NationStates Jolt Archive

That's right ladies and gentlemen. President Bush has got a Supreme Court nominee!

Who is this nominee?

The answer is.................


We'll find out at 9:00 PM ET Tonight!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.bush.ap/index.html

I'm already afraid.

Should be interesting, and my bet is that he picks a moderate. That's just me though.

Here’s to the impossibility that he picks a libertarian.

That's right ladies and gentlemen. President Bush has got a Supreme Court nominee!

Who is this nominee?

The answer is.................


We'll find out at 9:00 PM ET Tonight!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.bush.ap/index.html
.... You Klingon Bastard.

Yay. Bush is making a major deal about the fact that he hasn't yet announced a supreme court nomination. I guess we can all forget about wanting Karl Rove to go to prison. Yup. Old News. Big News. Bush hasn't announced a Supreme Court nominee who probably won't get confirmed because he's going to pick a bunch of people that even the most radical right senators will look at and go "Um, isn't that a little... extreme?" so that when he finally decides to nominate Alberto "torture is fine as long as you don't kill them" Gonzales they won't think that he's too much of a pinko liberal commie because he might actually have some small shred of respect for law somewhere in his basement.

I've got an idea for a headline

President Bush: "Everybody Stop Paying Attention to Karl Rove."

CNN was saying this morning that we could expect a nomination today in order to deflect media attention from the fact that he originally said that he'd fire anyone connected with revealing Valerie Plame's CIA status, then changed his position to protect Karl Rove.

CNN was saying this morning that we could expect a nomination today in order to deflect media attention from the fact that he originally said that he'd fire anyone connected with revealing Valerie Plame's CIA status, then changed his position to protect Karl Rove.

He'll fire any aide if and only if they committed a crime.

But we are not here to talk about Karl Rove. We are here to talk about this supreme court pick.

Any ideas who it is?

My glass is up for a conservative that wasn't as wishy-washy as O'Connor. :p

He'll fire any aide if and only if they committed a crime.

But we are not here to talk about Karl Rove. We are here to talk about this supreme court pick.

Any ideas who it is?

I dunno... Karl Rove, maybe?

It's going to be Edith "Joy" Brown Clement. Of course they wouldn't tell CNN that.

I dunno... Karl Rove, maybe?

At this point, it is highly unlikely.

Liverbreath']It's going to be Edith "Joy" Brown Clement. Of course they wouldn't tell CNN that.

She is a front runner according to Fox News (where I got the news but didn't quote fox news).

He'll fire any aide if and only if they committed a crime.

But we are not here to talk about Karl Rove. We are here to talk about this supreme court pick.

Any ideas who it is?I'll find out who it is when it's announced to the media.

BTW, he originally said that he'd fire anyone connected to the leak. I'm sure glad we didn't elect the Flip Flopping candidate.

She is a front runner according to Fox News (where I got the news but didn't quote fox news).

I picked it up off a newswire service I use.

some web site (http://www.orlandoreport.com/profiles/Supreme_Court/clement.htm)
Edith Brown Clement, 57, is a judge on the New Orleans-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

Clement was nominated by President George H.W. Bush to serve as a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1991 and was elevated to her current post by the current President Bush in 2001. She sailed through the confirmation process with the support of a number of Democrats.

Clement, a graduate of the University of Alabama and Tulane University Law School, worked as a lawyer in private practice in New Orleans for 16 years before beginning her tenure on the federal bench.

While Clement is a conservative, she might be much more acceptable to moderates and practical liberals when compared to more extreme candidates like Edith Hollan Jones and Janice Rogers Brown.



Key Decisions and Writings:

Clement has been described her as a judicial conservative who leans toward the defense in civil cases, and as a no-nonsense judge who is strict about deadlines and insists on professionalism from lawyers.

She is a member of the Federalist Society, an influential conservative legal organization. She is not, however, considered to be as conservative or outspoken as other potential nominees.

Clement does not have the kind of judicial record that provides clear signals on how she would rule on some of the hot-button issues like abortion. Accordingly, she is not a known quantity and that raises concerns with some conservatives.


Abortion - MSNBC is reporting that Clement has acknowledged that Rowe v. Wade is settled law and within the constitutionally protected right to privacy. She apparently stated this at her last confirmation hearing.

Commerce Clause - Like other conservative judges, Clement has given indications that she supports some limitations on Federal powers under the Commerce Clause, meaning that some reasonable connection to interstate commerce is necessary to justify Congressional action. Her dissent in US v. McFarland is cited as she was willing to limit applicability of the Hobbes Act.

The Commerce Clause has been stretched so far by the Supreme Court that some limitations seem reasonable. Liberals are concerned that this "trend" might eventually be used to limit Federal power to regulate things like the environment, but that may be reading too much into some of these minor limitations.

Business - Clement is viewed as a pro-business judge, often ruling in favor of corporations and other entities against individual plaintiffs. One liberal talking head just said on MSNBC that she has not demonstrated compassion.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162923,00.html

This is what Fox News is saying.

I'm already afraid.
You scare too easily. :p

At least they didn't nominate a blatant Scalia part duex...

She has the support of her home state Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-Louisiana). People for the American Way is against her, which is meaningless because they are completely partisan. PFAW=Hollywood's PAC.

If he nominates Edith, he's just going to isolate the pro-life base of the Republican party. Granted, Bush has made some pretty dumb decisions in the past, but he couldn't possibly be THAT foolish.

I'd like to see one of the following:

Janice Brown (a moderate if you're concerned)
Emilio Garza
Edith Jones (for her views on the decline of legal ethics)
J. Michael Luttig (experience)

As a conservative, I'd not like to see Gonzalez get nominated, because his nomination would definitely be a step in the wrong direction if Bush wants to get a justice in by October.

I nominate Eddie Izzard
Cos I'm good at that.

Onward Arrseland soldiers
Marching to the bar
Over the hills yonder
We don't care how far !!

I'm already afraid.

Ditto and I'm Canadian..lol

It looks like some things I like are going to get banned, now.

If he nominates Edith, he's just going to isolate the pro-life base of the Republican party. Granted, Bush has made some pretty dumb decisions in the past, but he couldn't possibly be THAT foolish.

I am sorry Neo, but if you go back on what Bush has said and done in the past then the only conclusion one can reasonably draw, is that he is a man that talks exactly like a Conservative and acts exactly like a liberal.
Few people base their political ideology on single issues such as Abortion. Should he choose a pre established pro life individual, he would in fact alienate 40 to 50% of their potiential support.
It is all quite predictable in my opinion.

It looks like some things I like are going to get banned, now.
What are you talking about?

What are you talking about?

You don't want to know.

You don't want to know.
Actually, I wouldn't have asked if I didn't.

Actually, I wouldn't have asked if I didn't.

I happen to like some forms of hentai that are just barely legal in the US.

I happen to like some forms of hentai that are just barely legal in the US.
Unless there's a court case involving them though, you have nothing to worry about with the nomination of a justice. The people you have to worry about are the legislators.

My input is that it will be a moderate, from an atypical background. Someone who hasn't taken the tried and true stepping stones to the Supreme court.

I happen to like some forms of hentai that are just barely legal in the US.

I sorry but I fail to see the connection here. The lady has already gone on record saying that it's ok with her for women to kill their babies before they are born. Given that, I don't think I would be too worried about losing my right to Japanese sex cartoons. Where is the threat you fear?

Well, I consider it a very good sign that the leading canidate (Clement) was confirmed to the Appeals Court by a 99-0 Senate vote.

