A SECOND Supreme Court nominee...?
With the rumors abounding that Supreme Court justice William Rehnquist may retire before the end of this week, comes the realization that President Bush will have two simultaneous nominations to submit, replacing Rehnquist and O'Connor.
There have been voices of dissatisfaction from the conservative base over the prospect of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales, since he is not pro-life.
I've heard talk show hosts like Michael Medved express to his audience that Supreme Court justices should neither be pro-life or pro-choice, but rather to be open to measuring issues to the standard of the U.S. Constitution.
I don't see how this is relevent. Regardless of how a nominee's philosophy is on abortion, the PEOPLE will know the candidate's past judicial rulings. The PEOPLE will contact their Senators and give their voice for or against the nominee. It is up to the Senator to give the nominee an up or down vote...or obstruct through filibuster.
Whether the nominee is pro-life or pro-choice will be determined by PEOPLE gauging their past rulings or historical statements.
It will be obvious how the nominee treats and interprets the Constitution by their own history.
President Bush has promised to nominate justices who are "originalists". I trust that he will do just that. The nominees must hold the sanctity of life dear. NOTHING is more important. Not the economy, not foreign relations, not the Patriot Act, not Social Security. Neither is education, joblessness, the price of oil, or national security. If a person can't get the fundamental issue of life right, I can't TRUST them with the economy or national security. I can't trust their judgment with ANYTHING if their stance on life is distorted.
President Bush knows that this is an opportunity that cannot be wasted. His nominees MUST be of the caliber that respects the issue of life BEFORE they interpret the Constitution.
Pundits have said that the Constitution does not address the issue of abortion.
Oh, but it does...in the very first phrase, "We the People of the United States..."
Until a relatively recent time, a preborn child was considered a person. Only when the abortion debate began did the redefinition process begin, the child evolving into terms such as "fetus" or "tissue".
The pro-death proponents have re-defined traditional terms in order to justify their willingness to kill an unborn child...in order to remove the consequence of bad behavior, namely pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
The judicial nominees must have a clear definition of LIFE...if we are to expect the blessings of the Creator of life on this nation.
- CrippleCrab
.
.
There have been voices of dissatisfaction from the conservative base over the prospect of the nomination of Alberto Gonzales, since he is not pro-life.
I've heard talk show hosts like Michael Medved express to his audience that Supreme Court justices should neither be pro-life or pro-choice, but rather to be open to measuring issues to the standard of the U.S. Constitution.
I don't see how this is relevent. Regardless of how a nominee's philosophy is on abortion, the PEOPLE will know the candidate's past judicial rulings. The PEOPLE will contact their Senators and give their voice for or against the nominee. It is up to the Senator to give the nominee an up or down vote...or obstruct through filibuster.
Whether the nominee is pro-life or pro-choice will be determined by PEOPLE gauging their past rulings or historical statements.
It will be obvious how the nominee treats and interprets the Constitution by their own history.
President Bush has promised to nominate justices who are "originalists". I trust that he will do just that. The nominees must hold the sanctity of life dear. NOTHING is more important. Not the economy, not foreign relations, not the Patriot Act, not Social Security. Neither is education, joblessness, the price of oil, or national security. If a person can't get the fundamental issue of life right, I can't TRUST them with the economy or national security. I can't trust their judgment with ANYTHING if their stance on life is distorted.
President Bush knows that this is an opportunity that cannot be wasted. His nominees MUST be of the caliber that respects the issue of life BEFORE they interpret the Constitution.
Pundits have said that the Constitution does not address the issue of abortion.
Oh, but it does...in the very first phrase, "We the People of the United States..."
Until a relatively recent time, a preborn child was considered a person. Only when the abortion debate began did the redefinition process begin, the child evolving into terms such as "fetus" or "tissue".
The pro-death proponents have re-defined traditional terms in order to justify their willingness to kill an unborn child...in order to remove the consequence of bad behavior, namely pre-marital or extra-marital sex.
The judicial nominees must have a clear definition of LIFE...if we are to expect the blessings of the Creator of life on this nation.
- CrippleCrab
.
.
posted by Bill Cribbs at
8:24 PM
