Obama: No litmus test for Supreme Court nominee... but abortion support mandatory?

This is one of those times when I'm stymied that so many people could be blind to the fact that Obama is an emperor with no clothes.

Yesterday when asked by a reporter whether he would demand that his Supreme Court nominee support Roe v. Wade, Obama responded, "I don't have a litmus test... but..." and proceeded to outline his abortion litmus test.

This is one of those times when Obama showed himself to be an intellectual idiot whose primary speaking ability is making his nonsense sound lofty, thereby taking in the idiotic masses....

There are so many simple questions MSM could ask in follow-up, such as, "Please explain 'bodily integrity.'" Or, "Why do you say abortion can be 'a difficult decision'?" Or, "Exactly why don't you believe preborn children should be counted as 'individuals [that] are protected in their privacy'?"

MSM did push back, at least with White House Press Sec. Robert Gibbs, if not on the physiological illogic of Obama's statements, at least on his rhetorical double speak, as LifeSiteNews.com reported.


Comments:

This is one of those times when Obama showed himself to be an intellectual idiot who's primary speaking ability is making his nonsense sound lofty, thereby taking in the idiotic masses.

What can we expect from someone who could only produce the mindless gibberish of "hope", "change" and "yes we can". What is really frightening is that people are so taken in by it. I've stopped wondering how such intelligent and cultured people as the Germans were enraptured by an Austrian paperhanger.

The state controlled MSM truly conducting themselves as responsible journalists instead of obedient Obama lapdogs? Jill, did you see pigs flying somewhere? Are they having snowball fights in hell?

Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 8:42 AM


Mary, "Gibberish" was a good choice of words. Gibbs must go home every night and just cringe at the goofy things he has to say all day just to keep his job. LOL.

With the poor state of our education system, I wonder how many Americans know what "litmus test" means.

Posted by: Janet at April 23, 2010 9:07 AM


There are so many simple questions MSM could ask in follow-up, such as...[mr. president when your single mom was pregnant with you, what species of embryo/fetus was present in her uterus and do you believe it was fair for yor momma to punish the world with a baby like you?]

Of course the obsequious and servile lame scream, liberal media has voluntarily implemented it's own selective version of 'political correctness' when it comes to their 'poster boy' of all things progressive and hunmanistic.

The 'lap dogs' of the left may 'drive by' but the new code of conduct witht repsect to B.O. is , 'Don't ask [any questions that are not pre-approved and don't tell [any information that may fall outside the party line.]

If B.O. so chooses, he will tell us what he believes we need to near when HE believes we need to hear it. No need to ask any questions unless they are on the pre-printed list.

These so called 'journalists' should just invest in 'voice to text' software for their laptops and mail in the transcript of what B.O. has decreed or they could just 'cut and paste' the party line.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 23, 2010 9:21 AM


If he's said it once, he's said it a thousand times: blah, blah, blah, - pivot point - opposite of blah, blah, blah.

Posted by: Our president lies at April 23, 2010 9:36 AM


..."obviously this [elective abortion on demand]has been a hugely contetious issue in our country for a very long time"...

b.o.

The president says he does not have a 'litmus test' on abortion, then goes on to give a list of prerequisites that any perspective person must agree with in order to even be considered as a nominee to the supreme court and by extension any court or any other position in b.o.'s REGIME.

If write a job description that is so narrow that only a few or possibly even one person could satisfy then you have a 'litmus test'.

We see this all the time in both the public and private sector when the boss wants to hire his brother-in-law and/or a fellow member of the good ol boy/gal club, but the boss as to comply with an established employmemt policy that requires all applicants should be considered soley on their qualifications for the job.

This is the same public and private entities channel contracts to the contractor of their choice when there is established competitive bid policy in place.

But my favorite example of using the law to discriminate is the story of the old black man who showed up to vote when the 'Jim Crow' laws were still in effect. The 'law' said voters had to demonstrate they could read.

The poll worker asked the black gentleman if he could read. The black gentleman said yes. The poll worker shoved a newspaper across the table and demanded the man read it.

It was written in Chinese.

The gentleman said I caint read that but I can tell you what it says.

Oh yeah, what's that? the poll worker replied.

The gentleman responded, It says, "Ain't no black man gonna vote here today."

You can dress them up in three piece suits and paint their lips and apply eye shadow, but bigots and bigotry will remain the ugly pig it has always been.

yor bro ken
yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 23, 2010 9:43 AM


whoops!

..."obviously this [elective abortion on demand]has been a hugely contetious issue in our country for a very long time"...

b.o.


