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

Skip to comments.

Durbin: Pro-Life Stance Would 'Disqualify' Roberts
NewsMax ^ | 7/24/05 | Limbacher

Posted on 07/24/2005 10:06:46 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 next last

1 posted on 07/24/2005 10:06:48 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I wish the MSM would challenge the assumption that Roe V Wade has anything to do with privacy. Many bright scholars have tried...none have succeeded.


2 posted on 07/24/2005 10:09:32 AM PDT by Fenris6 (3 Purple Hearts in 4 months w/o missing a day of work? He's either John Rambo or a Fraud)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
The Left always talks "rights," but they never tell us how they're justified. And the fact that the rights of the Enlightenment were negative rights, based upon the nearly universal human passion to flee death, seems not to bother them one whit.

But positive rights are not negative rights. And there is no such thing as a natural right based on gender or human biology.

3 posted on 07/24/2005 10:11:01 AM PDT by Reactionary
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I just watched Durbin on Tim Russert's show. Russert let him off the hook on a question related to Roberts confirmation hearing.

Russert played a clip of Clinton as president saying he would appoint a Supreme Court nominee that believed in the right to choose.

Russert then asked, why is it okay for a democrat president to follow his philosophy on appointments but a Republican president can not.

Durbin never answered the question (just gave typical politician non answer). Russert let him ramble on and never came back to the question.

I kept thinking, where is Bill O'Reilly. He would would have told Durbin to stop right there and answer the question. Russert let Durbin spin on and on and on.

A real yelling at the TV moment and a reminder of why I rarely watch Russert. If he can not follow up on his own tough questions in his own show, then why do I need to watch.
4 posted on 07/24/2005 10:12:21 AM PDT by BJungNan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Unbelievable. Just unbelievable.

So unless a nominee is pro choice, they aren't a credible nominee? Color me speechless.


5 posted on 07/24/2005 10:12:54 AM PDT by Peach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

From the left's viewpoint: "Diversity" means agreeing with their opinion.


6 posted on 07/24/2005 10:13:03 AM PDT by BenLurkin (O beautiful for patriot dream - that sees beyond the years)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Durbin's like a dog that just can't stop itself from rolling in sh!t....


7 posted on 07/24/2005 10:15:07 AM PDT by freebilly (Go Manitowoc Bandits!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

"Catholic" Durbin and Kennedy: "Catholics need not apply".


8 posted on 07/24/2005 10:15:19 AM PDT by Lawgvr1955 (Never draw to an inside straight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Pro terrorism should bar Turbin from the Senate!


9 posted on 07/24/2005 10:16:15 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative (Hey! Hey! Ho! Ho! Andrew Heyward's got to go!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

After arguing against litmus tests for court appointments for decades, the Dems have thrown all that out the window. I suppose there are not to be 'litmus tests' only when Dems make the appointments.

10 posted on 07/24/2005 10:17:54 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Did Russert ask Durbin if growing your own pot and smoking it violated your right to privacy? That behavior is illegal.

What about the guy who died screwing a horse? Are beastality laws a violation of the right to privacy?

What about prostitution? Or how about suicide, last I heard it was still a felony in some States.
11 posted on 07/24/2005 10:18:22 AM PDT by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
ANITA HILL CALL YOUR OFFICE!

I wonder how "outraged" the 'RATS would become if Roberts compared abortion clinics to Nazi death camps and Soviet gulags for infants. "Planned Parenthood" as Pol Pot? Cool.

12 posted on 07/24/2005 10:18:39 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Dick, you don't know dick. You LOST the election....OK.

Get a life and get out of the way. You are a putz little politico from Illinois, you mean nothing in the scheme of things. Sit down and STFU! We won the election and we mean to change legislation from the bench, and we will do exactly that. Dick, we believe in government for the people and by the people, not by a bunch of elitists. Sit on your opinions for all I care. The People have spoken!

13 posted on 07/24/2005 10:19:18 AM PDT by timydnuc (I'll die on my feet before I'll live on my knees.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Durbin: Only baby killers who will write baby killing into the U.S. Constitution are qualified to be on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Liberalism is a mental disorder.


14 posted on 07/24/2005 10:21:05 AM PDT by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam (check out www.prophetofdoom.net))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Durbin: Pro-Life Stance Would 'Disqualify' Roberts

*****

Darn ............. that Durbin's Mom didn't............ oh, never mind.

