Redstate

Should have gotten the Ginsburg treatment

And Ginsburg should have been Borked.

She is arguably the worst Justice since the opinion writer for Dred Scott. That an ACLU hack shluld be able to sit safely for life slipping in her anti-American, anti-freedom bilge into our case law is disgusting.

You're telling me that the Democrats are going to have a double standard, get the heck out of here?!1?!?!one?1!?!!11!!

</sarcasm&gt

1 - You've been through SW Oklahoma?

2 - Schumer may not have questioned Ginsburg, but I'm sure Hatch will willingly share his recollections alongside with Feinstein and Biden on the questioning. Perhaps they could launch into an extended discussion on the value of precedential procedure and the importance of principles, respect for the constitution's provisions, and the role of the legislature and questions of judicial deference.

Ya think Schumer'll go for that? Nahhhhhhhhhh.

Love reading Ginsburg praise on this site, too funny.  Roberts would do well to take a page from her book if he has a clue about the confirmation process.  I take him at his word if he pledges to hear every case on it's own merits:  INCLUDING abortion.   He should honor his word and indeed NOT take his own views into account on the topic... and pledge to hear each case fairly.  

RIGHT???  That's the job description, people.

was not a member of the United States Senate during Ginsburg's confirmation hearings. He was first elected in 1998.

Who's "amnesia-afflicted"?

1. I graduated high school from an OKC suburb - my grandmother to this day lives near Altus.
   
2. I'm equally certain that Biden and Feinstein will go along.

provided that after he's finished hearing each case fairly, he tries his damnedest to interpret the Constitution and the laws according to their original meaning and applies them as they are written, not as he wishes they had been written.

That is the job description: judge, not legislator.

I'm with you there.

-TS

A minor mistake, which was corrected. The principle clearly stands.

Don't get me wrong - I'm praising the process of Justice Ginsburg's confirmation - not her philosophy or particular holdings.

As far as the job, I think this is the job description most of RS would agree on:

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;--between a State and Citizens of another State; --between Citizens of different States, --between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed."

Curious point about the Ambassador thing in there - it'd be interesting to see the Sup. Ct. hold a trial for an ambassador involving, I dunno, some issue about his/her duties and so forth.

Boise City = God's country!

made me want to barf. Ingratiation is ugly.

If you think you're hearing praise for Ginsburg. We're just pointing out the fact that even a twit like her got a fair hearing from the elephants in the Senate, even though she flat out refused to answer questions on anything.

He should honor his word and indeed NOT take his own views into account on the topic... and pledge to hear each case fairly

Has he given this word?

RIGHT???  That's the job description, people.

Wow. That part's missing from my Constitution. Can I borrow yours?

your argument is failed.  You are assuming that Schumer will hold Roberts to a higher standard than he would for other judges.

Your argument concerning Ginsberg's (lack of) answers to Senator's questions is arrelevant to Schumer's conduct in judicial approvals.  he was not a Senator when Ginsberg was nominated; perhaps he would have voted against her as well.

Let's not jump to a divisive conclusion out of the gate.

As in Blair, Martha, or Duke?

Hubby and I spent 3 1/2 years in Altus America.  Great place to raise the kids, but a bit too far from the beach for my tastes.

Being that the Senator that Schumer replaced was one of the 3 who voted Nay. But it's ridiculous for him to claim that he has a right to gum up the whole works if Roberts doesn't answer questions. Evading questions is standard fare for judicial nominees.

I fully expect Biden and Feinstein to get on board with this, whatever Schumer does.

How about this:

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour"

That sounds pretty good. In corporate-speak let's consider this the "mission statement" and the extended version the "vision" or "goal".

is "gumming up the works", then I suppose some Senators will garner your wrath.

Schumer will ask questions of the nominee, as is his duty, and then he will offer his opinion, as is his duty.  He may vote yea or nay depending on his considered opinion.  

What is your problem with that?

This is going to be so fun to watch. We'll certainly review Korematsu, probably review Lochner, spend a bit of time on Brown and Plessy, but if we get to Dred Scott, they've jumped the shark! The only equivalent on the right is if someone goads Spector into asking about Scottish law.

