Reply
Thu 20 May, 2004 11:33 pm
Quote:Kerry raised a lot of eyebrows Wednesday when he told The Associated Press that he would be open, if elected, to appointing judges who oppose abortion ?-?- provided the appointment did not provide a deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Indeed, his remarks seemed to suggest he might even name a pro-life judge to the Supreme Court: "That doesn't mean that if that's not the balance of the court [on abortion], I wouldn't be prepared ultimately to appoint somebody to some court who has a different point of view," said Kerry.
That stunned quite a few of his strongest supporters ?-?- after all, in the primaries Kerry campaigned on his promise to impose a strict litmus test on abortion when making judicial appointments.
In fact, Kerry has even been running an ad warning that "George Bush will appoint anti-choice, anti-privacy judges.
http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/editorial/21293.htm
He continues to try to play both sides of the fence. Notice he will only appoint a pro-life judge if it does not upset the balance to give the court of pro-life majority. He is trying to throw a bone to the pro-life side while still holding on to his pro-abortion democrats.
While conversely George W. Bush is on record as not favoring overturn of Roe v Wade and there is no reason to suppose he will look for judges to appoint who are. In fact, that has not been any kind of consideration in the federal judges he has appointed thus far. But because he is personally pro life, he is seen as somehow coercive in this matter while Kerry is seen the champion of abortion rights.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace