Hucks Army - Faith. Family. Freedom. [Grassroots] JOIN HUCKS ARMY | GET INVOLVED | FUNDRAISING | LINKS | LEADERSHIP | ABOUT
It is currently Tue Mar 31, 2020 12:15 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:36 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1599
Location: Richmond, VA
Likes: 146
Liked: 215
Alright, that's not actually the title of the article, but I think it fits. We still have not gotten any solid evidence that Judge Sotomayor is pro-choice. Of course the assumption is that she is, or Obama wouldn't have nominated her. However, here's what we know so far about her stance on abortion:

- Judge Sotomayor is a Catholic Latina, two qualities which make her more likely to be pro-life, though obviously don't ensure such a position

- She's ruled on abortion on only 2 or 3 instances, and each time she's come down on the pro-life side. Granted they were pretty simple cases in which she just followed precedent.

- The White House has admitted they didn't specifically ask Judge Sotomayor about her position on abortion.

- Pro-abortion groups were very skeptical and hesitant to endorse the Judge when President Obama announced his pick.

- Democratic Senators who've met with her have come out of the meeting saying they think she'll rule on their side on abortion, citing only her stated commitment to following precedent.

- She would seem to have very little reason to hide her stance if indeed she is pro-choice, since pro-choice Democrats control Congress and it almost certainly wouldn't affect her chances of being confirmed.

- Now this article from One News Now regarding Senator Jim DeMint's meeting with her:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Politics/Defa ... ?id=563492

Quote:
President Obama's Supreme Court nominee has made an astonishing admission -- she has never considered whether an unborn child has any rights.

Senator Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina) says he had a "good meeting" with Judge Sonia Sotomayor on Wednesday that covered a broad range of issues, but none of his concerns about the high court nominee were eased.

DeMint, chairman of the Senate Steering Committee, says he remains deeply disturbed with her view of the Second Amendment. "She was unwilling to say the Second Amendment protects a fundamental right that applies to all Americans, which raises serious questions about her view of the Bill of Rights," the senator offers.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-South Carolina)According to DeMint, Sotomayor -- a Catholic -- also indicated she does not share her church's commitment to protecting the unborn.

"When I asked if an unborn child has any rights whatsoever, I was surprised that she said she had never thought about it," he says. "This is not just a question about abortion, but about respect due to human life at all stages -- and I hope this is cleared up in her hearings."

Given Sotomayor's comments on gun rights and the unborn, DeMint questions whether the nominee has what he believes is required of a Supreme Court nominee -- an "unwavering commitment to the Constitution and equal justice for all Americans."


I know the article spins it as an endorsement of abortion, but in actuality she simply skirted the question. I hope someone holds her feet to the fire and gets a better answer out of her in the hearing. Then again, if she does turn out to be pro-life (I know, this is crazy talk, right?!) maybe it would be better if that didn't come out until after she's on the bench.

I know most of you are probably sold on the idea that she'll be a horrible Supreme Court Justice (I am too considering what we know about her so far), but I'm still holding out hope that it's what we don't know about her that could come back to bite President Obama and the abortion crowd.

_________________
ATTENTION GUESTS: Thanks for checking out our Discussion Forum. Before you go, please take a minute to click on the image below and get registered to join the discussion. You'll enjoy all the perks, such as being able to track which posts you've read already. It will also allow us to contact you with important news and information. Plus, we'd just love to hear what you have to say!

MEMBERS: Want to put the "Get Registered" image in your signature? Learn how here.

______________________Image______________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jun 11, 2009 3:40 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Tue Sep 02, 2008 12:30 pm
Posts: 599
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
Could Sotomayor be pro-life? Yeah--her own. ;) Seriously, it's possible she's not as bad as we think. We should pray that anything we need to know about her will come out before a possible confirmation.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 4:08 am 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:47 am
Posts: 252
Location: Wisconsin
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
Even if she were pro-life she is unfit to be on the Supreme Court. She is a racist and biased towards certain groups of people which would affect her judgment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 9:36 am 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
mentalhead wrote:
Even if she were pro-life she is unfit to be on the Supreme Court. She is a racist and biased towards certain groups of people which would affect her judgment.

While I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying, I disagree. If she is prolife, then put her on the court. The possibility against Obama putting another prolifer up for nomination would be astronomical (of course, we don't know that she is, so this is all just speculation).

But the bottom line for me is simple: what is more important--protecting millions of children from being murdered or protecting my rights to this or that particular freedom? We can work to restore individuals freedoms that have been removed. We cannot restore a life once it has been taken away.

In other words, I'd rather have a pro-life liberal-on-everything-else justice the SC than an pro-choice conservative-on-everything-else justice.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 10:31 am 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 620
Location: New Jersey
Likes: 36
Liked: 27
Jac3510 wrote:
mentalhead wrote:
Even if she were pro-life she is unfit to be on the Supreme Court. She is a racist and biased towards certain groups of people which would affect her judgment.

