Enyart calls for pro-lifers to oppose John Roberts nomination

[docrob57]

Hopefully not; and actually unlikely since there's not the economic issues and states rights issues that drove the Civil War...

Think back on your history and recall how Congress legislated freed black slaves into citizenship status...

Could something analogous be done for unborn humans, as well?

Ah yes, constitutional amendment. It could, but not in the present political climate. That is why I keep saying that the only possible path is for conservative Christians and fellow traveling pro-lifers to withdraw support from the GOP. That would cause a sufficent change in the climate. I think.

 

[Zakath]

Honestly, if I were Bush and I was trying to use a nomination to draw the heat off of me for some issue, I'd pick the most controversial sure to be rejected person I could find. Somebody who would generate tons of indignant howls.

Not this guy. He's too tame.

Ahh, but here's the subtlety...

When you create a diversion, you don't want it to be too obvious...

Both parties are scrambling to maintain their support base.

Many of the public are tired of listening to them squabble over virtually every nominee...

Roberts represents a moderate nominee who can be just controversial enough to evoke debate, paticularly among the fringe right, but for whom it is possible to be approved without a large amount of acrimony and infighting. This is a political gift to both parties that can distract from the ongoing investigation of security leaks at the Administration. The ensuing "bi-partisan cooperation" will make the populace happier for a time...

 

[Zakath]

Ah yes, constitutional amendment. It could, but not in the present political climate. That is why I keep saying that the only possible path is for conservative Christians and fellow traveling pro-lifers to withdraw support from the GOP. That would cause a sufficent change in the climate. I think.

But withdrawing your support, after spending the last twenty or so years hand grooming certain GOP candidates, is a very costly move. It could take you another twenty or more years to build a viable third party. And in the meantime, you'd be fighting two well-funded opposing parties.

 

[docrob57]

Ahh, but here's the subtlety...

When you create a diversion, you don't want it to be too obvious...

Both parties are scrambling to maintain their support base.

Many of the public are tired of listening to them squabble over virtually every nominee...

Roberts represents a moderate nominee who can be just controversial enough to evoke debate, paticularly among the fringe right, but for whom it is possible to be approved without a large amount of acrimony and infighting. This is a political gift to both parties that can distract from the ongoing investigation of security leaks at the Administration. The ensuing "bi-partisan cooperation" will make the populace happier for a time...

I am offended by the word "fringe." I prefer "extreme." I am an extreme right Anglo-American.

 

[docrob57]

But withdrawing your support, after spending the last twenty or so years hand grooming certain GOP candidates, is a very costly move. It could take you another twenty or more years to build a viable third party. And in the meantime, you'd be fighting two well-funded opposing parties.

The point is not to form a viable third party. The point is to force the GOP to move to our position. GOP victory margins are slim. Loss of 15-25% of the pro-life vote even would doom them. They would have to take action or be relegated to permanent minority status.

 

[Crow]

Ahh, but here's the subtlety...

When you create a diversion, you don't want it to be too obvious...

Both parties are scrambling to maintain their support base.

Many of the public are tired of listening to them squabble over virtually every nominee...

Nah. A Robert Bork would be better at drawing flak. :devil:

Personally, I'm disappointed with Bush for his abortion stance and because Rove wasn't kicked out mucho presto bingo.

I believe that Bush has been a good president in many ways, but his soft stance on abortion and his misplaced loyalty to Rove sickens me. But enough about Rove--there's another thread for that and I've already said my piece there.

 

[Zakath]

I am offended by the word "fringe." I prefer "extreme." I am an extreme right Anglo-American.

Yeah, right.

Take it to a thread that cares... :chuckle:

 

[Zakath]

Nah. A Robert Bork would be better at drawing flak. :devil:

Yes, but that's not Bush's game this time. He doesn't need a lightning rod, he needs to put oil on the troubled waters...

think: Hmmm, can I force any more metaphors into that sentence? )

 

[docrob57]

Yes, but that's not Bush's game this time. He doesn't need a lightning rod, he needs to put oil on the troubled waters...

think: Hmmm, can I force any more metaphors into that sentence? )

Perhaps he needs a bridge over troubled waters. Not that I want to fan the flames.

 

[Crow]

Yes, but that's not Bush's game this time. He doesn't need a lightning rod, he needs to put oil on the troubled waters...

think: Hmmm, can I force any more metaphors into that sentence? )

I don't think that he needs either. He's in for his second term, and doesn't have a third to worry about.

I believe that Bush is a good guy, but he's wrong on some issues. Abortion is one of them--he's headed in the right direction, but he just doesn't go far enough.

Giving us a SCOTUS nominee who is OK with Roe vs Wade is one of those areas where he just doesn't deliver.

 

[Zakath]

Perhaps he needs a bridge over troubled waters.

Well, Bush did claim to want to be a bridge builder...

Not that I want to fan the flames.

Yeah, it'd be a shame to have this nomination go up in flames.

:devil:

 

[Zakath]

I don't think that he needs either. He's in for his second term, and doesn't have a third to worry about.

Personally, no. But I'm sure his party would like to hold onto majority position and the White House in the next election.

I believe that Bush is a good guy, but he's wrong on some issues. Abortion is one of them--he's headed in the right direction, but he just doesn't go far enough.

