Posted on 03/20/2017 2:22:21 PM PDT by NYer
I am hopeful that Gorsuch is everything we conservatives and constitutionalists want him to be, but when I read the except below, I am a little bit concerned:
“...In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible.”
As a Christian, I am not a fan of judging right/wrong by outcomes. The meaning of the 2A does not depend on crime statistics. The desirability of limited government does not depend on whether widespread health insurance is achieved. We should leave the outcome based approach in ethics to the secular humanists (ie. the modern liberals aka socialists).
Maybe I’m just missing the point? Either way, I am looking forward to hearing how Gorsuch responds to conservatives. Here’s hoping that he gets some really good original-intent questions to test his bona fides.
“Feinstein drew on the issue of abortion for her criticism — saying that she probably will oppose Gorsuch because he believes “the intentional taking of a human life by private persons is always wrong.””
Wow. She believes you should never kill anyone who doesn’t need it, then?
In an ideal world, Feinstein’s comments would probably disqualify her from holding elected office, not because she is a D, but because respect for the right to life, liberty, property are fundamental concepts in a republican form of government.
I am becoming very skeptical of Gore Suck. We take these criminal bastard lives every day. AND WE WILL CONTINUE to do so on these rapists and cop killers and murdered of the innocent. What we care about is innocent babies being slaughtered by the millions. Criminals are not human. Watch this guy— he may be a turn coat.
Your beerface is showing. He will be confirmed.
Watch that bastard. “Human life” is criminal life. The phrase is INNOCENT HUMAN LIFE!! Is he against capital punishment? Screw that!! ( I hate beer— never touch it!)
You can scream all you want. Choose the battles wisely.
When Kennedy quits your gonna see liberal heads explode.
This one is a given.
I’ll take him but I am not confident who he is with that BS!! Can you say SOUTER?
This overweening addiction to the courtroom as the place to debate social policy is bad for the country and bad for the judiciary. In the legislative arena, especially when the country is closely divided, compromises tend to be the rule the day. But when judges rule this or that policy unconstitutional, there’s little room for compromise: One side must win, the other must lose. In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs–real-world laboratories in which ideas can be assessed on the results they produce–are not possible. Ideas are tested only in the abstract world of legal briefs and lawyers arguments. As a society, we lose the benefit of the give-and-take of the political process and the flexibility of social experimentation that only the elected branches can provide.
Or, to make the sentence in question more clear, let's remove the hyphenated portion: In constitutional litigation, too, experiments and pilot programs are not possible.
It is a defense of keeping arguments and debate about morality and the cultural fabric of society to the realm of the legislative, to the representatives and voices of the people; it is far from an endorsement of using the judiciary as a bludgeon to change the body politic, regardless of motive.
“Innocent”.
Thanks.
“Innocent”.
Thanks.
Fair enough.
The hearings should be interesting :-)
I thought it was just a meaningless clump of cells?
I don’t see any MSM organization that quoted Feinstein on this today.
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
The lying, scumbag, infant murder loving, Feinstein keeps up with enough honest legal discussions to realize that one of the primary rationales made to justify Roe v. Wade was that there was some question about when life began or at least became fully human.
Since that time, science has improved to the point that there is no doubt that at the very latest, by the end of the first trimester there is a fully human life being taken, one that is obviously human in the way it reacts and how it looks in photos taken with a sonogram.
In addition, the infant murder industry knows their own statistics. They can't survive on only those women who have an abortion after the the end of the first trimester.
As a personal observation, both my sister and my wife said that at or near the end of the first trimester there was a distinct change in how their pregnancy "felt" and how they felt toward the infant. Over the years in discussions about abortions I've asked a number of women about that and they all said the same thing. How common that sentiment is I don't know, but it seems to me to be very common.
Feinstein and the infant murder industry will be fighting tooth and nail, fair or foul, every step of the way with this confirmation and all others because they know that it would be easy to have Roe limited based on the improvements in scientific knowledge to applying only during the first trimester of a pregnancy and add requirements like sonograms and one week waiting periods, all just to ensure the woman is fully informed, and all reducing the number of women who have abortions.
That, in fact, that is the very sort of USSC abortion decision which if made when Roe was decided, would have spared the lives of millions of infants, appeased the majority of anti-abortion folks, (face facts, most of whom live in the infanticide glass house of accepting quiet, private, early term, chemical abortions as long as they're called "use of contraceptives"), left the frantic unlimited abortion crowd with little support, and left abortions mostly in the hands of hospitals or clinics staffed with real medical personnel, rather than in the hands of murder for profit Planned Infanticide scum who frequently harm the mother of the infant while murdering the infant.
It would have also made the goal of buying a Lamborghini an unrealistic goal for the infant organ merchants. That very lack of large financial gains being uncommon is the main reason why those in elected office who serve abortionists are really concerned. Abortions were more common, and not "coat hanger" abortions but abortions done by doctors, than many people realize or at least admit to knowing. Some level of abortion has always existed and would continue to even if Roe were entirely overturned, gone, vanished, whatever. The profits from the infant corpse trade would all but cease to exist, though, as it would be regulated the way it was fifty years ago and really still is which is why there's so much profit in going around the regulated medical system. No big profits, no Lambroghinis, no big campaign donations, a true disaster for the fascist politicians and their SS infant murderers (who should be required by law to wear black uniforms with the the Nazi SS Death's Head Skull and crossbones on an large armband while at work).
I suspect that it could well end up reverting to being a State issue. The very last thing infant murderers want but the one they'll grasp at if all else fails. They'd absolutely prefer that the NY, West Coast, and DC, markets be in the hands of the State even if abortions are completely outlawed rather than restricted to the first trimester everywhere else.
So, would shooting someone in self defense be wrong?
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.