Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

Solving the Judicial Nomination Crisis
Solving the Judicial Nomination Crisis
The Family Research Council
by: Mr. Brian Newell

Summary:

Activist judges are overstepping their authority more and more, legislating from the bench rather than interpreting our laws with Constitutional guidance.

Meanwhile, qualified judges are being prevented from getting an up-or-down vote in the United States Senate.

The Crisis of Judicial Activism
Talking Point: The battle is for the rule of law.

· Activist judges are overstepping their authority more and more often, legislating from the bench rather than interpreting our laws with constitutional guidance.

· The foundation of our democracy, "a government of the people, by the people, and for the people," is thwarted.

· An elite class, unaccountable to the American people, defines our values and shapes our culture.

· We are becoming a government of "cultural elites" over the rule of law.

Talking Point: It is the law that judges, not the judge.

· Courts increasingly invoke the "reason" of foreign courts to arrive at the conclusion the judge seeks to promote. We have seen this in the Supreme Court cases Atkins v. Virginia (2002), Lawrence v. Texas (2003), Goodridge v. Massachusetts (2003), and most recently, Roper v. Simmons (2005).

· Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia reveals the growing trend, stating that the Court tends "(t)o invoke alien law when it agrees with one's own thinking, and ignore it otherwise, (and that) is not reasoned decision making, but sophistry." (Scalia, J. dissenting opinion in Roper v. Simmons)

· In the landmark case Lawrence v. Texas, the Court declared that a popularly held moral disapproval of a certain action was insufficient grounds for government prohibition of the action.

The Crisis of Judicial Obstruction
Talking Point: Each judicial nominee deserves fair and respectful treatment, with a chance to receive an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

· Before 2003, no judicial nomination with clear majority support was ever defeated by a filibuster.

· During the 108th Congress (2003-2004), the Senate voted on 20 motions to end debate, or invoke cloture, on 10 different judicial nominees. The average vote to end debate was 53-43--enough support to confirm each nominee but less than the 60 votes required to end debate.

· While Democrats claim they have confirmed more than 200 of President Bush's judicial nominees, 10 nominees to the Circuit Court of Appeals (in most instances, the final review in our legal system) were filibustered.

· Democrats have employed ruthless tactics (even invoking race and, by implication, religion as factors in their opposition) in an attempt to discredit President Bush's nominees--even nominees who have received a "well qualified" rating from the American Bar Association, a rating Democrats have used as the hallmark for judicial appointments.

· A Senate memo made public in the Wall Street Journal described a meeting with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and liberal advocacy groups at which appellate court nominee Miguel Estrada's Latino background and his prospects for eventual appointment to the Supreme Court were cited as grounds for their opposition (courtesy of www.confirmthem.com).

· The Constitution is clear regarding the nomination and confirmation process: "[The President) shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States..." U.S. Constitution, Article II, Sect. 2.

· The Constitution clearly specifies when more than a simple majority vote is required for special business (treaties, veto override, etc.). The Constitution does not require a super-majority vote for the confirmation of a judicial nominee; therefore, Senate Democrats are acting unconstitutionally.

· Democrats have never questioned the legitimacy of Clinton-appointed judicial nominees confirmed with less than a 60-vote support (for example, Judge Richard Paez, with 59-vote support; Judge William Fletcher, with 57-vote support; and Judge Susan Mollway, with 56-vote support).

· Until Miguel Estrada withdrew his nomination, every circuit court nominee subjected to a cloture vote ultimately received an up-or-down vote in the Senate; all gained confirmation.

· Democrats claim that 63 of President Clinton's nominees were delayed in the Judiciary Committee. However, the reality of last-minute nominations is that they usually do not receive confirmation. Former President George H. W. Bush left office with 54 judicial nominees expiring in a Democratic-controlled Senate.

Talking Point: Currently, there are 20 "judicial emergencies," as classified by the non-partisan Judicial Conference. With a growing docket and pending vacancies, our judicial system has become logjammed, negatively impacting our economy, social justice, and democracy.

· As Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) stated, "Taxpayers spend $5.1 billion for the federal judiciary every year. The American people are paying for fully staffed courts and are getting obstructionism and vacant benches."

Talking Point: We have to be willing to do what it takes to break the logjam.

A Constitutional Solution for a Constitutional Crisis
· Until the filibuster is broken, "strict constructionists" will continue to be denied an up-or-down vote in the Senate.

· There will likely be at least one Supreme Court vacancy this year.