15 posted on 07/24/2005 10:26:01 AM PDT by beyond the sea ("If you think it's hard to meet new people, try picking up the wrong golf ball." - Jack Lemmon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6

Privacy is now defined as the right to kill someone without the police getting in the way.


16 posted on 07/24/2005 10:26:13 AM PDT by Mr Ramsbotham (Laws against sodomy are honored in the breech.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
I am not sure why being a jacka@@ does not disqualify Durban from being a member of the Senate.
17 posted on 07/24/2005 10:32:29 AM PDT by Sthitch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Is there a bigger ass in the US Senate?


18 posted on 07/24/2005 10:32:37 AM PDT by My2Cents ("The essence of American journalism is vulgarity divested of truth." -- Winston Churchill)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Liberals have perverted the Constitution by finding hidden meanings in the Constitution, as if they were ancient priests at the Oracle of Delphi looking for meaning in chicken entrails, and then claiming that such fanciful interpretations must never be challenged.

If there is an absolute "right to privacy" in the Constitution, then why can't I marry my sister.....or my brother for that matter?

If the liberals want a Constitutional right to abortion, then they need to ratify a Constitutional amendment that spells out such a right.

To have a Constitution whose meaning is determined by the interpretation of "penumbras" by Justices with overactive imaginations is the equivalent of living in a theocracy where the High Priests decree whatever law they please and then claim that "The Divine Chicken Entrails Have Spoken".

19 posted on 07/24/2005 10:32:48 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"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."

Yo da man Senator! I concur. Wow am I glad you represent me.
If Roberts doesn't believe in MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY and PERSONAL FREEDOM to own and/or posses a fully functional sub machine gun, he should be disqualified!



Huh? What's that Dickie, oh, you didn't mean that pertained to firearms.

Oh, so you don't think a right that IS expressly written IN the Bill of Rights is really a right. Okay I see now .....


In all seriousness, the lack of Roberts' record on the 2nd Amendment does have me a tad concerned. If he's a gun owner and hunter like Scalia that's one thing, but if he's a gun owner and 'hunter' like Kerry - then WE have a big problem.

20 posted on 07/24/2005 10:32:57 AM PDT by Condor51 (Leftists are moral and intellectual parasites - Standing Wolf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Turbin Durbin holds his hatred of life views on more than one subject I see.


21 posted on 07/24/2005 10:33:49 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Is anyone who disagrees with the "Dred Scott" decision not eligible to sit on the Court?


22 posted on 07/24/2005 10:33:52 AM PDT by nickcarraway (I'm Only Alive, Because a Judge Hasn't Ruled I Should Die...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"I wouldn't vote for him. That would disqualify him in my mind."

Fine, you don't have to vote for him. But, you'd better vote for cloture when it comes up.
23 posted on 07/24/2005 10:35:20 AM PDT by andyk (Go Matt Kenseth!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Condor51

Boy are the Senators especially Turbin stupid. It would be unethical for Roberts to answer such a question. But, then since when have Dum/Lawyer/Senators been ethical.


24 posted on 07/24/2005 10:35:39 AM PDT by marty60
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
Doctor Dean: "We are not the Party of abortion, however..."

They are in self destruct mode, stand back!

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

25 posted on 07/24/2005 10:37:45 AM PDT by bray (Pray for the Freedom of the Iraqis from Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nickcarraway

Good point.


26 posted on 07/24/2005 10:41:16 AM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (We did not lose in Vietnam. We left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
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.

There is a very simple answer to this. How can a judicial nominee say how he/she would rule on a case? If they did, they would have pre-judged the case.

27 posted on 07/24/2005 10:43:03 AM PDT by randita
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
"I'm not looking for a litmus test."

Uhhuh okay sure.

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck its a duck.
28 posted on 07/24/2005 10:44:58 AM PDT by festus (The constitution may be flawed but its a whole lot better than what we have now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan
Durbin never answered the question (just gave typical politician non answer). Russert let him ramble on and never came back to the question.

I saw that... just shook my head hit the clicker.

29 posted on 07/24/2005 10:45:26 AM PDT by johnny7 (Racially-profiling since 1963)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

FWIW, Durbin was on TV this morning again spouting the line that judges should not make law. His main concern seems to be that Roberts would oppose the "Roe v. Wade Act" passed by Congress.


30 posted on 07/24/2005 10:45:44 AM PDT by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Reactionary

The Left willfully confuses rights with wants and (through the MSM) has lowered the public's IQ on the entire issue.