Seems like Bush is smart enough to not to rock the boat by nominating an ultra-conservative.

Did I just use Bush and smart in the same sentence? :eek:

I dunno... Karl Rove, maybe?

Nah, Valerie Plame.

That'd shut those silly Democrats up. ;)

Well, I consider it a very good sign that the leading canidate (Clement) was confirmed to the Appeals Court by a 99-0 Senate vote.

Seems like Bush is smart enough to not to rock the boat by nominating an ultra-conservative.

Did I just use Bush and smart in the same sentence? :eek:

That vote doesnt mean anything at all to the democrats. They still label them as extreme or ultra conservative.

9 PM EST? I hope Bush takes a nap this afternoon, because that's way past his bedtime.

I happen to like some forms of hentai that are just barely legal in the US.barely legal at MSNBC

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/trall/2005/trall050523.gif

My input is that it will be a moderate, from an atypical background. Someone who hasn't taken the tried and true stepping stones to the Supreme court.
Moderate to Bush is scary. He doesn't want to offend his base (ie crazy christians like the southern baptists group) and basically no matter who he picks the otehrside won't like

Liverbreath']I am sorry Neo, but if you go back on what Bush has said and done in the past then the only conclusion one can reasonably draw, is that he is a man that talks exactly like a Conservative and acts exactly like a liberal.
Few people base their political ideology on single issues such as Abortion. Should he choose a pre established pro life individual, he would in fact alienate 40 to 50% of their potiential support.
It is all quite predictable in my opinion.



If I may, I'd rather continue deluding myself into thinking that the president I helped elect will stand firm on the issues I believe strongly in like he is supposed to.

If I may, I'd rather continue deluding myself into thinking that the president I helped elect will stand firm on the issues I believe strongly in like he is supposed to.

Well then in that case I might add that even though she made the statement that she did, she was very specific as to the conditions under which is was settled law. She left pleanty of room for wiggle.

Liverbreath']That vote doesnt mean anything at all to the democrats. They still label them as extreme or ultra conservative.
Despite the fact that most of the same Democrats who voted yes to in 2001 her are going to be voting on her again.

If I may, I'd rather continue deluding myself into thinking that the president I helped elect will stand firm on the issues I believe strongly in like he is supposed to.
Yeah, good luck with that. ;)

I guess it isn't me, as he hasn't called me. Darn. I was hoping to be the next Supreme Court Justice. :(

Ihatevacations']Moderate to Bush is scary. He doesn't want to offend his base (ie crazy christians like the southern baptists group) and basically no matter who he picks the otehrside won't like

Well admittedly the Democrats are braced for a fight. Just as the Republicans have been in the past.

Considering it is a life time appointment... I don't mind the battlefield lines being drawn. Those lovely check and balances...are occassionally useful :).

Liverbreath']I am sorry Neo, but if you go back on what Bush has said and done in the past then the only conclusion one can reasonably draw, is that he is a man that talks exactly like a Conservative and acts exactly like a liberal.

Which is why I can’t stand him.

Ihatevacations']Moderate to Bush is scary. He doesn't want to offend his base (ie crazy christians like the southern baptists group) and basically no matter who he picks the otehrside won't like

Wow. Managed to offend me, again. That has to be the like the fiftieth time you’ve insulted me through generalizations.

Despite the fact that most of the same Democrats who voted yes to in 2001 her are going to be voting on her again.


Yeah, good luck with that. ;)
The difference between a circuit judge and the supreme court judges is massive. You can't claim you're qualified for a supreme court judge just because you passed the nomination for a circuit judge.

That said, I'd rather another O'Connor was appointed, she was a conservative (moderately so), but at least she wasn't one of those doctrine conservatives that have a nasty habit of crusading on the court *cough*scalia*cough*.

Edit:
July 19, 2005 -- Judge Edith Clement — perceived by many observers as a potential frontrunner for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor — is not President Bush's choice for the high court.

An informed source told ABC News they had spoken with Clement and said she received a phone call from the White House this afternoon. According to the source, Clement was thanked for meeting with the president and sharing her views on the Supreme Court, but that the administration has decided to go in a "different direction."

The difference between a circuit judge and the supreme court judges is massive. You can't claim you're qualified for a supreme court judge just because you passed the nomination for a circuit judge.

That said, I'd rather another O'Connor was appointed, she was a conservative (moderately so), but at least she wasn't one of those doctrine conservatives that have a nasty habit of crusading on the court *cough*scalia*cough*.

Edit:
July 19, 2005 -- Judge Edith Clement — perceived by many observers as a potential frontrunner for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor — is not President Bush's choice for the high court.

An informed source told ABC News they had spoken with Clement and said she received a phone call from the White House this afternoon. According to the source, Clement was thanked for meeting with the president and sharing her views on the Supreme Court, but that the administration has decided to go in a "different direction."




YEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!! :D :D :D :D

Cornelieu - I realize you're offline right now, but when you get back on, come vote in my poll on who will be the next nominee. I value your input.

Fox news now saying John Roberts will be the next supreme court justice.

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/nation/20050719-1644-scotus-bush.html

Associated Press reports John G. Roberts Jr.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush

Anyone got any info about Roberts? I haven't found a lot, but then again, I haven't been looking too hard...

Associated Press reports John G. Roberts Jr.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush

Anyone got any info about Roberts? I haven't found a lot, but then again, I haven't been looking too hard...




He's opposed to abortion, I've heard all I wanted to hear :D

He's opposed to abortion, I've heard all I wanted to hear :D
He also said he would uphold Roe v. Wade as the "established law of the land" or some such thing, so that's a bit unclear at the moment. I'm sure we'll hear more during the upcoming morass of a confirmation battle.

Ihatevacations']Moderate to Bush is scary. He doesn't want to offend his base (ie crazy christians like the southern baptists group) and basically no matter who he picks the otehrside won't like
I'd like to thank you for offending me also. I could easily make a generalization such as yours to identify the Democrats with the loopy hippies out West, but I don't.

Please stop trolling.

He also said he would uphold Roe v. Wade as the "established law of the land" or some such thing, so that's a bit unclear at the moment. I'm sure we'll hear more during the upcoming morass of a confirmation battle.
I could be wrong, but I think that what he meant by that is that he won't try to legislate from his place on the bench.

Liverbreath']I am sorry Neo, but if you go back on what Bush has said and done in the past then the only conclusion one can reasonably draw, is that he is a man that talks exactly like a Conservative and acts exactly like a liberal.
Few people base their political ideology on single issues such as Abortion. Should he choose a pre established pro life individual, he would in fact alienate 40 to 50% of their potiential support.
It is all quite predictable in my opinion.

Seconded. He will pick someone who has a reasonable chance of getting confirmed quickly, he doesn't want a lengthy and bitter fight - so it will be someone a few degrees left of Republican, and many degrees left of conservative. A compromise whom the liberals will consider a human monster.

This guy doesn't sound all that bad too me. Then again I'm a centrist.

This guy doesn't sound all that bad too me. Then again I'm a centrist.

So he comes off as somewhat moderate-right. Think that means the filibuster deal will hold? I hardly see this guy as an "extraordinary circumstance" or whatever the language that used was.

But then again, I don't know much about him.

So he comes off as somewhat moderate-right. Think that means the filibuster deal will hold? I hardly see this guy as an "extraordinary circumstance" or whatever the language that used was.

But then again, I don't know much about him.

Neither do I. I am still trying to find this brief he supposedly wrote that would show he favors over turning Roe vs Wade. Having no luck for some reason. Pro abortionists wouldn't lie about the guy would they?

So he comes off as somewhat moderate-right. Think that means the filibuster deal will hold? I hardly see this guy as an "extraordinary circumstance" or whatever the language that used was.

But then again, I don't know much about him.
I think it will.

I heard the main reason that there would be a filibuster is if senators like Kennedy swung the position of some of the members of the 14. I don't think it will happen, but I'm not too sure if this process will be incredibly quick.

The court that Roberts comes from, however, is one of the most important courts in the country, and it takes a very scrutinizing process to become appointed to it. I think that this will act as a catalyst for a speedy process. If he's already been proven to be worthy of his current court, then he shouldn't have much trouble getting into the Supreme Court.

Who knows?

Anyone know this guys views on civil unions and censorship?

I ain't worried about Roe V Wade. I'm worried about my future movie career and the possibility that if I have 5 kids, one might be gay or something.

Anyone know this guys views on civil unions and censorship?

I ain't worried about Roe V Wade. I'm worried about my future movie career and the possibility that if I have 5 kids, one might be gay or something.

This is about all I could find. "Roberts, 50, has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues."
I get the impression he doesn't think it is the courts place to stick their nose there.

I'd like to thank you for offending me also. I could easily make a generalization such as yours to identify the Democrats with the loopy hippies out West, but I don't.

Please stop trolling.
The Southern Baptists, as an official group, seperated from the normal baptists because the baptists wern't fundamentalist enough, sounds crazy enough to me

The answer is......

JOHN ROBERTS

Liverbreath']This is about all I could find. "Roberts, 50, has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues."
I get the impression he doesn't think it is the courts place to stick their nose there.


Can it be that we actually have a pro-life soft-core libertarian like me? Oh gosh! Too good to be true!

Can it be that we actually have a pro-life soft-core libertarian like me? Oh gosh! Too good to be true!

I wish you the best in getting what you want, but when it come to the supreme court it's been my experience that no matter who they send up there, the final outcome of what you got will be determined somewhere in the future. That kind of power has an unpredictable effect on people from what I see.

Ihatevacations']The Southern Baptists, as an official group, seperated from the normal baptists because the baptists wern't fundamentalist enough, sounds crazy enough to me



Not that I'm Baptist, but wouldn't seperating from a group because it doesn't adhere to the teachings of Christ and the apostles be...well....the SANE thing to do?

Liverbreath']I wish you the best in getting what you want, but when it come to the supreme court it's been my experience that no matter who they send up there, the final outcome of what you got will be determined somewhere in the future. That kind of power has an unpredictable effect on people from what I see.

Best example is Ike apointing Earl Warren. I don't think that's how Ike thought that one would turn out.

Not that I'm Baptist, but wouldn't seperating from a group because it doesn't adhere to the teachings of Christ and the apostles be...well....the SANE thing to do?
I don't think you quite get the "not fundamentalist enough" part..

Best example is Ike apointing Earl Warren. I don't think that's how Ike thought that one would turn out.

Or with Bush Sr. picking David Souter, who became my favorite Justice.

Ihatevacations']I don't think you quite get the "not fundamentalist enough" part..



A fundamentalist is one who follows all tenets of their religion to the best of their ability is it not? That's my definition.

Upon preliminary examination of Roberts, I find I could actually be comfortable with him as a Justice. As you all know, I'm very leftist hippie liberal.

He's got the credentials.
He tends to avoid social issues as not being his business.
He's young enough to sit for a while and, thus, gain wisdom through experience.

Yes ... I think I can give him the thumbs up unless something comes up in hearings.

Now ... back to Rove and Delay. We've been distracted enough.

Liverbreath']Neither do I. I am still trying to find this brief he supposedly wrote that would show he favors over turning Roe vs Wade. Having no luck for some reason. Pro abortionists wouldn't lie about the guy would they?
actually yes they will. Cause that is all they care about. They're a selfish group who think that abortion is the only thing that matters.

A fundamentalist is one who follows all tenets of their religion to the best of their ability is it not? That's my definition.

Well that might be 'your' definition.

A Fundamentalist is a nice term for Religious Extremist. all the infidals will burn in heck type of person, we're better than anyone else because we believe in god the proper way. Our church is Bigger than your church. Listen to how arrogant we are.

What's the differences between a Christain radical fundimentalist and a Muslim radical fundimentalist?

One's just insane enough to strap bombs on themselves. The other is only just at the line.

actually yes they will. Cause that is all they care about. They're a selfish group who think that abortion is the only thing that matters.
The problem with you is one can't tell with your outlandish statements if you're mearly a fundimentalist radical, or someone who is being highly sarcastic.

actually yes they will. Cause that is all they care about. They're a selfish group who think that abortion is the only thing that matters.


Ok are we being sarcastic or the fundiloon radical again?

Well that might be 'your' definition.

A Fundamentalist is a nice term for Religious Extremist. all the infidals will burn in heck type of person, we're better than anyone else because we believe in god the proper way. Our church is Bigger than your church. Listen to how arrogant we are.

That about sums it up.

I have a tad more fundiloon ah fundamentalist relatives then I like to admit but one thing in common is the fact they will never fail to judge people and if something bad happens to them be an event or violence; you usually get a comment that they deserved it is they are sinners.

Hmmm and they wonder why I rarely visit them.

actually yes they will. Cause that is all they care about. They're a selfish group who think that abortion is the only thing that matters.
I shall officially dub thee, The IronY Knight. And I shall call you that

Well that might be 'your' definition.

A Fundamentalist is a nice term for Religious Extremist. all the infidals will burn in heck type of person, we're better than anyone else because we believe in god the proper way. Our church is Bigger than your church. Listen to how arrogant we are.

What's the differences between a Christain radical fundimentalist and a Muslim radical fundimentalist?

One's just insane enough to strap bombs on themselves. The other is only just at the line.

I am afraid Mr Lone Alliance that it is your definition that is incorrect and born of the propaganda wing of Leftists R Us. Please consider what you say before saying it. You damage operations designed to make people believe that leftists are of superior intelligence.

Liverbreath']I am afraid Mr Lone Alliance that it is your definition that is incorrect and born of the propaganda wing of Leftists R Us. Please consider what you say before saying it. You damage operations designed to make people believe that leftists are of superior intelligence.

Leftists R Us? :rolleyes:

Hmmm Kansas eh?

So where does Phelps full under the disagreement of definition?

US News & World Report did a background piece on Roberts just a few hours ago!

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19roberts.htm?track=rss

US News & World Report did a background piece on Roberts just a few hours ago!
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/articles/050719/19roberts.htm?track=rss

Interesting. He sounds like a solid choice (pro-business, so he's got my support).

Leftists R Us? :rolleyes:

Hmmm Kansas eh?

So where does Phelps full under the disagreement of definition?

Fred and family are complete nutcases that represent no one but the couple of dozen of them left alive, or have not fleed for their lives. They are a cult, like any other cult and never had at any time more than one or two members not directly related by blood. They represent no religion and have been rejected by many over the years, only to be targeted with phoney lawsuits and all sorts of slander and harrassement. The fact is that churchs are just as common a target of Mad Maggie and Fred as gays are.

"The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials, but that is not the end of our inquiry," said Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid of Nevada. Referring to planned hearings in the Senate Judiciary Committee, Reid said, "I will not prejudge this nomination. I look forward to learning more about Judge Roberts."

The democrats are reacting pretty cool to this.. he's not a bad nominee. He's a solid nominee with a great background in law. Seems like a fair choice.

That's right ladies and gentlemen. President Bush has got a Supreme Court nominee!

Who is this nominee?

The answer is.................


We'll find out at 9:00 PM ET Tonight!

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.bush.ap/index.html

John Roberts. Right wing asshole. Wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Helped Bush out with Recount in Florida.

All my navie, liberal hopes have been dashed forever...

But he's the best we could have hoped for. There were hundreds (yes, literally hundreds) of worse nominees he could have chosen.

John Roberts. Right wing asshole. Wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Helped Bush out with Recount in Florida.

All my navie, liberal hopes have been dashed forever...

John Roberts is a decent guy, and even Senate Dem Leader Reid said he is qualified. So please, spare us.

John Roberts. Right wing asshole. Wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Helped Bush out with Recount in Florida.

And Roberts said that Roe v Wade is also established law :rolleyes:

All my navie, liberal hopes have been dashed forever...

Sorry bud.

But he's the best we could have hoped for. There were hundreds (yes, literally hundreds) of worse nominees he could have chosen.

He's the best one by far than anyone else.

John Roberts. Right wing asshole. Wants to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Helped Bush out with Recount in Florida.

All my navie, liberal hopes have been dashed forever...

But he's the best we could have hoped for. There were hundreds (yes, literally hundreds) of worse nominees he could have chosen.

I read the thread, all the links, did a little searching of my own but you know what... It was this post that sealed the deal for me. I officially support Bush's decision to nominate Roberts. I came in this thread with the precise purpose of gauging how pissed off the ultra-liberals were and finally, six pages later, someone helped me out.

Thanks mate. ;)

I read the thread, all the links, did a little searching of my own but you know what... It was this post that sealed the deal for me. I officially support Bush's decision to nominate Roberts. I came in this thread with the precise purpose of gauging how pissed off the ultra-liberals were and finally, six pages later, someone helped me out.

Thanks mate. ;)

Sounds to me like you skimmed along 6 pages til you found someone to gloat at, more like it.

Thanks for sharing. ;)

From what I gather he certainly has the right credentials.

And Roberts said that Roe v Wade is also established law :rolleyes:



Sorry bud.



He's the best one by far than anyone else.
"While some conservatives worry he's the next David Souter, whose brief time on the First Circuit masked moderate-to-liberal leanings that emerged after his confirmation, liberals have long argued that Roberts is too extreme. Roberts was first nominated for the D.C. Circuit Court in 1992 by President George H.W. Bush, but Democrats, who controlled the Senate, blocked his nomination because of concerns over his record as a deputy solicitor general. In 1990, Roberts raised eyebrows when he attached a footnote to a brief in a case about abortion financing stating that Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Roberts also cowrote a brief arguing that an antiabortion group's attempts to blockade abortion clinics did not amount to a violation of equal protection. He is affiliated with the conservative Federalist Society and supports restrictions on environmental protections."

You know, I gave financial support to People For The American Way, but I have come to figure that they won't be happy with anything Bush does. My financial contributions end today. He picked a decent guy, but PFAW is screaming for blood. Pathetic. My money will now go to the ACLU instead.

Sounds to me like you skimmed along 6 pages til you found someone to gloat at, more like it.

Thanks for sharing. ;)

That is entirely possible, though probably not true considering I knew next to nothing about the man before he was nominated. I genuinely wanted to hear what leftists had to say before making a final judgment.

You know, I gave financial support to People For The American Way, but I have come to figure that they won't be happy with anything Bush does. My financial contributions end today. He picked a decent guy, but PFAW is screaming for blood. Pathetic. My money will now go to the ACLU instead.

Any bets for how many days (hours) before the ACLU comes out against him too?

They already released their 'warning' but they can't officially declare the ACLU to be against him, not until their 83 member board votes...

I take, 9 hours from 11:15 Eastern :)

Any bets for how many days (hours) before the ACLU comes out against him too?

They already released their 'warning' but they can't officail declare teh ACLU to be against him, not until their 83 member board votes...

I take, 9 hours from 11:15 Eastern :)
"While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest."

Don't like it oneeee bit.

Liverbreath']This is about all I could find. "Roberts, 50, has generally avoided weighing in on disputed social issues."
I get the impression he doesn't think it is the courts place to stick their nose there.

Hooray!!

Ihatevacations']The Southern Baptists, as an official group, seperated from the normal baptists because the baptists wern't fundamentalist enough, sounds crazy enough to me

Heaven forbid we practice freedom of religion. I don’t go around randomly criticizing your beliefs in venues that have nothing to do with them. I guess it makes you feel big and superior, though, huh.

A Fundamentalist is a nice term for Religious Extremist. all the infidals will burn in heck type of person, we're better than anyone else because we believe in god the proper way. Our church is Bigger than your church. Listen to how arrogant we are.

No a fundamentalists is someone who believes in their religion absolutely. An extremist is somebody who’s willing to violate its tenants to ultimately advance it. A big difference.

I have a tad more fundiloon ah fundamentalist relatives then I like to admit but one thing in common is the fact they will never fail to judge people and if something bad happens to them be an event or violence; you usually get a comment that they deserved it is they are sinners.

Those are not fundamentalists, those are Pharisees. If one truly follows the word of God, they would not condemn people for their actions in such a way. They would know that only God has the power to do that, and to claim His duties is a sin as well.

"While serving as principal deputy solicitor general from 1989-1993, he authored briefs calling for Roe v. Wade to be overruled, supporting graduation prayer, and seeking to criminalize flag burning as a form of political protest."

Don't like it oneeee bit.

So how many minutes, hours, days until the ACLU is officially against the nominee? You forgot to take your time/pick.

Well that might be 'your' definition.

A Fundamentalist is a nice term for Religious Extremist. all the infidals will burn in heck type of person, we're better than anyone else because we believe in god the proper way. Our church is Bigger than your church. Listen to how arrogant we are.

What's the differences between a Christain radical fundimentalist and a Muslim radical fundimentalist?

One's just insane enough to strap bombs on themselves. The other is only just at the line.
Actually, a Christian fundamentalist is someone who believes that the Bible is inerrant and should be taken literally. Muslim fundamentalists do not strap bombs on themselves, only the extremists do.

Heaven forbid we practice freedom of religion. I don’t go around randomly criticizing your beliefs in venues that have nothing to do with them. I guess it makes you feel big and superior, though, huh.
If it was some fundamentalists/exremists of some other kind as the base of a major political figure I would point them out as well. However, my point is pertinent due to the fact the only "important" "issures" now are controversial pointless things like abortion or contraception and all those personal things that shouldnt be issues because they arnt the governments damn business. Bush's job, being a conservative, is to play to a base who believes the government should regulate what people do in their own homes. Part of this base being the southern baptists, a very large block of it in fact. Now that doesn't really matter too much until the point is made about their exremism

Ihatevacations']If it was some fundamentalists/exremists of some other kind as the base of a major political figure I would point them out as well. However, my point is pertinent due to the fact the only "important" "issures" now are controversial pointless things like abortion or contraception and all those personal things that shouldnt be issues because they arnt the governments damn business. Bush's job, being a conservative, is to play to a base who believes the government should regulate what people do in their own homes. Part of this base being the southern baptists, a very large block of it in fact. Now that doesn't really matter too much until the point is made about their exremism

I’m a Southern Baptist, and I don’t believe in legislating morality. What do you say to that?