Giving us a SCOTUS nominee who is OK with Roe vs Wade is one of those areas where he just doesn't deliver.

Some of us have been claiming that Bush "doesn't deliver" for years... it's interesting that folks on the right are finally realizing that.

:thumb:

 

[Turbo]

Some of us have been claiming that Bush "doesn't deliver" for years... it's interesting that folks on the right are finally realizing that.

:thumb:

Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the past six years.

 

[Zakath]

Maybe you just haven't been paying attention for the past six years.

Unlikely, but perhaps I've been listening to and reading the wrong spokespeople for the "Christian right"...

 

[death2impiety]

Agreed, but the Christian pro-life community (I know, you don't like us) has to start behaving consistent with our principles.

Amen to that!

 

[docrob57]

Unlikely, but perhaps I've been listening to and reading the wrong spokespeople for the "Christian right"...

Just listen to me Z-man, the only voice you need.

 

[Crow]

Personally, no. But I'm sure his party would like to hold onto majority position and the White House in the next election.

Some of us have been claiming that Bush "doesn't deliver" for years... it's interesting that folks on the right are finally realizing that.

:thumb:

Zakath, it's never been a mystery to the right wing that Bush isn't that far right.

 

[drbrumley]

For Immediate Release:

Christian Talk Show Host Calls on Pro-Life Leaders
to Oppose Roberts’ Nomination

Will the real John G. Roberts please stand up. Does Supreme Court nominee Roberts believe that abortion is the unjust taking of innocent life, and that the government must protect unborn children? In the past, Roberts has argued against Roe v. Wade and defended pro-life activists. However, in his 2003 D.C. Circuit confirmation hearing, Roberts said: “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.”

Pro-life leaders support Roberts because we have all compromised on Do Not Murder so often and for so long, we no longer can discern right from wrong. The pro-life community teaches that America’s fifty million aborted children compare dreadfully to the German holocaust against the Jews. And if we pro-lifers are correct that abortion is murder, then in his confirmation, Roberts’ declaration was the equivalent of a German judge who would have said, “There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from carrying out the extermination of Jews.” And such a horror has now become the hope of Christian pro-life leaders. America has fallen so far that our national pro-family organizations will fight to confirm a man who so recently defended genocidal philosophy.

Legal positivism, the elevation of man’s law and precedent above God’s law, is what legalized abortion in the first place. And the pro-life support of Roberts convinces him that he rightly ignores the decree that “We must obey God rather than men,” and so he supported the killing of unborn children simply to follow precedent. If Roberts does not know that abortion is murder, and that the government has a duty to protect unborn children, he disqualifies himself. Roberts is a legal positivist who declared his commitment to “faithfully” support the killing of children if our system requires him to do so. Now after a quarter-century of our pro-life presidents nominating pro-choice judges, the cycle continues, and in the coming years as Roberts joins in the erosion of family values, our Christian leaders will forget their part in his confirmation, and urgently lobby to confirm yet another legal positivist.

George W. Bush has repeatedly pledged that he would not consider the question of abortion when nominating judges, and has stated during his presidential debates that he has no goal to outlaw abortion. In this nomination, President Bush has upheld these campaign promises. Our pro-life leaders should remember that after World War II, American judges at Nuremberg convicted German lawyers and judges, sentencing to death and prison those who claimed that they were only following the law. For these reasons, Denver's Christian talk show host Bob Enyart is calling on pro-life leaders to reverse themselves and oppose the nomination of legal positivist John Roberts.

Pastor Bob Enyart
KGOV.com

Thank you Bob, I said this last night here on TOL right after the nomination. When will our pro-life leaders stop the carnaige?

 

[Zakath]

Zakath, it's never been a mystery to the right wing that Bush isn't that far right.

:think:

I guess Ralph Reed, former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, didn't know that (or didn't care) when he was campaigning for Bush in 2004...

Or James Dobson, who told his followers that not voting in the 2004 election (for the only "godly candidate") was a sin...

Or Jerry Falwell, who publicly supported Bush in the last two elections...

Or Janet Parshall, or Richard Land (head of the SBC), or Ted Haggard (head of the NAE)...


Perhaps Bush was far enough right to garner their support.

 

[Crow]

:think:

I guess Ralph Reed, former Executive Director of the Christian Coalition, didn't know that (or didn't care) when he was campaigning for Bush in 2004...

Or James Dobson, who told his followers that not voting in the 2004 election (for the only "godly candidate") was a sin...

Or Jerry Falwell, who publicly supported Bush in the last two elections...

Or Janet Parshall, or Richard Land (head of the SBC), or Ted Haggard (head of the NAE)...


Perhaps Bush was far enough right to garner their support.

He was the better of the two viable choices. But he's not very far right. And he's wrong on the abortion issue--he doesn't go far enough. Bush believes in elective abortions in several instances, rape and incest being two that I can think of right off hand.

I'm not even to the far far right on abortion--I believe that if the fetus cannot survive long enough to be viable because a pregnancy will be fatal to the mother and an abortion might save the mother's life, go for it. Don't let two people die to prove a point about one. Preserve innocent live whenever you can and save who you can save even if you can't save both.