Samuel Alito
- Thread starter drbrumley
- Start date
deardelmar said:
OK. You have agreed that democrat Senators are ideologically pro abortion. If that is so and Alito is pro abortion as CRASH, Doc and others claim, it would be illogical for the dems to oppose him. [Don't forget, a Supreme Court appoinment is for life]
If Alito truly is pro abortion, the Dems would all vote for him instead of rejecting him and risking the chance for Bush to nominate yet another candidate who is not.
And Doc's claim that the dems reluctance to approve Alito is just political manuevering doesn't hold water. The dems have more to gain by appointing a pro abort onto the bench and politicizing their willingness to 'co-operate' for the good of the country and boast about their 'non-partisanship......blah, blah, blah...
Sorry, the claim that Alito is a pro abortionist doesn't line up.
CRASH
TOL Subscriber
BillyBob said:
Unless you look at his exremist PRO-ABORTION record!
Samuel Alito
George W. Bush U.S. Supreme Court Nominee
10 Years of Solid, Pro-Abortion Rulings
on 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
KEY10 Years of Solid, Pro-Abortion Rulings
on 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals
EX = Extremist pro-abortion ruling
PC = Mainstream pro-choice ruling
EX: In 1995 Alito voted to keep it easy to get a tax-funded abortion by claiming rape, even when no crime had been reported to police (Blackwell v Knoll).
EX: In 1997 Alito voted to prevent parents from suing for the wrongful death of a fetus, ruling that he could find no legal protection for an unborn child from the malpractice of a doctor, and by extension from a criminal act (Alexander v Whitman).
EX: In 2000 Alito voted to keep legal Partial Birth Abortion in NJ, for process reasons (Planned Parenthood v NJ).
EX: In 2001 Alito ordered NJ taxpayers to give $522,992.84 to Planned Parenthood attorneys for their fight against NJ’s PBA ban (which he upheld on appeal in 2002, PP v NJ Atty Gen).
EX: In 2004 Alito forced a Chinese father to return to China to face the government that forcibly killed his eight-month old unborn child (Chen v. Aschcroft).
PC: Also, in 1991 Alito refined the new concept of “undue burden” which restricts anti-abortion laws (Planned Parenthood v Casey), and in 1992, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted Alito’s refined standard.
Source: KGOV and AndrewLongman.com
For more information:
Denver talk show host Bob Enyart
Mon. – Fri., AM 670 KLTT, 3 p.m.
24/7 at KGOV.com (Listen to archived show titled: Alito Deserves More than 60 Days)
Office: 303 463-7789
Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 947 F.2d 682, 688 (3d Cir. 1991).
"A Catholic Supreme Court" by Gary North
"A Catholic Supreme Court" by Gary North
President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to fill a
vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Republican conservatives,
including Christian Right conservatives, are delighted. He
is both anti-abortion and socially conservative.
What is not widely recognized is that on a 9-person
court, Catholics will soon hold the majority, 5 to 4. This
5 to 4 margin is the most important number in American
politics. This is the margin by which laws are judged --
and sometimes, as in the pro-abortion case of Roe v. Wade
(1973), legislated.
The Catholics are Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts. Alito will be the
fifth, if he is approved by the U.S. Senate, which seems
likely, despite the predictable objections of Catholic
Senator Ted Kennedy. This will constitute the 5-vote
conservative majority on the Court. "Taking the Fifth"
will soon have a new Constitutional meaning.
There is not a peep of protect by Protestants. The
new arrangement is not even perceived by them. Yet a
generation ago, Protestants worried about Senator Kennedy's
brother. Would he take orders from the Vatican? Given
both the theology and the politics of the Kennedy brothers,
this was about as likely as David Rockefeller taking orders
from Jerry Falwell.
In a recent collection of essays edited by Ronald J.
Sider and Diane Knippers, "Toward an Evangelical Public
Policy" (Baker, 2005), the reader is given a history of
evangelical politics. Front and center -- way, way center
-- has been the National Association of Evangelicals,
founded in 1942. The head of the NAE, Richard Cizik,
provides a chapter on its history.
One of the main goals of the NAE was to defend the
separation of church and state from the Roman Catholics (p.
39). The NAE opposed the United States government's
recognition of the Vatican as a lawful nation. From 1943
to 1953, there were resolutions to this effect at its
annual conventions. Cizik notes, "There were no further
protests after President Reagan, in 1983, established full
diplomatic relations with the Vatican" (p. 41).
Ironically, by the 1970s, the phrase "separation
of church and state" would become a secular
slogan and come to mean, "Keep (all) the churches
in their place" and that "place" was thought to
be the sanctuary, the cloister, and the sacristy.
By the end of the twentieth century, many
evangelicals would work together with Catholics
to oppose secularism (p. 41).
If I were to describe this change, I would liken it to
a pair of soldiers in a foxhole in Korea in 1951: a
Catholic and a Protestant. Coming across the horizon are
the Chinese Communists. The soldiers' mutual response is,
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." Their mutual
concern is whether the other guy can shoot straight, not
confess straight (orthodoxy).
If the two had been a Jew and a Protestant, this would
have been a common grace effort. But because the two are
united by the Nicene Creed, at least in theory (Americans
tend be "creedally challenged"), their joint effort seems
to be a special grace effort. Or is it?
On this issue, a political transformation has taken
place in the United States.
WHO SUPPLIES THE AMMO?
"The New Republic" is a mainstream political magazine
founded during the Progressive era, prior to World War I.
It has long been associated with the political left, but in
recent years can be regarded as neoconservative. It was
from the beginning part of the American Establishment, as
Carroll Quigley discusses in "Tragedy and Hope" (Macmillan,
1966), in his famous 20-page section on the American
Establishment (pp. 950-70).
In the November 3 issue, Franklin Foer writes about
the reason for the Catholic dominance of the Court. He
says it is the result of a political alliance between
evangelical Protestants and Catholic traditionalists.
The reason why the Bushes have appointed Catholic
judges to the Supreme Court is because these appointments
get no opposition from their power base, the Christian
Right. The reason why the Christian Right goes along is
because the evangelicals lack a consistent legal theory.
They also lack the law school-certified brainpower. The
author begins with this observation:
In 1994, the eminent evangelical historian Mark
Noll wrote a scorching polemic about his own
religion called The Scandal of the Evangelical
Mind. The book lamented the "intellectual
disaster of fundamentalism" and its toll on
evangelical political and theological thought.
All around him, Noll saw "a weakness for treating
the verses of the Bible as pieces in a jigsaw
puzzle that needed only to be sorted and then fit
together to possess a finished picture of divine
truth."
While many evangelicals reacted angrily to Noll's
description, they tacitly acknowledged his
argument with their actions. Evangelicals began
aggressively reaching out to Catholics for
intellectual aid.
When Rushdoony and I first began working out the
implications of what is known as Christian Reconstruction,
we recognized this problem. Hays Craig, who was
Rushdoony's publisher at the time, and later mine and
Bahnsen's, published in 1966 a book titled "Res Publica."
It was written by a Catholic defender of Aquinas' natural
law theory. Craig issued this under his newly created
company, Craig Press. But Craig Press was really a profit-
seeking offshoot of Craig's Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing Company, a fact that later drew the censure of
the Internal Revenue Service.
