Add to Pickering...

KATV is lying. Bush doesn't appoint pro-life judges. We all know that ... Why do you persist in these kind of false stories JB??? Surely you know better ...

 

I never said he didn't appoint pro-life judges, I said it's been 50/50 with him, and will continue to be 50/50. I applaud him when he does the right thing, and will criticize him when he doesn't.

 

Sarcasm, NP ... .... I was taking a jab at some of the nonsense in here when people say that Bush has nothing for the prolife cause. I am pointing out that it is simply untrue, and ludicrous to say. He has not done nearly enough, but to say he has done nothing is clearly wrong.

 

Can anyone point to one ruling by one judge appointed by Bush that saved one baby from abortion? Or are we still in the "trust me" phase?

 

"...At his confirmation hearing, Holmes, 51, told senators he could set aside anti-abortion views to uphold the law impartially as a federal judge..."


SOURCE

 

I don't know if this is good news or not. I hope so, but I've seen too many supposedly "pro-life" judicial appointees to cound my chickens before they hatch.

I'll turn the question back to you: do you want a judge who is willing to set aside anti-abortion views to "uphold the law"? What law would that be, that "legalzes" murder?

I hope it is out of context and not what it appears to be at face value, but, again, I hope you can understand my skepticism.

 

I want a judge who will interpret the US Constitution in the original language and understanding that the authors had. I want a judge that will rule in favor of the Constiution, and against any laws that are Un-Constitutional. I want a judge that will say that the unborn child is protected by the 5th Amendment and will refuse to "set aside anti-abortion views" when it comes to ruling on any case that pertains to the life of the unborn child. I hope as Jim said that this quote is out of context, and that this judge will uphold his oath to protect and defend the US Constitution, and will work to protect the sanctity of every life.

 

NetPublicist!

 

NP and others, whether we like it or not (and we don't), as of now, abortion is constitutional. Until SCOTUS overrules that, there is nothing else to say, unfortunately. Some here are threatening to solidify Roe for another 20+ years by unconscionably helping to elect Kerry. Bush is the only viable candidate who will give the unborn a chance. We need people of conscience will not give way to the political trends but will instead do what is best for this country. We cannot allow John Kerry to have the next 2 or 3 nominees to the Supreme Court.

 

</font>

• It’s legal.</font>
• It’s "Constitutional."</font>
• It’s been upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.</font>
• People still protest it despite its obvious legality.</font>
• The media has instituted a self-imposed "blackout" of the opposition.</font>
• The U.S. Mail has banned the mailing of certain opposition literature.</font>
• Compared to other controversial "free speech" issues, Congress and the courts have greatly stifled the voices of opposition.</font>
• It’s an issue of "choice."</font>
• It’s a "privacy issue" that concerns no one else.</font>
• It’s not human life protected by the law (thus it can be terminated).</font>
• Those who oppose it are "troublemaking intolerant bigots."</font>
• I have a right to do this. I would be deprived of my Constitutional rights of "liberty and justice" if I am restricted in this area.</font>

Sound familiar? It should; it’s talking about American slavery. These are the things people have said about slavery before it was finally abolished. Slaveholders actually felt that their Constitutional rights to "liberty and justice" would be violated if they were told they couldn’t violate the liberty and justice of a black person.

Now, 150 years later, we wonder how these people couldn’t see the obvious contradictions of such statements. Yet, we are doing the exact same thing with abortion. We are told that the unborn child is the personal property of the women and she has the right to do whatever she wants with it.

Treating human life as property is wrong in any century. America’s treatment of the unborn child is just as deplorable and despicable as America’s past treatment of slaves. There is no difference. If you feel slavery is wrong, you have to say abortion is wrong. The parallels between abortion and slavery are too great to ignore. Either our Constitution supports both or opposes both. Either we abolish abortion or we have to legalize slavery. Americans need to decide, once and for all, if human life can be treated as property.

SOURCE

 

The 5th Amendment says, "No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Congress could enact a law tomorrow morning that defines this 5th amendment "person" such that it would include the unborn person. If that happened, legal abortion could be over the very next day! And there is nothing the court could do about it. Why is there complete silence from our "pro-life" leaders in Congress regarding this simple solution?

Then there is the whole issue of the jurisdiction of the federal court. Did our founders really intend that a nine-member oligarchy could determine the fate of so many millions of Americans? Most certainly not! Article 3 was put in the Constitution to specifically safeguard the Republic from the type of rogue courts that have been wreaking havoc across this nation. It says:

In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. Article 3, Section 2.

The power to enact laws remains the exclusive province of the U.S. Congress. When the Supreme Court illegally stepped into the lawmaking role back in 1973 (as it had for many years before that!), Congress had every right to regulate the jurisdiction of the court by overturning Roe v. Wade.

SOURCE

 

But again I ask, NP, if that is true, why hasn't it ever been tried? I agree that Roe is bad law; most constitutional scholars of both sides agree on that I believe. But it is recognized as the constitutional law of the land, and in our government, the way to overturn it is through SCOTUS appointees. That is why it is critical that Bush get elected. At least then, there will be a chance.

 

Studying our nation’s history, we find that this is not the first time that the personhood of human beings has been debated. Scientists in the 1800's attempted to prove that Negroes were physiologically inferior. In addition, the Supreme Court’s infamous Dred Scott decision concluded that although they may have been human biologically, a slave was not a legal person because he was not a citizen. Thus, he could not be protected by the Fifth Amendment: "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." In their ruling they stated, "... a negro, whose ancestors were imported into this country, and sold as slaves. . . were not intended to be included under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can, therefore, claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." This brings to light a striking parallel between the logic used to defend slavery and that used to defend abortion. Clearly, they thought a black man only became a legal person when he was set free. Now, an unborn baby only becomes a person at birth. A slave owner supposedly had a right to do what he wanted with his own property and a woman now supposedly has a right to do what she wants with her own body. As in our day, people imagined that the personhood of a human being should depend on public opinion. So much for equality. It took the American Civil War and the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment to finally restore African-American’s their unalienable rights. "If we don’t learn from history, we are bound to repeat it."

As we learn from our nation’s history, the Supreme Court can be wrong. A woman’s right to privacy exists only if the fetus is not a real person. If indeed an unborn child really is a human being, the government must protect his life. The Court cannot confer the so-called "right to abort" on one class of people (pregnant women) by depriving another class (children in the womb) of a more fundamental right. Our nation has declared in the Declaration of Independence that we are endowed by our Creator with an inalienable right to life, which is protected under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Legally, the right to life must supersede the right to privacy.

SOURCE