So how many minutes, hours, days until the ACLU is officially against the nominee? You forgot to take your time/pick.
Oh, not too long. I say less then 30 minutes into the meeting.


The ACLU really takes civil rights seriously. You may have noticed this from its name.

Ihatevacations']If it was some fundamentalists/exremists of some other kind as the base of a major political figure I would point them out as well. However, my point is pertinent due to the fact the only "important" "issures" now are controversial pointless things like abortion or contraception and all those personal things that shouldnt be issues because they arnt the governments damn business. Bush's job, being a conservative, is to play to a base who believes the government should regulate what people do in their own homes. Part of this base being the southern baptists, a very large block of it in fact. Now that doesn't really matter too much until the point is made about their exremism



Umm....abortion IS an issue that is everyone's business. The right to murder is not covered under the right to privacy, no matter how much Roe v. Wade cares to differ.

Umm....abortion IS an issue that is everyone's business. The right to murder is not covered under the right to privacy, no matter how much Roe v. Wade cares to differ.

I don’t think you understand the basic role of government. It exists to maintain order and retain people’s rights. I agree that abortion is wrong, but outlawing it just drives it underground and makes it unsafe. This is contrary to maintaining order, because it would create a new black-market.

I don’t think you understand the basic role of government. It exists to maintain order and retain people’s rights. I agree that abortion is wrong, but outlawing it just drives it underground and makes it unsafe. This is contrary to maintaining order, because it would create a new black-market.



If it exists to retain people's rights, then why is the right of an unborn human not being protected? Legalisation of crime is not the proper response to its prevalence, we need more strict enforcement of the law.

Here's the official site for Judge Roberts:

http://162.42.224.12/

If it exists to retain people's rights, then why is the right of an unborn human not being protected?

Current law does not extend citizenship, and therefore rights, to the unborn.

Legalisation of crime is not the proper response to its prevalence,we need more strict enforcement of the law.

There is a difference between legislating crime, and allowing acts that some consider immoral and others don’t There isn’t enough consensus for me, in good conscience, to define abortion as anything under the law.

Current law does not extend citizenship, and therefore rights, to the unborn.



There is a difference between legislating crime, and allowing acts that some consider immoral and others don’t There isn’t enough consensus for me, in good conscience, to define abortion as anything under the law.



But this isn't an issue of what some consider immoral and others don't like homosexuality. This is wrong no matter who you are :(

But this isn't an issue of what some consider immoral and others don't like homosexuality. This is wrong no matter who you are :(

I agree that both homosexuality and abortion are wrong, but not everybody does, not even all Christians do. We live in a pluralistic, representative republic, not a rule by majority democracy. Why can’t you just be content to personally not be gay, and not get an abortion? Why do you feel that you need to use the government as an avenue to force your beliefs on others?

I agree that both homosexuality and abortion are wrong, but not everybody does, not even all Christians do. We live in a pluralistic, representative republic, not a rule by majority democracy. Why can’t you just be content to personally not be gay, and not get an abortion? Why do you feel that you need to use the government as an avenue to force your beliefs on others?


Because abortion DOES harm others...why should I stand idly by while others commit murder?

Because abortion DOES harm others...why should I stand idly by while others commit murder?

To look at the other side of the coin; do you volunteer to help families with a terminal child or a severly handicapped child?

To look at the other side of the coin; do you volunteer to help families with a terminal child or a severly handicapped child?



I volunteer for a lot of things. Yes, I have helped the mentally challenged out.

Current law does not extend citizenship, and therefore rights, to the unborn.
Incorrect. The constitution extends rights to all people, not just citizens. Some of them at least.


However, the argument is that the unborn are not alive, and therefor can not be murdered (even if they were, for arguments sake, alive human beings, they could not be murdered, as murder is a word defined as illegal killing. Abortion is legal.)

The Solicitor General and the attorneys in that office represent the governments side of the case before the Courts (Appellate, Supreme etc.).

When he wrote that abortion should be overturned he was not writing it as John Roberts' personal opinion. It was how the Executive branch wanted to present its case.

Incorrect. The constitution extends rights to all people, not just citizens. Some of them at least.

Yeah, I know but I couldn’t think of another term to use, since I do consider them to be alive.

Because abortion DOES harm others...why should I stand idly by while others commit murder?

I suppose you will always have the right to protest, even if you don’t understand the principles of a limited government, which are gradually being chipped away at by opportunist politicians who exploit people like you.

The Solicitor General and the attorneys in that office represent the governments side of the case before the Courts (Appellate, Supreme etc.).

When he wrote that abortion should be overturned he was not writing it as John Roberts' personal opinion. It was how the Executive branch wanted to present its case.
There are ways to argue to keep certain laws without stating that you wish to overturn roe (very few federal laws have tried to overturn roe at its core, the skirmishing is around the edges, eg banning partial birth abortion and everything)

The Solicitor General and the attorneys in that office represent the governments side of the case before the Courts (Appellate, Supreme etc.).

When he wrote that abortion should be overturned he was not writing it as John Roberts' personal opinion. It was how the Executive branch wanted to present its case.
good point

Incorrect. The constitution extends rights to all people, not just citizens. Some of them at least.


However, the argument is that the unborn are not alive, and therefor can not be murdered (even if they were, for arguments sake, alive human beings, they could not be murdered, as murder is a word defined as illegal killing. Abortion is legal.)
Circular reasoning. Abortion is only legal because the fetus is not given legal status as a human being. Murder, I would hazard to guess, is probably defined as killing another human being. Ergo, if the fetus is an "alive human being", murder is committed when its life is terminated.

Current law does not extend citizenship, and therefore rights, to the unborn.

For the purposes of the abortion debate, citizenship is irrelevant. Quoting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution:

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Not any citizen. Any PERSON.

Roe v. Wade declared that the unborn were not "persons" under the Constitution, because no other Constitutional provision dealing with "persons" could be made to apply to them.

Of course, that is an argument from silence that purposesly ignores the one Constitutional provision that DOES apply to the unborn (the Amendment quoted above), so basically what we have is the Supreme Court declaring that the unborn are non-persons for no other reason than that they said so.

Judicial fiat at its very worst.

I'll find out who it is when it's announced to the media.

BTW, he originally said that he'd fire anyone connected to the leak. I'm sure glad we didn't elect the Flip Flopping candidate.


[/sarcasm]?

For the purposes of the abortion debate, citizenship is irrelevant. Quoting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution:



Not any citizen. Any PERSON.

Roe v. Wade declared that the unborn were not "persons" under the Constitution, because no other Constitutional provision dealing with "persons" could be made to apply to them.

Of course, that is an argument from silence that purposesly ignores the one Constitutional provision that DOES apply to the unborn (the Amendment quoted above), so basically what we have is the Supreme Court declaring that the unborn are non-persons for no other reason than that they said so.

Judicial fiat at its very worst.
I'm in no way supporting abortion, but in saying that the Supreme Court declared that the unborn aren't people for no other reason than that they said so is saying that the Court was doing its job. Whether or not the judgement is wrong, that's how they interpreted it.

I agree that both homosexuality and abortion are wrong, but not everybody does, not even all Christians do. We live in a pluralistic, representative republic, not a rule by majority democracy. Why can’t you just be content to personally not be gay, and not get an abortion? Why do you feel that you need to use the government as an avenue to force your beliefs on others?


I swear, I can't stand you libertarians as far as economics go, but damn, nothing gets me like libertarian social logic. Props to you :D

I swear, I can't stand you libertarians as far as economics go, but damn, nothing gets me like libertarian social logic. Props to you :D


My intellectual rival in high school was a libertarian (I was the only communist in school) and we found each other agreeing better than anyone else on social issues, though one time, while arguing on economic issues, he threatened to throw a chair at me. Odd.

I'm in no way supporting abortion, but in saying that the Supreme Court declared that the unborn aren't people for no other reason than that they said so is saying that the Court was doing its job. Whether or not the judgement is wrong, that's how they interpreted it.

That's the point--there WAS no interpretation. Just a completely unsupported declaration--a deliberate decision to ignore part of the Constitution because they felt like it.

CSW-

Like I said, it was the opinion of the Bush 41 Administration that RvW be overturned. The case in question had to do with federal funding of abortion (or something abortion related). He was the Deputy Solicitor General in that case, he was representing the goverments side.

John Roberts' personal opinion on RvW is IRRELEVANT in anything he did as Deputy Solicitor General.

I volunteer for a lot of things. Yes, I have helped the mentally challenged out.

Volunteering an hour or two at a special ed class is not the same as helping a family deal with a severe downs case.

It's easy to say abortion = murder when you don't have a clue as what it means to deal with a child born to die in the matter of days, maybe weeks, maybe months if you are lucky.

It's easy to say abortion= murder when you don't have a clue as to what it means to live with a severe downs case where the child needs 24/7 care.

When you see a couple families disintigrate over such a life, then we can talk about things.

Volunteering an hour or two at a special ed class is not the same as helping a family deal with a severe downs case.

It's easy to say abortion = murder when you don't have a clue as what it means to deal with a child born to die in the matter of days, maybe weeks, maybe months if you are lucky.

It's easy to say abortion= murder when you don't have a clue as to what it means to live with a severe downs case where the child needs 24/7 care.

When you see a couple families disintigrate over such a life, then we can talk about things.



Oh, and do you think that poor child would have rather been killed? That's sickening, take your eugenics elsewhere. I know many handicapped people who would be infuriated if they read this.

Circular reasoning. Abortion is only legal because the fetus is not given legal status as a human being. Murder, I would hazard to guess, is probably defined as killing another human being. Ergo, if the fetus is an "alive human being", murder is committed when its life is terminated.
It's a semantics question, and not circular reasoning.

Abortion is not murder because it is legal. Murder, by definition, is the illegal killing of a person (for example, self defense is not murder, nor are accidents (manslaughter), nor are deaths during war, by and large).

Because you are not killing someone, you are not commiting murder. No circular reasoning there.

Not any citizen. Any PERSON.

Roe v. Wade declared that the unborn were not "persons" under the Constitution, because no other Constitutional provision dealing with "persons" could be made to apply to them.

Of course, that is an argument from silence that purposesly ignores the one Constitutional provision that DOES apply to the unborn (the Amendment quoted above), so basically what we have is the Supreme Court declaring that the unborn are non-persons for no other reason than that they said so.

Judicial fiat at its very worst.
If you're going to argue fiat, you're better off attempting to shoot down the right to privacy argument, an extremely weak one in Roe (I believe it to be correct, but it is on shaky grounds, or rather was).

Roe v. Wade does not completely legalize abortion, much to the contrary of some of the bullshit produced by pro-life groups. I quote: "Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach."

Again, the court in Roe held that the original wording of the document, because of the feelings of the time about abortion around 1860 (either banned for medical reasons, due to threats to the mother, or allowed before 'quickening', "that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn"), also citing the fact that "In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth." and "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." that abortion can not be limited in all cases. However 'In view of all this, we do not agree that, by adopting one theory of life, Texas may override the rights of the pregnant woman that are at stake. We repeat, however, that the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches [410 U.S. 113, 163] term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."'

Roe does allow for restrictions upon abortions in the second term, and outright bans in the third. It isn't black and white, it isn't judical fait, not in the least bit.

Volunteering an hour or two at a special ed class is not the same as helping a family deal with a severe downs case.

It's easy to say abortion = murder when you don't have a clue as what it means to deal with a child born to die in the matter of days, maybe weeks, maybe months if you are lucky.

It's easy to say abortion= murder when you don't have a clue as to what it means to live with a severe downs case where the child needs 24/7 care.

When you see a couple families disintigrate over such a life, then we can talk about things.
Wait a second...

Are you saying that those children are born to die? The lives that most of those children live is enough to inspire many people. I grew up with a guy who was born with half his brain. He never did anything more than sit around and just BE. His relatives had to tend to him 24/7, and he had special accomodations built throughout his house. He cost his family time and money, but they realize that he was more of a blessing in their lives than anything else has been. That family is stronger than most that I've seen.

Oh, and do you think that poor child would have rather been killed? That's sickening, take your eugenics elsewhere. I know many handicapped people who would be infuriated if they read this.

Sorry kiddo, you only can guess what they want.

In the matters of life vs death, why is there a right to die fight going on?

Sorry kiddo, you really haven't been around long enough to know what it's like to deal with these matters.

Sorry kiddo, you only can guess what they want.

In the matters of life vs death, why is there a right to die fight going on?

Sorry kiddo, you really haven't been around long enough to know what it's like to deal with these matters.



Then let the individual decide whether they want to live or not, don't just assume they wouldn't. Quit trying to justify homicide, you know it's wrong. I've known of families who have to deal with handicapped children, and did they kill their child? No, they have something called "compassion". This isn't Nazi Germany where the physically and mentally handicapped where purged.

It's a semantics question, and not circular reasoning.

Abortion is not murder because it is legal. Murder, by definition, is the illegal killing of a person (for example, self defense is not murder, nor are accidents (manslaughter), nor are deaths during war, by and large).

Because you are not killing someone, you are not commiting murder. No circular reasoning there.


Semantics, circular reasoning, whatever - the crux of the matter is whether the fetus should have legal standing as a human being. If it were defined as a human being, ending its life, by any state's definition, would be murder.

Wait a second...

Are you saying that those children are born to die? The lives that most of those children live is enough to inspire many people. I grew up with a guy who was born with half his brain. He never did anything more than sit around and just BE. His relatives had to tend to him 24/7, and he had special accomodations built throughout his house. He cost his family time and money, but they realize that he was more of a blessing in their lives than anything else has been. That family is stronger than most that I've seen.

Born to die in my post is reference to Cystic Fibrosis. You have a 35% chance to make it to 18. There are reports of the numbers going up but those are debated. If you have a child with this horrid disease, you have to have a team of doctors for eating issues and a team of doctors for breathing.

My wifes family had a case of this. The girl lived 2 weeks under machinery and heavily medicated. My mother-in-law once remarked she thinks she never knew who she was.

End result. A man who left the church(long story but the short of it was an asshole priest "you are being punished by God" A woman who was over protective towards my wife.

I know of 3 other familes with bad cases of downs. Two have divorsed and the third is about to. These are really bad downs cases. There are varying degrees of it.

It's easy to judge when you don't have to live the life or deal with the results.

As to your story. That is good. Good results due happen and it's easier when the family is near by. In my case or my wifes case, they are not.

The real question to ask is if they knew he was going to be born that way. Would they have gone through with it. Sometimes you don't know as the situtation was not presented at the time.

I don't know your friends so I am not casting an opinion on them.

It's easy to think about it after the fact and it's another when faced with the choice.

Then let the individual decide whether they want to live or not, don't just assume they wouldn't. Quit trying to justify homicide, you know it's wrong. I've known of families who have to deal with handicapped children, and did they kill their child? No, they have something called "compassion". This isn't Nazi Germany where the physically and mentally handicapped where purged.