Cornelius Van Til was adamant that natural law theory
is an unstable fusion of Aristotelian thought and
Christianity. Craig also published Van Til's books. So,
from the beginning of Christian Reconstruction, there was
this peculiar alliance going on. We did not initiate it,
but our publisher did. He did not see this as a big
problem. Pat Robertson doesn't see it as a big problem,
either.
But the emergence of the Court's Catholic bloc
reflects the reality of social conservatism:
Evangelicals supply the political energy,
Catholics the intellectual heft.
It is a question of political ammunition. The
Catholics have been in charge of Republican ordinance for
well over a generation.
For much of U.S. history, this alliance would
have been unthinkable. Protestants once fought
hard to teach the King James Bible in public
schools, insisting that every schoolchild consume
its subtle description of the Pope as "that man
of sin." But shared animus toward abortion
provided the initial grounds for rapprochement.
And, at about the same time Noll's book appeared,
Catholic-evangelical cooperation began
transcending any single issue. In 1994, the
influential Catholic journal First Things
published a manifesto called "Evangelicals &
Catholics Together." Its signatories--including
Richard John Neuhaus, Pat Robertson, and Bill
Bright, founder of the Campus Crusade for
Christ--vowed, "[W]e will do all in our power to
resist proposals for euthanasia, eugenics, and
population control that ... betray the moral
truths of our constitutional order."
Why did this happen? Because Protestant activists
recognized the age-old political truth: you can't beat
something with nothing.
As an exercise in political coalition-building,
this alliance made perfect sense. But
evangelicals didn't just need Catholic bodies;
they needed Catholic minds to supply them with
rhetoric that relied more heavily on morality
than biblical quotation. You could see the
partnership in countless examples. After James
Dobson's Focus on the Family funded a Colorado
initiative permitting discrimination against
gays, Catholic law professors Robert George and
John Finnis testified for the measure in court.
Evangelical politicians began borrowing John Paul
II's "culture of life" critique of abortion-- a
phrase that they also deployed during the Terri
Schiavo controversy. Indeed, Catholic
conservatism provided much of the case for
keeping Schiavo alive, from Tom DeLay's
invocation of natural law to the oft-cited
warnings about a slippery slope to eugenics.
We can date the origin of this alliance: the fall,
1980 rally in Dallas of the National Affairs Briefing
Conference. There, Ed McAteer's Religious Roundtable
brought together Beltway activists from the New Right, such
as Paul Weyrich, and the newly emerging New Christian Right
activists. I even got onto the podium through the
intervention of Howard Phillips, who soon converted
publicly to Christ and whose sons are leading lights of the
Christian Right. At that meeting was Catholic political
activist Phyllis Schlafly and hundreds of her supporters.
She was mobilizing women two decades before Beverly LaHaye
created Concerned Women for America.
Then there is Marvin Olasky, a converted Jew and ex-
Marxist. He now edits "World," a magazine that got its
initial capital from the profits of the Christian weekly
newspaper for Christian elementary school students: "God's
World." They got that idea from David Chilton, who was
working for me at the time. He suggested in the September,
1980 issue of "The Biblical Educator" that the Christian
world needed an equivalent of the old public elementary
school newspaper, "My Weekly Reader." That issue appeared
in the same month as the National Affairs Briefing
Conference. (It is on-line at www.freebooks.com.)
Marvin visited me in Tyler, Texas in early 1980 and
asked me if I thought he should take a job offer to teach
journalism at the University of Texas or an offer to
distribute millions of dollars by a neoconservative
foundation. I advised him to take the teaching job. He
did just that. He later coined the phrase, "compassionate
conservatism."
Marvin Olasky, the original face of the Bush
program, once credited Catholicism with
"providing] a structural framework." And, in the
end, the campaign was an object lesson in the new
alliance. By defending his positions on abortion
with phrases drawn from Catholics--"expand the
circle of freedom" and "protect the weakest
member of society"--Bush simultaneously reassured
the hard right and avoided the impression of a
Bible-thumping radical.
That's not to say that scandal of the evangelical
mind inevitably leads Republican presidents to
appoint Catholics. But sociological and political
factors have combined with the intellectual to
ensure that Catholic lawyers continually dominate
the pool of Republican candidates for the bench.
Why is this? Because Catholics began going to law
schools before evangelicals did. They have a tremendous
head start.
For starters, there are so many of them. During
the early twentieth century, law provided
Catholics with an important vehicle for traveling
into the middle class. While Catholics couldn't
enter top law schools, they could attend places
like Fordham and Villanova. "There was a vast
culture of Catholic DAs, lawyers, and judges,"
says John McGreevy, the author of Catholicism and
American Freedom. Even when discrimination
against Catholics faded, the law's prestige among
white Catholics persisted. After the cultural
tumult of the 1960s, and with the rise of the
abortion issue, many of these Catholic lawyers
wended their way into the arms of conservatism.
(Evangelicals have only recently begun to attend
elite schools in great numbers and have just
begun reinvesting in institutions capable of
producing top-shelf intellectuals.)
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20051114&s=trb111405
Foer titled his article "Brain Trust." This phrase
goes back to the bright humanist and lawyers and activists
who were brought in as advisors to Franklin Roosevelt in
the early years of the New deal.
CONCLUSION
You can't beat something with nothing. But there is
another related aspect. You can't beat something by
relying on ammo supplied by your philosophical adversaries.
This was Van Til's point throughout his career. It is a
radical point. It undermines the syncretism of
Christianity from the early apologists until today. Like
oil and water, Jerusalem and Athens don't mix.
Because Protestants have indulged in natural law
theory -- the attempted fusion of Jerusalem and Athens --
they have had common intellectual cause with Catholics.
When Van Til challenged this alliance by challenging
natural law theory, he offered Protestants a way to get
into the ammo production business -- big caliber stuff.
His challenge was taken up by Rushdoony in "The Institutes
of Biblical Law." But this judicial ammo is not
appreciated -- surely not by natural law advocates, and not
even by Van Til's official institutional heirs. (See my
1990 book, "Westminster's Confession: The Abandonment of
Van Til's Legacy." http://snipurl.com/confession)
If conservative Protestant political activists want to
remain hewers of wood and drawers of water for Catholic
judges, they need do nothing different. More of the same
will do quite nicely.
I do not expect a change anytime soon.
"A Catholic Supreme Court" by Gary North
President Bush has nominated Samuel Alito to fill a
vacancy on the U.S. Supreme Court. Republican conservatives,
including Christian Right conservatives, are delighted. He
is both anti-abortion and socially conservative.
What is not widely recognized is that on a 9-person
court, Catholics will soon hold the majority, 5 to 4. This
5 to 4 margin is the most important number in American
politics. This is the margin by which laws are judged --
and sometimes, as in the pro-abortion case of Roe v. Wade
(1973), legislated.
The Catholics are Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy,
Clarence Thomas, and John Roberts. Alito will be the
fifth, if he is approved by the U.S. Senate, which seems
likely, despite the predictable objections of Catholic
Senator Ted Kennedy. This will constitute the 5-vote
conservative majority on the Court. "Taking the Fifth"
will soon have a new Constitutional meaning.
There is not a peep of protect by Protestants. The
new arrangement is not even perceived by them. Yet a
generation ago, Protestants worried about Senator Kennedy's
brother. Would he take orders from the Vatican? Given
both the theology and the politics of the Kennedy brothers,
this was about as likely as David Rockefeller taking orders
from Jerry Falwell.
In a recent collection of essays edited by Ronald J.
Sider and Diane Knippers, "Toward an Evangelical Public
Policy" (Baker, 2005), the reader is given a history of
evangelical politics. Front and center -- way, way center
-- has been the National Association of Evangelicals,
founded in 1942. The head of the NAE, Richard Cizik,
provides a chapter on its history.
One of the main goals of the NAE was to defend the
separation of church and state from the Roman Catholics (p.
39). The NAE opposed the United States government's
recognition of the Vatican as a lawful nation. From 1943
to 1953, there were resolutions to this effect at its
annual conventions. Cizik notes, "There were no further
protests after President Reagan, in 1983, established full
diplomatic relations with the Vatican" (p. 41).
Ironically, by the 1970s, the phrase "separation
of church and state" would become a secular
slogan and come to mean, "Keep (all) the churches
in their place" and that "place" was thought to
be the sanctuary, the cloister, and the sacristy.
By the end of the twentieth century, many
evangelicals would work together with Catholics
to oppose secularism (p. 41).
If I were to describe this change, I would liken it to
a pair of soldiers in a foxhole in Korea in 1951: a
Catholic and a Protestant. Coming across the horizon are
the Chinese Communists. The soldiers' mutual response is,
"Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition." Their mutual
concern is whether the other guy can shoot straight, not
confess straight (orthodoxy).
If the two had been a Jew and a Protestant, this would
have been a common grace effort. But because the two are
united by the Nicene Creed, at least in theory (Americans
tend be "creedally challenged"), their joint effort seems
to be a special grace effort. Or is it?
On this issue, a political transformation has taken
place in the United States.
WHO SUPPLIES THE AMMO?
"The New Republic" is a mainstream political magazine
founded during the Progressive era, prior to World War I.
It has long been associated with the political left, but in
recent years can be regarded as neoconservative. It was
from the beginning part of the American Establishment, as
Carroll Quigley discusses in "Tragedy and Hope" (Macmillan,
1966), in his famous 20-page section on the American
Establishment (pp. 950-70).
In the November 3 issue, Franklin Foer writes about
the reason for the Catholic dominance of the Court. He
says it is the result of a political alliance between
evangelical Protestants and Catholic traditionalists.
The reason why the Bushes have appointed Catholic
judges to the Supreme Court is because these appointments
get no opposition from their power base, the Christian
Right. The reason why the Christian Right goes along is
because the evangelicals lack a consistent legal theory.
They also lack the law school-certified brainpower. The
author begins with this observation:
In 1994, the eminent evangelical historian Mark
Noll wrote a scorching polemic about his own
religion called The Scandal of the Evangelical
Mind. The book lamented the "intellectual
disaster of fundamentalism" and its toll on
evangelical political and theological thought.
All around him, Noll saw "a weakness for treating
the verses of the Bible as pieces in a jigsaw
puzzle that needed only to be sorted and then fit
together to possess a finished picture of divine
truth."
While many evangelicals reacted angrily to Noll's
description, they tacitly acknowledged his
argument with their actions. Evangelicals began
aggressively reaching out to Catholics for
intellectual aid.
When Rushdoony and I first began working out the
implications of what is known as Christian Reconstruction,
we recognized this problem. Hays Craig, who was
Rushdoony's publisher at the time, and later mine and
Bahnsen's, published in 1966 a book titled "Res Publica."
It was written by a Catholic defender of Aquinas' natural
law theory. Craig issued this under his newly created
company, Craig Press. But Craig Press was really a profit-
seeking offshoot of Craig's Presbyterian & Reformed
Publishing Company, a fact that later drew the censure of
the Internal Revenue Service.
Cornelius Van Til was adamant that natural law theory
is an unstable fusion of Aristotelian thought and
Christianity. Craig also published Van Til's books. So,
from the beginning of Christian Reconstruction, there was
this peculiar alliance going on. We did not initiate it,
but our publisher did. He did not see this as a big
problem. Pat Robertson doesn't see it as a big problem,
either.
But the emergence of the Court's Catholic bloc
reflects the reality of social conservatism:
Evangelicals supply the political energy,
Catholics the intellectual heft.
It is a question of political ammunition. The
Catholics have been in charge of Republican ordinance for
well over a generation.
For much of U.S. history, this alliance would
have been unthinkable. Protestants once fought
hard to teach the King James Bible in public
schools, insisting that every schoolchild consume
its subtle description of the Pope as "that man
of sin." But shared animus toward abortion
provided the initial grounds for rapprochement.
And, at about the same time Noll's book appeared,
Catholic-evangelical cooperation began
transcending any single issue. In 1994, the
influential Catholic journal First Things
published a manifesto called "Evangelicals &
Catholics Together." Its signatories--including
Richard John Neuhaus, Pat Robertson, and Bill
Bright, founder of the Campus Crusade for
Christ--vowed, "[W]e will do all in our power to
resist proposals for euthanasia, eugenics, and
population control that ... betray the moral
truths of our constitutional order."
Why did this happen? Because Protestant activists
recognized the age-old political truth: you can't beat
something with nothing.
As an exercise in political coalition-building,
this alliance made perfect sense. But
evangelicals didn't just need Catholic bodies;
they needed Catholic minds to supply them with
rhetoric that relied more heavily on morality
than biblical quotation. You could see the
partnership in countless examples. After James
Dobson's Focus on the Family funded a Colorado
initiative permitting discrimination against
gays, Catholic law professors Robert George and
John Finnis testified for the measure in court.
Evangelical politicians began borrowing John Paul
II's "culture of life" critique of abortion-- a
phrase that they also deployed during the Terri
Schiavo controversy. Indeed, Catholic
conservatism provided much of the case for
keeping Schiavo alive, from Tom DeLay's
invocation of natural law to the oft-cited
warnings about a slippery slope to eugenics.
We can date the origin of this alliance: the fall,
1980 rally in Dallas of the National Affairs Briefing
Conference. There, Ed McAteer's Religious Roundtable
brought together Beltway activists from the New Right, such
as Paul Weyrich, and the newly emerging New Christian Right
activists. I even got onto the podium through the
intervention of Howard Phillips, who soon converted
publicly to Christ and whose sons are leading lights of the
Christian Right. At that meeting was Catholic political
activist Phyllis Schlafly and hundreds of her supporters.
She was mobilizing women two decades before Beverly LaHaye
created Concerned Women for America.
Then there is Marvin Olasky, a converted Jew and ex-
Marxist. He now edits "World," a magazine that got its
initial capital from the profits of the Christian weekly
newspaper for Christian elementary school students: "God's
World." They got that idea from David Chilton, who was
working for me at the time. He suggested in the September,
1980 issue of "The Biblical Educator" that the Christian
world needed an equivalent of the old public elementary
school newspaper, "My Weekly Reader." That issue appeared
in the same month as the National Affairs Briefing
Conference. (It is on-line at www.freebooks.com.)