Talking Point: The survival of justice demands decisive action.

· While other options to end filibustering on judicial nominees have been considered, the last option at this point is the "constitutional option," often referred to by liberals as the "nuclear option."

Talking Point: The word "nuclear" better describes the polarization and distortion of the judicial confirmation process that occurred from 2001 to 2004, when an unprecedented rain of filibusters began.

· The "constitutional" option is fittingly named because it invokes the Senate's constitutional duty of "Advice and Consent;" it is called "nuclear" because Democrats have sworn to "shut down" all legislative business within the Senate (with 41 votes they can stop any bill) if it is used to require up-or-down votes.

· The Procedure: A judicial nominee is brought before the Senate and "unanimous consent" is requested for a vote on the nominee, upon which a senator will offer an objection. A "point of order" is then requested by a Republican, who asks for a "ruling by the Chair" whether a filibuster is constitutionally permissible for judicial nominations. When the presiding Chair, Vice President Dick Cheney, declares the filibuster unconstitutional, Democrats will appeal the Chair's decision; a motion to "table" the appeal with be brought to order, requiring 51 votes to sustain the "tabling" motion and, in essence, the Chair's decision.

· The U.S. Senate is constitutionally vested with the authority to determine its own rules of procedures, thereby providing a constitutional remedy to a constitutional crisis.

· 51 votes is all that has ever been required for judicial confirmations. The 51-vote rule is consistent with Senate tradition and restores those traditions through traditional methods, methods once endorsed by such leading Democrats as Senators Edward Kennedy (D-MA), Charles Schumer (D-NY), and Robert Byrd (D-WV).

· Talking Point: If the Senate cannot break the unconstitutional filibustering of liberal senators, then the Senate will be unable to confirm federal judges, including Supreme Court justices whose judicial philosophy seeks to uphold the rule of law.

Senators' Public Positions on Judges
Talking Point: We've had three years of threats now to invoke the constitutional option, and nothing's been done. Either stop talking about it or do it. Words mean little. Action is what will be judged.

Talking Point: People will be paying attention to the likely battle over a Supreme Court nominee and they will think it unfair to deny the nominee an up-or-down vote.

· Every senator has an opinion on the constitutional option (these are from dated news accounts, so information may have changed):

· Sen. Olympia J. Snowe (R-ME) told the Portland Press Herald, "I just don't see how it's going to benefit us, even in the majority, to change it to a simple majority [vote] because ultimately it could create more wedges and political wounds."

· Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) "doesn't think the nuclear option is a great idea," her spokeswoman, Jen Burita, said.

· Sen. Lincoln D. Chafee (R-RI) has said "I'm not in favor" of the option.

· Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) told CQ Today he would not support the option because "the Senate should not be like the House."

· Sen. John W. Warner (R-VA) said in a statement: "I have not reached a firm view on the matter. However, I tend to be a traditionalist, and the right of unlimited debate has been a hallmark of the Senate since its inception. Without question, though, I am strongly opposed to the use of the filibuster to block judicial nominations." He said, "I remain to be persuaded that the seriousness of the problem merits such an extraordinary solution," but "the Senate may be forced to take some action to preserve the president's constitutional obligation to fill [court] vacancies."

· Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) has questioned the wisdom of eliminating the minority's right to filibuster, citing times when Democrats ruled the Senate.

· Thad Cochran (R-MS), Ted Stevens (R-AK), and John E. Sununu (R-NH) have declined to take public stands on the issue.

· Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) did not support last year's filibusters of appellate judge nominees, his spokesman, David DiMartino, said, "but when it comes to a Supreme Court nominee, he reserves the option to do so based on the nature of the nominee."

· Other key senators who may determine the outcome of the judicial filibuster crisis are: Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Sen. Richard Lugar (R-IN), Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA), Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), Sen. Pete Domenici (R-NM), Sen. Mike DeWine (R-OH), Sen. George Voinovich (R-OH), Sen. Gordon Smith (R-OR), and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA).

More from the Family Research Council
More from The Family Research Council---BBB

Questions and Answers: Why Should I Care About Judges and Judicial Nominations?

National Research Council
by: Mr. Peter Sprigg

Summary:

Many of the negative changes in American society over recent decades have been imposed by unelected, activist judges. This paper examines how that has happened and why the fight over judicial nominations in the Senate is so important.

Q - Why should pro-family citizens care about the appointment of judges?