While I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying, I disagree. If she is prolife, then put her on the court. The possibility against Obama putting another prolifer up for nomination would be astronomical (of course, we don't know that she is, so this is all just speculation).

But the bottom line for me is simple: what is more important--protecting millions of children from being murdered or protecting my rights to this or that particular freedom? We can work to restore individuals freedoms that have been removed. We cannot restore a life once it has been taken away.

In other words, I'd rather have a pro-life liberal-on-everything-else justice the SC than an pro-choice conservative-on-everything-else justice.

I completely agree.

_________________
Dan

Just a college kid and a Huckabee supporter!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 12:50 pm 
Offline
Captain

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 9:20 am
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Liked: 2
I understand your statement on how important a Pro-Life judge would be Jac3510 and NJ Huck, but fortunately we are a nations of laws first )or use to be). Her comments and rulings so far have indicated that she does not care about the laws that are established but about her personal belief and how they effect both parties in the judgement. I don't believe that she is truly a racist, but more of a vendictive person who feels that she and other people like her were mis-treated. As Mike has said about Rev Wright, I can feel for her and understand her reasoning behind her comments, but I beleive that there should be no way those feelings effect her rulings.

The Surpreme Court is the last line of defense for the rule of law in this land, but when we start playing politics with the court, then we lose the checks and balance our founding fathers inteded the court system to prevent. Fortunately, we can overrule these postions at a later time, however, is this a time to comprimise our principals for one political agenda. (granted I know this a major agenda to a lot of members of this board, but who is to say that she won't change her mind once she is on the bench)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:05 pm 
Offline
***** General
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 10:26 am
Posts: 1599
Location: Richmond, VA
Likes: 146
Liked: 215
dmacdaddy30 wrote:
I understand your statement on how important a Pro-Life judge would be Jac3510 and NJ Huck, but fortunately we are a nations of laws first )or use to be). Her comments and rulings so far have indicated that she does not care about the laws that are established but about her personal belief and how they effect both parties in the judgement. I don't believe that she is truly a racist, but more of a vendictive person who feels that she and other people like her were mis-treated. As Mike has said about Rev Wright, I can feel for her and understand her reasoning behind her comments, but I beleive that there should be no way those feelings effect her rulings.

The Surpreme Court is the last line of defense for the rule of law in this land, but when we start playing politics with the court, then we lose the checks and balance our founding fathers inteded the court system to prevent. Fortunately, we can overrule these postions at a later time, however, is this a time to comprimise our principals for one political agenda. (granted I know this a major agenda to a lot of members of this board, but who is to say that she won't change her mind once she is on the bench)


I definitely hear your point. If this were a situation where Republicans and Democrats were deadlocked in the Senate numbers-wise, then I think I would have a much different perspective on this. However, since overruling one of Obama's nominees with the current balance of power in the Senate is next to impossible, I'm just trying to see a possible silver lining.

Admittedly, that silver lining might not even be there at all. Hopefully the hearings will shine more light on her stance on abortion (more because I'm curious than anything else). But, you're right, we'll never really know until she gets on the bench.

However, for the first time since he's been elected, Obama has given me something to HOPE about. :wink:

_________________
ATTENTION GUESTS: Thanks for checking out our Discussion Forum. Before you go, please take a minute to click on the image below and get registered to join the discussion. You'll enjoy all the perks, such as being able to track which posts you've read already. It will also allow us to contact you with important news and information. Plus, we'd just love to hear what you have to say!

MEMBERS: Want to put the "Get Registered" image in your signature? Learn how here.

______________________Image______________________


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:36 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
dmacdaddy30 wrote:
I understand your statement on how important a Pro-Life judge would be Jac3510 and NJ Huck, but fortunately we are a nations of laws first )or use to be). Her comments and rulings so far have indicated that she does not care about the laws that are established but about her personal belief and how they effect both parties in the judgement. I don't believe that she is truly a racist, but more of a vendictive person who feels that she and other people like her were mis-treated. As Mike has said about Rev Wright, I can feel for her and understand her reasoning behind her comments, but I beleive that there should be no way those feelings effect her rulings.

The Surpreme Court is the last line of defense for the rule of law in this land, but when we start playing politics with the court, then we lose the checks and balance our founding fathers inteded the court system to prevent. Fortunately, we can overrule these postions at a later time, however, is this a time to comprimise our principals for one political agenda. (granted I know this a major agenda to a lot of members of this board, but who is to say that she won't change her mind once she is on the bench)

I understand your argument, but I simply disagree. For all our talk of judicial activism, in the strictest sense of the word, no justice can make laws. Only the legislature is capable of that. What activists can, and do, do is to interpret the Constitution in a way that fits their personal beliefs that overrides existing laws.

Now, I recognize that is a problem, but it doesn't change the fact that what liberal justices are doing is interpreting the Constitution. Even under the most activist of judges, we are still a nation of law. The problem is that liberals want a system where unelected officials (SCJs) create the "laws" (though, as we have already seen, these are not laws, but rather odd applications of the Supreme Law of the Land--the Constitution, which appears to have the effect of creating laws) by their own personal standards. Against this, conservatives want only elected officals to create laws according to objective constitutional standards, which bars SCJs from imposing their own viewpoint on that constitution.

But that means your argument is based on a false premise. If Sotomayer turned out to be pro-life but incredibly activist, we would still be a nation under the rule of law. What we would NOT be is a nation in which all laws were created strictly and solely by the legislature without concern of what nine other people personally believe.

I, then, return to my first argument. I would rather live under a system in which SCJs "create laws" (more literally, subjectively apply the Constitution) along side the legislature, and then work to change those laws over time if I disagreed with them through the amendment process, than I would live under a system in which the legislature made all the laws at the cost of millions of children. To make this more clear, let me pull a Dave Ramsey on you:

Let's pretend there had been no abortions. All fifty million children who were murdered are standing before you. You are given two choices, one of which you must accept. A) You can accept an activist judiciary and preserve the lives of the fifty million people; B) You can accept a strictly constructionist judiciary at the cost of a fifty million people suffering immediate execution. Which do you choose? I would choose A.

The point: I'm willing to accept an activist Sotomayor (and would actually fight for her confirmation) if she turned out to be pro-life, whereas I would strongly oppose a constructionist pro-choice nominee.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:54 pm 
Offline
Captain
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:47 am
Posts: 252
Location: Wisconsin
Likes: 0
Liked: 0
Jac3510 wrote:
mentalhead wrote:
Even if she were pro-life she is unfit to be on the Supreme Court. She is a racist and biased towards certain groups of people which would affect her judgment.

While I appreciate the spirit of what you are saying, I disagree. If she is prolife, then put her on the court. The possibility against Obama putting another prolifer up for nomination would be astronomical (of course, we don't know that she is, so this is all just speculation).

But the bottom line for me is simple: what is more important--protecting millions of children from being murdered or protecting my rights to this or that particular freedom? We can work to restore individuals freedoms that have been removed. We cannot restore a life once it has been taken away.

In other words, I'd rather have a pro-life liberal-on-everything-else justice the SC than an pro-choice conservative-on-everything-else justice.


I agree that being pro-life is very important, but judges are supposed to be picked based on how well they follow the Constitution. I highly doubt that she is pro-life though since almost no liberals are.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 1:56 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
mentalhead wrote:
I agree that being pro-life is very important, but judges are supposed to be picked based on how well they follow the Constitution. I highly doubt that she is pro-life though since almost no liberals are.

I doubt she's pro-life, too. But what is more important to you? The lives of millions of children or men's tradition?

edit: being pro-life isn't just very important. It is before all else. If one is not in favor of life, then it does not matter what else one is in favor of. Likewise, if one is in favor of life, then all else is political posturing and economics, certainly things worth fighting for, but none worth the life of a single human being.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:13 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 620
Location: New Jersey
Likes: 36
Liked: 27
I also highly doubt that she is pro-life. But if she really truly were and if there were a way for us to be 100 percent sure, I would be pleased with her confirmation.

_________________
Dan

Just a college kid and a Huckabee supporter!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:44 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Thomson, Ga
Likes: 0
Liked: 1
I think some of you are missing the point. Even if she were pro-life, all she'd be able to do is overturn Roe v Wade, which would leave it up to the individual states to decide if abortion is legal or not.

_________________
Donate To HuckPAC: R23593

"Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar."
- Abraham Lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:47 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 620
Location: New Jersey
Likes: 36
Liked: 27
ecwoodrow wrote:
I think some of you are missing the point. Even if she were pro-life, all she'd be able to do is overturn Roe v Wade, which would leave it up to the individual states to decide if abortion is legal or not.

Better than nothing.

_________________
Dan

Just a college kid and a Huckabee supporter!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:51 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Thomson, Ga
Likes: 0
Liked: 1
NJ Huck Supporter wrote:
ecwoodrow wrote:
I think some of you are missing the point. Even if she were pro-life, all she'd be able to do is overturn Roe v Wade, which would leave it up to the individual states to decide if abortion is legal or not.

Better than nothing.


Not really, one would only need to cross the state line to get an abortion. Few lives, if any, would be saved.

_________________
Donate To HuckPAC: R23593

"Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar."
- Abraham Lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:56 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
It's a start, ec. More importantly, it's the first NECESSARY step. Until that happens, we can't do anything else (shy of passing the human life ammendment, which we also need to be working on).

edit: Besides, if it went back to the states, a lot of them would immediately criminalize abortion. Yes, some would cross state lines, but a lot of people wouldn't be able to. So yes, lives would be saved. Lots of them.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 2:59 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 620
Location: New Jersey
Likes: 36
Liked: 27
ecwoodrow wrote:
NJ Huck Supporter wrote:
ecwoodrow wrote:
I think some of you are missing the point. Even if she were pro-life, all she'd be able to do is overturn Roe v Wade, which would leave it up to the individual states to decide if abortion is legal or not.

Better than nothing.


Not really, one would only need to cross the state line to get an abortion. Few lives, if any, would be saved.

The overturning of Roe v. Wade would put abortion right back into the public debate and it would become an important election issue. If the recent polls are correct and more of the public is pro-life than pro-choice, then more pro-life people could possibly be elected making it easier to pass a human life amendment. It would make people more aware of RINOs as well.

_________________
Dan

Just a college kid and a Huckabee supporter!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:16 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Thomson, Ga
Likes: 0
Liked: 1
Quote:
Besides, if it went back to the states, a lot of them would immediately criminalize abortion. Yes, some would cross state lines, but a lot of people wouldn't be able to. So yes, lives would be saved. Lots of them.


Actually many states still have laws on the books criminalizing abortion (I think GA's one of em), but they are superseded by Roe v Wade. So those would laws would take effect immediately upon the overturning of RvW.

But I think you're not taking into consideration the determination of the pro-abortion crowd. If they're willing to take girls out of schools and shuttle them across state lines w/o parental permission to have abortions, why not do the same w/ adults?

Quote:
It's a start, ec. More importantly, it's the first NECESSARY step. Until that happens, we can't do anything else (shy of passing the human life ammendment, which we also need to be working on).


Quote:
If the recent polls are correct and more of the public is pro-life than pro-choice, then more pro-life people could possibly be elected making it easier to pass a human life amendment. It would make people more aware of RINOs as well.


You're not taking into account that many of those who are pro-life take the "federalist stance", meaning they just want it left to the states to decide and hopefully one day all states will criminalize it. They do not want an amendment because they want to preserve State's rights (which in this case is nonsensical because individual rights trump State's rights).

_________________
Donate To HuckPAC: R23593

"Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar."
- Abraham Lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:18 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 2:51 pm
Posts: 620
Location: New Jersey
Likes: 36
Liked: 27
Hmm that's a good point ecwoodrow, but would those people really be that opposed to a federal amendment?

_________________
Dan

Just a college kid and a Huckabee supporter!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:23 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2008 8:27 pm
Posts: 500
Location: Thomson, Ga
Likes: 0
Liked: 1
NJ Huck Supporter wrote:
Hmm that's a good point ecwoodrow, but would those people really be that opposed to a federal amendment?


Some would. There are others that take that position because they simply believe a Federal Human Life Amendment "just won't happen".

_________________
Donate To HuckPAC: R23593

"Republicans are for both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar."
- Abraham Lincoln


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jun 12, 2009 3:24 pm 
Offline
Brigadier Geneal

Joined: Fri Oct 19, 2007 11:49 pm
Posts: 641
Location: Loganville, GA
Likes: 0
Liked: 11
I have no problem believing that some people would be taken across state lines. But ALL of them? Of course not. Most of them? Probably not. We have thousands of abortions happening per day. You also have to assume that the state next to you isn't like GA. You also have to assume that you live near the edge of your state.

The bottom line is that it is completely absurd to say that if some states were able to recriminalize abortion that lives would not be saved. And once you admit that lives would be saved, then my original argument stands full force. Better to save human lives and live with the effects of an activist judiciary than insist on a constructionist judiciary that leaves people being murdered by the truckloads on a daily basis.

Quote:
Some would. There are others that take that position because they simply believe a Federal Human Life Amendment "just won't happen".

Yes, and there are people who won't support a third party who better supports their principles because a third party just can't win. And there were people who wouldn't support Mike Huckabee even though he better represented their views because he just couldn't win.

That kind of attitude becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Huck didn't get the nomination because of the cowardice if social conservatives not getting behind the one guy who stood for their principles. We only have ourselves to thank for Obama. And if the HLA doesn't pass because people just don't think it can happen, then we are just not supporting it out of the same old cowardice. Again, it's just our fault.

I think I've paraphrased the Boondock Saints before, but I'll say it again: there are two kinds of evils in this world: that of evil men who do evil things, and the indifference of good men who stand by and do nothing.

_________________
To Give a Reason for the Hope - a practical, twelve week, online series to help Christians effectively defend and share their faith.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 41 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
cron
POWERED_BY