Breyer undermining Roberts

specter4.jpgFrom The Politico, yesterday:

Sen. Arlen Specter (R-PA) plans to review the Senate testimony of U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito to determine if their reversal of several long-standing opinions conflicts with promises they made to senators to win confirmation....

The idea for a review came to Specter when he said he ran into Justice Stephen G. Breyer at the Aspen Ideas Festival in Colorado....

Breyer, an appointee of President Bill Clinton, drew attention last month for suggesting that Roberts and the conservative majority were flouting stare decisis, the legal doctrine that, for the sake of stability, courts should generally leave past decisions undisturbed....

"I only noticed it in a couple of cases," Specter said of the court overturning or undermining precedents. But Breyer, in their Aspen conversation, said "there were eight."

The liberal concern for stare decisis is code for wanting Roe v. Wade left alone, which is pathetic. They know the ruling can't stand on its own.

Most disturbing is Breyer's overt attempt to undermine Roberts and also influence the political process in judicial selections, altogether compromising the separation of powers.

There was also this:

The Specter inquiry poses a potential political problem for the GOP and future nominees because Democrats are increasingly complaining that the Supreme Court moved quicker and more dramatically than advertised to overturn or chip away at prior decisions.

I didn't see before how a Bush nominee who was strict constructionist could make it out of the Democrat-controlled Senate alive. Now it seems impossible. On the bright side, Bush's legacy is already clear.

I recently heard the next Supreme nomination will be fought like the Battle of Armageddon, since the next justice could provide the Roe v. Wade tipping vote. Well, the Battle has just begun, even before there is a nominee to draw and quarter. Unable to get Supreme nominees to show their Roe hand, Democrats relied on their answers re: stare decisis. Now they'll say they can't count on that.

segregation.jpgAnd stare decisis? Good thing it's not a rule written in stone. If so, Dred Scott would still be the ruling of the land, and we wouldn't have Brown v. Board of Education, which overturned Plessy v. Ferguson.

Interestingly, Roberts was asked during his confirmation hearings if he supported the Brown v. Board of Education decision.

Liberals should be asked the same question.

[Specter photo and caption are courtesy of The Politico.]


Comments:

be careful what you wish for. Reversal of Roe will not bring about stronger anti-abortion legislation. People want abortion to be legal, and you'll see that expressed strongly if Roe is reversed. Now, with Roe seemingly protecting the basic right to abortion, many are unconcered with some chipping away round the edges.

Posted by: Hal at July 26, 2007 4:27 PM


People want abortion to be legal? Not this person.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 26, 2007 4:44 PM


Not all people. Lots of people though.

Posted by: Hal at July 26, 2007 4:55 PM


Tell me Hal,

do people 'want/need' war/fighting/enmity/injustice. Once sanctioned by government do they become magically OK? Many decades ago a small town in New Mexico was forced to close ... their only factory assembled H-bombs.

Was it a regression to do without H-bombs ... after all between USSR and USA, every square inch of the world could be blasted 2000 times (USA's - 1300 to USSR's - 700. USA was the 'winner' in the nuclear arm's race.). Would you be satisfied with 3,000 times? ... how about 6,000 times?

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 26, 2007 5:54 PM


People once thought they needed slaves too, turns out we get by just fine without them.

Posted by: Rosie at July 26, 2007 6:17 PM


Rosie, how true.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 26, 2007 7:13 PM


Breyer used to reside (and I believe stiil house there) in the ultra-liberal Cambridge, MA. He once worked for Ted Kennedy. He's a true liberal, sneaking around peoples backs.

Posted by: jasper at July 26, 2007 7:55 PM


Jill Stanek said

"I recently heard the next Supreme nomination will be fought like the Battle of Armageddon, since the next justice could provide the Roe v. Wade tipping vote."

FOMBL!!

They said that about the last Supreme Court nominee! Alleged "conservatives" and those on the "religious right" (i.e. partners with the Republican Party who work to get Republicans elected above all else) keep claiming that we have some kind of pro-life Supreme Court justices currently.

Fact is, we have 0 pro-life justices on the Supreme Court.

The next judge on the Supreme Court is IRRELEVANT to the fight for Life in this nation.

"Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land, ...There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." --John Roberts

Posted by: Zeke13:19 at July 26, 2007 10:12 PM


Can you try reposting the link, Mike? For some reason, it wouldn't work for me, and I'm interested.

