Skip to comments.
USCCB Head Writes President Bush On Supreme Court Vacancy
USCCB.org/communications ^
| 07-06-05
| Most Reverend William S. Skylstad
Posted on 07/07/2005 8:27:35 PM PDT by Salvation
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 next last
FYI and discussion
1
posted on
07/07/2005 8:27:36 PM PDT
by
Salvation
To: All
**I urge you to consider for the Court qualified jurists who, pre-eminently, support the protection of human life from conception to natural death, especially of those who are unborn, disabled, or terminally ill.**
I'm impressed with this. What do all of you think?
2
posted on
07/07/2005 8:28:48 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: All
**and favor restraining and ending the use of the death penalty.**
Guess he had to get his two cents in, huh?
3
posted on
07/07/2005 8:30:26 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: nickcarraway; sandyeggo; Siobhan; Lady In Blue; NYer; american colleen; Pyro7480; sinkspur; ...
Catholic Discussion Ping!
Please notify me via FReepmail if you would like to be added to or taken off the Catholic Discussion Ping List.
4
posted on
07/07/2005 8:31:42 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Salvation
5
posted on
07/07/2005 8:39:07 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Salvation
President Bush should consider a Pro-Life Justice,
That is, opposite of Sandra Day, O'Connor!
6
posted on
07/07/2005 8:48:29 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió)
To: Smartass
7
posted on
07/07/2005 8:51:06 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Salvation
Abortion in itself is bad enough. On the other hand, partial birth abortion is an absolutely horrendous procedure. Without doubt, murder! I have always contended, that if all Supreme Courts Justices, would just once, attend a partial birth, that law would overturned ABC...now!
8
posted on
07/07/2005 8:58:36 PM PDT
by
Smartass
(Si vis pacem, para bellum - Por el dedo de Dios se escribió)
To: Salvation
My dear Salvation, I don't think we have to worry about President Bush on this one. I firmly believe he would rather be impeached for whatever, rather than go against his word regarding being pro life. He displays such strong convictions regarding his beliefs. He is such a strong, powerful man. (md)
9
posted on
07/07/2005 8:58:41 PM PDT
by
Texagirl4W
("I am too blessed to be stressed and too anointed to be disappointed!")
To: Salvation
Guess he had to get his two cents in, huh? I don't want a judge with an agenda. I want judges who will determine the law according to the plain language and meaning of the constitution. I don't want a "pro life" judge or a "pro death penalty" judge. I want a pro constitution judge. A strict constructionist who will set aside his own agenda and rule according to the intent of the founders and those who passed the constitution.
I suspect that any such judge would rule that abortion is not a constitutional right and that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment.
10
posted on
07/07/2005 8:59:14 PM PDT
by
P-Marlowe
(A preposition is something you should never end a sentence with.)
To: P-Marlowe
**I want a pro constitution judge. **
Agree with you all the way.
Protecting life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
11
posted on
07/07/2005 9:00:51 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Texagirl4W
Bush is more pro-life than many Catholics. God will bless him accordingly.
12
posted on
07/07/2005 9:01:51 PM PDT
by
Salvation
(†With God all things are possible.†)
To: Salvation
Exactly: Protecting LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I've never understood the argument from groups like NOW and NARAL that they want the government out of the bedroom, their right to privacy protected. Yet they expect that the government (everybody else) should pay for the results of what they do in the bedroom, which makes the responsibilty very public.
To: P-Marlowe
I agree with you, Legislation must come from the Congress. If we allow or encourage those who we place on the Supreme Court to legislate from the bench, than we are no different from the people whom we despise for the same thing.
We must insist on Judges who will respect the Constitution as it is written and not how they think it should be interpreted. The recent "Takings" decision is a perfect example of how the Supreme Court has become politicized. To think that the SCOTUS could decide that Private property could be seized under the 5th Amendment and transfered to another private party simply because of the increased Tax Revenue the State would receive is something our Founders would condemn, and most likely call for the Militia's to prepare for war
14
posted on
07/07/2005 9:29:08 PM PDT
by
MJY1288
(Whenever a Liberal is Speaking on the Senate Floor, Al-Jazeera Breaks in and Covers it LIVE)
To: Salvation
What do all of you think? There go those Catholics meddling in politics again. Just kidding.
'Twould be nice, but I fear it won't come to pass. We can hope.
15
posted on
07/07/2005 9:33:12 PM PDT
by
Aliska
To: P-Marlowe; Salvation
I want judges who will determine the law according to the plain language and meaning of the constitution.I agree. That is the role of the judiciary. Convincing the legislatures to oppose abortion is ours.
16
posted on
07/07/2005 9:38:43 PM PDT
by
Jeff Chandler
(Error 404: Page Not Found)
To: Salvation; Coleus; cpforlife.org
Get ready to saddle up for the long ride on this.
To: P-Marlowe
I don't want a judge with an agenda. I want judges who will determine the law according to the plain language and meaning of the constitution. I don't want a "pro life" judge or a "pro death penalty" judge. I want a pro constitution judge. A strict constructionist who will set aside his own agenda and rule according to the intent of the founders and those who passed the constitution. I suspect that any such judge would rule that abortion is not a constitutional right and that the death penalty is not cruel and unusual punishment.
*************
I couldn't agree more.
18
posted on
07/08/2005 5:28:40 AM PDT
by
trisham
("Live Free or Die," General John Stark, July 31, 1809)
To: Salvation
I think his comments were fair enough. For the most part Catholics are pro-life on both sides of the aisle.
I would rather see someone who has committed a capital crime serve the rest of his life doing hard labor, with no hope for parole.
19
posted on
07/08/2005 5:32:43 AM PDT
by
mware
("God is dead" -- Nietzsche........ "Nope, you are"-- GOD)
To: Salvation
...death penalty
&&
This really sticks in my craw! I grew up with the Baltimore Catechism, which taught me that the death penalty and warfare are acceptable under certain conditions. I am so sick of the liberals gloming this onto Church statements these days. But I am glad that the bishop addressed abortion.
20
posted on
07/08/2005 6:18:09 AM PDT
by
Bigg Red
(Never trust Democrats with national security.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-28 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson