Leading Candidate To Replace Supreme Court Justice

[Socrates]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='10 May 2010 - 02:27 PM' timestamp='1273516071' post='2108162']
I don't think having a pro-abortionist liberal on the supreme court makes much of a difference...


...we have right-wing conservatives who are the majority on that court, and I don't see them doing much to stop abortion in our country...
[/quote]
The Supreme Court won't do much to stop abortion in our country unless it receives a challenge from one or more of the states. However, no laws which would challenge Roe v. Wade seem to get through the state governments.
This is why it is crucial that pro-lifers work hard to get strongly and sincerely pro-life people in office at the state and local levels. Simply voting for a "pro-life" presidential candidate every four years isn't in itself going to get much done.

Of course, it's much easier to beesh about the worthlessness of "right-wing conservatives," and apathetically hand the entire government over to pro-abort leftists of the worse kind, whom you can always rely on to strike down even the smallest restrictions on abortion.
Pro-abortion politicians depend on the apathy and despair of the pro-life voting populace to get and stay in power, and advance their agenda.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' date='10 May 2010 - 01:39 PM' timestamp='1273513173' post='2108137']
could we maybe keep the discussion to her qualifications/limits/abilities, rather than poking fun at her facial features?

i can't find much on her (big surprise)...
[/quote]
"Why so serious?"

It's an Obama nominee. What do you think we're going to get? A constitutionalist?

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Socrates' date='10 May 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1273520384' post='2108205']
The Supreme Court won't do much to stop abortion in our country unless it receives a challenge from one or more of the states. However, no laws which would challenge Roe v. Wade seem to get through the state governments.
This is why it is crucial that pro-lifers work hard to get strongly and sincerely pro-life people in office at the state and local levels. Simply voting for a "pro-life" presidential candidate every four years isn't in itself going to get much done.

Of course, it's much easier to beesh about the worthlessness of "right-wing conservatives," and apathetically hand the entire government over to pro-abort leftists of the worse kind, whom you can always rely on to strike down even the smallest restrictions on abortion.
Pro-abortion politicians depend on the apathy and despair of the pro-life voting populace to get and stay in power, and advance their agenda.
[/quote]

So, there is absolutely nothing the conservatives in the supreme court can do to overturn roe v wade, unless a court case from a lower court comes to them challenging it??? so much for a "supreme" court...

[CatherineM]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='10 May 2010 - 04:33 PM' timestamp='1273527221' post='2108284']
So, there is absolutely nothing the conservatives in the supreme court can do to overturn roe v wade, unless a court case from a lower court comes to them challenging it??? so much for a "supreme" court...
[/quote]
That's all the Supreme Court does, reviews cases presented to it from the Appeals Court level.

On the news here, they mentioned that while this increases the gender diversity of the Court, it further isolated the intellectual diversity by having someone else from an Ivy League school.

[StMichael]

Roe vs. Wade is unconstitutional. The justices at the time created a law, which our Constitution does not allow. The decision was made on a leap that the murdering of the unborn was a "privacy right." Then so would be rape, murder and a ton of other scenarios.

It can be overturned, but only if the Justices actually adhered to the Constitution which since FDR they have not.

Furthermore, this was a trumping of State rights. The states can enact laws for or against. The Feds cannot. The Feds are to ensure that the Constitution is being upheld, deliver the mail and defend the nation. The states, and for some time, have lost any and all sovereignty since the days of Wilson to FDR to now Obama.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Socrates' date='10 May 2010 - 03:39 PM' timestamp='1273520384' post='2108205']
The Supreme Court won't do much to stop abortion in our country unless it receives a challenge from one or more of the states. However, no laws which would challenge Roe v. Wade seem to get through the state governments.
This is why it is crucial that pro-lifers work hard to get strongly and sincerely pro-life people in office at the state and local levels. Simply voting for a "pro-life" presidential candidate every four years isn't in itself going to get much done.

Of course, it's much easier to beesh about the worthlessness of "right-wing conservatives," and apathetically hand the entire government over to pro-abort leftists of the worse kind, whom you can always rely on to strike down even the smallest restrictions on abortion.
Pro-abortion politicians depend on the apathy and despair of the pro-life voting populace to get and stay in power, and advance their agenda.
[/quote]

i don't really place my trust in politicians or judges...I don't really depend on them to do anything positive for the pro-life cause...there hasn't been any politician or judge bold enough to expose abortion for what it is... (at least not the ones who have a chance at winning elections...) these guys are sitting on their hands waiting for someone else to challenge Roe V. Wade...and i get kinda tired hearing how abortion comes up everytime there are nominees or candidates, as if things will change...nothing ever changes...

I trust only in the church, to spread the Gospel of Life, in order to change men's hearts...and only then will we ever see a significant shift in the attitudes towards abortion...

but i'm off topic...

[quote name='CatherineM' date='10 May 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1273535208' post='2108352']
That's all the Supreme Court does, reviews cases presented to it from the Appeals Court level.
[/quote]

yeah, i knew that...i guess i was just wishfully thinking they could review roe v wade, challenge it or something if they really wanted to...i mean, after all, that supreme court decision is murdering babies every hour on the hour...I wish there was something the supreme court could do about one of it's own decisions...

[CatherineM]

Plus the Supreme Court can't rule against Roe Vs. Wade, ever. Once a decision has been made, it is made. They can re-interpret the decisions slowly over time by making decisions on cases that take on small issues or side issues.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='10 May 2010 - 05:33 PM' timestamp='1273527221' post='2108284']
So, there is absolutely nothing the conservatives in the supreme court can do to overturn roe v wade, unless a court case from a lower court comes to them challenging it??? so much for a "supreme" court...
[/quote]


[quote name='CatherineM' date='10 May 2010 - 07:46 PM' timestamp='1273535208' post='2108352']
That's all the Supreme Court does, reviews cases presented to it from the Appeals Court level.
[/quote]
Exactly. The Supreme Court, by its nature, only reviews and rules on cases, it cannot simply dictate law. Then it would not be a court, but a dictatorship.
Don't get me wrong - I'd love it if there was a way the court could simply instantly reverse Roe v. Wade.
But, you have to also consider if the court was able to make bad rulings without even hearing a case.
Of course, the court overstepped its bounds with Roe v. Wade, but giving the court dictatorial powers beyond what it already possesses would only increase the potential for and likelihood of abuse.

Of course we need to change men's hearts, but we shouldn't abandon the legal political fight either - that will only ensure continued defeat.

[Apotheoun]

The Supreme Court can overrule older decisions a case in point being Lawrence v. Texas.

[havok579257]

its so great when i see posts like these. let's make catholic's look great by attacking a women's looks. cause that is definatly something Jesus would have done, attack someone about how they look physcially. i don't like the nomaniee any more than most on here but i don't feel the need to insult the ladies looks. its just not catholic.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='10 May 2010 - 06:21 PM' timestamp='1273526480' post='2108281']
"Why so serious?"

It's an Obama nominee. What do you think we're going to get? A constitutionalist?
[/quote]
but...but he was a constitutional law professor! How dare you, sir!

[kamiller42]

[quote name='havok579257' date='12 May 2010 - 10:44 PM' timestamp='1273718645' post='2109698']
its so great when i see posts like these. let's make catholic's look great by attacking a women's looks. cause that is definatly something Jesus would have done, attack someone about how they look physcially. i don't like the nomaniee any more than most on here but i don't feel the need to insult the ladies looks. its just not catholic.
[/quote]
I'm sure Jesus has a sense of humor and would appreciate some parody.

No. We don't believe Egan is Kevin James no more than [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarja_Halonen"]Tarja Halonen[/url] is Conan O'Brien.

[img]http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/conan-obrien.jpg[/img]

[Nihil Obstat]

I still see David Duchovny in there.
[img]http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/01.22/photos/14-hlsskating3-225.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.buzzine.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/david_duchovny0_20080721.jpg[/img]

[MIKolbe]

what exactly IS a solicitor general, anyways?

[add]

This nominee publicly opposed the holding in [i]Rust v Sullivan[/i] which upheld restrictions on the use of government funds to pay for the killing. That has ominous implications given the coming implementation of Health Care Reform.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='kamiller42' date='13 May 2010 - 12:53 AM' timestamp='1273726404' post='2109766']
I'm sure Jesus has a sense of humor and would appreciate some parody.

No. We don't believe Egan is Kevin James no more than [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarja_Halonen"]Tarja Halonen[/url] is Conan O'Brien.

[img]http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2008/07/conan-obrien.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

I don't see it...

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='13 May 2010 - 01:00 AM' timestamp='1273726814' post='2109771']
I still see David Duchovny in there.
[img]http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2004/01.22/photos/14-hlsskating3-225.jpg[/img] [img]http://www.buzzine.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/david_duchovny0_20080721.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

...they could have been seperated at birth!

[CatherineM]

[quote name='MIkolbe' date='13 May 2010 - 05:29 AM' timestamp='1273746543' post='2109823']
what exactly IS a solicitor general, anyways?
[/quote]
Most countries divide lawyer jobs into the guys who do the paperwork, and the guys who do the actual court work into solicitors and barristers. Technically the Attorney General is the one who does the court work for a state, and the Solicitor General is the one who takes care of the legal paperwork for the state.

[add]

Does anyone actually believe that the most rabid pro-abortion president in American history would pick anyone other than a fellow pro-abortionist?

[kamiller42]

And now, a reading from the Book of the Obvious...

[quote][b]EXCLUSIVE: Documents Show Kagan's Liberal Opinion on Social Issues[/b]

Elena Kagan has kept her cards so close to the vest that in the days after President Obama nominated her to the Supreme Court, some on the left worried she was too moderate to replace liberal Justice John Paul Stevens.

But in documents obtained by CBS News, Kagan--while working as a law clerk to the late Justice Thurgood Marshall - made her positions clear on some of the nation's most contentious social issues.

The documents, buried in Marshall's papers in the Library of Congress, show Kagan standing shoulder-to-shoulder with the liberal left, at a time when the Rehnquist Supreme Court was moving to the conservative right.

They also provide a remarkably candid picture of her opinions, including on the most controversial issue Supreme Court nominees ever confront: abortion.

Although Kagan's confirmation has thus far been an all but foregone conclusion, sources say these documents will give Republicans a few cards of their own to mount a strong fight against her.

And they will only heighten demands for more information on her views--including interest in her papers in the Clinton Library. Some of the Clinton Library documents, which cover her time working in that administration, could be released as early as Friday.

The Marshall documents are legal memos summarizing cases the Court had been asked to consider. They cover the spectrum of hot-button social issues: abortion, civil rights, gun rights, prisoners' rights and the constitutional underpinnings for recognizing gay marriage.

[b]On abortion, Kagan wrote a memo in a case involving a prisoner who wanted the state to pay for her to have the procedure. Kagan expressed concern to Marshall that the conservative-leaning Court would use the case to rule against the woman--and possibly undo precedents protecting a woman's right to abortion.

"This case is likely to become the vehicle that this court uses to create some very bad law on abortion and/or prisoners' rights," she wrote in the 1988 memo.[/b]

[url="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-20006769-504564.html"]Read on.[/url][/quote]
Kagan is a liberal. I'm shocked!