31 posted on 07/24/2005 10:46:19 AM PDT by RedRover
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

Yes there is more than one Ass that is bigger than Durbin. And I'm not talking about physical size. Kennedy, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, and Reid. How's that for a start?


32 posted on 07/24/2005 10:48:17 AM PDT by Parthalan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Why hasn't a Cardinal determined that Durbin is unfit to be a Catholic?


33 posted on 07/24/2005 10:49:04 AM PDT by doug from upland (The Hillary documentary is coming)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Lawgvr1955

Turbin Durbin and Ted the swimmer are to catholicism what pro peace muslims are to Islam. NON PRACTICING I believe is the polite term.


34 posted on 07/24/2005 10:49:05 AM PDT by kublia khan ( i BELIEVE IS THE POLITE TERM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

NO but he has many equals, Kennedy, The exalted Cyclops, Harry Reid...should I continue


35 posted on 07/24/2005 10:51:31 AM PDT by kublia khan ( i BELIEVE IS THE POLITE TERM)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
This from a senator who never met a live solider he liked.

But in Illinois he is a main stay cause the Illinois VFW those old Nazis gave him a standing O.

36 posted on 07/24/2005 10:53:59 AM PDT by dts32041 ( Dear Senator Durbin, I am not an Illinois Nazi. (US ARMY RET))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Polybius

You should include polygamy along with your siblings


37 posted on 07/24/2005 10:55:06 AM PDT by kublia khan (absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: freebilly

Agree.


38 posted on 07/24/2005 10:59:08 AM PDT by verity (Big Dick Durbin is still a POS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Someone needs to tell Dean that the Democrats have rejected the idea of inclusion of pro-Life Democrats to the party.

Durbin is irrelvant anyway. his vote isn't needed to confirm or end a filibuster. It's the RINO's we need on hand, and if we can scare some 'red' state Dems up for election in '08 all the better.


39 posted on 07/24/2005 11:00:18 AM PDT by Soul Seeker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

English Dictionary.

Judge:

1 : to form an opinion about through careful weighing of evidence and testing of premises
2 : to sit in judgment on
3 : to determine or pronounce after inquiry and deliberation

But, according to Durbin a Judge must have a 'pre-concieved' opinion, one opinion only, one belief only, in order to be a Judge.

In Durbin's world, we don't need Judges, we simply feed the case into a computer and it spits out a decision. Absolutly a socialist perspective and contempt of freedom of thought.


40 posted on 07/24/2005 11:03:04 AM PDT by SeaBiscuit (God Bless all who defend America and Friends, the rest can go to hell.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BJungNan

Russert is a Rat in disguise.


41 posted on 07/24/2005 11:07:19 AM PDT by Piquaboy (22 year veteran of the Army, Air Force and Navy, Pray for all our military .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: My2Cents

In terms of total size, I suppose one would have to consider Mount Kennedy.


42 posted on 07/24/2005 11:10:26 AM PDT by SAJ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

Oh please--the way Roberts wipes his butt would disqualify him with durbin, kennedy, boxer, etc.


43 posted on 07/24/2005 11:11:04 AM PDT by freeangel ( (free speech is only good until someone else doesn't like what you say))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

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.


44 posted on 07/24/2005 11:13:19 AM PDT by hershey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection

I wonder why abortion is the non-negotiable doctrine for the democratic party?


45 posted on 07/24/2005 11:14:14 AM PDT by AD from SpringBay (We have the government we allow and deserve.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kublia khan
You should include polygamy.........

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. ;-)


46 posted on 07/24/2005 11:14:37 AM PDT by Polybius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Tumbleweed_Connection
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.

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.

47 posted on 07/24/2005 11:14:55 AM PDT by feedback doctor (Going to war might mean terrorism, NOT going to war means slavery and death)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AD from SpringBay

Howard Dean says the Democrats are reaching out to pro-lifers.


48 posted on 07/24/2005 11:16:56 AM PDT by stocksthatgoup (http://www.busateripens.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: freeangel

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?


49 posted on 07/24/2005 11:17:23 AM PDT by polyester~monkey (www.polyestermonkey.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Fenris6
Durbin speaks --- a brain farts.

This feckless imbecile is a U.S. Senator!!!!!
That folks --- should scare the hell out of you...

Arm thy-selves --- we may have to retake our country..

Semper Fi
50 posted on 07/24/2005 11:17:30 AM PDT by river rat (You may turn the other cheek, but I prefer to look into my enemy's vacant dead eyes.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-79 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