My goodness we have been told time and time again by the dead babie r us mob that this issue is 'SETTLED'.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 23, 2010 9:47 AM


Ewwwww! Apparently President Obama and Simon Cowell have something in common.
Abortion.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/04/two_american_idols_give_back.html


Posted by: Janet at April 23, 2010 9:55 AM


Ken 9:47am

Just like the issues of slavery and segregation were "settled".

Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 10:00 AM


The people who voted for President Obama desire and expect him to appoint judges and justices who support abortion rights. As Rush used to say (8 years ago as I recall) "elections have consequences." This is the main reason you guys didn't want him to win. There really is no surprise here.

Posted by: Hal at April 23, 2010 10:00 AM


Hi Hal,

If my memory serves me correctly, when Reagan was appointing SC judges it was your side wailing and howling about the importance of no litmus tests on abortion when selecting SC justices. No way could a justice who opposes Roe be selected.

It always boils down to who's ox is being gored, right Hal?

In fact, Rush made that statement in 2008, after Obama's election.

Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 10:25 AM


"There really is no surprise here."

Of course there isn't - he's a pro-abort. But Pres. Obama contradicts himself in the same sentence and you have no problem with that! No surprise there either.

Posted by: Janet at April 23, 2010 10:33 AM


Hi Janet,

Maybe the teleprompter was taking a much needed alka-selzer break.

Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 10:43 AM


Hal is right -- this is no surprise.

Remember in November . . .

Posted by: Phillymiss at April 23, 2010 11:18 AM


Hi Phillymiss,

My grandmother always told me not to wish my life away but I will make an exception this one time where the November elections are concerned. They can't get here fast enough to suit me.

Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 11:24 AM


"The people who voted for President Obama desire and expect him to appoint judges and justices who support abortion rights."

Not necessarily. Some people who voted for him believed (foolishly) that he was going to be moderate on abortion, or simply didn't pay attention to his ideas on abortion and voted for him for other reasons.

Posted by: Marauder at April 23, 2010 11:26 AM


Hi Marauder,

They were also taken in by his charisma, empty rhetoric, and smile. That's the most frightening aspect of this whole thing.

Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 11:36 AM


Q: How do you know Obama's Lying (again)?
A: When he opens his mouth (again and yet again).

No surprise here....

Posted by: RSD at April 23, 2010 12:54 PM


Posted by: Hal at April 23, 2010 10:00 AM

The people who voted for President Obama desire and expect him to appoint judges and justices who support abortion rights.

This is the main reason you guys didn't want him to win.

---------------------------------------------------

Hal,

I know people who voted for B.O. who are pro-life.

I can assure you they did not vote B.O. in the hope that he would perpetuate the murder of more pre-natal children.

[Given b.o.'s track record I do not know how they could have hoped he would change the status quo.]

While you are correct that the main reason I oppose b.o. is his indifference to infanticide [Given his comments and voting record I could argue b.o. is at the very least not 'opposed' to the barbarsim.], I would continue to oppose him tomorrow even if he nominated a person to the supreme court who would vote to overturn Roe v Wade.

Merely claiming or acting like he was 'pro-life' would not convince any more than his claims that he is a devout and committed chritian. The fruit of his heart, his lips and his hands prove otherwise.

b.o. has not proven that he is constitutionally qualified to hold the office of president.

b.o. is either guilty of malfeasance or misfesance or both.

b.o. is a full blown socialist/humanist and a liar.

b.o.'s fiscal policies are contrary to the free market.

b.o.'s social policies do not facilitate good citizenship, but rather dependency on other for what men and women are capable of providing for themselves.

b.o.'s foreign policy is misguided at best.

Though b.o. posseses all the skills of a pimp, I would not trust him with the adminstration of the whore houses in Nevada.

yor bro ken

Posted by: kbhvac at April 23, 2010 12:58 PM


It has always made me wonder why Obama is such a 'pro-abort', and why he fancies himself such a champion of 'women's rights'. How many babies has Michelle aborted, or any other woman he dated in the past? Wonder if anyone will ever ASK that question?

Posted by: Pamela at April 23, 2010 1:25 PM


Mary @ 10:43

That's very funny!

* * * *
Pamela @ 1:25,

Legal abortion relieves men of their responsibility as fathers and providers.

Posted by: Janet at April 23, 2010 1:50 PM


Hi Janet,

Thank you. Glad you enjoyed! :) As my grandma always said: "if we didn't laugh we'd cry".

