NeoCon/Global Socialist Lindsay Graham To Support Sotomayor Appointment

Mainstream news sources reported today that Senator Lindsay Graham, the NeoCon Republican from South Carolina in the vein of John McCain, the pre-eminent liberal global socialist (though formally aligned with the Republican Party in name only), has given his support for the Sonia Sotomayor appointment of Barack Obama to fill Justice Souter's seat on the Supreme Court bench.

Between Arlen Specters defection to the Democratic Global Socialist Party, and John McCain's selection by the Republican Neocon wing which has evolved since Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan's deaths, it would appear that really the now One Party Global Socialist Party, although unofficial, is a point of fact.

Ms. Sotomayor's "grilling" by the Senate Judiary Committee was really nothing more than a joke at best, and appeared more directed toward the individual members of the Senate Judiciary attempting to make points for their respective runs for re-election, and some face time in the public.

I especially liked one of the questions from the junior senator also from Arizona, that former bastion of Conservatism.  John Kyl's major question and thrust (as a lawyer) in the questioning was to pose a question with respect to a decision in a case Ms. Sotomayor rendered, as to what legal "precedent" she used in her determination.

It appeared merely a "politically" based question in order to then reinforce in the minds of the public that judicial determinations are to be primarily rendered according to higher court, or earlier Supreme Court decisions and their rulings.  When such is not the case at all, nor were precedents to be the determining factor in any rendering before a judicial body in this country.

Merely the "stated" law as found in our Constitution.  Which supersedes any and all federal or state statutes even.  Rendered according to the "common useage" language contained within the Constitution itself, as a contract actually.  Which cannot be alterered, amended or changed without the consent of the parties to that contract.  So basically most of those amendments even after the 10th with respect to many extra-Constitutional issues (not the slavery issue, which was contentious at the time) were not "lawfully" ratified since the 9th Amendment itself would have required such amendments be placed by the states before the people prior to their agreement to any amendments to it.  Absent, of course, calling for another Convention in order to come up with a new one.

And especially limited construction of any and all cases brought under the First Ten Amendments.  The words "unalieanble" mean God-given, and not even the Supreme Court can "tamper" with those rights, since to do so would undermine the "natural law" upon which that Bill of Rights is based.   But that has not been the case.  And that is why there are now more and more "political" judicial determinations rendered, and why our jails are so full.  The fact that in the "home of the free" is in the top three with respect to number of inmates just about says it all in how both the states and federal government have abridged their functions and are not protecting freedom and liberty, and those "unalieanble" rights, but actually progressively attempting to remove them through dilluting them beyond recognition at this point. 

Which is why Congress was not intended to be in session year around, and serving was a civil servant position.  Too much time and too big a federal government has resulted due to the fact that we now have "career" politicians rather than statemen and women.  Who are "making work" and "removing" civil rights and expanding government simply to have something to do, it would appear.  Limited sessions means those serving also are truly residents then of the states and constituents of the people they are representing.  Not citizens and residents of Washington, D.C., their primary residences.  At this point it appears they all must represent the North and particularly Washington, D.C. since the only access most citizens have to their representatives is through email contact, while the lobbyists from foreign governments and national commercial interests and their offices are just down the street - their true constituents, that was clear, during that Cap & Trade nightmre of a treason. 

So the question on reliance on "precedence" as fundamental in any Court rendering was a "politically" based question and meant to confuse the public and as a statement of reassertion of federal authority and "politically" determined "precedents" as Mr. Kyl, the lawyer's, understanding of the "Rule of Law."  Which it fundamentally is not.  The facts of the case and merit under the Constitution, and its provision are fundamentally "the law," any and all federal or state statutes to the contrary.

The Supreme Court justices are sworn to uphold the Constitution, after all, not their predecessors rendering of it, especially those decisions which have been increasingly politically based, and have no foundation whatsoever in it.

Such as the Kelo decision in which the Court ruled that a private citizens home and land can be "taken" in order to "transfer" their wealth and property to a private developer.

Absolutely no foundation in the Constitution at all in that rendering.  None whatsoever.  In fact, the founders left England due to just such sovereign "takings" giving their land and homes to those in which the sovereign granted titles of nobility.  If anything, that decision was actually the most egregious violation of the Constitution ever committed in this country.

And rendered under a Republican (NeoCon) administration, and supposedly "conservative" court.  I beg to differ.  The Court has not been "Conservative" since Marbury v. Madison, as Jefferson was quoted to also state on many occasions.  The Court began making the Constitution a "thing of wax" and usurping more and more power almost before the ink was dried.

Which has also had a great deal to do with where we are today as a nation, now living under "global corporate socialism," with a President now with far more power than that Office was ever intended to have.

Graham had a close race his last re-election bid from last reports.  Lets hope those in South Carolina this time elect a "representative" or at least pressure Mr. Graham to come out of the closet and declare his true party affiliation, along with most of the Democrats and Republicans on both sides of the aisle that are now progressively destroying both our Constitution, and national sovereignty in this now "globalized" economy and government.

The Global Socialists on the Hill's stripes are becoming more and more evident now each and every session, and their true masters, the global bankers who run our Federal Reserve and U.S. Chamber members (global East India Company) now calling the shots on both our domestic and foreign policy for global commerce and profit, their only constituent.

Although most of this week I have not been watching much of the Sotomayor grilling by the Senate Judiciary Committee since I do find watching now any and all of these televised "dog and pony" shows somewhat revolting, I have unavoidably read a few of the headlines and some of the blurbs on the internet with respect to the newest stage presentation by those on the Hill.

These sham hearings and such now are getting a little too incredible to believe.  And Ms. Sotomayor really should be up for Best Actress by a Member of the Judiciary, since it is clear this branch above all others is and has not served its function whatsoever almost since the ink was dried on our Constitution after that convention so long ago.  Jefferson said as much not many years later, especially after Marbury v. Madison, when he said:

"The question whether the judges are invested with exclusive authority to decide on the constitutionality of a law has been heretofore a subject of consideration with me in the exercise of official duties. Certainly there is not a word in the Constitution which has given that power to them more than to the Executive or Legislative branches."

    —Thomas Jefferson to W. H. Torrance, 1815. ME 14:303

"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51

"To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem [good justice is broad jurisdiction], and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."
   —Thomas Jefferson to William C. Jarvis, 1820. ME 15:277

"In denying the right [the Supreme Court usurps] of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than [others] do, if I understand rightly [this] quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that 'the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the rights of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived.' If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se [act of suicide]. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent, that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others, and to that one, too, which is unelected by and independent of the nation. For experience has already shown that the impeachment it has provided is not even a scare-crow . . . The Constitution on this hypothesis is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Spencer Roane, 1819. ME 15:212

"This member of the Government was at first considered as the most harmless and helpless of all its organs. But it has proved that the power of declaring what the law is, ad libitum, by sapping and mining slyly and without alarm the foundations of the Constitution, can do what open force would not dare to attempt."

   —Thomas Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:114

In this humble American's opinion, the most dangerous statements Ms. Sotomayor made during her grilling on Tuesday was actually the most heralded by members of both of the "ruling" parties on the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans (Global Socialist Party) or at least some of their "representatives."

She has backtracked and now seems almost robotic in the questioning.  And some of the questions do appear mostly petty and being used to gain points by both political parties and not at all relevant to the matter at hand.  Does Ms. Sotomayor recognize the Constitution as it was written and intended by the founders as "the law" she continues to refer to?

It doesn't appear so.  She has made several comments with respect to "applying the law to the facts at hand."  Which all sounds well and good.  But she also has stated that in such determinations she also will use appellate and Supreme Court judicial precedents in her findings.  Which is what is truly scary.  Since that has brought us to the "political" judicary we have today rather than the "Constitutional" one.

With the court of public opinion or politics superceding the express provisions contained within it with respect to the government's place also as accountable, and not sovereign, to the people and acknowledging that the Bill of Rights is there to protect the people, and not the corporate.

In fact, it is there to protect the people from "corporate" or "governmental" abuse, which hasn't been the case in many of her own rulings, or those of the federal judiciary again since that ink dried.

Many of those past decisions had no foundation in the Constitution.  Especially Roe and Kelo in more recent history.

And with respect to Roe, her comments have been that this case is "settled law."  "Settled" by whom?  The judiciary in that Roe case?  Hardly, since the Supreme Court has no authority to "make law" whatsoever.  And it will only be "settled" law when Congress and both Houses actually get down to the hard business of defining, for Constitutional purposes, just when "life" begins in order to protect both women and doctors throughout the land from being prosecuted for "murder."  That is what is truly required.  But it is such a hot button political issue that our Congressional leaders continue to "use" that Supreme Court also in order to avoid doing the hard work of government and as elected leaders.

Instead, they are more concerned with how much foundation they have on and how many "public" appearances they can squeeze in in order to prove to the folks back home that they are worth their five figure salaries, expense accounts, and federal pension plans.

For heaven sake, we are now over 30 years past Roe, and until Congress defines "life" with respect to criminal convictions, we will continue to have doctors with social disorders that are constantly torn between their Hippocratic oaths, and Roe.  And cut rate "coat hanger" section and suction clinics.

I mean with partial birth abortions and the methods used in some of those cut rate "clincs," in their section and suction methods for these late term (after 20 weeks) premature deliveries, how far are we actually from the coat hanger abortions of old, with women's lives still compromised due to this risky procedure.  And yet those on the Hill have so far not at all addressed this PROCEDURE, let alone the definition of just when life begins and ends for Constitutional purposes.

And although not an Obama fan in the slightest since his actions post inauguaration have been more along the lines of George Bush in his reverence for our Constitution, and is no Constitutional lawyer, his critieria with respect to seeking a nominee with empathy really was not at all far off as a very important factor in any judicial selection.

As the founders recognized in not requiring religious test for federal office, there are matters that may come before these "Supreme" beings that go beyond the stated law.

I would have been more interested in questions regarding the Courts assertions of a self-determined "right of refusal" of citizen petitions to the Court when there is no provision within our Constitution as a "government of the people" for the Supreme Court to deny hearing any valid petition of a citizen with respect to the Bill of Rights or Constitutional questions if it is within their legal jurisdiction.  And it is within their legal jurisdiction on any and all Bill of Rights matters, or for that matter the current positions of "supremacy" and "refusal" with respect to the Court's continued refusals of U.S. citizen petitions demanding actual evidence and proof of Mr. Obama's citizenship status, when those requirements and provisions are minimal at best, and definitely provided by the founders for a very valid reason with respect to the Office of the Presidency.

I would have been interested in questions regarding whether or not the transparency which should and is required by any such government of the people, she would also be open to having televised and public coverage of some of their en banc deliberations, or hearings, except with respect to national security issues - and even in such cases, with technology the way it is today there can be bans on satellite transmissions for such deliberations, or transcripts issued for public distribution.

I would have been more interested in her responses to such questions as:  If the Teri Schiavo case was appealed to the court today, what is your "life" stance in the matter of a disabled yet still physically viable human life, and also the right of such a citizen or her nearest kin to petition the justices for such a determination as a "duty" of the Court under the Constitution.

It is clear, again, these hearings are no more than formalities.

She will rule, or accept or deny cases, as "politically" as all prior justices have, according to the current Administrations "will."  Since her salary and very livelihood depends on "politics" and not "the law," as an appointed and not elected official, and due to the polticalization of the other two branches, no accountability to her true employers, "the people."

And, of course, her "globalist" political affiliation most of all.  Where how we "look" to the world now or how those justices rule in accordance with global public opinion appears to be having more and more sway, and that glass encased document just down the street, far less with each passing year and Administration.

Today Sonia Sotomayor had her first "meet and greet" with the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee over her potential confirmation as the first Obama appointed Supreme Court Justice.