I'm talking terminal disease sweety.

When you have had to deal with a case, then we can talk.

Your Nazi and eugenics talk overlooks one thing. That was a forced program where people didn't have a choice.

That is just as bad as being told by fudiloons that you have to have the child because it's Gods will.

Gods a big boy. If it's wrong, let him handle the punishment.

It's his job; not yours.

I'm talking terminal disease sweety.

When you have had to deal with a case, then we can talk.

Your Nazi and eugenics talk overlooks one thing. That was a forced program where people didn't have a choice.

That is just as bad as being told by fudiloons that you have to have the child because it's Gods will.

Gods a big boy. If it's wrong, let him handle the punishment.

It's his job; not yours.


You think I haven't known people closely who have such a case? The child gave them much trouble, but did they kill him? No, he's alive and well. Murder is wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

You think I haven't known people closely who have such a case? The child gave them much trouble, but did they kill him? No, he's alive and well. Murder is wrong, no matter how you try to spin it.

Neo sweety, if you want to bash this out, then start another thread. I am going to be polite and stop hijacking this thread for a morality chat.

Roe v. Wade does not completely legalize abortion, much to the contrary of some of the bullshit produced by pro-life groups. I quote: "Although the results are divided, most of these courts have agreed that the right of privacy, however based, is broad enough to cover the abortion decision; that the right, nonetheless, is not absolute and is subject to some limitations; and that at some point the state interests as to protection of health, medical standards, and prenatal life, become dominant. We agree with this approach."

(snip)

Roe does allow for restrictions upon abortions in the second term, and outright bans in the third. It isn't black and white, it isn't judical fait, not in the least bit.

That, to borrow your phrase, is bullshit produced by pro-choice groups, and if you're going to cite case law you should damn well know it.

The relevant case here is Doe v. Bolton, Roe's companion case released on the same day. It did two things that rendered Roe's "limitations" completely meaningless: first, it expanded the definition of "health," as relating to the medical necessity of abortion, to include "all factors - physical, emotional, psychological, familial, and the woman's age - relevant to the well-being of the patient."

Secondly, it declared that there is no need for any administrative oversight of such declarations--the only doctor who need be involved is the abortionist him- or herself.

Thus, under the legal norms of the United States of America, an abortion can be performed all the way up to just before birth on grounds as flimsy as an abortionist's contention that not being able to fit into a dress would cause the mother emotional harm.

That is the law of the land, and it's been the law of the land since the day Roe and Doe were issued.

Now, going back to your other contention...

Again, the court in Roe held that the original wording of the document, because of the feelings of the time about abortion around 1860 (either banned for medical reasons, due to threats to the mother, or allowed before 'quickening', "that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn"),

The "prevailing legal abortion practices" the Court tries to cite as examples were already being overturned legislatively in various states decades before the Fourteenth Amendment was passed. They are not in any way, shape, or form a valid measure of the scope of "person" as used in the Amendment.

also citing the fact that "In areas other than criminal abortion, the law has been reluctant to endorse any theory that life, as we recognize it, begins before live birth or to accord legal rights to the unborn except in narrowly defined situations and except when the rights are contingent upon live birth." and "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense."

The "interests involved" relate to individuals other than the unborn. THEIR interests absolutely are contingent upon live birth.

That, however, has nothing whatsoever to do with the interests of the unborn themselves. Quite frankly, there IS no area other than criminal abortion where the interests of the unborn themselves are involved.

Of course, by this point in the case the Court had already declared that the unborn were not persons, so the interests of those other individuals were the only thing the Court considered here. And that basically renders this whole line of argument moot.

Born to die in my post is reference to Cystic Fibrosis. You have a 35% chance to make it to 18. There are reports of the numbers going up but those are debated. If you have a child with this horrid disease, you have to have a team of doctors for eating issues and a team of doctors for breathing.

My wifes family had a case of this. The girl lived 2 weeks under machinery and heavily medicated. My mother-in-law once remarked she thinks she never knew who she was.

End result. A man who left the church(long story but the short of it was an asshole priest "you are being punished by God" A woman who was over protective towards my wife.

I know of 3 other familes with bad cases of downs. Two have divorsed and the third is about to. These are really bad downs cases. There are varying degrees of it.

It's easy to judge when you don't have to live the life or deal with the results.

As to your story. That is good. Good results due happen and it's easier when the family is near by. In my case or my wifes case, they are not.

The real question to ask is if they knew he was going to be born that way. Would they have gone through with it. Sometimes you don't know as the situtation was not presented at the time.

I don't know your friends so I am not casting an opinion on them.

It's easy to think about it after the fact and it's another when faced with the choice.
I know they would have gone through with it if they had known beforehand. It most likely was not a punishment from God, but a lesson from Him. You can't learn some lessons unless you experience the consequences personally (i.e. burning your hand on a hot stove).

Neo sweety, if you want to bash this out, then start another thread. I am going to be polite and stop hijacking this thread for a morality chat.
please try to be less demeaning, "sweety"

Semantics, circular reasoning, whatever - the crux of the matter is whether the fetus should have legal standing as a human being. If it were defined as a human being, ending its life, by any state's definition, would be murder.


Actually, Abortion is considered to be a tissue extraction procedure, or one meant to end a pregnancy. The fetus is treated accordingly. The limbs are ripped from their tiny bodies, or chopped up before extraction. The procedure is treated as an extraction. There is no "should" about it. Should is your attempt to legislate. And frankly, you aren't going to do that. 60% of the American population support abortion rights as they are. So suck it up and be thankful when your daughter screws up.

So suck it up and be thankful when your daughter screws up.
wow

When will you guys learn that intelligent debating has nothing to do with attacking someone's character? That was a very heartless comment, and you should honestly think about your words if you want someone to take your arguement seriously.

Actually, Abortion is considered to be a tissue extraction procedure, or one meant to end a pregnancy. The fetus is treated accordingly. The limbs are ripped from their tiny bodies, or chopped up before extraction. The procedure is treated as an extraction. There is no "should" about it. Should is your attempt to legislate. And frankly, you aren't going to do that. 60% of the American population support abortion rights as they are. So suck it up and be thankful when your daughter screws up.
Is there a point in the middle of your overheated rhetoric? Is there some urgent need for you to be nasty in the middle of what, up to now, has been a relatively polite exchange?

Actually, Abortion is considered to be a tissue extraction procedure, or one meant to end a pregnancy. The fetus is treated accordingly. The limbs are ripped from their tiny bodies, or chopped up before extraction. The procedure is treated as an extraction. There is no "should" about it. Should is your attempt to legislate. And frankly, you aren't going to do that. 60% of the American population support abortion rights as they are. So suck it up and be thankful when your daughter screws up.

You know what you just did? You just convinced the anti-choicers that pro-choicers are evil and don’t care about life. Congratulations.

You know what you just did? You just convinced the anti-choicers that pro-choicers are evil and don’t care about life. Congratulations.


I already thought they were :p

I know they would have gone through with it if they had known beforehand. It most likely was not a punishment from God, but a lesson from Him. You can't learn some lessons unless you experience the consequences personally (i.e. burning your hand on a hot stove).

Could be. Then again we can only guess.

In my wifes case, what lesson is there to learn? They tend to die horribly. Cases of Parkinsons, Lou Gerings, Hodgekins....

What was the lesson of a life of 2 weeks?

please try to be less demeaning, "sweety"

Nah. I save that for people like Neo. She tends to say rather nasty things.