That, and everyone needs to keep sharp eye out for Godwin's law.

And it's only the fact that I'm not sure if someone unbanned you that has you on the tether, rather than the garotte.

With what you've proposed here - what I've got a problem with is the implied threat of a Boltoning here - that if Roberts refuses to answer questions (as I have clearly demonstrated there is HUGE historical precedent for), then Schumer and Boxer and Lord knows who else will just place indefinite holds on the nomination, demanding that he answer the question.

It's not the questions, so much as the essays, lectures and critical law review articles he'll include between the "How do you ....." and the "?"

Gum, sap, molasses, Karo - pick your favorite sticky sweet metaphor.

What prompted that?  And if you did, then why am I still here?

Which comment was so inappropriate?  Was I giving you hell, or telling the truth which you thought was hell?  (apologies to HST)

Your trolling had grown tiresome. As a general rule, I don't ban those in the middle of arguments with me. I have made one exception to date, and you are not he.

I'm not sure why you're still here. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, assuming there was no software glitch, and assuming that someone else thought you were worth keeping around for some reason. You're on probation. Break parole and we send the hounds. With lasers.

At least, funnier than the lawyers I work for.

I'm not sure those are the only two options, chief.

I guess I'll keep proofreading patents and dreaming of what could be behind closed doors.

Patents? Never mind. I beat those guys and wills and trusts lawyers. Maybe tax lawyers, too.

Keep up the good work.

by Republicans; which was a miscalculation by the WH.

I hope they learned their lesson and at least asked Specter, Hegel and Graham what they thought of Roberts.

If they didn't need someone to change Harry Reid's diapers, there would be no point in keeping him in the Senate.

1. Do humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor?
   
   
2. Do you think that homosexuality is a choice or something one is born with?
   
   
3. Do you think that the assembled scientific might of the United States of America is correct about climate change, or a few hacks employed by the current Administration?

I LOVE that the party that claims to be so rational and intelligent is completely backwards when it comes to any and all current scientific debate.  

about The Pile?  Sure hope you find out soon!

(Because he's banned, in this case)

1. Did you know that Chuck Schumer is Ted Kennedy's love child?
   
2. Did you know that all humans except Patty Murray are descended from apes; she's descended from octopi?
   
3. Have you always been this stupid?

God help the poor man.  Let's hope Chuckie is limited to a short time for questioning.

See his list here-

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163039,00.html

BTW-Thorley, ROTFLMAO re:Schumer and Reid.  Now that's a funny picture!

just the opposite

"Let's hope Chuckie is limited to a short time for questioning."

Let's have all Democrats yield their time to Chuckie, should be good for +2 R's in 2006.....

Hmmm, I ask three questions, you clearly cannot answer any one of them, much less all of them, and thus I get banned from the discussion.  I can really see how Repubs are happy to listen to all sides of an issue, or even vaguely attempt to think about an issue.  Instead, we are left with incredibly brilliant replies like the ones mentioned above.  Good luck competing in the economic marketplace in a scientifically literate world in the future.

Every iota of his much-admired intellect and prodigious argumentative powers to navigate the hearings.  I caught the Jim Lehrer wrap-up tonight on PBS with David Brooks, Mark Shields and Stuart Taylor, and Taylor's opinion is something I hope Roberts will keep in mind during the hearings (I'm sure he's smart enough to realize it, and I would recommend this link to anyone close to this process):

ST:  The game that will go on in the Senate is that the senators will try and pin him down on what he thinks, and he'll say, "I shouldn't prejudge cases..." and then they'll nibble around the edges, and we'll see how it ends up.  

JL:  Well, we'll see how it ends up, but Stuart, you've covered a lot of these things, how does it usually end up?  What -- the nominees who talk and the nominees who don't talk, what uh, what's been the end result?

