Skip to comments.Durbin: Pro-Life Stance Would 'Disqualify' Roberts
Posted on 07/24/2005 10:06:46 AM PDT by Tumbleweed_Connection
click here to read article
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
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.
The DOI states that as free humans all of us are entitled to LIFE, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...
Yeah, just as Pro-Communist treason should bar Kerry from the Senate, but neither has happened yet...
As for Roberts, he only said "Roe & Wade" abortion law should not be at the Federal Level. There is nothing in the Constitution regarding it. It should be at the state level and each state will have to deal with it!
Roberts does not inject his persoanal opinion, he follows the laws in a strict matter.
LOL....all this while Dean wants to embrace pro life democrats and her heinous is spouting principles of life rather than death to the unborn.
A majority of Illinois voters will soon disqualify YOU from having any say in the matter.
Have a nice day....
Religious litmus test, plain and simple.
The "right to privacy" is a construct from a number of literal provisions providing the right in individuals to be secure in their person including the fourth, fifth, and fourteenth amendments among others. And I believe such a right is a reasonable extension of personal rights to freedom and liberty preserved by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
The Constitutional question of abortion needs however to be addressed not only to the rights of the mother but also to the rights of the unborn child. The 14th Amendment provides that no person shall be deprived of life without due process of law. The factual question is when personhood begins. Although I strongly believe it is at conception, a court might well take extensive evidence on the question. But there is no doubt, as there was no doubt at common law, that an unborn child is entitled to protection of the law at some fairly early stage of pregnancy.
How the issue cuts as to Judge Roberts is not entirely clear. His testimony as a Court of Appeals nominee was properly that Supreme Court precident controls Appellate Court decisions. A Supreme Court Justice gets to decide the applicability and correctness of precident as a Constitutional application.
We presently have no idea how Roberts views the rights of the unborn child. Neither do we know where he stands on Second Amendment rights; or Property rights; or for that matter much of anything else. We do get a general idea that he thinks the federal government has some very broad powers to invade individual freedom and liberty without regard to what the Constitution says which in my view is bad.
Under circumstances where we have available some clear outstanding candidates, Luttig; Edith Jones, Janice Brown to name three; it is inexcusable that this administration has choosen to submit a nominee who is the same kind of blank slate David Souter was.
About 44 or 45 others.
Tell that to Terri's husband.
"The Senate's number two Democrat..."
More like "full of number two"...
One hundred and fifty years ago, Durbin would've called any SCOTUS nominee who didn't support slavery "not credible". He would've demanded they publicly support the Dred Scott decision as "settled law".
Russert doesn't get paid the big bucks for embarrassing or antagonizing liberal guests. He gets paid for dancing with them. Period.
They didn't need to. Instead they found "emanations" in the "penumbras" of existing rights.
Quite possibly, chicken guts would have been more reliable.
That is no excuse for asking a direct question and then sitting quietly while the guest completely avoids the question. Russert looked like an idiot that did not know how to get a guest to answer his question.
...and it has nothing to do with embarrassing or antagonizing a guest, liberal or otherwise. Viewers are not so stupid as to fall for that charade if that is what you mean.
So much for Democrats celebrating "diversity".
How would Mary Jo feel about this?