Mr. Bush's choice. I don't know what to think about this guy really. He is supposed to be conservative, but he is said the following:“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”
I don't like that. I don't like that at all.
The more I think about that the more it bugs me. Why didn't Mr. Bush nominate a red blooded pro-lifer? Why go half way? I am seeing a mixed message on this guy. The two quotes I posted earlier seem to be the cause of it. On the one hand Mr. Roberts says he is against abortion. On the other, he says he could go with Roe v. Wade. How can you hold both positions? The liberals are attacking him from places such as NARAL with quotes like the one from Agent Tim here. But, how can he be for Roe v. Wade and against it? Is he pro-life or not?
Note: Don't get me wrong. This guy may be a great justice who does lots of good things for the court. Many people say he will. I am just asking some questions.
If you have any light to shine, please leave a comment.
Update: J.S. from Lakeville, MA has a good comment to share on this topic. Read on.
He said that "precedent" statement to get thru without a fight...with the previous written statement he made in '90, I think it is pretty obvious how he will vote if abortion issues hit the Court again...he will be on our side! GW knows what he is doing on this one...time will tell, and hopefully, he will fill that vacancy for for thirty years or so!
Good comment! Any other thoughts on this issue?
8 comments:
Perhaps bush went halfway because he realizes that the first thing needed for the reunification of the US is a little compromise?
How can you compromise on the lifes of children?
Another thing, evil should never be compromised with. Only defeated.
Rom 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.
He said that "precedent" statement to get thru without a fight...with the previous written statement he made in '90, I think it is pretty obvious how he will vote if abortion issues hit the Court again...he will be on our side! GW knows what he is doing on this one...time will tell, and hopefully, he will fill that vacancy for for thirty years or so!
J.S.
Lakeville, MA
AHH! Thank you J.S. :-) Any more comments anyone?
The Blogging Boy Scout,
Travis
“He said that "precedent" statement to get thru without a fight”
So, in other words, he lied to get through without a fight?
I think our elected officials in congress should be making laws. The supreme court can interpret them. I want a justice that will interpret the law. What he personally believes should be left outside the court room.
I think Christians could make about 1000% times more impact for Jesus if we would start adopting babies that need homes instead of constantly screaming about abortion and not really doing anything.
EdisonLBM said,
“He said that "precedent" statement to get thru without a fight”
So, in other words, he lied to get through without a fight?
I covered this in my latest post on why I support Mr. Roberts.
Liberal Conservative said,
"I want a justice that will interpret the law. What he personally believes should be left outside the court room."
What a justice personaly believes to be right will effect how he interprets the law.
Liberal Conservative went on to say,
"I think Christians could make about 1000% times more impact for Jesus if we would start adopting babies that need homes instead of constantly screaming about abortion and not really doing anything."
I would say we must do both. We know of several families who have adopted and one family for example has adopted 5 and is in the process of adopting 3 more! We must stop abortion as well as adopt. Both must take place.
Post a Comment