ST:  The nominess who happen to get pinned down like Robert Bork are the ones who already have a clear record.  Robert Bork had made it pretty clear before he testified that he was going to overrule Roe v. Wade if he got a chance, and so it was hard to refuse to answer questions, and he said "he'd have an open mind...," you sort of have to say that.  Roberts doesn't have that problem.  I think there's a good strong case to be made that it's perfectly proper to expect him to answer questions as to, "tell us what you think about Roe v. Wade."  I mean, Bork told us what he thinks about it, you're not prejudging the case as long as we don't cross the bridge of saying whether you'd overrule it, and Judge Roberts can reasonably say, "...well, that's a slippery slope, you're getting kind of close there..."  Usually, a uh, careful, well-prepared nominee who is as smart as John Roberts is will be able to get through the process without revealing too much, but Nan Aron and her allies will be working very hard, as will Senator Schumer and his allies to try and change that pattern.

And there you really have it.  Schumer and Aron and the collection of the interest groups that are already lining up to fight Roberts have the battle plan for asking these questions fairly well drawn up already:  I expect them to come at these issues from as many angles as possible and do their best to paint Roberts as an uncooperative and dangerous, cantankerous and unpredictable extremist, or try to get him to overstep the boundaries and comment on something that he really shouldn't.  I don't think they'll succeed.  

Gwen Ifill's interview with Wendy Long (Judicial Confirmation Network) and Nan Aron (Alliance for Justice) was fascinating from the point of view of Alliance For Justice's initial framing attempts, expressed for the first time in her own voice tonight on PBS.  She thinks he's got a lot of problematic problems that need to be problematized:

NA:  Oh, I think he's a very affable guy, he's certainly a lawyer who is highly credentialed.  I think the issue for the American people and for the United States Senate:  Is he a nominee would uphold individual rights and freedoms?  Would he rule fairly, or does he have a political agenda?  [HA!  This!  From Nan Aron!] Does he see the court as one that protects all Americans, as opposed to just those who are wealthy and powerful?  The problem is, that given John Roberts' very thin record at this point, and a few very troubling sides in that record, we're unable to say that he fits that criteria, or fits that very high standard...

...and then he worked in the Reagan and Bush administrations.  During the Reagan and Bush administrations, he advanced legal theories that would have weakened reproductive rights for women, environmental protections, um, limited and weakened the voting rights act of African Americans.  Um, we want to know where he stands on church/state issues.  He did very troubling work during both, his stay at both of those administrations.

If you can stand to listen to Nan Aron, it might be worth your time, because so far everything that has come out of Alliance for Justice with her imprimatur has been picked up by Schumer, et. al., almost verbatim.  Wendy Long seemed very pleased with Roberts, almost relieved.  Nan's was twisted up even worse than usual, and she looked pretty haggard, no doubt from spending the past day stirring the vat of acid meant for Joy Clement or Edith Jones.  Of course, IMO that's just the way she usually looks, the insufferable crone.  

Here are your answers.

1. Yes. You.
   
2. Its a choice... and a stupid choice at that. Ask the chinese. Reportedly shock treatment have a high success rate as a cure.
   
3. You are from MIT?? Hamilton?? Ha ha ha ha ha... i dont think they are teaching the 'skeptic' attitude of science anymore. What you take as established science (Environmental group talking point crap probably, unless you crapped it out of your own head) is debated. Hotly. Assumptions made by rich scientists in America and Europe are not enough to deny third world farmers the use of DDT. Go read.

And the three votes against Ginsburg were Helms (NC), Nickles (OK), and Smith (NH), so I think you're mistaken about him replacing a no vote.

held up because the dems kept moving the goalposts.

Bolton looks like a reccess appointment anyway.

But chuckie won't get away with playing the goalpost game here.

don't surprise me as "No" votes.

Smith is an ardent pro lifer, and Helms was sort of the GOP version of Teddy Kennedy without the dead girlfriend.

Chuckie may vote no in the end, but I suspect Roberts can put Chuckie in his place.

...an apparent defense of homosexuality-curing electroshock therapy to get me to quit lurking.

Wow.

Surely the "pile" has welcomed lesser offenders.

that someone with an MIT IP has time to troll RS. When I was there politics usually took a backseat to the next physics problem set. The students tend to lean left, as with most universities, but I found people generally had a healthy skepticism and a prove-it attitude when debating politics.

appellate level has probably more than trained him to fend off and still answer questions at the same time.

I think Roberts will over match Chuckie and the other dems.

I don't think the dems will be satisfied, but Roberts will manage them quite well.

I think Bork's biggest problem (other than the fact that he was well on record for his views on abortion and other conservative causes that cause dems to go into the vapors) was that he was and is a bit on the arrogant side.  I don't sense a lot of that from Roberts at this point, but then I have learned about him mostly from reading stuff on the net, not seeing him in person.

One must toss out any logic when it comes to the Dems approval of and SCOTUS nominee. They will say they expected a "uniter" not a "divider" code for we want OUR LIBERAL views not your conservative views....waawaawaa.

This is just another event that will unfold and will show that it is all about who can claim a "gotcha" both sides have now been drawn into this game of "one upmanship". The audacity of the Dems on ADVICE and CONSENT is very telling, unless they get their way they will continue to WHINE.

It is interesting that Judge Roberts was a clerk to the Chief Justice, this might be what he needs to resign and then we will really hear the WAILS from Dems when Justice Scalia is named Chief Justice and another CONSERVATIVE is nominated!

QUESTION: What does a Roberts appointment mean for Native Americans in this country?

SCHUMER: It's too early to tell.

Huh?

He was obviously a burglar.  No one capable of MIT SATs could be so stupid (or else he cheated.)

Are they maybe talking about the Indian gaming stuff, or is there some Indian case coming through that I am unaware of.

...the answers to any of your "questions". Glad to see you're so cocksure of yourself, though. I have a question for you:  Does Assembled Scientific Might USA have a website where I can read their report?  

Thanks for your informative opinions on this site.  I have a propensity to learn all sides of an issue and this site is a great resource for that.

I am troubled that the person who stated facts in a respectful way - although contradicting some "opinions here was threatened to be banned when some others that resorted to what I think hostile ignorant name calling and erroneous replies has not problem.

For the record--Roberts has made public statements regarding Roe v Wade.

"In a brief that he filed with the Supreme Court while serving as deputy solicitor general in the administration of the first President Bush, Roberts said that Roe v. Wade ''was wrongly decided and should be overruled.'' But he told senators during his 2003 confirmation hearings for his current appellate court post that the decision was ''the settled law of the land.''

Have you read Roe v Wade? ther is much mroe to it than abortion.

I'm a Catholic Dem who opposes abortion, I have Rep friends who support abortion-and a few that have had them.  I truly believe that the average American does not want the entire Roe v Wade overruled.  I don't.  Modified yes- I can't conceive of anyone having an abortion after the first 2 months-unless for extreme medical reasons.  I think the Dr's that perform thse should be prosecuted!  

Can I have an honest answer from you on this issue? Take for hypothetical example-

 My gr daughter entered puberty at age 10.  So did many of her friends.   They are obviously still growing and changing- as well immature.  

What if she were raped and became pregnant? Dealing with a rape- taking away your innocence, the social stigma, the emotional  trauma, and post trauma.  She now fears, does not trust, and above all carries this demons child as a reminder.

Should she be forced to carry this child through the 6th grade, be forced with the drastic and heartbreaking discussion of keeping her baby or giving it up for adoption.  How can an 11 yr old be expected to be a mother, and give up the joys teens experience in social events, etc.   Because she was raped!  This does not lend to healthy mind, body and spirit to say the least!

Beside the obvious social stigma she would bear, there are health risks.  One

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (12/03) shows that young maternal age may have effect the body's ability to absorb calcium and solidify healthy bones, thereby increasing the risk of osteoporosis.  ther are many - too many to list- but

I really am interested in your opinions here.  

Possibly this travesty:

http://www.nativehawaiians.com/S147AKAKABILL.htm

First of before Roe most states permitted abortion in cases where a mother's life was in danger, and in many cases it was permitted for rape.

Most people now, would support exceptions for those events.

A pregnant 10 year old would more than likely meet the risk to life standard as well as the raped standard.

So you want 99% of abortions for reasons of convienience to remain the law of the land, because somewhere in the 1-3% of cases is a 10 year old who was raped that likely would have access to abortion anyway.

Voinovich and Hegel expressed public reservations about Bolton, and some reports had Powell and Armitage behind the scenes icing the nomination.

If Bush pushes through a recess appointment on such a divisive candidate, then he will have only himself to blame for problems with nominations.

although in general I don't think of Native Hawaiians as Indians-so that may have been the disconnect.

But that would definitely be something the courts could see if it passed (although from Malkin I have the impression that it isn't all that popular in Hawaii).

supports Bolton.

I think Bush can make this reccess appointment without any significant political fallout.

I also don't think anyone cares about Bolton beyond the political junkies.

such as Hegel , Voinovich, Powell and Armnitage?

Are the other world leaders just "political junkies", too?

is much less care about the hold up in the senate-most don't even care who the UN ambassador is) and frankly I don't care what the other world leaders think.

I think Bolton is an excellent choice for the UN.

Bush should have done the reccess appointment sooner.

Easy questions, for this free-trade, states rights, family man Mormon.

1.  Yes.  How else to explain the simian left?
   
2.  Born with.  So what?
   
3.  The 'hacks' in the Bush Administration.  Since by 'Assembled Scientific Might' you mean 'UN and European NGOs'.

beforehand with Senator Orinn Hatch while Roberts was not cleared beforehand with Senator Leahy or Senator Reid determinative in deciding what questions should and should not be asked and answered by the nominee? This nominee has a very slim judicial history which needs to be fleshed out in the hearings.

...at least in written form, it appears that this question is like any others.  Might have to do with Hawaii.  Might have to do with gaming.  Might have to do with land reparations.  No way of knowing.  

But it's also one of those "things that make you go hmmm."  Why on earth ask it?  And why does this question rise to the level of "too early to tell"?  Is this another Schumer litmus test?  Probably not, but it stuck out to me in reading the transcript.

I was a volunteer for Sen Helm's campaign.

Political correctness was not one of his strong points.

:>)

is best exemplified by this statement:

"Now that he is nominated for a position where he can overturn precedent and make law, it is even more important that he fully answers a broad range of questions."

Since when did SCOTUS get to make law, rather than rule on it?

Apparantly he realized the SCOTUS has been making law from the bench for a while, he just wants the men and women in black to make the laws he agrees with.

I can't in good concience support abortion for convenience sake.  

I AM worried that the extreme religious lobbyists would pressure courts to deny all abortion.  They wouldn't be able to change the life risk element- I hope.

But-- in the case of a healthy 10 yr old?  I dont know. Will they consider rape as a legitimate reason to "commit murder" as they say? - and if so isn't that contadictory ?  

If you take the laws of God literally and many do- there is no addendum to Thou shalt not kill.  

 With that in mind- I'm not sure I could totally support my hypothetical granddaughter's case for abortion.   But- on the other hand I think God would be OK with it.  yet

pressure the courts, as the courts do not write the law, they pressure and lobby the legislature, and if you see them wanting to exclude all abortions even for physical health or rape, then guess what-unlike with the courts, you have every right to petition your legislature as well to fight for the exceptions that you desire.

The debate over abortion belongs in the legislature, not in the courts, as a conservative pro life person, I do not want legislation on abortion written from the bench period, and that is what has happened to date regarding abortion.

It should be decided by elected officials.

I am less concerned about the Supreme Ct. decisons than the majority Republican congress that apparantly kneels to the power of special interest groups.  And the religious right is a powerful one for sure.  

I was thinking about this issue and want to make a comment on what I see in my ordinary life.

I don't know many dems that are in favor of abortion.   That it is a dividing issue in this country is more a tool for political play and special interests than anything else-on both sides.

I get irritated at the lazy rhetoric that lumps all dems as evil baby killers, when in fact Republicans have as many abortions as any one else.  Ok I can't prove that -but in my world that is what is apparant to me.  

I do see a lot of  hypocrisy first hand.  My wonderful neighbor is a steadfast right winger.  Says dems are socialists.  But when his wife was pregnant they received WIC.  Actually stills does.   He also had to go on W2 while out of work. After I heard his socialst remark, I steer away from anything remotely political in fear of being rude and calling him on it.  

I don't know many Dems that support abortion -except under extraordinary circumstances.  But yet some still support the right to choose in fear of back alley abortions and what not.  