A - Many of the negative changes in American society over recent decades have been imposed by judges. The removal of prayer from public schools, the creation of a nationwide "right" to abortion, and the legalization of same-sex "marriage" in Massachusetts were all decisions imposed by activist judges, without considering the will of the people and their elected representatives.

Q - What do you mean by "activist" judges?

A - "Activist" judges are judges who impose their own policy preferences in their decisions. Judges are only supposed to interpret the law, not rewrite it. Legislatures, elected by the people, write laws, and the executive branch of government (headed by an elected official) is responsible for enforcing them. Activist judges effectively take away your right to affect policy by your vote.

Q - How have activist judges abused their power?

A - Judges are abusing their power if they read into the Constitution principles that are not declared by the plain language of the Constitution. For example, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But nowhere does it say that there should be a strict "separation of church and state" at all levels of government, barring any acknowledgment of God. The decision legalizing abortion was based on the "right to privacy"--but no such right is declared in the Constitution.

Q - Are there other concerns about how activist judges make decisions?

A - Yes. In several recent prominent court cases, judges supported their decisions by making reference to foreign laws, court decisions, and international agreements not ratified by the United States. Foreign law should play no part in American court decisions.

Q - How does someone become a judge?

A - Different states have different procedures for selecting judges. Some are appointed and some are elected. But all federal judges (in district courts, circuit courts of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court) are appointed by the president with the "advice and consent" of the Senate.

Q - If Republicans control 55 seats in the Senate, then what's the problem?

A - The problem is that a minority of senators, who support liberal judicial activism, are trying to prevent some of President Bush's nominees from even receiving a vote on the floor of the Senate.

Q - How can they do that?

A - Unlike the U.S. House of Representatives, where the length of debates is limited, the Senate has a tradition of "unlimited debate." In practice, that means that a minority of senators can prevent an issue from even coming to a final vote by insisting on continuing to debate it for an indefinite period of time. This process is known as a "filibuster."

Q - Is there any way to overcome a filibuster?

A - Yes. The Senate can take what is called a "cloture" vote to close debate. However, a cloture motion requires 60 votes (three-fifths of the Senate) to pass, instead of a simple majority of 51. If a judicial nomination can be filibustered, that would mean that a minority of senators (as few as 41 out of 100) could block the appointment of a nominee who has the support of as many as 59 senators.

Q - Have judicial nominations been filibustered before?

A - Filibusters are normally used only to block pieces of legislation. There is no precedent in American history for a judicial nominee who had the clear support of a majority of senators to be blocked from even receiving a vote, by a minority of senators, through the filibuster. And many judges have been confirmed even though more than 40 senators opposed them. (Democrats argue that President Lyndon Johnson's nomination of Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court in 1968 was filibustered by Republicans in the Senate. However, Fortas was already a member of the Court, and it is not at all clear that he would have won confirmation if there had been a vote. His nomination was ultimately withdrawn by President Johnson.)

Q - Is it constitutional to require a super-majority of 60 votes in the Senate to approve a judicial nominee?

A - We believe it is not. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote to do certain specific things, such as ratifying treaties, expelling a member, or convicting an official in an impeachment trial. It says nothing about requiring more than a simple majority to approve a judicial nomination.

Q - If senators can filibuster a bill, don't they have just as much right to filibuster a nomination?

A - No. Writing legislation is the Senate's primary function, and it is therefore appropriate for it to have more discretion in setting the rules when it is carrying out that function. However, appointing judges is primarily a function of the president, in which the Senate plays only a secondary role. Moreover, legislation is subject to amendments, and the filibuster adds a minority lever by which consensus-building amendments can be added to pending bills. A nomination, in contrast, is a basic yes-or-no proposition.

If the liberal minority in the U.S. Senate were as passionate about legislative privileges as it claims, it would object to judicial activism itself, which has done more than anything else to weaken the legislative role. The filibuster is most illegitimate when it is used to protect the seizure of power by the unelected branch of government, the judiciary. Therefore, the Senate should not add any additional barriers to the confirmation of a judge (such as requiring a 60-vote super-majority) beyond what is spelled out in the Constitution.

Q - If the Democrats do decide to filibuster President Bush's judicial nominees, is there anything that can be done about it?

A - Yes. The presiding officer of the Senate (which is Vice President Dick Cheney, when he is present) could rule that filibusters of judicial nominations are not permitted. Such a ruling could then be upheld by a simple majority vote. This "constitutional option" preserves the constitutional right of the president to appoint judges with the advice and consent of the Senate--without adding additional, unconstitutional conditions.