Marvin visited me in Tyler, Texas in early 1980 and
asked me if I thought he should take a job offer to teach
journalism at the University of Texas or an offer to
distribute millions of dollars by a neoconservative
foundation. I advised him to take the teaching job. He
did just that. He later coined the phrase, "compassionate
conservatism."
Marvin Olasky, the original face of the Bush
program, once credited Catholicism with
"providing] a structural framework." And, in the
end, the campaign was an object lesson in the new
alliance. By defending his positions on abortion
with phrases drawn from Catholics--"expand the
circle of freedom" and "protect the weakest
member of society"--Bush simultaneously reassured
the hard right and avoided the impression of a
Bible-thumping radical.
That's not to say that scandal of the evangelical
mind inevitably leads Republican presidents to
appoint Catholics. But sociological and political
factors have combined with the intellectual to
ensure that Catholic lawyers continually dominate
the pool of Republican candidates for the bench.
Why is this? Because Catholics began going to law
schools before evangelicals did. They have a tremendous
head start.
For starters, there are so many of them. During
the early twentieth century, law provided
Catholics with an important vehicle for traveling
into the middle class. While Catholics couldn't
enter top law schools, they could attend places
like Fordham and Villanova. "There was a vast
culture of Catholic DAs, lawyers, and judges,"
says John McGreevy, the author of Catholicism and
American Freedom. Even when discrimination
against Catholics faded, the law's prestige among
white Catholics persisted. After the cultural
tumult of the 1960s, and with the rise of the
abortion issue, many of these Catholic lawyers
wended their way into the arms of conservatism.
(Evangelicals have only recently begun to attend
elite schools in great numbers and have just
begun reinvesting in institutions capable of
producing top-shelf intellectuals.)
http://www.tnr.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20051114&s=trb111405
Foer titled his article "Brain Trust." This phrase
goes back to the bright humanist and lawyers and activists
who were brought in as advisors to Franklin Roosevelt in
the early years of the New deal.
CONCLUSION
You can't beat something with nothing. But there is
another related aspect. You can't beat something by
relying on ammo supplied by your philosophical adversaries.
This was Van Til's point throughout his career. It is a
radical point. It undermines the syncretism of
Christianity from the early apologists until today. Like
oil and water, Jerusalem and Athens don't mix.
Because Protestants have indulged in natural law
theory -- the attempted fusion of Jerusalem and Athens --
they have had common intellectual cause with Catholics.
When Van Til challenged this alliance by challenging
natural law theory, he offered Protestants a way to get
into the ammo production business -- big caliber stuff.
His challenge was taken up by Rushdoony in "The Institutes
of Biblical Law." But this judicial ammo is not
appreciated -- surely not by natural law advocates, and not
even by Van Til's official institutional heirs. (See my
1990 book, "Westminster's Confession: The Abandonment of
Van Til's Legacy." http://snipurl.com/confession)
If conservative Protestant political activists want to
remain hewers of wood and drawers of water for Catholic
judges, they need do nothing different. More of the same
will do quite nicely.
I do not expect a change anytime soon.
Dumb Dogs, GOP Cheerleaders And Godless Judges
Dumb Dogs, GOP Cheerleaders And Godless Judges
Dumb Dogs, GOP Cheerleaders And Godless Judges: “Christian” Groups Lie Down, Slumber, Ignore Alito’s Pro-Abortion Record
By John Lofton, Editor
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=538&print=1
“His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.” — Isaiah 56:10.
On the “700 Club” TV show after the Alito hearings, Gordon Robertson, son of Pat, said these hearings were “lots of sound and fury” but “didn’t signify a single thing.” But, of course, if someone was interested in the truth and was not a mindless GOP/Bush cheerleader, these hearings revealed a lot, as does Judge Alito’s voting record. And what these hearings and Alito’s record reveal is that — from a Christian/Biblical/Constitutional perspective — he is not qualified to be a judge.
To their everlasting shame, supposedly Christian/conservative leaders, pro-life Senators, commentators and publications have failed miserably to tell the truth about Judge Samuel Alito’s pro-abortion voting record as a judge and what he said in his Senate confirmation testimony.
First and foremost among the deceivers is, of course, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for Pat Robertson’s “American Center For Law & Justice.” Among the GOP/Bush cheerleaders, he, as the captain, jumps highest, cheers loudest, and wave his pom-poms the longest. He has said about Alito: That his appointment was a “grand-slam” homer; that on abortion “he has clearly ruled in our favor;” that he is “someone that knows the law;” that he gave the “correct answer” in his hearings when, on abortion, he said he would “start with precedent” if abortion came before him as a Supreme Court justice; and that it is great to have him on the high court because a partial-birth abortion case is coming to the court. Demonstrating that he doesn’t know the law, Sekulow has said the Supreme Court’s so-called Lemon Test is “the law of the land” — which it is not . Courts do not make “law.”
Comment: Sekulow should be ashamed for spreading such blatantly false information. But, of course, if he had any sense of shame, he wouldn’t be working for Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson, on the “700 Club,” taking some time off from making his list of people who, in the future, should be assassinated, has said Alito is a “solid conservative,” he’s “brilliant,” and “has all the credentials you could possibly ask for.” To which neo-conservative Fred Barnes of the “Weekly Standard” magazine replied, yes, he has “the greatest of all credentials, an Ivy League background. He is the perfect nominee.”
Comment: A “perfect” nominee?! Not exactly. But, to GOP/Bush cheerleaders any Bush judicial nominee is “perfect.”
Dr. James Dobson & Company, the 800-pound-gorilla of “Christian” broadcasting and publishing, covered up the Alito pro-abortion record and in some instances spoke untruthfully about it. Dobson said: “We are extremely pleased by President Bush’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito, who has earned the respect of colleagues in both parties for his legal acumen and courtroom demeanor. As a federal judge for the last 15 years, Judge Alito has demonstrated that he understands the role of the judiciary is to interpret existing law in light of the Constitution, not make new law in service to a personal political agenda.
“Perhaps the most encouraging early indication that Judge Alito will make a great justice is that liberal senators such as Harry Reid and Charles Schumer and leftist pressure groups such as People for the American Way and Planned Parenthood have been lining up all day to scream that the sky is falling. Any nominee who so worries the radical left is worthy of serious consideration. Based on what is now known about Judge Alito, we applaud the president for this outstanding nomination.”
Comment: Right, “we applaud the president….”, and cheer, which is what GOP/Bush cheerleaders do.
Finally, last and certainly least, there is Bruce Hausknecht, the judicial analyst (!) for Focus on the Family. His article in “Citizen” (2/06) had a promising headline on it: “How Pro-Life Is Alito?” In this piece he more or less accurately described Alito’s pro-abortion voting record as a lower court judge. But, then, in conclusion, he writes, incredibly:
“What do these cases tell us? Does the fact that Alito voted for a pro-abortion position in three out of four cases indicate that he endorses a legal right to abortion on demand? Hardly. Such a conclusion oversimplifies the issue and does an injustice to the role of an appellate judge, which is to follow the statutes and the Constitution and apply Supreme Court precedent wherever applicable. Thus, Alito faithfully and dutifully performed in each of these cases, reflecting his judicial restraint and faithfulness to the true role of judges.”
Comment: George Orwell, call your office! Seldom if ever have more untruths been packed into one paragraph. Everything said here is false. What Alito’s pro-abortion record “indicates” is exactly what Hausknecht says it “hardly” indicates — that he endorses a legal right to abortion!!! By voting pro-abortion Alito was not following statutes or the Constitution. He was slavishly and mindlessly following Supreme Court pro-abortion rulings. And “the true role” of a judge is to, first, acknowledge the God of the Bible and obey His Law which Alito did not do when he voted pro-abortion. And how dare Hausknecht speak of “duty” and “faithfulness” when referring to Alito’s pro-abortion votes!
Referring to Alito’s record on religious freedom, Hausknecht also said: “In an era of increasing secularism, liberal judges relentlessly campaign to silence religious expression in general, and Christian expression and speech in particular. Judge Alito’s judicial opinions stand in sharp contrast to the ever-increasing anti-God din.”
Comment: Not true. By saying in his confirmation hearing that his Christian religion would play no part in his judging, by silencing his own “religious expression,” Alito has demonstrated, with a vengeance, that he is one of those “secular” judges Hausknecht denounces; he is a part of the “anti-God din” Hausknecht deplores.
On the “McLaughlin Group” TV show, Pat Buchanan said: “Alito is a fine judge, a distinguished man. And the Democratic Party, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, treated him as though he belonged in the dock at Nuremberg…. This guy is going to the Supreme Court — a victory for Bush, a big victory for Mr. Alito….he said…Roe is not an inexorable command. It is not a super-duper precedent. He opened the door to overturning it in a way that Roberts did not.” Brother Pat also said Alito is “a terrific fellow” and that he has “outstanding credentials…in spades.”
Comment: Wrong. Pathetic. Nothing but cheerleading here. Alito said stare decisis, precedent, is not an inexorable command. He did not say this re: Roe. As for Alito belonging in the dock at Nuremberg, well, I don’t think even the Nazis performed partial-birth abortions — which Alito opposed banning.
In a column in the conservative Catholic magazine “Crisis,” Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) praised Alito as “one of the most knowledgeable and qualified Supreme Court nominees ever, having more judicial experience that any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years.” He said, after meeting Alito, “I was impressed by his modesty and respect for precedent and the Constitution….He has sided with the ‘little guy’ in many rulings.”
Comment: Nonsense. By voting for abortion, Alito has proved he is not for the little guy — at least not for the little guy, or gal, in the womb. More mindless GOP/Bush cheerleading here.
The “Wall Street Journal” said, editorially, that they didn’t have “a clue whether Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe….”
Comment: Thus, the “Journal” is, indeed, literally, admittedly, clueless. But, Alito has given us more than “clues” on abortion and Roe v Wade. When asked in his hearings about Roe, Alito said that if the issue came before him on the high court he would, first, look to precedent, next to the entire judicial process (whatever that means.) He made no mention at all of the Constitution. These sound like “clues” to me.
In one of his columns, Cal Thomas says Alito’s Senate testimony showed “his grasp of law and the Constitution” and this means he will make “a thoughtful and wise justice.” Thomas praises Alito for saying a judge must put aside his “personal beliefs” and for saying “courts should generally follow their earlier decisions. He says Alito has a “conservative judicial philosophy.” He sees Alito as “a super justice” who will have “the Constitution as his sole agenda.”
Comment: But Alito does not have a proper understanding of the law or the Constitution. The most important thing a Supreme Court judge (or any judge) must believe is that his role is to do justice according to a law higher than man’s law; he must do justice according to, first, the Law of the God of the Bible. Alito has said nothing that indicates he believes this.
In fact, one of the “personal beliefs” Alito has said would have nothing to do with his judging is his Christian faith (he’s a Roman Catholic.) He said his religion is for his “private life” only. Thus, Alito has said, in so many words, that God’s Law will not only not be the first standard by which he judges, but also it is totally irrelevant to his judging.
In his Senate hearing, Alito said nothing that can truthfully be paraphrased as having said “courts should generally follow their earlier decisions.” In fact, Alito did the opposite. He repeatedly bowed the knee to the stare decisis, judicial precedent idol. In an exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) about abortion and Roe v. Wade, Alito said that if he was a Supreme Court justice, and the abortion issue came up again, he (Alito) would consult, first, stare decision, precedent, and next the entire judicial process surrounding this issue. He said nothing at all about the Constitution!
Therefore, Thomas is wrong when he sees Alito as a justice who will have “the Constitution as his sole agenda.” If this was true, if the Constitution was Alito’s “sole agenda,” why did he not say this when Schumer asked him about abortion and Roe v. Wade? The obvious answer to anyone not a Republican Party/Bush cheerleader is: Alito did not say this because the Constitution is not his sole agenda!
In fact, in his Senate hearing, Alito, in his exchange with Schumer, made one of the most astounding statements ever made by a Supreme Court nominee. Bowing the knee one more time to stare decisis (precedent), Alito said he did not agree with the “theory” that “the Constitution always trumps stare decisis.”
But, the supremacy of the Constitution is not a “theory.” It is what Alito will take an oath to uphold. It is what Alito will swear to God to obey. Thus, even before he is sworn in as a high court justice, Alito has repudiated his oath!
Alito has also said other things that disqualify him from being a Supreme Court judge, or any kind of judge for that matter. And none of these things have been mentioned by Cal Thomas. Alito has more than once referred to court rulings as “law” — which they are not. As a lower court judge he, in effect, voted in favor of infanticide by supporting a ruling striking down a ban on partial-birth abortion. And in his lower court rulings he has, approvingly, invoked Roe v. Wade which has led to the slaughter of more than 40 million innocent, unborn human beings.
The “Washington Times,” editorially, has also covered up the Alito record saying nothing about anything mentioned here. In a pathetic editorial following Alito’s Senate hearing — titled “The Candid Judge Alito” — the “Times” praised him for having “been more forthright on substantive legal issues than just about any reason person could have expected him to be.” It is noted that by one count Alito had a 98 percent “answer” rate to questions he was asked — a better rate than Ginsburg, Breyer and Roberts when they were asked questions.
Comment: This shameful, cover-up opinion piece is what is known in the trade as “a thumb-sucker” — in this case an editorial that had to be written because the topic is in the news. But, the editorial told us nothing of any value. To be sure, on many subjects in his Senate hearing, Alito was “candid” — shockingly so. The “Times,” however, was, editorially, silent on these key issues and its silence has ill-served its readers.
Jan LaRue, General Counsel for “Concerned Women For America,” says: “If ever there’s a pictorial dictionary, under ‘judge,’ it should simply display a photo of Samuel Alito. I knew he was brilliant and possessed a deep knowledge of constitutional law, but he’s left me with a greater appreciation of that and his numerous outstanding qualities….He has conducted himself with dignity and honor, confirming his strong character.”
