Jaime Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 [quote]Should we vote for an unfit candidate? No, it is better not to vote than to vote for someone who is unfit. However, if we are to vote, vote for the one who comes closest to embodying the non-negotiable moral values....in this particular case, W. did that moreso than any other candidate, including Peroutka.[/quote] Not if George W places a moderate on the bench! Not by a long shot! The only serious shot we have of changing abortion laws is by changing the direction of the bench. George W would be closest if he appointed someone who was "mostly pro life" in that case he would more be the embodiment of Catholic non negotiables. But if he doesn't, and I mean this, people may have just as well voted for Kerry. It wouldn't be any different! There are almost 70,000,000 Catholics in the US. George Bush won the election with 62,000,000 votes What would have happened if we as Catholics soley voted on the issue of pro life and truly voted for a pro life candidate?
Cam42 Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:18 PM']Not if George W places a moderate on the bench! Not by a long shot! The only serious shot we have of changing abortion laws is by changing the direction of the bench. George W would be closest if he appointed someone who was "mostly pro life" in that case he would more be the embodiment of Catholic non negotiables. But if he doesn't, and I mean this, people may have just as well voted for Kerry. It wouldn't be any different! There are almost 70,000,000 Catholics in the US. George Bush won the election with 62,000,000 votes What would have happened if we as Catholics soley voted on the issue of pro life and truly voted for a pro life candidate? [right][snapback]646032[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And did 70,000,000 Catholics vote for Bush? I can name three (for sure, including you) who didn't. I am sure that there are more. And he is still a better candidate than Kerry, because he at least is in favor of limiting abortion, something Kerry is not. What did I post earlier? You have not addressed that yet.
Jaime Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:23 PM']And did 70,000,000 Catholics vote for Bush? I can name three (for sure, including you) who didn't. I am sure that there are more. And he is still a better candidate than Kerry, because he at least is in favor of limiting abortion, something Kerry is not. What did I post earlier? You have not addressed that yet. [right][snapback]646039[/snapback][/right] [/quote] No I'm saying if 70,000,000 Catholics voted for Peroutka, we'd have a Pro life president!!
Cam42 Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 16 2005, 11:26 PM']No I'm saying if 70,000,000 Catholics voted for Peroutka, we'd have a Pro life president!! [right][snapback]646045[/snapback][/right] [/quote] And someone who would not be a good governor of the nation. Is that being a good citizen? Which is also part of being a good Catholic....at least according to the Voter's guide......and the USCCB.....and Fr. Frank Pavone.
Jaime Posted July 17, 2005 Posted July 17, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 16 2005, 10:43 PM']And someone who would not be a good governor of the nation. Is that being a good citizen? Which is also part of being a good Catholic....at least according to the Voter's guide......and the USCCB.....and Fr. Frank Pavone. [right][snapback]646071[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Abso flippin lutely!! What am I willing to sacrifice to end the culture of death? 4 years of bad governing to ensure 1 (probably 2) pro life judges on the bench? Emphatically yes!! Our country can survive a bad presidential term. The next two Supreme court justices will be making decisions for the next 30 years!! We've survived horrible governing as close as Carter's administration and we've bounced back and not only survived but thrived!!
MC Just Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 A devout Practiving Catholic has been chosen!!! He's very consernvative. Thanks be to GOD.
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Judge John Roberts from Buffalo, NY. The liberals aren't too happy about that according to news reports.
Socrates Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) However, he has said: "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” I guess we'll see . . . Edited July 20, 2005 by Socrates
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) Edited to add: NARAL doesnt like him either, according to a couple things I've been looking up. Apparently he also said the following: [quote]Judge John G. Roberts. In a brief before the Supreme Court (Rust v. Sullivan, 500 US 173, 1991), Roberts wrote: QUOTE "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiæ, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." Source: Wilkopedia[/quote] Edited July 20, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS
BeenaBobba Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='dUSt' date='Jul 6 2005, 03:07 PM']If he doesn't appoint a pro-life judge he will have failed. Period. [right][snapback]633350[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Word.
