Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Judge Roberts: Have Pro-Lifers Been Duped Again?

By Mark Moore (click "comments" below for article).

33 Comments:

Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

I just got another email from an outfit called "confirm judges". They tell me that I should call and fax Blanche Lincoln and Mark Pryor and tell them to confirm Judge Roberts as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

I don't care to waste the electrons. Blanche Lincoln was just re-elected and is even more free to be her liberal self now. Pryor may be inclined to listen, but somehow I doubt it. If either one of them votes to confirm, it will be because they realize that Roberts will not vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

That is right. Roberts will let pro=lifers down. The convervative Christians have been whipped into a frenzy by the GOP machine. They are working hard to get a guy in who as much said in the senate today that he would NOT overturn Roe v. Wade.

Oh sure, technically he did not answer that exact question, but what he said about precedent and "stare decicis" was answer enough. He will sail through with a lot of Democratic support- including at least one of Arkansas' pro-abortion senators.

It seems Pro-Lifers have been used again. They have "battered spouse syndrome" where they don't want to face up to the hard truth that they are married to an abuser. Instead, they wind up lying to themselves when the plain truth is out there for all to see. The GOP has been using pro-lifers. Thirty five years of unyielding hard core support have gotten them only more betrayals. This despite the fact that pro-lifers are winning the hearts-and-minds struggle.

And another thing, John Roberts is a very smart guy, but Antonin Scalia should be Chief Justice. If not him, then Clarence Thomas. Both are brilliant legal minds, especially Scalia, who have experience on the court. I think Pres. Bush just did it to avoid fighting a battle, as he so often seems to do.

I knew Roberts was wrong on the police state stuff (he seems to like it), and his legal support for the homosexual agenda turned me off, but I had hopes until today that he would at least vote right on abortion. He dashed such hopes today with the words from his own mouth.

8:39 PM, September 13, 2005  
Blogger terrymcdermott said...

The Senate Judicary Committee is dominated by liberals. It will be impossible to get confirmation for a judge who is pro-life and anti-gay.

9:21 PM, September 13, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Terry,

You are right, sort of. It WILL be impossible to get confirmation for a judge who is PERCIEVED as pro-life and anti-gay.

I wouldn't kill abortion doctors or blow up clinics, but I sure as heck would lie my butt off to stop the slaughter of innocent babies.

David Barton at his last event in Little Rock said (quote as close as I can remember it), "I personally know Judge Roberts and have enjoyed working with him. He understands the original intent of the Constitution as created by our founding fathers and will work to protect the unborn." I trust David Barton and believe that he knows the truth about John Roberts far better than I.

That is the problem with you Constitution Party guys. You fight this cultural war like the Europeans used to fight a war. You line up shoulder to shoulder in wide open spaces and allow yourself to be picked off by the enemy and end up defeated everytime. You guys shoot your own spies because you believe their cover rather than your commanding officer who telling you that he is "one of us."

You are renegades who foil covert operations because you refuse to trust anyone and act on your own limited knowledge of the situation. You shoot your own.

You guys do not have a clear and complete view of the battlefield, please do not turn and shoot your generals when they call for a retreat. They may just see that you are about to be flanked.

It is time to start fighting a guerrilla war instead. Sure we have our point men on the front lines, like Jim Holt. They will naturally draw alot of enemy fire, and deserve double honor. But we must also have our operatives and generals. We cannot have our point men shooting our spies or our generals.

You guys are pathetic. Not only do you shoot your own, but worse. You don't even show up for the battle. You stand at the perimeter of the battlefield and gripe and moan about how poorly your soldiers are doing. You gripe about anything and everything, but when it comes to actually doing something yourselves you prefer to armchair quarterback.

Pathetic, simply pathetic.

5:23 AM, September 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree, until you guys are willing to fight in the battle, stop criticizing everyone. You guys complain more about the GOP than the Democrats do. You call yourselves conservatives but what are you guys doing to make a change in our country other than writing stupid blog comments against the GOP and President Bush. We should be standing behind our President not tearing him down at every given opportunity.

6:52 AM, September 14, 2005  
Anonymous Harvey Edwards said...

I have to reply to that citing my own point of View. Yes George Bush is the Lesser of the evil. But. Why do we have to settle for compromises. When Bush was elected I was proud of his personal stand against abortion and not so much for his stand on Illegals. A lot of us probably felt the same way. Thinking now the conservatives will make the decisions. However as good as Bush is, OUR Senators and Congressmen sure wont make waves especially against the biased Supreme Court. Some one says we are pathetic because we turn against our own and just gripe. I am doing something about it, I write daily letters to our Senate and Congress asking them to honor their oath of office or get out of the way. You will be seeing the Constitution Party gain ground in the near future since people who want better are realizing they wont get it from the controlling two parties.
I stand behind the President and the Constitution but there are some things that only WE THE PEOPLE must do.

10:17 AM, September 14, 2005  
Anonymous Lucas Roebuck said...

Mark, you have to read between the lines. Roberts will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade if the right case comes up. Just because a judge respects a precedent, doesn't mean that precedent won't be overturned. Roberts is saying what he has to say (and quite frankly should say).

Lucas

11:15 AM, September 14, 2005  
Anonymous Lucas Roebuck said...

From the Washington Post:

John G. Roberts Jr. testifies that he believes that the Constitution protects the right to privacy, the legal underpinning of the nation's landmark abortion law, but he refuses to say whether he would vote to uphold Roe v. Wade.

11:16 AM, September 14, 2005  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Republicans to Mark Moore: "Trust us!"

What a laugh! Remember the definition of insanity? About doing something over and over yet expecting different results... Remember Reagon on O'Conner ("Trust me"). Bush Sr. on Souter ("Trust me"). Now Bush Jr., the man who helped pro-abort Specter narrowly defeat pro-life Toomey in PA, tells you to trust him. Roebuck and A/C--you're the looney toons here. In fact, there have been more than enough USSC judicial appointments made by REPUBLICANS alone since '73 to have overturned Roe v. Wade by now. What gives? Are we still in a "covert operation?" Wow, that's very covert--30 years of killing innocent babies, many of them murdered under the watch of Republican administrations.

Is there a sliver of a chance that Roberts won't knife us in the back? Possibly. But you don't know that, and experience should have taught you by now to be extremely cautious. Yet you'd rather attack those who are rightfully skeptical. Drink some Kool-Aid, click your heels and repeat after me: "There's no party like the PubliCrats!"

4:55 PM, September 14, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Your analogy is all wrong anon. It is more like you have a few generals like Sen. Jim Holt who are actually in there fighting, trying to take more ground, and THE REPUBLICANS are taking pot shots at him. We, along with the conservative activists who still are in the GOP, are deflecting all the attempted political assasination attempts that HIS OWN PARTY tries to put on him.

And the reason that we have not done more is that Republican and Democratic legislators unite to block us from ballot access. Federal judges have been ruling since 1996 that the ballot access laws in Arkansas are unconstitutional, but the boys in the ledge will stall them as long as they can.

6:41 PM, September 14, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is not productive for genuine conservatives to snipe at one another and use such adjectives as "publicrats."

Republicans should (and I assure you we will) hold Bush accountable if Roberts turns out to be another Souter. Is he another Souter? The truth is that we do not know for sure.

I do think, however, that Bush deserves the benefit of the doubt on this one. He has consistently nominated conservative judges and he is smart enough to know the ramifacations of not fulfilling his campaign promises on nominating constructionist judges.

10:45 AM, September 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jim Holt should become an offical member of the Constitution Party. Until that day he is just a colaborator

3:01 PM, September 15, 2005  
Blogger Mr. Toast said...

Republicans should (and I assure you we will) hold Bush accountable if Roberts turns out to be another Souter.

Well, I admire your willingness to admit that a Souter II is a possibility, unlike the party sycophants that plague this site. However, what are you going to do if it turns out to be true? How would you hold Bush accountable? He's not up for reelection!

You should consider the fact that many people decided to start holding the party accountable long ago for similar violations of trust. Maybe you've just committed to holding them accountable beginning with Roberts' nomination, but the political spinmeisters have been at this game much longer than that and can boast a long list of spurned conservatives. Accountability is already long overdue.

4:22 PM, September 15, 2005  
Anonymous markm said...

"It is not productive for genuine conservatives to snipe at one another and use such adjectives as "publicrats.""

But the heart of our argument is that the GOP establishment is not "genuine conservative". They just mouth the right words on occasion to fire up the grassroots. While Pres. Bush is personally likable (much like Clinton) he is not conservative in anything he has done, from education to spending, to nominees. He has nominated pro-abortion judges since his days in Texas. The next Presidential hopeful will be openly for abortion. Name one leading GOP contender for 08 who isn't. In 08 it will be too late to start building a new party.

What will you do then?

6:35 PM, September 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Accountability is long overdue, I concur. Bush has been a disappointment on many fronts as you corrrectly document.

Having said that I recall a quote from Karl Rove during his first term. (Paraphrasing) He said we are taking heat on many issues (education, medicaire, etc.) but the big issue is the courts. We are doing what we have to do so that we are in the position to reshape the courts.

The courts are the paramount issue in this nation! If they are reshaped then we should take it. It doesn't mean we have to approve of the liberal tendencies of the Rep party but it makes more sense to support a party (with its many faults) and get a conservative judiciary than to be a "purist" CP member with no representation.

Don't get me wrong. I respect the CP and its principles. But half of something is better than all of nothing.

The heart of the GOP establishment is not "genuine conservative." Again I concur. But the base is becoming increasingly conservative and over time as the old liberal Rep. establishment goes by the wayside it is my hope that it will be replaced by strong conservatives.

I believe that it will be a long road to making the Rep. establishment genuinely conservative but in my judgment it is a much shorter path than creating a legitimate third party.

Lastly, Bush will be held accountable by conservatives not voting in the mid term elections and by many (possibly even me) leaving the party and giving up myself (everyone has their breaking point).

Having said that, I do believe that Roberts is indeed a "strict constructionist."

7:21 PM, September 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Not conservative in anything he has done” anything?? Okay...pretty strong statement, markm. Maybe you need to restate that one. Do you call the marriage amendment not conservative? Do you call funding for the military not conservative? We could go on all day. The last time I checked these were conservative topics to the GOP, maybe that is not the case with the CP. Do you call this quote from Pres. Bush not conservative?
"Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our nation must defend the sanctity of marriage."
Source: 2004 State of the Union address to joint session of Congress Jan 20, 2004

I am not saying that everything that he has done has not been questionable, but I think you need to consider carefully before you say "anything"

7:56 PM, September 15, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

OK, we are having a good, nonrancourus, rational discussion here.

Republicans have appointed far more of the supremes than the Democrats have. A majority of the Roe v Wade judges were appointed by Republicans. A majority in the Lawrence Sodomy case, where the courts overuled themselves from only 17 years ago and decided that it was "unconstitutional" for states to make laws against sodomy, were appointed by Republicans.

They have had their turn at the helm, and they have done nothing. This does not even count that they are ignoring the other tools at their disposal. They can declare certain things beyond the purview of the federal courts. The can impeach judges.

Fact: in the history of our nation there have been 66 motions for impeachment of judges, about one every four years. How many in the last four decades? Congress used to act as a check and a balance on the courts. They have abandoned their duties. They pretend there is nothing they can do but appoint, and then express "disappointment" when that life-long judge goes haywire.

They have used their power to declare things off limits to the courts, but it is some special interest nonsense, like not letting the courts review leasing of federal lands to private timber interests. When it comes to limiting the court's authoirty on abortion, the 10 Commandments, sodomy and homosexual marriage, Congress seems to get amnesia regarding its powers.

No sir, they are playing a game with us. When you have had enough of being played, I invite you to join us.