Comment: And this same pictorial dictionary, if it also listed phrases, would, under the words “oblivious to things that really matter,” display a photo of LaRue.
Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for “Focus on the Family Action,” says Alito has “overwhelming qualifications”…. [he] is a common-sense jurist… and he has been rated ‘well-qualified’ by the American Bar Association.”
Comment: Put Minnery’s photo beside LaRue’s. And there’s that absurd ABA reference again.
Pastor Rod Parsley, founder and president of a group named, ironically, the “Center For Moral Clarity,” says Alito “has a well-deserved reputation as an outstanding jurist,” according to the federal judiciary committee of the American Bar Association (!). Also, his “rags-to-riches upbringing represents the best of the American success story.” And he embraces “the bedrock of our Founding Fathers’ values — something the vast majority of Americans are still grateful for today.”
Comment: Arghhhhhhhhhhhh! Alito’s pro-abortion voting record is the antithesis of the “values” of our Founders!
Rick Scarborough of “Vision America,” whose purpose it is said is to restore “the Original American Vision,” calls for the confirmation of Alito because, among other things, “he has the support of the majority of Americans.”
Comment: Alito, because of his pro-abortion voting record, embodies anything but “the Original American Vision.” Neither does Scarborough on this issue. And who cares, in this context, who a “majority of Americans” support? A “majority of Americans” support a lot of stupid things.
“World” magazine also went into the tank for Alito running no substantive stories about his pro-abortion voting record. A cover story on Roe v Wade (1/21/06) said only that Alito is the first high court nominee in 13 years “to offer abortion foes real hope of an ideological shift on the court.” Real hope? How so? Who knows. The article said nothing else.
Other GOP/Bush cheerleaders who have simply parroted the White House talking points on Alito include: Roberta Combs, President of the misleadingly-named “Christian Coalition” which is, deservedly, and for all practical purposes, slowly becoming defunct; the “Culture Of Life Foundation” which, despite its name, seems not to care at all that Alito has repeatedly voted for abortion; Don Wildmon’s “American Family Association;” and the “Family Research Council.”
The position of Eugene Delgaudio on Alito is particularly disgusting. He is the President of Public Advocate of the United States. I have known him for years. He says he’s a Christian, a conservative. He has done much good work. When I heard Delguadio was holding a press conference to endorse Judge Alito. I sent him this email: “You should be opposing Alito because he is pro-abortion! Wake up, please, brother. God bless. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com.”
To which he replied, in part: “I hear you. I have some extremely capable lawyers who work for me and some legal clerks to federal judges that I am close to. I have read the decisions he has ruled on and he seems to have ruled to simply affirm a higher court precedent. And, (you will love this) anything he tells liberal Senators is just public relations. I am confronted with a person, Alito, who is a strict constructionist or constitutionalist who lies to liberal Senators. It is confusing but it is even more confounding to Ted Kennedy.”
To which I replied: “Ah, yes, Alito is a person who ‘seems to have ruled to simply affirm a higher court precedent,’ the just-following-orders-Nazi-Nuremberg excuse — in this case just following orders to make it “legal” to murder unborn babies. Your position on Alito, who you say is a liar, is un-Christian and corrupt.”
To which he replies: “I knew I could count on you. As always. Thank you. Eugene.”
“Focus On The Family” recently broadcast a series of radio programs featuring the views of the late Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer. This series was called “America’s Moral Freefall.” One summary of one program says: “Francis Schaeffer chastises the church for not standing against the tide of secular humanism that has swept over our culture during the past several decades. Believing that Christians will not get another opportunity to turn the tide if they don’t start now, Schaeffer issues a strong challenge to oppose the ‘tyranny’ of humanistic thinking that has resulted in widespread immorality and increasing censorship of the Christian worldview.”
Well, America is, indeed, in a “moral freefall.” The church is not standing against the tide of secular humanism. There is censorship of the Christian worldview. And this “moral freefall” is demonstrated with a vengeance by, ironically, the failure of Dobson & Company and all those other “Christian” groups and so-called “Christian leaders” who have failed to tell the truth about Judge Alito’s pro-abortion record, who have failed to oppose his nomination.
Judge Samuel Alito should have been opposed because of the very things Francis Schaeffer mentions. By voting for abortion (including a vote to strike down a ban on partial-birth abortion, which is infanticide), by saying in his hearings that his Christian religion would have nothing to do with his judging, Alito has revealed himself to be a de facto secular humanist who has no Christian worldview. For shame that any Christian would support such an individual!
Dumb Dogs, GOP Cheerleaders And Godless Judges
Dumb Dogs, GOP Cheerleaders And Godless Judges: “Christian” Groups Lie Down, Slumber, Ignore Alito’s Pro-Abortion Record
By John Lofton, Editor
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=538&print=1
“His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber.” — Isaiah 56:10.
On the “700 Club” TV show after the Alito hearings, Gordon Robertson, son of Pat, said these hearings were “lots of sound and fury” but “didn’t signify a single thing.” But, of course, if someone was interested in the truth and was not a mindless GOP/Bush cheerleader, these hearings revealed a lot, as does Judge Alito’s voting record. And what these hearings and Alito’s record reveal is that — from a Christian/Biblical/Constitutional perspective — he is not qualified to be a judge.
To their everlasting shame, supposedly Christian/conservative leaders, pro-life Senators, commentators and publications have failed miserably to tell the truth about Judge Samuel Alito’s pro-abortion voting record as a judge and what he said in his Senate confirmation testimony.
First and foremost among the deceivers is, of course, Jay Sekulow, chief counsel for Pat Robertson’s “American Center For Law & Justice.” Among the GOP/Bush cheerleaders, he, as the captain, jumps highest, cheers loudest, and wave his pom-poms the longest. He has said about Alito: That his appointment was a “grand-slam” homer; that on abortion “he has clearly ruled in our favor;” that he is “someone that knows the law;” that he gave the “correct answer” in his hearings when, on abortion, he said he would “start with precedent” if abortion came before him as a Supreme Court justice; and that it is great to have him on the high court because a partial-birth abortion case is coming to the court. Demonstrating that he doesn’t know the law, Sekulow has said the Supreme Court’s so-called Lemon Test is “the law of the land” — which it is not . Courts do not make “law.”
Comment: Sekulow should be ashamed for spreading such blatantly false information. But, of course, if he had any sense of shame, he wouldn’t be working for Pat Robertson.
Pat Robertson, on the “700 Club,” taking some time off from making his list of people who, in the future, should be assassinated, has said Alito is a “solid conservative,” he’s “brilliant,” and “has all the credentials you could possibly ask for.” To which neo-conservative Fred Barnes of the “Weekly Standard” magazine replied, yes, he has “the greatest of all credentials, an Ivy League background. He is the perfect nominee.”
Comment: A “perfect” nominee?! Not exactly. But, to GOP/Bush cheerleaders any Bush judicial nominee is “perfect.”
Dr. James Dobson & Company, the 800-pound-gorilla of “Christian” broadcasting and publishing, covered up the Alito pro-abortion record and in some instances spoke untruthfully about it. Dobson said: “We are extremely pleased by President Bush’s selection of Judge Samuel Alito, who has earned the respect of colleagues in both parties for his legal acumen and courtroom demeanor. As a federal judge for the last 15 years, Judge Alito has demonstrated that he understands the role of the judiciary is to interpret existing law in light of the Constitution, not make new law in service to a personal political agenda.
“Perhaps the most encouraging early indication that Judge Alito will make a great justice is that liberal senators such as Harry Reid and Charles Schumer and leftist pressure groups such as People for the American Way and Planned Parenthood have been lining up all day to scream that the sky is falling. Any nominee who so worries the radical left is worthy of serious consideration. Based on what is now known about Judge Alito, we applaud the president for this outstanding nomination.”
Comment: Right, “we applaud the president….”, and cheer, which is what GOP/Bush cheerleaders do.
Finally, last and certainly least, there is Bruce Hausknecht, the judicial analyst (!) for Focus on the Family. His article in “Citizen” (2/06) had a promising headline on it: “How Pro-Life Is Alito?” In this piece he more or less accurately described Alito’s pro-abortion voting record as a lower court judge. But, then, in conclusion, he writes, incredibly:
“What do these cases tell us? Does the fact that Alito voted for a pro-abortion position in three out of four cases indicate that he endorses a legal right to abortion on demand? Hardly. Such a conclusion oversimplifies the issue and does an injustice to the role of an appellate judge, which is to follow the statutes and the Constitution and apply Supreme Court precedent wherever applicable. Thus, Alito faithfully and dutifully performed in each of these cases, reflecting his judicial restraint and faithfulness to the true role of judges.”
Comment: George Orwell, call your office! Seldom if ever have more untruths been packed into one paragraph. Everything said here is false. What Alito’s pro-abortion record “indicates” is exactly what Hausknecht says it “hardly” indicates — that he endorses a legal right to abortion!!! By voting pro-abortion Alito was not following statutes or the Constitution. He was slavishly and mindlessly following Supreme Court pro-abortion rulings. And “the true role” of a judge is to, first, acknowledge the God of the Bible and obey His Law which Alito did not do when he voted pro-abortion. And how dare Hausknecht speak of “duty” and “faithfulness” when referring to Alito’s pro-abortion votes!
Referring to Alito’s record on religious freedom, Hausknecht also said: “In an era of increasing secularism, liberal judges relentlessly campaign to silence religious expression in general, and Christian expression and speech in particular. Judge Alito’s judicial opinions stand in sharp contrast to the ever-increasing anti-God din.”
Comment: Not true. By saying in his confirmation hearing that his Christian religion would play no part in his judging, by silencing his own “religious expression,” Alito has demonstrated, with a vengeance, that he is one of those “secular” judges Hausknecht denounces; he is a part of the “anti-God din” Hausknecht deplores.
On the “McLaughlin Group” TV show, Pat Buchanan said: “Alito is a fine judge, a distinguished man. And the Democratic Party, the Democrats on the Judiciary Committee, treated him as though he belonged in the dock at Nuremberg…. This guy is going to the Supreme Court — a victory for Bush, a big victory for Mr. Alito….he said…Roe is not an inexorable command. It is not a super-duper precedent. He opened the door to overturning it in a way that Roberts did not.” Brother Pat also said Alito is “a terrific fellow” and that he has “outstanding credentials…in spades.”
Comment: Wrong. Pathetic. Nothing but cheerleading here. Alito said stare decisis, precedent, is not an inexorable command. He did not say this re: Roe. As for Alito belonging in the dock at Nuremberg, well, I don’t think even the Nazis performed partial-birth abortions — which Alito opposed banning.
In a column in the conservative Catholic magazine “Crisis,” Sen. Rick Santorum (R-Pa.) praised Alito as “one of the most knowledgeable and qualified Supreme Court nominees ever, having more judicial experience that any Supreme Court nominee in 70 years.” He said, after meeting Alito, “I was impressed by his modesty and respect for precedent and the Constitution….He has sided with the ‘little guy’ in many rulings.”
Comment: Nonsense. By voting for abortion, Alito has proved he is not for the little guy — at least not for the little guy, or gal, in the womb. More mindless GOP/Bush cheerleading here.
The “Wall Street Journal” said, editorially, that they didn’t have “a clue whether Judge Alito would vote to overturn Roe….”
Comment: Thus, the “Journal” is, indeed, literally, admittedly, clueless. But, Alito has given us more than “clues” on abortion and Roe v Wade. When asked in his hearings about Roe, Alito said that if the issue came before him on the high court he would, first, look to precedent, next to the entire judicial process (whatever that means.) He made no mention at all of the Constitution. These sound like “clues” to me.
In one of his columns, Cal Thomas says Alito’s Senate testimony showed “his grasp of law and the Constitution” and this means he will make “a thoughtful and wise justice.” Thomas praises Alito for saying a judge must put aside his “personal beliefs” and for saying “courts should generally follow their earlier decisions. He says Alito has a “conservative judicial philosophy.” He sees Alito as “a super justice” who will have “the Constitution as his sole agenda.”
Comment: But Alito does not have a proper understanding of the law or the Constitution. The most important thing a Supreme Court judge (or any judge) must believe is that his role is to do justice according to a law higher than man’s law; he must do justice according to, first, the Law of the God of the Bible. Alito has said nothing that indicates he believes this.
In fact, one of the “personal beliefs” Alito has said would have nothing to do with his judging is his Christian faith (he’s a Roman Catholic.) He said his religion is for his “private life” only. Thus, Alito has said, in so many words, that God’s Law will not only not be the first standard by which he judges, but also it is totally irrelevant to his judging.
In his Senate hearing, Alito said nothing that can truthfully be paraphrased as having said “courts should generally follow their earlier decisions.” In fact, Alito did the opposite. He repeatedly bowed the knee to the stare decisis, judicial precedent idol. In an exchange with Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) about abortion and Roe v. Wade, Alito said that if he was a Supreme Court justice, and the abortion issue came up again, he (Alito) would consult, first, stare decision, precedent, and next the entire judicial process surrounding this issue. He said nothing at all about the Constitution!
Therefore, Thomas is wrong when he sees Alito as a justice who will have “the Constitution as his sole agenda.” If this was true, if the Constitution was Alito’s “sole agenda,” why did he not say this when Schumer asked him about abortion and Roe v. Wade? The obvious answer to anyone not a Republican Party/Bush cheerleader is: Alito did not say this because the Constitution is not his sole agenda!
In fact, in his Senate hearing, Alito, in his exchange with Schumer, made one of the most astounding statements ever made by a Supreme Court nominee. Bowing the knee one more time to stare decisis (precedent), Alito said he did not agree with the “theory” that “the Constitution always trumps stare decisis.”
But, the supremacy of the Constitution is not a “theory.” It is what Alito will take an oath to uphold. It is what Alito will swear to God to obey. Thus, even before he is sworn in as a high court justice, Alito has repudiated his oath!
Alito has also said other things that disqualify him from being a Supreme Court judge, or any kind of judge for that matter. And none of these things have been mentioned by Cal Thomas. Alito has more than once referred to court rulings as “law” — which they are not. As a lower court judge he, in effect, voted in favor of infanticide by supporting a ruling striking down a ban on partial-birth abortion. And in his lower court rulings he has, approvingly, invoked Roe v. Wade which has led to the slaughter of more than 40 million innocent, unborn human beings.
