Judge pick at 9!

[PanzerJaeger]

^Hehe.

[Goofball]

Ah, this is good.

We're going to cram this constitutionalist down the dem's throats and make them like it!

Good bye Roe vs Wade! Bwahahaha!

Really?

"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."

Now, what was the word I was looking for? Hmmm. What was it, now... It's just on the tip of my tongue. Oh, yeah, got it:

Bwahahaha!

[Xiahou]

Now remember Goof, that was for his circuit court confirmation. As a Supreme Court Justice you set the precedents and its up to the lower courts to follow them. There would be no conflict in him saying that as a circuit court judge, he would follow the precedents set by the SCOTUS and when on the SCOTUS reversing that precedent. He's already been on record as saying Roe V Wade has no Constitutional basis.

[Goofball]

It was more the "nothing in my personal views" part I was talking about. Because I believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct interpretation of your Constitution and that only a judge whose personal views were against abortion would think otherwise, that part of his commentary gives me hope.

[ICantSpellDawg]

It was more the "nothing in my personal views" part I was talking about. Because I believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct interpretation of your Constitution and that only a judge whose personal views were against abortion would think otherwise, that part of his commentary gives me hope.

Hope for what? You live in Canada. You already have your own lack of laws regarding abortion. Overturning the Roe v. Wade decision would do what in your eyes?

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Because I believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct interpretation of your Constitution and that only a judge whose personal views were against abortion would think otherwise, that part of his commentary gives me hope.

Can you show me where in the constitution this is interpreted from because constitutiinal scholars here cant find it. Tell us you come to this conclusion. He is saying that he has to uphold Roe vs Rade because its the law of the land. That doesnt meah he doent favor changing the law.

[Proletariat]

Clement, the person you originally thought would be bad for State Rights?

C'mon, buddy. www.google.com

[Goofball]

Hope for what? You live in Canada. You already have your own lack of laws regarding abortion. Overturning the Roe v. Wade decision would do what in your eyes?

Well, for one thing "in my eyes" overturning Roe v. Wade would force American women with unwanted pregnancies back into the back-alley-coat-hanger zone. While some may believe that is nothing more than what the sluts deserve for letting somebody shag them out of wedlock, I personally don't subscribe to that belief. Just because I'm Canadian, doesn't mean that I don't care about Americans.

While I don't believe that your abortion laws are perfect (i.e. I don't like the idea of late-term abortions any more than the Pope does), simply overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal without any kind of alternative discussions would be devastating to American women.

It was more the "nothing in my personal views" part I was talking about. Because I believe that Roe v. Wade was a correct interpretation of your Constitution and that only a judge whose personal views were against abortion would think otherwise, that part of his commentary gives me hope.

Can you show me where in the constitution this is interpreted from because constitutiinal scholars here cant find it.

Maybe the armchair quarterbacks disagree, but what counts is that a majority of the folks who made the cut and got called up to play in the show seem to think that there is constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade. I'll take their opinions over those of the ideology-driven pundits you're talking about any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Maybe the armchair quarterbacks disagree, but what counts is that a majority of the folks who made the cut and got called up to play in the show seem to think that there is constitutional basis for Roe v. Wade. I'll take their opinions over those of the ideology-driven pundits you're talking about any day of the week and twice on Sunday.

How can anyone get it so backwards In other words your cluless on how they came to this decision. As long as they agree with you its correct.

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

simply overturning Roe v. Wade and making abortion illegal

The two don't go hand-in-hand, you know. Overturning Roe v. Wade just allows for the possibility of such legislation. It doesn't immediately outlaw abortions. Then the states can make their own laws about it.

[Lemur]

Interestingly, Roberts is drawing flak from none other than Ann Coulter (!!!) - she is protesting Roberts nomination. More proof that she's nuts?

Certainly proof that this Roberts is worth looking at. He seems okay to this lemur, especially considering some of the idealogues Bush could have picked. I don't see much to not like, and having Coulter say you're bad is like a seal of good housekeeping.

[Gawain of Orkeny]

I don't see much to not like, and having Coulter say you're bad is like a seal of good housekeeping.

And you think shes stupid. Shes playing you lefties almost as well as Bush is.