9:07 PM, September 15, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

GW Bush used the marriage ammendment. He only mentioned it after it had a life of its own and never used any political capital to get it passed. Compare that to the last highway bill, where they were offering billions in bribes to get votes. The National GOP supports the homosexual agenda. Here are some of the many articles which document this fact....

http://www.cparkansas.org/cheney.htm

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/895858/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/909072/posts?page=1

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/664196/posts

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3a9a48b11676.htm

It is time to face the truth. If you are a social conservative the GOP has left you. You can rail at the messenger of fact if you want to, but it does not change the truth.

9:17 PM, September 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Drew Pritt, a candidate for Lt. Governor, is a homosexual. Is anyone else bothered by that?

9:37 PM, September 15, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am bothered...

6:51 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

He's a queen. We can't have that in our public officals.

7:02 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Conservatives should hold fast to principle. That said, should we abandon the Republican party to liberals and have no representation or should we use the same strategy that liberals have used over the years, incrementalism, as Rush calls it.

I wish conservatives would choose to join forces and take over the Republican party. It will not be easy and it will not be a short term project. The extreme left has been tightening their grip on the democratic party for many years.

Conservatives are now slowly gaining influence in the Republican party. In time, if we stay the course, the Republican party can truly be conservative.

Again, that is a much shorter path than creating a legitimate third party that can be elected to statewide or nationwide office.

7:13 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree 100%

7:14 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous MarkM said...

I don't mind incremetalism, but we are incrementing in the wrong direction! What is incremental about Bush's spending? What is incremental about the five links I have posted above proving that the national GOP is friendly towards the homosexual agenda?

No I am not worried about Drew Pritt's homosexuality, and I wish it were not so often mentioned on this blog! He is a Democrat, and they are the party that is in favor of such things. Maybe it will finally wake up the conservative Democrats that there party has left them. What scares me is how blind conservative REPUBLICANS are that the GOP is on the same track.

It surely is easier to stay in the GOP than to start a new party laid on a good Foundation, the only problem is that it hasn't worked. Despite the rise of conservative grassroots on the internet and AM talk radio, the national party has taken us LEFTWARD from the Reagan days and the 94 Revolution days.

Wake up people.

7:46 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:32 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

9:14 AM, September 16, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Not again troll-boy.

10:22 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The courts are the main issue. If Bush actually reshapes the courts with strict constructionists then I can stomach (for now) his liberal tendencies.

Let's assume (and time will tell) for the sake of argument that Roberts is truly conservative and the other open seat gets filled with a conservative as well.

Would conservatives be better off taking an all or nothing approach by joining the CP thereby handing the last election to ultra liberal John Kerry? I say no. If Kerry had the opportunity to fill these two seats he would have undoubtedly filled those vacancies with two more Ruth Bader Ginsberg clones. Then where would we be? Gay marriage would be all but certain. Prostitution would be legalized nationally. The ACLU would never lose a case. The list goes on and on.

We must take what we can get for now and work on reforming the Rep. party. The alternative is leaving the country in the hands of the ultra liberal Democrat/Socialist/Atheist/Anti-Christian party.

11:07 AM, September 16, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

The courts are the main issue? State Senator Jim Holt was telling people that the courts were the main issue last election for Senate, over howls of derision from the papers and some liberal Republicans. I presume you contributed to his campaign.

You say "If Bush reshapes the courts". That is a big "if" that is not supported by the history of the Republican Party or by the personal history of President GW Bush. In addition, he never even said one time that he would appoint a justice that believes Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Why are you making the gigantic assumption that he will do something that he never promised to do and as Governor of Texas never did? His cabinent is as far as I know %100 pro-abortion. And one of them, Gonzales, already has been floated as a SC nominee.

Your assumptions are not even supported by the flimsy cover of a political promise, much less a history of action. You choose to believe it because you want to, because it is easier than facing the fact that the GOP is not a pro-life or conservtive party anymore. It does not even pretend to be a Christian organization.

It is easier to cling to the illusion that it is than to face a truth that would morally require action.