The “Washington Times,” editorially, has also covered up the Alito record saying nothing about anything mentioned here. In a pathetic editorial following Alito’s Senate hearing — titled “The Candid Judge Alito” — the “Times” praised him for having “been more forthright on substantive legal issues than just about any reason person could have expected him to be.” It is noted that by one count Alito had a 98 percent “answer” rate to questions he was asked — a better rate than Ginsburg, Breyer and Roberts when they were asked questions.
Comment: This shameful, cover-up opinion piece is what is known in the trade as “a thumb-sucker” — in this case an editorial that had to be written because the topic is in the news. But, the editorial told us nothing of any value. To be sure, on many subjects in his Senate hearing, Alito was “candid” — shockingly so. The “Times,” however, was, editorially, silent on these key issues and its silence has ill-served its readers.
Jan LaRue, General Counsel for “Concerned Women For America,” says: “If ever there’s a pictorial dictionary, under ‘judge,’ it should simply display a photo of Samuel Alito. I knew he was brilliant and possessed a deep knowledge of constitutional law, but he’s left me with a greater appreciation of that and his numerous outstanding qualities….He has conducted himself with dignity and honor, confirming his strong character.”
Comment: And this same pictorial dictionary, if it also listed phrases, would, under the words “oblivious to things that really matter,” display a photo of LaRue.
Tom Minnery, senior vice president of government and public policy for “Focus on the Family Action,” says Alito has “overwhelming qualifications”…. [he] is a common-sense jurist… and he has been rated ‘well-qualified’ by the American Bar Association.”
Comment: Put Minnery’s photo beside LaRue’s. And there’s that absurd ABA reference again.
Pastor Rod Parsley, founder and president of a group named, ironically, the “Center For Moral Clarity,” says Alito “has a well-deserved reputation as an outstanding jurist,” according to the federal judiciary committee of the American Bar Association (!). Also, his “rags-to-riches upbringing represents the best of the American success story.” And he embraces “the bedrock of our Founding Fathers’ values — something the vast majority of Americans are still grateful for today.”
Comment: Arghhhhhhhhhhhh! Alito’s pro-abortion voting record is the antithesis of the “values” of our Founders!
Rick Scarborough of “Vision America,” whose purpose it is said is to restore “the Original American Vision,” calls for the confirmation of Alito because, among other things, “he has the support of the majority of Americans.”
Comment: Alito, because of his pro-abortion voting record, embodies anything but “the Original American Vision.” Neither does Scarborough on this issue. And who cares, in this context, who a “majority of Americans” support? A “majority of Americans” support a lot of stupid things.
“World” magazine also went into the tank for Alito running no substantive stories about his pro-abortion voting record. A cover story on Roe v Wade (1/21/06) said only that Alito is the first high court nominee in 13 years “to offer abortion foes real hope of an ideological shift on the court.” Real hope? How so? Who knows. The article said nothing else.
Other GOP/Bush cheerleaders who have simply parroted the White House talking points on Alito include: Roberta Combs, President of the misleadingly-named “Christian Coalition” which is, deservedly, and for all practical purposes, slowly becoming defunct; the “Culture Of Life Foundation” which, despite its name, seems not to care at all that Alito has repeatedly voted for abortion; Don Wildmon’s “American Family Association;” and the “Family Research Council.”
The position of Eugene Delgaudio on Alito is particularly disgusting. He is the President of Public Advocate of the United States. I have known him for years. He says he’s a Christian, a conservative. He has done much good work. When I heard Delguadio was holding a press conference to endorse Judge Alito. I sent him this email: “You should be opposing Alito because he is pro-abortion! Wake up, please, brother. God bless. John Lofton, Editor, TheAmericanView.com.”
To which he replied, in part: “I hear you. I have some extremely capable lawyers who work for me and some legal clerks to federal judges that I am close to. I have read the decisions he has ruled on and he seems to have ruled to simply affirm a higher court precedent. And, (you will love this) anything he tells liberal Senators is just public relations. I am confronted with a person, Alito, who is a strict constructionist or constitutionalist who lies to liberal Senators. It is confusing but it is even more confounding to Ted Kennedy.”
To which I replied: “Ah, yes, Alito is a person who ‘seems to have ruled to simply affirm a higher court precedent,’ the just-following-orders-Nazi-Nuremberg excuse — in this case just following orders to make it “legal” to murder unborn babies. Your position on Alito, who you say is a liar, is un-Christian and corrupt.”
To which he replies: “I knew I could count on you. As always. Thank you. Eugene.”
“Focus On The Family” recently broadcast a series of radio programs featuring the views of the late Christian apologist Francis Schaeffer. This series was called “America’s Moral Freefall.” One summary of one program says: “Francis Schaeffer chastises the church for not standing against the tide of secular humanism that has swept over our culture during the past several decades. Believing that Christians will not get another opportunity to turn the tide if they don’t start now, Schaeffer issues a strong challenge to oppose the ‘tyranny’ of humanistic thinking that has resulted in widespread immorality and increasing censorship of the Christian worldview.”
Well, America is, indeed, in a “moral freefall.” The church is not standing against the tide of secular humanism. There is censorship of the Christian worldview. And this “moral freefall” is demonstrated with a vengeance by, ironically, the failure of Dobson & Company and all those other “Christian” groups and so-called “Christian leaders” who have failed to tell the truth about Judge Alito’s pro-abortion record, who have failed to oppose his nomination.
Judge Samuel Alito should have been opposed because of the very things Francis Schaeffer mentions. By voting for abortion (including a vote to strike down a ban on partial-birth abortion, which is infanticide), by saying in his hearings that his Christian religion would have nothing to do with his judging, Alito has revealed himself to be a de facto secular humanist who has no Christian worldview. For shame that any Christian would support such an individual!
In short:BillyBob said:
Chen and his girlfriend lived together unmarried and she got pregnant. They tried to get married but were not allowed due to marriage age laws in China. Somehow the government found out she was pregnant and ordered an abortion. Chen and his girlfriend refused to and went into hiding. Eventually Chen came to America (not sure why). The INS wanted Chen to have to leave but Chen said he deserved asylum under some law, C-Y-Z, which is supposed to apply to only marrieid couples. The initial ruling favored Chen saying that though C-Y-Z was restricted to married couples only, Chen's situation did "fall by analogy" in C-Y-Z. That ruling was overturned saying that the law can only apply to married couples.
There's probably more to it but that's the crux of it....
kmoney said:
I figured it was something like that, thanks K-mo. OK, so the real reason that Chen was sent back to China has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with Alito's supposed support of abortion....
And you wonder why I laugh at you, CRASH?
You are over reacting and not making any sense. You are losing credibility by including this case in your rant. Bad form. :down:
drbrumley
Well-known member
Just proves one thing. Chinese money is more important than a life. Whether the man and woman were unmarried is beside the point. It is still a life and since you are going to shove this we need to free people (Iraq), then the one man who sought asylum from an oppressive government, (Commies just for you Billy), we turn him away. Double speak.