Q - If the constitutional option to end filibusters of judicial nominations only requires a majority vote of 51 senators, and the Republicans hold 55 seats, why haven't they already used it?

A - Some Republican senators are reportedly reluctant to take firm action against the filibuster. Some are hesitant to change longstanding rules and traditions of the Senate--even though, in fact, it is the Democrats who are violating tradition by filibustering judicial nominees in the first place. Some anticipate that someday, in a future Congress with a Republican minority, they might want to use the filibuster themselves to block a bad nominee. Also, Democrats have threatened to bring the rest of the Senate's business to a halt if the constitutional option is exercised.

Q - Does the Family Research Council support the constitutional option?

Yes. Senators of both parties are free to vote against the confirmation of any judge they believe is unqualified. However, we believe that denying some judicial nominees a straight up-or-down vote on the floor of the Senate violates the principles of justice, democracy, and the Constitution.

Q - So what should I do?

A - Write to President Bush and urge him to appoint only judges who know their proper place in our constitutional system and who will interpret the law rather than rewrite it.

Then call, write, or e-mail the two U.S. senators from your state and urge them to do the following three things:

1) Support the confirmation of judges who will interpret the law and the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning and intent.

2) Oppose the use of filibusters to block judicial nominations, and allow an up-or-down vote of the full Senate on each nominee.

3) Support the "constitutional option" to end the filibuster of judicial nominations.

Roe vs Wade was based on the 9th amendment
From the Family Research Council statement above:

"Q - How have activist judges abused their power?

A - Judges are abusing their power if they read into the Constitution principles that are not declared by the plain language of the Constitution. For example, the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." But nowhere does it say that there should be a strict "separation of church and state" at all levels of government, barring any acknowledgment of God. The decision legalizing abortion was based on the "right to privacy"--but no such right is declared in the Constitution. [/b]

Roe vs Wade was based on the 9th Amendment.

Ninth Amendment--Unenumerated Rights

NINTH AMENDMENT
UNENUMERATED RIGHTS

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be
construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

RIGHTS RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE

Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the
Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution
because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing
that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be
dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on
the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was
unrestrained as to those.\1\ Madison adverted to this argument in
presenting his proposed amendments to the House of Representatives. ``It
has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating
particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those
rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by
implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended
to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were
consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I
have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this
system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have
attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the
fourth resolution.''\2\ It is clear from its text and from Madison's
statement that the Amendment states but a rule of construction, making
clear that a Bill of Rights might not by implication be taken to
increase the powers of the national government in areas

not enumerated, and that it does not contain within itself any guarantee
of a right or a proscription of an infringement.\3\ Recently, however,
the Amendment has been construed to be positive affirmation of the
existence of rights which are not enumerated but which are nonetheless
protected by other provisions.

\1\The Federalist No. 84 (Modern Library ed. 1937).

\2\1 Annals of Congress 439 (1789). Earlier, Madison had written
to Jefferson: ``My own opinion has always been in favor of a bill of
rights; provided it be so framed as not to imply powers not meant to be
included in the enumeration. . . . I have not viewed it in an important
light--1. because I conceive that in a certain degree . . . the rights
in question are reserved by the manner in which the federal powers are
granted. 2. because there is great reason to fear that a positive
declaration of some of the most essential rights could not be obtained
in the requisite latitude. I am sure that the rights of conscience in
particular, if submitted to public definition would be narrowed much
more than they are likely ever to be by an assumed power.'' 5 Writings
of James Madison, 271-72 (G. Hunt ed. 1904). See also 3 J. Story,
Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States 1898 (1833).

\3\To some extent, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments overlap with
respect to the question of unenumerated powers, one of the two concerns
expressed by Madison, more clearly in his letter to Jefferson but also
present in his introductory speech. Supra, n.2 and accompanying text.

The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions
of the Supreme Court\4\ until it became the subject of some exegesis by
several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut.\5\ There a statute
prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an infringement of the
right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing the opinion of the
Court, asserted that the ``specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights
have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help
give them life and substance.''\6\ Thus, while privacy is nowhere
mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First
Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the
Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments as well. The Justice
recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment, apparently to support the
thought that these penumbral rights are protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the absence of a specific reference.
Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted several pages to the Amendment.