Bethany & Heather4life,

Sorry about the link. Go to ....

http://www.catholic.com

click on "radio"

then click on "Guest schedule"

then go to "2-17-06"

----

You may know Yvonne Florczak Seeman already if you are active in Pro-Life in the Chicagoland area. She lives in the western burbs of Chicago.

Mike

Posted by: Mike at July 26, 2007 10:22 PM


Mike, Lynn, I'm going to throw a monkey wrench in here. I've come to believe even NFP is wrong. The Bible says husbands and wives should only withhold themselves from one another for focused meditation with God.

I love that NFP is natural and creates the opportunity for excellent communication between husband and wife as well as for a woman to understand her body. I detest contraception.

And I've had NFP friends try to explain the moral difference between the two, but the explanations fall flat. Want to try your hand at it?

Jill,

I am for the most part in agreement with you but NFP is by far better than contraception and when your debating people I believe you need to know your audience.

Much of the Pro-Abort supporter mentality has never been introduced into the concept we need to live our lives the way God wants us to live it. God is in control and we must follow him.

Jill, you followed God by leaving Christ Hospital and becoming a full time Pro-Life activist. You followed what God wanted you to do and probably not you really wanted to do (staying at Christ Hospital).

I believe when we debate sometimes we can only get people to move in small footsteps at a time. This is why I introduce NFP to those using contraception. NFP is getting closer to giving our lives to God. It takes baby steps sometimes instead of going for it all.

By the way I am Catholic and therefore a huge backer of the teachings from "The Theology of the Body".

Mike

Posted by: Mike at July 26, 2007 10:37 PM


Jasper,

a 'true' liberal? You are implying that liberals desire to sneak behind people's backs?

Posted by: prettyinpink Author Profile Page at July 26, 2007 11:51 PM


I remember several of the Big Abortion groups in DC calling for college students to come to DC and work to fight the Alito nomination. It was during the between-semester break that most college students have, and they were even comparing it to the summer where students from the Northern US went down south to register people to vote way back in the 60s.

They barely got even a few dozen. I remember thinking we would face hundreds of them (even then we doubted they would get the thousands they were anticipating). Oh well

Posted by: Phil at July 27, 2007 4:14 AM


To compare a gathering of college students supporting abortion to the voter registration drive of the sixties is despicable and an insult to the students and non-students who so courageously participated in the 1964 drive.
Students arriving to help with voter registration were literally attacked and beaten by mobs who were waiting for their buses. Civil rights supporters were beaten, attacked by dogs, and even murdered. Sheriffs, deputies, politicians, etc. were klansmen or klan supporters. Dedicated people of all races, religions, and backgrounds truly put their lives on the line and displayed courage and sacrifice we can't comprehend..
I remember when Jesse Jackson compared Norma McCorvey to Rosa Parks, the black seamstress who refused to give up her bus seat to a white man in the segregated south. PUH-LEEZE. While I have come to respect Ms. McCorvey, I certainly do not compare her involvement in legalizing abortion to the courage of Mrs. Parks.
The ignorance behind these comparisons is appalling.

Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2007 6:45 AM


The next SCOTUS justice will (probably) be appointed by a pro-choice president, and confirmed easily by a pro-choice senate.

Posted by: SoMG at July 27, 2007 8:19 AM


http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/ss/ss5511.pdf
page 34.
Number of abortion related deaths per 100,000 abortions for 1972-2002 (Some states didn't report)
486
Number of abortions performed between 1972-2002
40,000,000
40,000,000 divided by 100,000=400
400 X 486 = 194,400
I stink at math, but it would seem to me that this is saying that there were 194,400 abortion related deaths between 1972 and 2002...

Before I draw any conclusions, someone check my reasoning...

Posted by: MK Author Profile Page at July 27, 2007 8:53 AM


PIP,

this is why I don't have respect for liberals (or left wingers)
http://www.thinking-catholic-strategic-center.com/abortion.html

Planned Parenthood found a way to be arrested so they could challenge the law, and wound up again in the Supreme Court. In the 1665 Griswold v. Connecticut, the right to privacy became Constitutional Law, thanks to Douglas. He wrote in the decision striking down the legal prohibition on selling contraceptives that "specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."

Huh?

If you don't know what a penumbra formed by an emanation is, you're not alone. Neither did Douglas. It was his way of implying that Supreme Court Justices could and can imagine non-existent Bill-Of-Rights rights into being. There was no legal reasoning here, just naked personal opinion, pure and simple.