A press conference and condensed version of what occurred during this first meeting was held shortly thereafter, attended by some of the movers and shakers of both the Republican and Democratic parties.

Ms. Sotomayor appeared also to be all smiles, and the mainstream liberal media soon after issued their poll results that "over 50% of Americans support" Ms. Sotomayor's nomination.

She was appointed to the federal bench by the first Bush, in which there was very little scrutiny by Congress or the brouhaha that surrounds such matters as the appointment of a Supreme Court justice, due to the fact that they still remain in office for life, and there hasn't been a hearing or impeachment of a Supreme Court justice ever under the "good behavior" provisions in over 200 years due to the unlawful extension in 1805 during the Chase impeachment proceedings of extra-Constitutional provisions of judicial immunity for any and all actions in which a claim of "political bias" can be extended. 

This was the second "political" usurpation along with Marbury vs. Madison by the judiciary,  which then created an "unchecked" branch in this country, and again amended our Constitution without going through that formal amendment process - since "good behavior" clearly was intended to mean ruling by the judicial "seat of the pants," as it were and not the language or provisions as contained within our Constitution

The Jefferson Democrat/Republicans were  then attempting to institute this "check" provision during Chase, and it has never again been used due to "politics" rather than "the Law," holding sway a mere 18 years after its signing.  And now our Supreme Court has also become more and more political, and less and less independent and Constitutional, by the decade.

And that historically has included, it appears, just about any and all Supreme Court rulings, even the increasingly off the wall ones, and has contributed to the judicial activism in their progressively extra-Constitutional renderings to this very day.

For the record and in order to claify Ms. Sotomayor's previous remarks in 2001 with respect to the infamous statement referring to her Latina heritage as qualifying her perhaps better than another justice who hadn't "lived the life she had," Ms. Sotomayor told senators she would follow the law as a judge without letting her life experiences inappropriately influence her decisions.

"Ultimately and completely, a judge has to follow the law no matter what their upbringing has been," Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., the Judiciary Committee chairman, quoted the nominee as saying in their closed-door session.

My question is, which "law" is she referring to?  Our Constitution as the ultimate authority, or federal or even state statutes or their Constitutional provisions which may or may not be in accordance with it - since it is clear more and more that our Congress is not even reading a great many bills before they are voted on and passed due to various contrived "emergencies" (such as the Patriot Act, stimulus and bank bailouts), and a great many of those former statutes throughout the years are questionably in accordance with it.

Will we continue to desecrate it in the interests of "public policy" (socialism), "public safety" (also socialism), or the nebulous "state interests" (fascism and/or socialism) when it comes to American Bill of Rights issues for lawful American citizens?

Will we refuse to hear hot potato cases or issues within the Court's jurisdiction in order to protect political interests of one or the other mainstream political parties or their "corporate" interests?

Will Ms. Sotomayor consult our Constitution and various LAWFUL peace time treaties or trade agreements entered into and ratified BY CONGRESS when it involves international concerns, or opinions of college professors, law reviews and the ultimate transgression against our Constitution, international law?

Several justices, such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the now retired Sandra Day O'Connor are on record as stating that they believe that a Supreme Court justice should be afforded the right to consult international laws in rendering some of their opinons, even though "globalized" law was not at all the founders intent for the sovereign United States clearly due to the very reason for that Revolutionary War to begin with.

So I do hope that there is much more information released to the public and press with respect to Ms. Sotomayor's statements, than those that are now coming out of these press conferences, interviews with politicians, and the various  press releases.

But I doubt it.  In the piece Harry Reid, D-NV is quoted as stating that he had not read a single one of her opinions during her 17 years on the federal bench, and if all went as planned "would not have to do so."

I guess we know Harry's criteria is about "politics" and not about "the Law."