\4\In United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U.S. 75, 94-95
(1947), upholding the Hatch Act, the Court said: ``We accept appellant's
contention that the nature of political rights reserved to the people by
the Ninth and Tenth Amendments [is] involved. The right claimed as
inviolate may be stated as the right of a citizen to act as a party
official or worker to further his own political views. Thus we have a
measure of interference by the Hatch Act and the Rules with what
otherwise would be the freedom of the civil servant under the First,
Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.'' See Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U.S. 288, 300-11 (1936), and Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. TVA, 306 U.S. 118, 143-44 (1939). See also Justice Chase's opinion in Calder v. Bull, 3 U.S. (3Dall.) 386, 388 (1798), and Justice Miller for the Court in Loan Ass'n
v. Topeka, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 655, 662-63 (1875).

\5\381 U.S. 479 (1965).

\6\Id. at 484. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice Warren
and by Justices Clark, Goldberg, and Brennan.

``The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that
the Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional
fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which
exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the
first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so
basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of
privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not
guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the
Constitution is to ignore the Ninth

Amendment and to give it no effect whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial
construction that this fundamental right is not protected by the
Constitution because it is not mentioned in explicit terms by one of the
first eight amendments or elsewhere in the Constitution would violate
the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean to state that the Ninth
Amendment constitutes an independent source of right protected from
infringement by either the States or the Federal Government. Rather, the
Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the Constitution's authors that
fundamental rights exist that are not expressly enumerated in the first
eight amendments and an intent that the list of rights included there
not be deemed exhaustive.''\7\ While, therefore, neither opinion sought
to make of the Ninth Amendment a substantive source of constitutional
guarantees, both did read it as indicating a function of the courts to
interpose a veto with regard to legislative and executive efforts to
abridge other fundamental rights. In this case, both opinions seemed to
concur that the fundamental right claimed and upheld was derivative of
several express rights and in this case, really, the Ninth Amendment
added almost nothing to the argument. But if there is a claim of a
fundamental right which cannot reasonably be derived from one of the
provisions of the Bill of Rights, even with the Ninth Amendment, how is
the Court to determine, first, that it is fundamental, and second, that
it is protected from abridgment?\8\

\7\Id. at 488, 491, 492. Chief Justice Warren and Justice
Brennan joined this opinion. Justices Harlan and White concurred id. at
499, 502, without alluding to the Ninth Amendment, but instead basing
their conclusions on substantive due process, finding that the state
statute ``violates basic values implicit in the concept of ordered
liberty,'' (citing Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U.S. 319, 325 (1937)). Id.
at 500. It would appear that the source of the fundamental rights to
which Justices Douglas and Goldberg referred must be found in a concept
of substantive due process, despite the former's express rejection of
this ground. Id. at 481-82. Justices Black and Stewart dissented.
Justice Black viewed the Ninth Amendment ground as essentially a
variation of the due process argument under which Justices claimed the
right to void legislation as irrational, unreasonable, or offensive,
without finding any violation of an express constitutional provision.

\8\Notice the recurrence to the Ninth Amendment as a
``constitutional `saving clause''' in Chief Justice Burger's plurality
opinion in Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 579-80 & n.15
(1980). Scholarly efforts to establish the clause as a substantive
protection of rights include J. Ely, Democracy and Distrust--A Theory of
Judicial Review (Cambridge: 1980), 34-41; and C. Black, Decision
According to Law (New York: 1981), critically reviewed in W. Van
Alstyne, Slouching Toward Bethlehem with the Ninth Amendment, 91 Yale L.
J. 207 (1981). For a collection of articles on the Ninth Amendment, see
The Rights Retained by the People: The History and Meaning of the Ninth
Amendment (Randy E. Barnett, ed., 1989).

duplicate deleted
duplicate deleted

Scary stuff. It's the Christian Taliban finally starting to play their hand.

I think they are playing it a little early, but we'll see.

Cycloptichorn

I'd just like to thank BBB for visiting the FRC website...



... so we don't have to

:wink:

Re: Frist Set to Use Religious Stage on Judicial Issue

Re: More from the Family Research Council


and yet these same people condemned judge grier for not using his southern baptist religion to write an opinion in their favor. it's been reported that he was also ousted from his church over the same.

more born again hypocrisy.

Re: Roe vs Wade was based on the 9th amendment


This quote which BBB supplied is simply astonishing. This is a statement from authority, and a bald lie. This sort of thing, however, goes down well with a target audience of great emotional involvement, but little actual education.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

That is the fourth amendment to the constitution, ratified December, 1791. This is the portion of the Bill of Rights which is the basis for the privacy rights recognized by the courts. On the particular point of abortion legislation, please note: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons . . .

In Roe v. Wade, the majority opinion of the Supremes recognized the compelling interest which states may have to regulate abortion--however, prosecution for abortion would have been counter to one's right to be secure in one's person. We had a thread here early on in which someone was making outrageous statements about the Roe v. Wade and what the Supremes had ruled, so i posted the relevant portion of the majority opinion in which Mr. Justice Blackmun clearly posits that states have a compelling interest to regulate abortion--they simply cannot outlaw it. That rather silenced the hysterical right wing element in that thread, as actually reading a court's decision is beyond the intent of their ranting.

re: abortion. don't approve of it ? then don't do it.

it's so simple people have to make it hard.

DontTreadOnMe
Not so simple when you deal with religious zealots. It's more like they don't approve so you may not do it.

That's the whole problem with the Christianists in this country; they seek to legislate their morality on others.

Cycloptichorn

true. it's been a gathering problem since the '80s. dan quayle was one of the first to utter the "family values" phrase. that was, among other signs, my cue to leave the republican party at the polls.

the fundamentalist extremists such as falwell and robertsson have been shouting all kinds of hateful absurdities from the church tops for years. "gays and the aclu must take responsibility for the 9/11 attacks" is a real gem. and the hits just keep coming.

over the last couple of years we are starting to put our foot down on their unbridled invasion into our lives and what they come back with is "why do you hate christians" and "faith in america is under attack".

well hell! quit screwin' with us and mind your own business and people will get offa ya.

duh!!

So when does the nations capitol move back to Salem Mass.?

hahahahaha!!

i'd go along with that if it meant getting rid of ann coulter in that town's time honored ways...

No dtom - it's witches of Salem, witches....starts with a "w"

IMO the aim of the religious Christian community is to turn this nation into a Christian theocracy, sort of a reverse mirror image of IRAN. If you agree, do you think they can succeed? With the capture of the White House and much of congress they seem to have gained a substantial foothold.

IMO this segment of our society is more dangerous to our national survival as a free nation than any foreign power could be.

Unfortunately, we are getting exactly what we deserve.

We, the people, have allowed this kind of shyt to develop and to increase. We have voted this trash into office.

Franklin warned: You have a Republic...if you can keep it.

This present generation is shytting on ideals this nation has developed over the last two and a half centuries.

We are getting what we deserve!

AND FOR THOSE OF YOU OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES WHO HAVE ACQUIESED IN THE HORSESHYT GOING ON IN THIS COUNTRY...YOU ARE GETTING WHAT YOU DESERVE ALSO.

The cowardice of the world community in the face of what this country has become is appalling.

first, a shout out to setanta. hope all is well, boss. keep casting out those pearls of wisdom. i am happy to see you once again.

now to the weird stuff



notice the illogic, both historically and internally. this is what is being cast as the framework of reality from the religious right.

either you stand with the religious right's idea of god, god's plan on earth as revealed thru the scripture, and god's followers or you are against them.

this stab at the heart of liberal secular democracy is not at all based upon the seating of federal judgeships itself. it is a response from some religious minded people to the disinclination of civil society itself to incorporate the incomprehensible along with the comprehensible as necessary constituents of the world.

even with all our church stepples, the West has become increasingly more dependent upon rationalism. one need only to look at what this rationalism has wrought to see it.; the world of modern technological wonders.

those who believe that the world can not be explained merely by the comprehensible, those who cherish the idea of the ineffiblity of "God's secrets" are often scorned openly as superstitious where only critically established understanding possesses value.

rationalism rejects "god's secrets" as being ineffible. rationalism rejects the incomprehensible, and instead yields a secretless view with its highest potentialities called wisdom and its priests are philosophers and educated people.

what we have here is the religious right's reponse to this scorn and it cannot be rebutted rationally, because it is a-rational, a-comprehensible (incomprehensible).

the religious right is fighting on a different field, using different weapons than the secular rationalists who oppose injecting the incomprehensible into the comprehensible world.

i use the analogy of having a person demand that others see what he does, and is disinclined to use rationalism as a referee. it is akin to the character Big Julie in "Guys and Dolls" who shots craps using dice with the spots removed and only he can see where the spots once were. and he inisists that others recognize that he rolled a 7 or 11. and his insistence is backed up by force. this is what the religious right is doing, again.

i'll leave with what Aristole said, because it strikes at the religious right's demand for proper respect of the incomprehensible......religion is indispenible only to the uneducated.