Posted by: Mary at April 23, 2010 1:54 PM


I was going to vote for him until I heard on Christian radio about his actions when he was a Senator in Illinois. Now I don't see myself as a liberal but I do believe in helping people. I'm also economically disadvantage still feel blessed because a lot of times its programs like medicaid and food stamps that help me to take care of my son. Having said that I think if the Republican party really wants to win and is really pro-life than they need to realize that sometimes people do need assistance and that's o.k. just look at the system and decide how best not to grow government but invest more tax dollars to help people who chose to help themselves via education work or sometimes providing funding for those who take care of loved ones that are disabled or elderly. A politcal party that is truly pro-life and pro-family I would gladly give my vote to and I think the American people would as well. Something else the Republican Party needs to do just as you make it clear that Lincoln was a Republican make it very clear what programs the party was instrumental in bringing about. And invest less money in businesses that profit from war that's not good for anyone.

Posted by: myrtle miller at April 23, 2010 2:21 PM


Well, some of you may disagree, but I'm very satisfied with our President's performance so far.

Have a great weekend everyone!

Posted by: Hal at April 23, 2010 4:59 PM


Legal abortion relieves men of their responsibility as fathers and providers.
Posted by: Janet at April 23, 2010 1:50 PM
__________________________________________________
Yes I know Janet, but that didn't answer my question. BTW..my father 'relieved himself of the responsibility' for me by just walking out of my mother's life when she was pregnant with me.
My question was: I wonder if Obama was ever personally involved with an abortion? I don't think he's ever been asked that question.

Posted by: Pamela at April 23, 2010 6:32 PM


My question was: I wonder if Obama was ever personally involved with an abortion? I don't think he's ever been asked that question.
Posted by: Pamela at April 23, 2010 6:32 PM

I don't think that's anyone's business. I would hope no one would ask him that question.

Posted by: Hal at April 23, 2010 6:43 PM


It's because Obama is a Romulan, not the Vulcan that the media made him out to be:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-f9qIG5aio

Posted by: theblogprof at April 23, 2010 6:52 PM


Posted by: Hal at April 23, 2010 4:59 PM

"Well, some of you may disagree, but I'm very satisfied with our President's performance so far."

--------------------------------------------------

Sheeeeeezzzzzzaaaaammmm!

Knock me over with a feather.

Hal,

It goes without you saying.

Your unflagging support and devotion to b.o. are a well known 'given' to all of us who know and love you.

Wait til you have become so disaffected by b.o. that you finally disabuse yourself of the notion that b.o. is a 'benefit' to the nation and then shock and surprise us with just a hint of disillusionment conerning any and all things b.o.!
---------------------------------------------------


"I wonder if Obama was ever personally involved with an abortion?"

Posted by: Hal at April 23, 2010 6:43 PM

I don't think that's anyone's business. I would hope no one would ask him that question.

-----------------------------------------------------

Hal,

I would be inclined to agree with you on that one but......

The "I don't want my daughters [and extension me] to be punished with a baby." offerring kind of left that door more than just a crack.

Michelle is definately offlimits for the question unless she has also made equivalent utterances.

But if there is nothing wrong with 'abortion' and b.o. is an aggressive advocate for elective abortion on demand, funded by the taxpayer, then what is the harm in asking the question?

It is not like we are asking b.o. if he has stopped beating his wife.....yet?

yor bro ken


Posted by: kbhvac at April 23, 2010 7:40 PM


Pamela @ 6:32,

I was only commenting on your statement:
It has always made me wonder why Obama is such a 'pro-abort'....

Posted by: Janet at April 23, 2010 8:15 PM


My question was: I wonder if Obama was ever personally involved with an abortion? I don't think he's ever been asked that question.
Posted by: Pamela at April 23, 2010 6:32 PM
I don't think that's anyone's business. I would hope no one would ask him that question.

Why do you hope that, Hal? If abortion is nothing to be ashamed of, and is truly no big deal, why would it matter to you if this question was to be asked of him?

Posted by: bethany Author Profile Page at April 23, 2010 9:27 PM


It would explain WHY he's so 'pro- abortion'...that's what I meant.

Posted by: Pamela at April 23, 2010 10:50 PM


And if nothing is wrong with abortion, B.O. should have no issue in honestly answering any questions about abortion. I personally believe he has been involved with an abortion or has been close with someone who has aborted.

Why such confidentiality about abortion if nothing is wrong with it?

I had my tonsils aborted 30 years ago. (Ouch. That was kinda hard to admit.) (:

Posted by: Praxedes at April 24, 2010 8:03 AM


Of course he will say all the right things but do you think for a minute that he will allow a pro life judge to get on the supreme court? Of course not.

Posted by: abortion pros and cons at April 25, 2010 8:39 AM



Post a comment:




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Please enter the letter "u" in the field below: