Actually, having more than one wife is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
It violates the husband's Constitutional protection under the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause. ;-)
Posted on 07/24/2005 10:06:46 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
The Senate's number two Democrat said Sunday that if Judge John Roberts doesn't recognize that the Constitution's right to privacy covers the Roe vs Wade abortion decision, it would "disqualify" him from serving on the Supreme Court.
Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if President Bush had "the same right" to appoint pro-life justices that President Clinton had to appoint pro-choice justices, Durbin at first insisted, "I'm not looking for a litmus test."
"As important as reproductive rights and women's rights are, I just basically want to know that if the next case involving privacy and personal freedom came up, what he believes," the Illinois Democrat claimed.
Asked, however, what he would do if Roberts "said he did not see a right to privacy in the Constitution," Durbin told MTP host Tim Russert: "I wouldn't vote for him. That would disqualify him in my mind."
Asked whether he intended to question Roberts directly about his position on Roe vs Wade, Durbin said, "I'm going to get very specific. But I've had an experience with him before. He didn't get very specific in his answers when he was up for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals."
Russert is a Rat in disguise.
In terms of total size, I suppose one would have to consider Mount Kennedy.
Oh please--the way Roberts wipes his butt would disqualify him with durbin, kennedy, boxer, etc.
If Durbin didn't have to worry about the feminist vote, he wouldn't give two hoots about Roe vs. Wade. No principles, no true beliefs. Just whatever will get him the most.
I wonder why abortion is the non-negotiable doctrine for the democratic party?
Actually, having more than one wife is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
It violates the husband's Constitutional protection under the "Cruel and Unusual Punishment" clause. ;-)
When Reagan was president, the dims decried, and the lame stream press echoed, that it would be terrible for a president to have a litmus test on nominees.
Howard Dean says the Democrats are reaching out to pro-lifers.
Does anyone realize that there is no right to privacy in the Constitution? I believe in Roe they cited a LOWER court's finding of a right to privacy. That is why I hate judicial activism. Plus how does privacy relate to abortion anyways? Does that mean my mom can kill me as long as she does it in her own home?
Please, keep it up.
In a real sense Durbin's position sheds light on how librals think, which is to say they don't, rather they 'feel' their way thru life and assume everyone else does too.
The whole idea here is that a Judge needs to way the evidence and base his decision using the Constitution as his or her guide. But Durbin's libralized paranoid thinking implies that if a Judge has a personal opinion then that opinion will guide his judgement and not the evidence, Constitution and his intellect.'
God Almighty; maybe you should be nominated for the SCoTUS rarly if ever have I communicated with such a brilliant constitutional scholar. (by the way will you pay my motel bill after I point out this gym of wisdom to my nag.... wife?
Hell, he dosent try to disguise anything. He's a true blue loony
HF
This Durbin guy is a known AlQaida agent. Why do the MSM bother reporting on his belches.
I guess Dickie Durbin was "not qualified" to be a Congressman in 1978 by his OWN limus test of "recognizing" the "fundemental right to privacy" in the Constitution post Roe v. Wade.
What a blowhard RAT partisan. This should definitely be an issue in his next campaign. I doubt you will find any Republican who says someone is unqualified for a government position based SOLELY on that person's view of "a woman's right to choose". For instance there are a number of officials who are pro-choice but conservative on everything else. And while I don't like pro-choice Stephen Breyer, I think he IS "qualified" for the Supreme Court (as is Sandra Day O'Conner and Anthony Kennedy). To be unqualified you have to be a real nutjob like Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Durbin, Kennedy and all the other moonbats better hope our recon STA/DA teams don't pay them a visit.
Semper Fi
The DOI states that as free humans all of us are entitled to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
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.