Add to Pickering...

Yes, NP, you did. How about you Jim?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Terry,

Theocracy was what God wanted for his people. That is clear. Now, tell me, when did Israel go into captivity (I am assuming that you are talking about the Babylonian exile)?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Jim,

Should I take that as a no that you are not happy about Bush appointing a second pro-life judge to the Federal bench? Do you really care about outlawing abortion or is it just a political tool for you to Naderize the vote and elect a true liberal war criminal, John Kerry?

Joseph Botwinick

 

Now tell me, when did Israel cease to be a theocracy and become a monarchy.

Joseph Botwinick

 

No, they are a Democracy.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Joseph, your position is very interesting.

When someone criticizes Bush and the Republican lawmakers for inaction on abortion, you say that the action is in judicial appointments.

Then when a (Bush appointed) judge says that he could set aside anti-abortion views to uphold the law impartially as a federal judge, you say that he has to follow the law set by the lawmakers.

Do you really care about outlawing abortion, or is it just a partisan political tool for you? </font>[/QUOTE]I did say the first part. I don't believe I ever said the second part. They must interpret it as they understand the law as legal scholars and judges. This is why the SCOTUS is political, because if you appoint a liberal judge they will more than likely interpret it from liberal POV. If Conservative, then a Conservative POV.

You are the one who desires to pigeonhole the judges into strictly interpreting the Constitution as the authors intended it to be. My problem with that is, as I have already demonstrated, that the authors themselves were not infallible. There were times when they were wrong. There were times when they compromised important human rights issues for the greater good of the nation. Therefore, interpreting strictly as they would does not equal making the right decision all of the time. This makes the court a political issue: In our Democratic form of government, if we want a judge who will be pro-life, we must elect Bush who will appoint pro-life judges (Pickering and Holmes). But the judges must also be able to be confirmed by the Congress. Therefore, Holmes gave the correct answer in his hearing in saying that he would be impartial in his rulings. You see, America doesn't only beling to us. It belongs to all Americans. That is why we have checks and balances as we do. Now, if Peroutka believes that he can appoint a pro-life judge and have them confirmed by him answering that question in Congress any differently, then he is truly dillusional. And so are you. Tell me, is the goal to get pro-life judges on the bench, or is it to Naderize the vote and get Kerry elected who will appoint pro-death judges to every court in the land, including the Supreme Court. Think about it, Jim. The next president is more than likely going to appoint the next Supreme Court Justice to the bench. Peroutka is not going to be that guy. He will not win the election. Won't even come close. It will either be Bush or Kerry. Bush has already appointed 2 pro-life judges to the federal bench this year alone. Take a look at what Kerry thinks about abortion. Look at his voting record. Then look at the pro-life record of Kerry. Wait a minute. He doesn't have a pro-life record. He votes pro-death every time in the Senate. Now look at Bush's record: PBA, Stem Cells, I think it was Lacy Peterson's Law (which Kerry voted against BTW) which acknowledges the baby as a human life and convicts those who kill the baby in commission of a crime against the mother of murder. Now, Jim, tell me, who are all the pro-death groups lobbying for this year? Bush? Or Kerry? Why is that? Why are pro-death leaders harping on this as an issue to their liberal constituents? Why are they afraid of Bush being re-elected? Because they know that there is more than likely going to be an opening on the Supreme Court in the next four years, and they know Bush's stance and record on the issue. I have more faith in Bush to appoint a pro-life judge than I do in Kerry. I have no doubt that Peroutka would probably appoint a pro-life judge if elected. But, that is totally irrelevant as he has as good a chance of being elected as my lame dog who was shot in the leg by a redneck here in Arkansas has of healing his own leg and being able to walk again on all four leg like a normal dog. It isn't going to happen. So, You gotta ask yourself. Who do you want appointing the next Supreme Court Justice: Kerry or Bush? It is not even a hard decision for me. I pick Bush.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Jim,

I don't think you can honestly make an argument that democracy is a dictatorship. When the majority votes, the majority decides. In a dictatorship, one person decides, such as it was with Hitler and Saddam.

Big Difference.

Joseph Botwinick