I know I'm off topic- so will now shut up.

I get irritated at the lazy rhetoric that lumps all dems as evil baby killers, when in fact Republicans have as many abortions as any one else.  Ok I can't prove that -but in my world that is what is apparant to me.

Let's refrain from doing that again, shall we?

reasonable restrictions or support judges who find reasonable restrictions unconstitutional.

There is a wide range of possibilities regarding abortion from all abortions all the time to very difficult to get unless very specific criteria are met.

The vast majority of people fall somewhere in the middle, but for the most part the courts have removed that debate from the people.

What are you objecting to- lazy rhetoric?  or that republicans have abortions as well.  If the latter--- take an honest poll- if possible.

Have you not heard dems being refered to as baby killers.  If those words are not used  others are. It is becoming a convenient venue for hate.

  I shouldn't say what is true?  Evangelists are spouting that stuff all over the place.  One church in the south kicked out all the democrats because of the abortion issue not knowing at all what position the individuals took. Never mind if they were of good moral quality, good christians, volunteered for the sick, contributed to charity, worked to better the community, or anything else nice people do,

You have to admit it is getting crazy out there and out of control.  

My point is- abortion is far less bipartison than the politicians and media make it out to be.  Again special interests- on both sides at work.  

I am a democrat  not because of abortion- but because I believe that humans should care about others less forunate-for the earth and God's creatures.  I care about quality education, morals, good jobs, opportunites.  I don't believe i nteh death penatly- because God said thous shalt not kill. simple.  

I believe in a strong military- and that citizens should be protected.  I don't understand things like the Rep rejection to the Homeland security budget ammendment to allow the freight on planes including pasenger planes to be inspected. At this point it is not.  

I just dont get the insanity!  

I think progress is a good thing- for the most part. Fer instance running cars on water- rather than gas is a good thing.  I believe in America -the constitution, and am against big biz running this country.  Reasonable taxes are necessary to pay for things.  

UGH!

My words are frowned on-Yet you allow others to call Dems monkeys and make continuous vulgar references.   This is crazy.  

If you want to ban me go ahead, but it will only go to show.

dang.  

and then frankly admitting you have no evidence to back them up. Such as, Republicans have as many abortions as Democrats (an implied charge of hypocrisy). If you wanna do that at a Republican site, bring evidence. Lots of it.

My words are frowned on-Yet you allow others to call Dems monkeys and make continuous vulgar references.   This is crazy.

Donkeys, not monkeys. Donkeys.

Vulgarity is not tolerated. I would encourage you to learn the difference between vulgarity and rudeness.

any of these things:

I am a democrat  not because of abortion- but because I believe that humans should care about others less forunate-for the earth and God's creatures.  I care about quality education, morals, good jobs, opportunites.

I have said it once and said it again, just because we disagree on how to best deal with these issues, that doesn't mean the GOP doesn't care about them.  

Now I especially like this one:

 I don't believe i nteh death penatly- because God said thous shalt not kill. simple.

Unless of course the one being executed is an innocent baby still in its mother's womb.  

Manners are nice.   Vulgarity is too tolerated. So is opinion as long as it is anti liberal.  

1. crude or indecent: crude or obscene, particularly with regard to sex or bodily functions

vulgar language

2. tasteless or ostentatious: showing a lack of taste or reasonable moderation
   
3. lacking refinement: lacking in courtesy and manner

 I already stated that my viewpoint on abortion-I'm against it unless under extreme circumstance.  So are most of the people I know.  most of the people I know are Dems.   SO MUTE!  

Do you have the statistics and proof on how many Dems support abortion without extreme circumstances?  I think in order to have validty you would also need it.

Proof?

As far as getting proof that republicans have abortions?  Well how do you do that.  They don't ask you what party you represent at the clinics.  I do know some Republicans that have had abortions though.  Evidence that has come about regarding the developing fetus has changed many peoples stance on abortion- no matter what party.

It would idiotic to say that the common republican does not care about their fellow man. Of course they do.  We are all neigbors.  

However, it is the political agenda to cut as many social programs as possible, to cut funds for environmental research, as well as overturn environmental laws.  To cut education spending, police and fire spending et c etc etc etc etc .  How about funds for committee to oversee that our rights are not trampled on.- throw em a bone.  Right?  there is oodles of proof for this!  Want me to get it?

Millions and millions is given to other countries, for whatever reason.  

Then there is the Iraq  war. no comment.

 ON terrorism?  Why - why did we pass up at least 10 opportunites to capture or kill bin laden?  

I like my party.  

I already stated that my viewpoint on abortion-I'm against it unless under extreme circumstance.  So are most of the people I know.  most of the people I know are Dems.   SO MUTE!

Your party is in bed with NARAL who doesn't support any restrictions on abortions.

And being personally against it in case of extreme circumstances (actually while we are at it define extreme circumstances for me), is a big woopty-doo for you and your DNC friends, but see you elect politicians who want the super duper high NARAL rating, so they vote against almost any restriction there is on abortion, and you know what else, they are so afraid of any judge that might even remotely just a smidgen turn back Roe, that they vote against them, or even worse they fillibuster them so they can't even get an up or down vote.

See actions here speak louder than words, and you can say until you are blue in the face that you are only for abortion in the case of extreme circumstances, but the guys and gals you elect are for abortion on demand with pretty much no restrictions, because that is what they vote for.

So please answer two questions:

What is are extreme circumstances?

What restrictions do you support?

Okay three questions, are any of the restrictions you propose going to be found constitutional by the courts?

Why - why did we pass up at least 10 opportunites to capture or kill bin laden?

Probably has something to do with this.

So please answer two questions:

What is are extreme circumstances?

What restrictions do you support?

Okay three questions, are any of the restrictions you propose going to be found constitutional by the courts?

Extreme circumstances:  

-Rape,

-Pregnancy would present threat of death or permanent physical damage to mother.

-Very young mothers who would face physical, mental and emotional trauma and0r long term problems such as osteosporosis etc,.

-If fetus or baby has extreme defects- Tay-Sachs Disease,Anencephaly etc.  

-In some cases for Dope addicts -

I have more- too tired to think right now.

Restrictions. No vacuum! partial birth, and no later than 7-8 weeks.  

Later ONLY if there were special circumstances regarding mothers health.

3.  I don't know.  

I do know that one of NARAL missions is to help reducing the need for abortion, by pushing for  comprehenseve education and counseling- smart choices, as well as birth control information.

Opinion: Pushing absinance is good thing-but sex ed should also include basic info on birth control, condoms, VD  HIV etc.   The religous extremist want to leave that all out.    I went to a Catholic gr school and HS- abstinance till marriage  was pounded into me.  However- Church- Pope and parents did not win.  I confess I did not make it till I married at age 24.  Did you?

You party is pushing legislations that would prevent women from getting birth control. (State) Or at least may it very difficult and expensive for them.  WHY?

 DO you think that will lower the abortion rate?  Who do these people think they are! Are they gonna chip in for the kids expenses?

A pharmacist can refuse to fill your script now - Thank your party very much!

They are banning the emergency pill on campus's how intelligent is that!

They want to stop sterilization too-  What is  that all about.  THe egg never reaches the sperm- no baby dying there.

And to allow health  providersto have clause that can stop them from paying or contraception.

All this is nutz! Without

 birth control I would have probably 15 kids- all who would want college educations, not to mention food.  

No politican, political group, religious group is stopping me from birh contol.  Yes -if I had teenagers (Thank God I got through that period relatively unscathed) I would not want them to have sex- but I would also like them to be able to prevent pregnacy if they were going to do anyway.  My daughter had a boyfriend for 5 yrs since 8th grade through HS.  Jr. year HS she asked me for birth control  I said yes- the alternative was  getting pregnant becaus it was obvious she was gonna do it.  I don't think she is going to hell either.  Do you think that was wrong?

 NARAL WILL HELP ME.-YOU WONT

taken Leon H's advice while you were in the early stages of this semi-comic rant. You didn't and we are a happier place because of it.

in your three answers.

And just so you know the restrictions you do like, pretty much aren't permitted by the courts, and NARAL is leading the fight to keep it that way.