Posted on 09/22/2005 11:04:08 PM PDT by FarRockaway
Gonzales Is Still Betrayal
OPINION - Katrina is still roaring, Roberts is still smiling, committees are being formed and attention is elsewhere.
That is to say that there is no one paying attention to the formative moments coalescing in George Bush’s heart as pertains the next Supreme Court nominee. G. W. Bush needs to be reminded forcefully that Roberts is a betrayal to the pro-life movement and Alberto Gonzales would be betrayal plus infamy.
There is a reason that George Bush is in office.
It is tens of millions of born again evangelical Christians, the “values voters” who went to the polls to put him there in order to reverse the moral decline, the complete public slide of our country into anarchy.
They believed him when he said “Scalia or Thomas”.
They believed him when he said that every person should be welcomed into life under the protection of the rule of law.
There are many other litanies we could recite together but the bottom line is: he was believed.
Mr. Bush, you do not fulfill your promise to your conservative base by nominating someone who is don’t ask, don’t tell, on every issue of moral significance which you promised to be unabashedly for.
You think yourself very clever but we do not share your self evaluation. Mr. Roberts to you is a home run. To us he is a bottle of snake oil we bought under false advertising.
(Excerpt) Read more at illinoisleader.com ...
Not this crap again!!!
This is a ridiculous way to argue against Alberto Gonzales and in favor of a originalist justice nominee.
We should all use ideological and constitutional arguments to demand an originalist nominee. Using religious moral values, many of which I believe in personally, is slippery slope.
I don't think that Roberts is a betrayal of "pro-life" groups. He made his acceptance of "privacy rights" by pointing out the specific type of privacy rights the constitution mentions - freedom of speech, searches and seizures, etc. He indicated that precedent should be given proper weight but he did not say how you decide how much weight is proper in any given circumstance. I think he will do fine.
All we need is a Supreme Court to kick the issue of abortion back out to the state legislatures. We don't need the Supreme Court to do anything more than that.
A shift in the courts to a non-ideological but conservatively constitutionalist philosophy is the best thing that can happen to our courts. The courts should be non-ideological in its application of the law.
Justice should be blind.
"Ideological" is a loaded term. It could mean the ideology of "Originalism" on constitutional issues.
If you mean "Political", then we are 100% on the same page.
We're on the same page. :-)
I am no more in favor of "right wing" judicial activism than I am of left wing judicial activism. The place to right all wrongs, be it Roe v Wade or some other atrocity is with a Constitutional Amendment. And so long as a prospective justice is not a Bader Ginsburg or a Souter, I don't care what "suspicions" you 700 Club snake handlers have about them.
What I am arguing against is the stupid hysteria that Bush is going to appoint Gonzales, or that Roberts would be another Souter, when there has never been a shred of evidence for any of it.
And who the hell does this guy think he is to speak for the conservative base? ("To us he is a bottle of snake oil we bought under false advertising")
Not if he decides that the Constitution should apply to the unborn, isn't that the point? Is it a lump of tissue or a baby? Time will tell. I think we know the answer.
The Prez will appoint another conservative, he has done what he said he would do as much as he's been able to.
Prior, Brown, and Owens are sitting on the Appeals courts, that's a pretty good indication to me. Priscilla Ownes is the latest rumor. Would she pass your litmus test?
You are right. We agree.
We can also be assured that a political conservative will either be an originalist or a strict interpreter who would resist the temptation to legislate from the bench.
The danger has always been in with the modern liberals who believe that the definition of the word "is" really is flexible, just as the definition of the word "use" can be taken to mean "benefit".
I pray Roberts is not a betrayal! Could get very nasty for the GOP if he is.
You don't speak for me, Cindy or Andrew. MYOB.
When Roberts was first put up it was said he was a practicing Roman Catholic and his wife was a strong advocate for pro-life issues. I don't recall him recanting any belief in God. I don't recall him swearing before democratic senators that he would blindly uphold abortion. I don't recall roberts saying he would reinstate partial birth abortion.
This is nonsense.
The religious right has been smarting for a fight since they lost power in the 1990's. They look at the left's ability to be able to rule over beleivers and non-beleivers by judical fiat and they LUST after this power.
They are like ants driven mad at a picnic by the scent of food but are unable to find it.
As I have said before on this forum Christ told the apostles YE SHALL NOT r\excercise authority as the gentiles do. Read this as: THOU SHALT NOT (This is a command not a request) make yourself as carnal rulers exerting authority over people to make them walk as if they are beleivers when they beleive not.
The Roman Catholic Church did this for 1200 years and killed with impunity all that disagreed with them saved or unsaved. Then there was supposesdly a reformation (which we shall not discuss here) but now the children of the reformation areno longer satisfied with their lot and want to rule the world or at least the US with impunity like the catholic church once did.
How can you do and preach what Christ plainly says YE SHALL NOT -- it is becasue you do not beleiver his words or follow him you instead chose what you want to beleive -- this is exactly what Christ said of the pharisees.
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.