I already thought they were :p
haha, that was a good one

i know this is definitely off topic, but what part of b'ham are you in? i live in homewood.

haha, that was a good one

i know this is definitely off topic, but what part of b'ham are you in? i live in homewood.



Fultondale. Not really Birmingham, but close enough :D

wow

When will you guys learn that intelligent debating has nothing to do with attacking someone's character? That was a very heartless comment, and you should honestly think about your words if you want someone to take your arguement seriously.

Ahhh not been on the General long? :D

Thinking before speaking is against the rules here. :p

Could be. Then again we can only guess.

In my wifes case, what lesson is there to learn? They tend to die horribly. Cases of Parkinsons, Lou Gerings, Hodgekins....

What was the lesson of a life of 2 weeks?
Perhaps to...value life more?

I know a couple who had a daughter who died less than 24 hours after her birth. They went through with the whole process while knowing that their daughter would never live. I'm not completely aware of the whole story, but they felt like they were very blessed to have been able to keep their daughter for as long as they did. It showed them how precious life is, and how it can disappear in less than seconds.

Perhaps to...value life more?

I know a couple who had a daughter who died less than 24 hours after her birth. They went through with the whole process while knowing that their daughter would never live. I'm not completely aware of the whole story, but they felt like they were very blessed to have been able to keep their daughter for as long as they did. It showed them how precious life is, and how it can disappear in less than seconds.

Don't know. Can only guess. They are Italians and they tend to live life as it's going to end soon. ;) The majority of them are the types you would want around if you knew the world was going to end. They would have a party. ;)

It's good your couple was able to get through their loss. Many don't. Many deal with loss in different ways. Finding the positive I guess is their way.

Hmph. Shall we hijack the thread in the direction of free-will discussion? ;)

Don't know. Can only guess. They are Italians and they tend to live life as it's going to end soon. ;) The majority of them are the types you would want around if you knew the world was going to end. They would have a party. ;)

It's good your couple was able to get through their loss. Many don't. Many deal with loss in different ways. Finding the positive I guess is their way.

Hmph. Shall we hijack the thread in the direction of free-will discussion? ;)
I think that this thread is already long gone, and I'm sorry to have helped in the hijacking. Anyways, I'm hopeful for this judge, whatever his stance is. He seems to promote the court's job as being the interpreters and not the legislators. I hope this is a positive move for our country.

I think that this thread is already long gone, and I'm sorry to have helped in the hijacking. Anyways, I'm hopeful for this judge, whatever his stance is. He seems to promote the court's job as being the interpreters and not the legislators. I hope this is a positive move for our country.



Huh? This thread was about a judge? You can tell it's a successful hijacking if you can't remember the original topic :)

I like the misbelief that conservatives can't legislate from the bench...I'm just waiting for a flag-burning case to get to the Supreme Court before a flag burning amendment somehow passes...

I like the misbelief that conservatives can't legislate from the bench...I'm just waiting for a flag-burning case to get to the Supreme Court before a flag burning amendment somehow passes...
I didn't say they can't, I said he doesn't seem like the type who would. He did say that RvW was the law of the land. He contradicted this arguement, but only because he was paid to do so. That's something that any lawyer would do.

I think that this thread is already long gone, and I'm sorry to have helped in the hijacking. Anyways, I'm hopeful for this judge, whatever his stance is. He seems to promote the court's job as being the interpreters and not the legislators. I hope this is a positive move for our country.

Time will tell. I will look forward to seeing more of his track record.

I don't listen to the legislating from the bench comments as it usually involves stuff some people don't like.

As long as he pockets his "morality" code and evaluates the law for what it is? He could be ok.

As long as he isn't another Scalia or Thomas, then I won't have much issues with him.

Time will tell. I will look forward to seeing more of his track record.

I don't listen to the legislating from the bench comments as it usually involves stuff some people don't like.

As long as he pockets his "morality" code and evaluates the law for what it is? He could be ok.

As long as he isn't another Scalia or Thomas, then I won't have much issues with him.

It's the scary consequence of granting the court system so much power. Frankly, if we are going to continue to safeguard rights at the bar instead of the ballot box, we should look into changing the way federal judges are appointed.

Think about it, the Supreme Court has vast amounts of power as it is currently understood, yet arguably this chap could sit there immune from public censure for the next 30-40 years provided he doesn't break the law or become insane. That's pretty nuts if you ask me. Especially as other countries seem to manage without this type of "safeguard". It's just to much power for nine unelected, appointed for life, individuals to have in their hands.

Interesting...A stealth canidate. Nothing much is known about him, so nothing much can be said against him.

Say what you will about this presidency, but they know how to play politics. They've effectively side-stepped a huge fight that could weaken them further, and drawn attention away from other matters that are hurting them.

My initial review of the canidate is that he's probably either a "mainstream conservative" judge or he's dressed up like one. With no record to speak of, he could be hiding anything, and it would likely only be after he's on the bench that anyone would find out. Given his youth (he's only 50) he'll be there for a looooong time. Thus he's a significant risk to the vested interests he may be ruling on.

However, unless something comes out during the vetting process to make me suspect he's a trojan horse, I support the idea of another mainstream judge on the bench. Perhaps he can help undo the damage that recent "eminent domain" ruling did to our nation.

Lets all wait and see what comes out when Congress grills him about his past, present and future.

It's the scary consequence of granting the court system so much power. Frankly, if we are going to continue to safeguard rights at the bar instead of the ballot box, we should look into changing the way federal judges are appointed.

Think about it, the Supreme Court has vast amounts of power as it is currently understood, yet arguably this chap could sit there immune from public censure for the next 30-40 years provided he doesn't break the law or become insane. That's pretty nuts if you ask me. Especially as other countries seem to manage without this type of "safeguard". It's just to much power for nine unelected, appointed for life, individuals to have in their hands.

It's a tough call. We could term limit them but that would probably make for more nutjobs or the very least beholden to the people that get them in. At least in the current setup, once they are in they can flip their supporters the bird. ;)

Elections? God no! Scalia types across the board. *Shudders*

And for a different note:

It begins.

One comment that he is an activist judge:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/thenation/20050720/cm_thenation/17456

Interesting...A stealth canidate. Nothing much is known about him, so nothing much can be said against him.

Say what you will about this presidency, but they know how to play politics. They've effectively side-stepped a huge fight that could weaken them further, and drawn attention away from other matters that are hurting them.

My initial review of the canidate is that he's probably either a "mainstream conservative" judge or he's dressed up like one. With no record to speak of, he could be hiding anything, and it would likely only be after he's on the bench that anyone would find out. Given his youth (he's only 50) he'll be there for a looooong time. Thus he's a significant risk to the vested interests he may be ruling on.

However, unless something comes out during the vetting process to make me suspect he's a trojan horse, I support the idea of another mainstream judge on the bench. Perhaps he can help undo the damage that recent "eminent domain" ruling did to our nation.

Lets all wait and see what comes out when Congress grills him about his past, present and future.


And to go hand-in-hand with the "stealth judge" idea, the timing is nice as well. The Rove scandal is getting nasty, so distract with a different and nicer major news story. (Yes, the Bush admin. had to make a choice, but I'm talking about the timing of that choice and the announcement.)

One comment that he is an activist judge:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/thenation/20050720/cm_thenation/17456


It's not really fair to judge him by good faith arguments made on behalf of a client though. He wouldn't be a very good lawyer if he didn't try and articulate the client's (in this case the government) viewpoint, rather than his own.