For the record, a penumbra is an astronomical term describing the partial shadow in an eclipse, or the edge of a sunspot, and, alternatively, is a way to describe something as unclear or fuzzy. Emanation is a scientific term for a gas that comes from radioactive decay, or, alternatively, it could mean an "emission."

The words are typical of Materialist / Atheist (usually liberals) attempts to obfuscate and cover the truth in the presence of non-Materialists and / or Theists who might publicly argue, if they could figure out what had just been said.

This was either a dumb-assed decision, or an evil one; I'll let you decide. This was not the decision of brilliant legal minds whose lofty legal language is beyond the comprehension of us lowly hoi polloi. Dumb-assed decisions are not made by brilliant legal minds; dumb-assed decisions are made by dumb-asses. The alternative possibility is that it was planned that way all along, which would make the majority on the Court, clearly, evil, and destructive of our Constitution. This decision was no different than Dred Scott.

Posted by: jasper at July 27, 2007 9:27 AM


gotta share this ............
"
Some wisdom to carry with you through the day..

1. A day without sunshine is like night.

2. On the other hand, you have different fingers.

3. 42.7 percent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

4. 99 percent of lawyers give the rest a bad name.

5. Remember, half the people you know are below average.

6. He who laughs last, thinks slowest.

7. Depression is merely anger without enthusiasm.

8. The early bird may get the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese in the trap.

9. Support bacteria. They're the only culture some people have.

10. A clear conscience is usually the sign of a bad memory.

11. Change is inevitable, except from vending machines.

12. If you think nobody cares, try missing a couple of payments.

13. How many of you believe in psychokinesis? Raise my hand.

14. OK, so what's the speed of dark?

15. When everything is coming your way, you're in the wrong lane.

16. Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.

17. How much deeper would the ocean be without sponges?

18. Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines

19. What happens if you get scared half to death, twice?

20. Why do psychics have to ask you for your name?

21. Inside every older person is a younger person wondering, "What the heck happened?"

22. Just remember -- if the world didn't suck, we would all fall off.

23. Light travels faster than sound. That's why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

24. Life isn't like a box of chocolates . It's more like a jar of jalapenos. What you do today, might burn your ass tomorrow.

Posted by: John McDonell Author Profile Page at July 27, 2007 9:47 AM


John lol! @last line.

Posted by: Heather4life at July 27, 2007 10:09 AM


Jasper,

Emanations can also mean odor, steam, or vapors. So the "right" to abortion was found in the steam or odor arising the partial shadow of an eclipse or sunspot.
It sounds like the justices made a legal decision by consulting the heavens and deciphering puffs of steam.

Posted by: Mary at July 27, 2007 11:23 AM


Hal,

The Roe decision was wrong. That's why it should be reversed. We'll deal with the consequences of doing the right thing when that happens.

And Hal, I do pity your lack of morality. You are a lost man, my friend and would be wise to realize that both for yourself and your family before it's too late.

Posted by: HisMan at July 27, 2007 12:35 PM


Mike, 10:37p: I'm relieved that you agree with my analysis of NFP "for the most part." I appreciate your honesty.

I also agree we have to consider our audience. I like talking about NFP, and I think it's a great concept for people on this site to be exposed to, particularly our young women. It's a superior alternative from every angle to hormonal contraception for sure.

Hal, 4:27p: I don't quite get your comment. Would you please expound?

Posted by: Jill Stanek Author Profile Page at July 27, 2007 1:33 PM


hisman, I'm not perfect, but I'd stack my morality against yours any day of the week. If there was a god, I think he'd be very proud of me.

Posted by: Hal at July 27, 2007 5:03 PM


Hi Jill. I was trying to make the point that the pro-choice (that's pro-abort for you guys) majority in the US is pretty quiet right now, beleiving that abortion will always be legal and that it's not under any serious threat. Therefore, the non-professional (NOW

If Roe is reversed and people are faced with a real chance of abortion being illegal, they will become energized and fight like Hell against all abortion restrictions.

So, under this theory, reversal of Roe will not stop any abortions. See what happened last year in South Dakota? A full ban was rejected in a very "pro-life" part of the country.

Posted by: Hal at July 27, 2007 5:09 PM


Hal, I'm sorry I'm usually much "nicer", but I hardly think any god would be proud of a man who unrepentantly killed half of his children.

Posted by: lauren at July 27, 2007 6:10 PM