Wednesday, September 17, 2008

What's at stake in the election: (it's the Supreme Court, stupid!)

Ann Coulter, well known for pithy remarks once told a Republican politician that you can go against every conservative principal; spend money, start new programs, even go soft on terrorists, but give us strict constructionist justices on the Supreme Court.
We who are active in politics know who runs this country. That's why the fact that Fordham is honoring Justice Breyer who voted pro-partial birth abortion is particularly agregious.
Pat Buchanan with his typical eloquence, tells us what would be the effect of an Obama Biden regime on the since most important issue for Catholics, Evangelicals and people of conscience: human life.
The reason this election is the last chance for life is the Supreme Court. For it alone -- given the cowardice of a Congress that refuses to restrict its authority -- has the power to reverse Roe, and because that court may be within a single vote of doing so.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Sam Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts appear steeled to overturn Roe and return this most divisive issue since slavery to the states, where it resided until January 1973.
And John Paul Stevens, the oldest and perhaps most pro-choice justice at 88, is a likely retiree in the next four years. And there is a possibility Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, at 75, a survivor of cancer, could depart as did Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Thus, in the first term of the next president, there is a strong probability that one or two of the most pro-Roe justices will leave the bench. Replacement of even one of these two liberal activists with a jurist who has a Scalia-Roberts-Alito-Thomas record on the U.S. appellate court could initiate a challenge to Roe, and its rapid reversal.

Read the entire article at Human Events.


Leslie said...

American Right to Life has publicly offered
National Right to Life $10,000 if they can
prove that any of the sitting justices (for whom
they lobbied and claim are poised to overturn
Roe) believes in the fundamental, God-given
Right to Life of the pre-born child.

Marie Duchesne said...

Um, no disrespect please. But how does returning Roe v. Wade back to the States actually accomplish anything? I suppose it will just be okay to kill our young in New York because the people want that and not okay to kill our young in Kentucky? Absolutely makes ZERO sense. This is a tired argument. The only real answer is to handle this one just like slavery---a Constitutional Amendment--and that IS NOT going to happen.

Leticia said...

Just because an approach has flaws and provides incomplete protection to the unborn, that doesn't mean that it must be rejected. The Church does approve of incrementalism, or doing whatever good is possible to eliminate the evil of abortion, even if it means one life at a time.
For example a new study cites that parental consent laws have in the states have saved thousands of babies.
New York State is a tough case. Perhaps we ought to consult the clergy of this rather Catholic state and ask them what measures they are taking to promote a culture of life there.

Leslie said...

Any law that ends with, "and then you can kill
the baby" is immoral and should be rejected.

Parental consent?

Who has the right to consent to the death of

Our right to life is God-given and hence is

Leticia said...

IF it saves the life of one child, no matter how despicable the wording, that one life is worth the effort it takes to pass a faulty law.