The fundamental question is, exactly which "ultimate" authority and law are you referring to, Ms. Sotomayor, since a great many of the sitting and former justices seem at this point with respect to both domestic and foreign issues to have been not simply confused, but truly unaware of the actual document which affords them the right to hold that lofty position.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/top?guid=20090602/4a24a3c0_3ca6_15526200906021074699449
 

Yesterday Barack Obama announced his selection for the vacating position of Justice David Souter on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Not surprisingly, Mr. Obama as the ultimate "politician" used as his criteria for selection not merit, or published opinions balanced against the Constitutional basis or findings - but instead his views on balancing the Court with a member who was in his mind "politically" correct, and an activist in their interpretation of U.S. law.

In other words, one who would not rock the boat on his political agendas and policies, rather than one as an intended "check" on those policies in order to retain some semblance of our Constitution and intended form of government.

And who did he choose?

A member of the judiciary who identifies herself as a  "Hispanic-American" woman, educated at Princeton University and Yale Law School (both rather "liberal" teaching institutions with respect to the law, which focuses more on judge made or case law than it does our Constitution or history, and questioning some of the U.S. Supreme Court's rather progressively unconstitutional decisions).

Princeton, Yale, Harvard and Stanford are the equivalent of Oxford in England, in teaching that the government is "sovereign," and diametrically opposed to the actual foundation and provisions within America's own Constitution, where it is the people and Constitution which are "sovereign" and the government at all levels beneath and limited by its express provisions and terms.

Look for Obama now to push for an illegal immigrant amnesty ala George Bush, no matter that the border state residents are now involved in an undeclared war of their own down on the border, and losing their homes and lives at an increasing rate due to the federal negligence in getting our southern borders secured now almost eight years post 9/11.

Mr. Obama is more concerned with "looking good," than doing the right thing, or following the law at any level.

And appears the Ivy League schools themselves just may need some political "balancing" in their teaching staff, so that the practice of law in this country returns to the profession it once was, and not the political industry it has become.  And without any oversight other than by a British carryover and political organization, the American Bar Association.

It seems the "dumbing down" of America is nowhere more evident than at the graduate school level, if Mr. Obama and Ms. Sotomayor and their views of "the Law" are any indication.
 

Recently, in addition to the nomination of self-described "transnationalist" Harold Koh, liberal constructionist and dean of Yale University, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been making the rounds of local colleges, universities and law schools with also her transnationalist views.

A "transnationalist" is the politically correct equivalent of a "globalist," and political correctness is a religion the transnationalists subscribe to wholeheartedly.  Except when it isn't in accordance with their upside-down logic and world and global view.

A recent example of this would be Janet Napolitano, a woefully misled and misguided fellow lawyer whose "right wing extremist" memorandum trashes the American Bill of Rights on every level.

Recently, Justice Ginsburg had this to say about the place and reverence the U.S. Supreme Court should have with international courts and decisions in their findings:

“I frankly don’t understand all the brouhaha lately from Congress and even from some of my colleagues about referring to foreign law,” Justice Ginsburg said in her comments on Friday during a symposium at Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law honoring her tenure on the nation’s highest court.

 “There is perhaps a misunderstanding that when you refer to a decision of [foreign courts] that you are using those as binding precedent,” Mrs. Ginsberg said. “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article from a professor?”
 

Now, with respect to the law in these United States, if you hold that there is a higher authority than the United States Constitution with respect to the duties of a Supreme Court Justice, Ms. Ginsburg,  then you are not "in good behavior" with respect to your sworn oath of office.  Its really quite simple.  In fact, you hold your current lofty position due to the provision contained within that particular document.  The Justice is further on record as stating:

“The notion that it is improper to look beyond the borders of the United States in grappling with hard questions has a close kinship to the view of the U.S. Constitution as a document essentially frozen in time as of the date of its ratification,” Mrs. Ginsberg said in a speech four years ago.

“I am not a partisan of that view. U.S. jurists honor the Framers’ intent ‘to create a more perfect Union,’ I believe, if they read our Constitution as belonging to a global 21st century, not as fixed forever by 18th-century understandings.”
 

Really, Justice?  The framers faced far greater threats and dangers than we can even imagine in this high tech, obtain a warrant within minutes, era.  Far worse than global warming, Middle Eastern terrorists, or stock market variations.  They defended an entire Eastern Seaboard with only canon and musket, as I recall.  Defending it from the "international" community you so aligned yourself with.

And just in case you have forgotten or have not read it lately, there is a process within the Constitution in order to so amend it if need be to include any of those provisions they might have left out for 21st Century America.  And the Justices actually are not a part of that amendment process. 

But since those founders held with "unalienable" rights as God given, I don't think those have change much since the Magna Carta, which preceeded our Constitution by several hundred years. 

And if you abridge them, or alter them, the consequences in the increase of inmates now in our jails, a nation with the highest prison population now in the world, is telling in how far afield both the state and federal government have gone in not recognizing those "natural rights."

Another former Justice and fellow transnationalist, Sandra Day O'Connor, also is on record with a few comments on the place of international law in the highest court in the land at an awards dinner at the end of her career on the bench:

“I suspect that over time we will rely increasingly, or take notice at least increasingly, on international and foreign courts in examining domestic issues,” Mrs. O’Connor said, adding by doing so “may not only enrich our own country’s decisions, I think it may create that all important good impression.”
 

I don't think the framers also were believers that making a good impression and impressing the rest of the world held much sway when it came to personal liberty, justice and freedom in this country.  In fact, wasn't that what that first war was all about, severing this country's ties to the laws and practices they found intolerable in Britain under "sovereign" law and nothing more than tyranny?

I won't address in this article Justice Ginsburg dissenting opinion on the upholding by the Supreme Court of the partial birth abortion ban, except to state that she did seem to misunderstand that it is the procedure and timing of these "abortions" that is in dispute, and has nothing to do with a woman's right to privacy, but ban a barbaric practice that has resulted in many women's lives being compromised, or made sterile due to the actual procedure itself.

The majority of those groups which are fighting for the partial ban abortion statutes and laws are actually fighting for society and women's life and their health, not against it.

But you won't convince Justice Ginsburg of that, or the other "transnationalists," who believe abortion at any stage in any manner should be an option and is just another method of birth control.  I wonder if the 19th century hangers will be brought back into vogue by the medical community?

But "transnationalists" have a world view and perception of law, liberty and justice unlike those of the framers and a great many in this country when it comes to our country, its place in the world, the Constitution and Bill of Rights across the lines.

Ms. O'Connor retired shortly after making her statement, before she completely forgot just what her role in government actually was.  Let's hope soon Justice Ginsburg will do likewise.

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."
James Madison
 

Even thirty years after this controversial decision, the jury is still out on Roe v. Wade. Decided in the early 70's, I remember well when the case was decided, as I had just completed high school. For many, it was one of those days stuck in your brain due to it's reach and "precedent," along the lines of the day Kennedy was assassinated. A monumental moment in history, and now even in the 21st Century, the controversy still reigns.

When the decision was reached, it turned our country quite upside down and polarized. Interesting, historians and others who bring Roe to the forefront in political discussions and discourse, and of course at election time, fail to also mention that at the time Roe was decided, the Pill and other rather reliable methods of birth control were becoming more and more available. Planned Parenthood had just opened it's doors to "free birth control" during this "free love" era, and AIDS was nothing more than an employment term for an assistant. At the time it was decided, there were many states which did allow early abortions, since this also was the time when the "globalists" had started their scares about overpopulation, and the destruction of our planet. It is now, of course, being resurrected by many of those former hippies, and capitalists types as the new scheme in which to become a millionaire before 35. Seems out in California there is now a blend of "hippie capitalists." They don't mind being that dirty word "capitalists" so long as they are making their fortunes along environmentally friendly lines, and saving the planet from overpopulation is one of them.

Many of these left wing pro-choice activists believe in unrestricted access to abortion, such as third trimester partial birth abortions, including from all accounts the Democratic nominee. The defense has been with respect to that Illinois bill a fear that in supporting the partial birth ban it might overturn Roe v. Wade, and was worded incorrectly. My understanding is that was what the committees in the state legislatures were for, reviewing laws for Constitutionality prior to bringing them to the floor for debate on major legislation, and Roe actually only addressed and upheld the right to first term abortions since those were already allowed in most of the states, for rape, health of the mother, and had been expanded for teen pregnancies so long as there was parental consent, which provision has been now even unconstitutionally removed in many states. 

For all the scare tactics the libs like to throw out every election about the "threat" of Roe being overturned if, horror of horrors, a Constitutuion believing conservative should get into office and further stack the Supreme Court, I have just one thing to say.......don't you think it's about time that decision was reviewed, now more than thirty years after the fact?   At this point throughout the country, we now have even the "Morning After" pill, for heaven sakes. Birth control pills now in many areas of the country can be obtained by even teens without their parent's consent, and due to the AIDS and other STDs epidemic, the use of contraceptives between committed or uncommitted couples have never been higher. Isn't it about time we pulled the plug, at least, on second and third trimester abortions nationwide, except in the event of health risk to the mother or child in continuing the pregnancy? Just what are you liberals afraid of, that in so doing we will go back to the dark ages, where abortions were performed in dark alleys with unsterilized equipment, when now there is even a pill that can abort during the first trimester?

As a Christian, I believe abortion should be restricted to the first trimester at this point in our history, and not simply for moral reasons but also legal ones. This was never a "right to privacy" issue to begin with, it was always a "right to life" issue, since if the founder's were not concerned with "life" they certainly wouldn't have based an entire document in order to secure "life, liberty and happiness" for "us and our posterity" if they were unconcerned with just what the "Creator" would think. And it's pretty clear there is 10 Commandment law behind that Constitution, whether the atheists in this country wish to believe it or not. Religious tolerance is actually a Christian doctrine, it is not a Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Buddhist doctrine, and the freedom of religion provision was also provided in order to prevent a NATION-WIDE or "State" religion, such as they had experienced in England with the decades long fighting between the Catholics and the Protestants. Read Ben Franklin's speech when the Constitution was ratified, and he specifically alludes to the problems they were attempting to avoid by recognizing each individuals right to worship God according to their own understanding, and in their own way, without "nationalizing" a state religion such as in Britain and the Church of England, and in more recent history, Israel. It does seem the founder's new what they were doing, since even today those countries with "national" religions do seem to be engaged in much more strife, both internal and external, than others.

The problem that I do have with the far, far right wing evangelical Christians is their rather rigid interpretation of when life begins, since Jesus never truly addressed it. Most pastors and members of the evangelical churches relate to the biblical passage of God "knowing you in your mother's womb." The problem I have with that is that adultery was a criminal matter in Jesus's time, and the punishment under the 10 Commandment law at the time was death by stoning. If life truly begins at conception rather than viability, than God allowed innocent fetuses to be killed along with their mothers since I'm sure a great many of those adulteress might have been pregnant. It is also Biblically fairly clear that the first life God created, Adam, he did so by "breathing" life into dust, and that in then creating Eve, he clearly then gave them, not he, the gift of procreation and then by directing them to "go forth and multiply." And it's also pretty darn clear that he intended children to be raised in two sex households, since he didn't give us the ability to recreate independently of the other sex.

What is truly amazing to me is that for all the bravado of the "pro-choice" movement and those mostly liberals who even today with medical knowledge and technology the way it is, still cling to this decision as a benchmark of a candidates worthiness. It is interesting that while the radical liberal element protest over global warming and how it is affecting the whales, polar bears, and other Arctic creatures, they were nowhere to be seen when Teri Schiavo was judicially literally starved and dehydrated to death for almost 14 days while she clung to life, breathing on her own. The most painful type of death any human can experience ending in progressive organ shutdown, and a judge in this country so ordered it. Better watch out, liberals, since your definition of "pro-choice" and radicalism sounds more like Germany, circa World War II.