pilgrim in an unholy land! I live in Marin County! Ground Zero for liberal stupidity. You know what... I have NO PROBLEM getting in these idiots face..I'm a contractor and CRANK talk radio all day, Beck, Rush, Savage...others, whenever anyone {not my clients, of course} complains or comments I just look at them and say "you got a problem?, I didn't think so!" I find they are just too stoned or stupid to take seriously. There are a lot more of us than that idiot thinks. Peace out!!!


44 posted on 07/19/2005 10:36:08 PM PDT by scott says
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: herexigency; Lexinom; scott says; NC Native

Hmm...says he joined on the 15th of July.

I smell a DUmmie troll.


45 posted on 07/19/2005 10:43:38 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007 (Brave! Skilled! Total Idiot!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: scott says

I lived in San Diego a long time ago, then El Cajon: Normal, nice people, a lot of military, retired for the most part--but with lunatic pockets. Then in La Mesa for a while: new home with four other young people. All had jobs, but kid that had the master suite kept three large Hefty bags full of homegrown in his closet--go in, take a handful, no problem . . . But now out of that fog, happily back in the midwest.
Most people like u and me grow out of that stuff, but not this ditzy chick. (Or mebbe she's just young)
Just for old times sake: 'Marin county, wow! Gnarly, cool (etc.)'
Hang in there (and see tag line)


46 posted on 07/19/2005 11:11:40 PM PDT by OkieDoke ('Non carborundum et tu los bastardes loco ignoratium' (Don't let the crazy b******* grind you down))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: herexigency

47 posted on 07/19/2005 11:14:06 PM PDT by LayoutGuru2 (Know the difference between honoring diversity and honoring perversity? No? You must be a liberal!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CHARLITE

NARAL, the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League......Sounds impressive....Not!


48 posted on 07/19/2005 11:17:33 PM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway; All
Remember, the new term is NOT feminazi, it is now, FEMILEZI. Say it with me now::: FEMILEZI!!!!( IMHO, this more accurately describes the modern feminist movement, in lock step with the gay movement, not to mention that many hard-core feminists are lesbians, hence:; FEMILEZI )!!!
49 posted on 07/19/2005 11:22:07 PM PDT by Rca2000 ( I plead the 5th amendment.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007; herexigency
I smelled it, too but was going to wait for her response before passing judgment.

I think she might be feeling a little guilty about something, something which would twist her reality upside down in a terrible if she were to accept it. She is to be pitied if my instincts are correct.

50 posted on 07/19/2005 11:22:14 PM PDT by Lexinom (http://www.abort73.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-80 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson