Posted on 10/10/2005 9:17:03 AM PDT by SmartCitizen
At least until the next voting cycle comes around, then we're expected to be good buddies again! I wish them luck in their fantasy world view. Blackbird.
Really!? How's that working out for ya? Blackbird.
We elect leaders, not rulers.
The constitution doesn't specifically endorse either the pro life or pro abortion position.
Like I said, I don't want activist judges. Not even 'our' activist judges. Do you want them?
What makes you thing she is?
It goes to show you that the Republican Party contains a growing blndly loyal element that is flat-out hostile to Christians who hold moral and biblical principle higher than party principle. I hope such people keep up their vituperative and scurrilous rhetoric - it will help Christians see the light and will help drive them out of this morally bankrupt party. The GOP cannot survive without evangelical Christians except as a perennial backbench party.
NPLAC’s Five Questions are:
Do basic human rights come only from government or are they rooted in something that transcends government?
Is man’s inherent human nature fixed or does raw political power determine who is and is not a member of the human family?
Is law merely the construct of jurists and lawmakers or is it based on first principles of morals and justice?
Is the proper role of the judiciary to restrain/limit itself to interpreting law or does it possess de facto legislative powers?
Should the judiciary share power equally with the other two branches of government (the legislative and executive) or should its powers transcend them?
Roe is the left's pillar of judicial activist achievement.
Reversing it would be a severe blow to them. That's why I'm all for it, even if it means that people in the states decide to allow abortions in limited circumstances anyway.
That's fair and shows some clarity on the matter.
One of the foundational principles of this Republic is the unalienable right to life - read the Declaration of Independence. Furthermore, the Declaration states that "to secure these rights, governments are instituted amongst men." So, the Constiution and the government are established to PROTECT the rights of the innocent! This is THE American View. Anyone who doesn't hold this view has an un-american view.
Need more?
Preamble to the Constitution: "We, the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, provide for the defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Unborn babies are our "posterity." 5th Amendment: "No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law."
It seems your statement is blatantly false.
Thanks
I'm not. But W nominated her, says he trusts her and there's nothing there to cause me concern. Or jubilation. Any candidate with bumper stickers and rally posters about the right to life would be a sitting duck during confirmation. Plus there are a lot of more important issues that just that one. (oooooh! did he really say that?)
Yes, they are great questions for anyone who values the founding moral principles of this country.
The Peroutkas transferred parental responsibilities for Dawn Hubbard to the State of Maryland on her 17th birthday, May 1, 1992, and Holly met the same fate on the day after Thanksgiving 1992, when she was 15. The sisters, now in their late 20s and living outside of Maryland, say they never wanted to be estranged from their mother and have tried without success to reconcile with her several times since being removed from the Peroutka household more than a decade ago.
When my choices are between a GOP vs Dem I'll go with the GOP. Now you may take a 3rd party or the dems but that's not my leanings. Yes they both will spend money, one via the tax and spend method and the other via the borrow and spend method.
No, it's not.
First, the Declsration of Independence isn't a document that the USSC is called upon to interpret. The principle you cite is valid, but it's not a matter of constitutional law.
Second, the preamble of the USC has never been cited as a source of any USSC opinion. Your emphasis on that shows you don't quite have a grasp of Constitutional law.
Last, a large part of the issue is whether a fetus is a 'person.' The problem with what you cite is that it doesn't shed light at all as to whether a fetus is legally a person. The Constitution is silent on the issue - the only thing that sheds some light is the requirement to be born in the USA to be a citizen of the USA. Born, not concieved or gestated.
The USC is silent on the issue. If you want an actviist to read it your way, that's fine - just be forthright that you want an activist judge. When you play that game, it's inevitable that your judges will be in the minority from time to time, and then you have no standing to call foul on the other side's activist judges.
Shouldn't someone at least PUT UP A FIGHT and see? Are unborn persons worth FIGHTING for? Then, if it turns out that the Republican-led Senate will not confirm her, then what does that say about the values of many Republicans in the Senate? We already know many of them are RINOS. But, to submit a stealth nominee to avoid a fight...this is not leadership.
Citizenship does not equal personhood. You obviously are not pro-life, so your attitude makes much more sense. So, you don't know whether it's a person or not right? So, when in doubt, kill it! If it is not a person, who can tell me at precisely what stage the unborn baby becomes a person? Do tell.
Of course, it's a person. The unborn is a unique human being that feels pain and looks like a tiny baby at 10 weeks! Abortion is killing - its stops a beating heart (try denying that!). If abortion is not killing a person - what are they killing? Tell me, WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A HUMAN BEING AND A PERSON? While you are at it, please name the creature that they are killing if not a person. A blob? A frog? You sound like a pro-choice liberal.
The USC is silent on the issue. If you want an actviist to read it your way, that's fine - just be forthright that you want an activist judge. When you play that game, it's inevitable that your judges will be in the minority from time to time, and then you have no standing to call foul on the other side's activist judges.
Wrong. The USSC said that a first trimester fetus is not a person. MAN HAS SPOKEN! So, Harry Blackmun says it is not a person - that settles it as a matter of fact, right? Wrong!
Well now, that is very interesting.
So all the people in this thread trumpeting their superior priniciples are voting for a man who kicked his minor step daughters out of his house, got a restraining order against one of them, and spent the girl's SS checks from her dead father.
Yep, those superior principled folks can really be proud of themselves.
I am pro life but I do have enough clarity to see that the USC doesn't forbid or endorse abortion.
Do you want activist judges or not?
I don't think you can conclude from this case that the Pertouka does't stand for family values. You weren' there were you and you don't know the specifics of precisely what happened or the relationship with the daughtes, do you? First, Dawn was not a little girl when she falsely accused her step-dad of abuse (and later recanted!). I know I wouldn't want an older teenager around who hated me and made such false accusations against me! - at the coaching of a social worker no less. I don't blame them for making he a ward of the state. And we see that neither parent was ever charged with anything.
So, what is it that Peroutka did wrong? Not reconciling with his daughters? I think that unless you have some inside knowledge of the case, you don't have the right to make any conclusions about the Peroutka's family values. It borders on libel, and you better be careful what you say in this forum as you are subject to libel laws.
You aren't pro-life! Who are you kidding? If the unborn are persons, then the USC does indeed protect them. And it is self-evident that they are. If the 10-week old unborn baby is not a person, then why does it look like one? Huh? If it looks like a duck...
And the burden is ON YOU to show that they are not! You didn't answer my questions slick. What is it that is being killed? When does the unborn become a person if not from conception? Try answering that!
I can see you aren't prepared to argue any of the issues related to this. Just follow your leader...but make sure you keep those blinders on.
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.