Cam42 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 John Roberts is definitely conservative.......however, the jury is still out on the abortion thing...... He holds to the "while I am personally opposed....blah, blah, blah....." So, what are we to think. It is exactly what was expected. Is it a failure? I don't know yet. I would suspect probably not. However, hot stuff will probably jump all over this one. Fr. Pavone likes him, if that is any indicator. [quote]I am thrilled that the President has kept his promise by selecting a nominee who understands the importance of strictly adhering to the Constitution,” Pavone said. “The President’s selection of Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. shows that he has a fundamental understanding of the types of judges that we need on the Supreme Court, judges who understand the difference between applying law and rewriting law. I look forward to working to ensure that Judge John G. Roberts, Jr. is treated fairly and receives a timely up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate.[/quote]
jmjtina Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) hmmm, well ppl on the pro-choice side of the fence certainly don't like him. [url="http://www.prochoice.org/policy/courts/nominations/roberts_tymkovich_oppose.html"] click here[/url] Edited July 20, 2005 by jmjtina
Good Friday Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [b]"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”[/b] I told all of you this would happen back during the election, that Bush would not appoint a pro-life justice to the Supreme Court. No one listened to me. And yet, I was right. The comments he made [i]against[/i] Roe v. Wade, he made as a political appointee -- he was making them on behalf of the first Bush administration. On the other hand, the comments he made to the Senate Judiciary Committee . . . "law of the land" . . . "precedent" . . . these were his own words. He is pro-choice, and this is, frankly, what all of you deserve for reelecting President Bush and not paying attention to voices of reason.
Niccolò Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote]He is pro-choice, and this is, frankly, what all of you deserve for reelecting President Bush and not paying attention to voices of reason.[/quote] I wouldn't rush to judgement on this nominee. As a lower court justice, [i]Roe v. Wade[/i] is the settled law of the land, that's simply the sad fact. The Supreme Court is in a position to overturn settled law, and with this nominee I'm optimistic. His wife is the former Vice President of [url="http://www.feministsforlife.org/"]Feminists for Life[/url], NOW and NARAL oppose him, and he's Catholic (which unfortunately doesn't mean much, but hopefully he could join w/ Scalia and Thomas, who are both Catholic). Whom would you have had us vote for? Kerry? I assure you that had he just nominated a new Associate Justice, we would have no doubts about his support for [i]Roe v. Wade[/i]. Bush is simply the best chance the pro-life movement has to advance its agenda at this point.
White Knight Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 I missed the announcement, who did Bush's nominee? John Roberts or someone else?
Jaime Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 Unfortunately I haven't read enough on him to make an opinion. Whether it is in our favor or not, I think the appointment was a very good move politically. He doesn't have enough of a paper trail to really know where he stands on pro life. The judicial committee hearings will be very interesting. You know the dems are going to ask point blank questions on Roe v Wade. As always, its time to pray kids!!
Cam42 Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='hot stuff' date='Jul 20 2005, 10:40 AM']Unfortunately I haven't read enough on him to make an opinion. Whether it is in our favor or not, I think the appointment was a very good move politically. He doesn't have enough of a paper trail to really know where he stands on pro life. The judicial committee hearings will be very interesting. You know the dems are going to ask point blank questions on Roe v Wade. As always, its time to pray kids!! [right][snapback]650876[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Well, it isn't Gonzalez now is it Himester.......
Jaime Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 [quote name='Cam42' date='Jul 20 2005, 09:53 AM']Well, it isn't Gonzalez now is it Himester....... [right][snapback]650898[/snapback][/right] [/quote] Absolutely!! And I couldn't be happier about that! While I will be critical of W from time to time, I will also give him his due respect. Picking a juror without a large paper trail but still qualified was a brilliant political move!
IcePrincessKRS Posted July 20, 2005 Posted July 20, 2005 (edited) [quote name='Good Friday' date='Jul 19 2005, 10:48 PM'] He is pro-choice, and this is, frankly, what all of you deserve for reelecting President Bush and not paying attention to voices of reason. [right][snapback]650516[/snapback][/right] [/quote] I don't think he is pro-choice. He co-wrote a document which states that Roe v. Wade is wrong and unconstitutional. (Rust v. Sullivan, [url="http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1391.ZS.html"]http://straylight.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/89-1391.ZS.html[/url] ) As someone else said, though, time will tell. "We continue to believe that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overruled. As more fully explained in our briefs, filed as amicus curiæ, in Hodgson v. Minnesota, 110 S. Ct. 2926 (1990); Webster v. Reproductive Health Services, 109 S. Ct. 3040 (1989); Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, 476 U.S. 747 (1986); and City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health, 462 U.S. 416 (1983), the Court's conclusions in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion and that government has no compelling interest in protecting prenatal human life throughout pregnancy find no support in the text, structure, or history of the Constitution." Edited July 20, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now