Bush surprised me

[Mac6yver]

Lorarose:

Interesting…you post your views on a forum knowing full well they will be challenged.
Now you are whining because they have been challenged.

In my original post I never stated anything regarding abortion. I was asked in later post regarding my stance on abortion. If you think you caught me in some clever trap you are mistaken.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Lorarose:

Interesting…you post your views on a forum knowing full well they will be challenged.
Now you are whining because they have been challenged.

I actually agree with Mac6…He started this thread as a discussion of last nights speech, not to bring up his views of abortion. Maybe we can discuss the merits/demerits of the presidents address. Just a thought.

 

[Mac6yver]

I did not even mind NWUArmyROTC asking me my stance on the issue, it is important to know where someone is coming from. However, I was then attacked for answering a question honestly. I really just wanted to discuss the ideas the President spoke of last night.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Lorarose:

Interesting…you post your views on a forum knowing full well they will be challenged.
Now you are whining because they have been challenged.

Actually, Mac6ver has extensively discussed his views on abortion on other threads, and abortion is tangential to the main point of the thread.

That being said, I do think that at least some of the democratic obstruction of judicial nominees is due to religious bigotry. I’m saying that with the caveat that none of us can know what goes on in another person’s heart. However, many of the comments made during the hearing strongly imply that some of the democratic senators are afraid to have judges with strong religious beliefs (unless your religion happens to be secular humanism, of course). The most famous comment was made by Charles Schumer to William Pryor: “…your deeply held beliefs…”.

Why didn’t Bush press this? There could be any number of reasons, he doesn’t believe religion is a factor, or he doesn’t want to escalate the rhetoric, or he’s trying to be as charitable as possible in ascertaining other people’s motives. After all, charity is the hallmark of Christianity.

 

[Philip_P]

StJeanneDArc:

That being said, I do think that at least some of the democratic obstruction of judicial nominees is due to religious bigotry. I’m saying that with the caveat that none of us can know what goes on in another person’s heart. However, many of the comments made during the hearing strongly imply that some of the democratic senators are afraid to have judges with strong religious beliefs (unless your religion happens to be secular humanism, of course). The most famous comment was made by Charles Schumer to William Pryor: “…your deeply held beliefs…”.

What about nominees such as William Myers? Opposition to him seems to be founded on his anti-environmental stance. How is that based on “opposition to people of faith?” Some nominees are clearly being opposed for their views on abortion, but is it fair to make blanket statments on all 10 nominees?

 

[mlchance]

StJeanneDArc:

That being said, I do think that at least some of the democratic obstruction of judicial nominees is due to religious bigotry.

Why didn’t Bush press this?

Because President Bush doesn’t have a religious test for judicial nominations, unlike the current, obstructionist leadership of the Democratic Party as well as a handful of Republicans.

But let’s not fool ourselves: While the Democratic Party leadership may not have an explicitly religious test for office, the end result is the same. Anyone who doesn’t tow the Democratic Party line on abortion is going to be opposed.

Nevermind that Roe v. Wade was bad law based on bogus information. Nevermind that Roe v. Wade (which was surprisingly modest even if wrong-headed) isn’t even really the law today.

Abortion law today is abortion on demand. For any reason. At any time. No restrictions. Period. End of discussion.

And the Democratic Party has sold its soul to keep that discussion ended.

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Philip P:

What about nominees such as William Myers? Opposition to him seems to be founded on his anti-environmental stance. How is that based on “opposition to people of faith?” Some nominees are clearly being opposed for their views on abortion, but is it fair to make blanket statments on all 10 nominees?

No, and that’s why I didn’t make blanket statements.

 

[Lorarose]

If you think you caught me in some clever trap you are mistaken

What gives you that impression?
I was just giving an honest response to an opinion.
I know better now.

 

[Philip_P]

StJeanneDArc:

No, and that’s why I didn’t make blanket statements.

And I appreciat that, but I wasn’t referring to statements by people on this forum. I mean when Dr. Frist and other Republicans make such statements, someone ought to call him on it.

I also must say I’ve been pleasantly impressed by Bush, his tone in his second term has been far better than I feared. Not that I am any closer to agreeing with his political philosophy, but he does seem to have matured a lot from his first term, so good for him.

 

[Mac6yver]

Philip P:

I also must say I’ve been pleasantly impressed by Bush, his tone in his second term has been far better than I feared. Not that I am any closer to agreeing with his political philosophy, but he does seem to have matured a lot from his first term, so good for him.

I agree. I would never vote for the man, but at the moment I can sleep at night. Unlike his first term.

 

[swampfox]

Mac6yver:

I do not want these judges to be appointed any more then john Kerry does, but not because of their religion, but because of their views and methods.

Like being strict constructionists that cannot find a right to an abortion and euthanasia in the US Constitution. The fact is that any orthodox Catholic would be denied a judgeship on the basis of the democrat party pro-death litmus test.