On Roe v. Wade, what other position is there than an "all or nothing" position? Either they believe it should be overturned or they don't. On other issues incrementalism is fine, but it really has not and can not work on questions such as these. All it does is give cover for the GOP to say "Oops, we thought they were going to vote that way by the way they smiled, but we were wrong again. Keep sending us checks and we will do it next time!"

It is Lucy holding the football for Charlie Brown.

***************************

Your point about Kerry is just hitting the fear button, it is not supporting your guy. I refused to vote for anyone else ever that I know in advance will not do what I want just because they have whipped people into a hysteria that the other guy was worse.

I presume if Kerry won then the GOP+ Constitution party would still have a majority in the Senate. Such Kerry court nominees as you describe would never make it out of the hearing room!

*******************************

Are you loyal to party first, or principle first? To all who are in the GOP fighting to reform it, I say you can do that AND join the Constitution Party. That is right, you can pressure them from within and without. The idea that you must reform the GOP from within OR join the CP is a false choice. You can do both.

No excuses. Just courage.

11:43 AM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There are at least 8-10 liberal Republican Senators, therefore, Kerry's nominees would have sailed through the confirmation process. Besides, the Constitution provides that the Senate has an advise and consent role and if the judge is qualified then his ideology should have no bearing on whether he should be confirmed.

My entire argument is based on the premise that his judges will be conservative. If they turn out to not be then my trust will have been betrayed. I do not believe that it will be, however.

We'll see.

Do you foresee the CP gaining enough prominence to win statewide or even nationwide office? I just don't see it. The two major parties are too entrenched. Therefore, my wish is that all conservatives would joint the RP and help the conservatives that are in the party take control. That, in my opinion is the only realistic chance we have of placing this nation back on its founding principles.

1:11 PM, September 16, 2005  
Blogger Mark Moore (Moderator) said...

Yes there are 8-10 liberal Republican Senators, like Arlen Spectre, whose was going down to defeat in a GOP primary to pro-life congressman Pat Toomey- until Bush and the whole GOP establishment jumped in with both feet to help Spectre. "Conservative Republican" Senator from Penn. helped Spectre too.

I am begging you to wake up.

As for joining the RP, been there, done that, got high enough to figure out what was really going on and left.

Do we have a chance? We will have a better chance if well-meaning conservatives like you join both and work it from both ends.

4:01 PM, September 16, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You have pointed out many good points of the liberal tendencies of the Rep party and the unfortunate consequences of partisan politics (Pat Toomey).

Nothing changes overnight. In my view the transition of conservatives gaining control is a long term project.

My eyes are open I assure you. I implore the same of you. I beg you to open your eyes.

The likelihood of creating a 3rd party that is competitive statewide/nationwide is much less likely than reforming the liberal tendencies of the RP.

One of the positive trends that I see right now is the transition of the South (ie the bible belt) into solid Republican territory. The reason this is happening is because of the moral issues that we both care about. As this trend continues, and it will because the yellow dog/great depression generation is dying out, conservatives will continue to gain influence. Another (unfortunate) positive trend is taking place that bodes well for conservative control of the RP. That is that as the abortion tragedy continues, pro life/pro family people are having children at pace of 3 to 1 compared to pro death families. This has been happening now for nearly 33 years. This is largely why the most conservative segment of our population is also the youngest. Every election cycle the most conservative segment gains in numbers and the most liberal declines.

These trends are taking place and there is nothing that liberals can do to stop it.

In the meantime (while waiting for this transition) we cannot allow conservatives to have absolutely no voice in the RP.

We will just have to agree to disagree and work for the same goals from different angles.

7:04 AM, September 17, 2005  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't think that the Constitution Party is the enemy of conservative Republicans. It's great that you and Mr. Moore want to purge the liberals from public office. I hope more conservatives will view the Constitution Party as an ally rather than an enemy.

4:18 PM, September 19, 2005  
Anonymous h_mercer said...

Check out www.theamericanview.com

10:36 AM, September 29, 2005  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home