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.
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
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.
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.
These people will never support Bush anyway, so why even pander to them?
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.
You don't say....?
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).
Now, Luttig for Chief Justice, and Pryor to replace Ginsburg or Stevens.
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
Excellent point!
That's pretty funny, esp. the anti-war, "pro-choice" part. FOR killing the innocent, AGAINST killing the guilty.
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.
Really, would you please tell that to the Ninth Circuit!
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!!!!
Nice rant...I hope you are prepared to deal with the "insurgency"...smoke another joint, moron.
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.
I saw that too. Perfectly explained.
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.