Bush's Supreme Pick. Chooses Pro-Life Conservative.

from JoeUser Forums
From the Drudge Report...
President Bush has chosen federal appeals court judge John Roberts, 50, as his nominee to the Supreme Court... Roberts: 'We continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled'...'YOUTH, INTELLECT, TEMPERAMENT, JUDICIAL PHILOSOPHY'...
ABORTION WAR AFTER BUSH PICKS... ROBERTS
    I am absolutely stoked. I was so worried that President Bush would pick someone who would be an easy confirm just to avoid the battle. President Bush has not let us down. He has chosen a good solid pro-life conservative jurist. With this nomination Bush has thrown down the gauntlet to the Senate Democrats. He has told Chuck Schumer, and Ted Kennedy to stick it where the sun doesn’t shine.

    The Democrats will bear their teeth, but they have overplayed their hands with lower judicial nominees. They will rue the day they fought so hard against Miguel Estrada and other judges, because now they will really look like blatant obstructionists. They will fight hard though. We are in for a battle of 0ut lifetimes.

    Bush has shown now that he is ready to fight the mother of all confirmation wars. Bush has nominated someone who will galvanize the conservative side. This will tip the court in our favor. The Democrats know this they will stop at nothing to try and torpedo this nominee. The courts are the left’s last grasp on power and they will not go down without a fight. Taking a line for the Lost Boys “Some yell and scream, some go quietly. Some explode, some implode, but all will try to take you with them”. Hopefully the left's tyranny of the bench has come to an end. Roe vs. Wade's days may be numbered, hopefully. Only time will tell.

    This is a deathblow to the left in this country. It is going to be so fun to see this play out. I can't wait! Thank you President Bush. You have reestablished your conservative credentials. Let’s just hope and pray the Senate Republicans are up to the fight. To Senator Arlen Spector, please don’t show us why we conservatives opposed you being chairman of the Judiciary Committee. Lets see you be the same guy that kicked butt in the Clearance Thomas hearings. Same to you Orrin. We are with you. Now lets go out there and fight!!!!
    politics
    4,269 views 9 replies
    Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
    Roe vs. Wade's days may be numbered, hopefully. Only time will tell.


    So, do you support sweeping welfare and aggressive promotion of access to free or reduced cost birth control?

    You do realize that if abortion were to be outlawed, the wealthy would still have access, but those without the money and access will be having children that they either cannot afford to provide for or are unfit to raise?

    Abortion is nothing new, and it cannot be stopped. Making abortion illegal will cause many women who either through ignorance, recklessness, or accident (admittedly a rare occurrence), find themselves pregnant with a child that they are unable properly care for to either seek out an illegal and possibly grossly unsafe abortion.

    Those who wish to abort but do not due to the illegality or cost may look to adoption, but we will still find our country inundated with unwanted, abused and neglected welfare children.

    Someone will pay for these unwanted babies, but it won't be the mother.

    If you are pro-life and value these children...is it safe to assume that you are willing to pay the monetary price to nourish and clothe the influx of unwanted children that would result from making abortion illegal?
    Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
    This is not in any way an extreme choice. This guy only had three opposing votes when he was originally confirmed as a federal judge. In the minds of most pro-life Republicans, this is a choice that takes the wind out of the Democratic sails, not picks a fight.

    Bank on Roberts being confirmed without a filibuster.

    "Someone will pay for these unwanted babies, but it won't be the mother."


    The assertion that there are unwanted babies in the US is silly. Parents are paying tens of thousands of dollars every day in foreign nations to avoid the wait to adopt a newborn here. Abortion isn't a right or a given, as many would like to pretend.

    We opt to make things legal or illegal all the time, and the role of the courts in crushing our right to self-governance concerning Liberal pet causes needs to stop. Here's hoping Roberts WON'T be so moderate.
    Sins of a Solar Empire: Rebellion
    Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
    I think sometimes you can actually have too much 'democracy'. To an outsider the politicisation of the American judiciary is truly shocking, and suggests that the separation of powers lacks, well, a certain degree of separation.

    From the American conservative position what is apparently desired is a 'non-activist' judge who will faithfully 'interpret' the constitution. American 'liberals' [sic] seem to want someone who will 'defend' the 'gains' of social advance. What no-one seems to be arguing for is judges whose political views are totally private and, at least ideally, kept separate from their judicial decisions - and yet this is what we take for granted in the rest of the democratic world.

    The UK system for judicial appointments is hardly perfect; so much so that it is currently in the midst of a major overhaul. Nevertheless, there are no 'hearings' to discover the party political loyalties of the candidates before appointing them.

    The Constitutional Reform Act, 2005 will set up a 'Supreme Court of the United Kingdom'. The UK Government will establish an independent Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) to recommend candidates to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs for appointment as judges. Of course politicians will make the final decision (as in the US) and the monarch will technically make the appointments "acting on the advice of her ministers". However, despite the archaic frummery, wigs and gowns, we do seem to have a truly independent judiciary capable at times of embarrassing or thwarting the government by its rulings and avoiding the undue party politicisation that Americans seem to take for granted.
    Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
    The assertion that there are unwanted babies in the US is silly. Parents are paying tens of thousands of dollars every day in foreign nations to avoid the wait to adopt a newborn here.


    I will concede that "unwanted" is too broad a term. They are surely wanted by someone, but not always the parent they are born to. I would be pleased if women chose adoption over abortion, but I just don't think that making abortion illegal will cause an upsurge in unwanted pregnancies being resolved through adoption.

    Abortion isn't a right or a given, as many would like to pretend.


    We disagree on this, and there's nothing that I can say that will change your mind nor can you change mine.

    I think we just have a very different view on the effects making abortion illegal would have. I see that as being a very potentially damaging move for women and society.
    Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
    What most people don't realize is, if Roe Vs. Wade was reversed that wouldn't mean abortion would be outlawed in the U.S.

    Before Roe Vs. Wade it was up to the states and cities to decide. California and New York (among other states) had no laws against abortion at all. Many states had abortion laws that merely left abortion up to doctors, and still other states banned it completely.

    Anyone who says that abortion will be illegal if Roe Vs. Wade is reversed needs to do their homework.

    That being said, I'm glad Prs. Bush nominated someone based on his credentials, understanding of the U.S. Constitution and understands the meaning of "original intent". We don't need another toadie of some Single Interest Group. Single Issue people are too myopic.
    Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
    Anyone who says that abortion will be illegal if Roe Vs. Wade is reversed needs to do their homework.


    That would be me, obviously. Perhaps I should cut back some on my US Weekly and Glamour magazine reading?

    Regardless, I still would prefer that abortion remain legal on a federal level, rather than having spotted areas throughout the country where it's illegal.

    PS - AKABrutus, cute blog site name. Nice.
    Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
    There would most certainly be states that would allow abortion to remain legal. The difference woudl be that the opinions of those states wouldn't be imposed on the rest of us.
    Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
    --I think he made a pretty good choice...not great, just pretty good...compared to the others...
    (quick question-pertaining to abortion, why not adopt out?)
    Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top

    Regardless, I still would prefer that abortion remain legal on a federal level, rather than having spotted areas throughout the country where it's illegal.

    Then pass a law.  That is the way it SHOULD be done.  Not by judges creating law.