No, I don’t “know it.” I know the opposite of the spin that you’re peddling here — I know that Roberts has already voted to uphold abortion regulation; I know that colleagues of Roberts are sure that he would vote to overturn Roe; and I know that in the American political context (to which you seem to be quite new), Democrats have a 20-year history of trying to block any Republican Supreme Court nominee that expresses any doubt whatsoever about Roe, which thus requires Republican nominees to speak in a very precise and lawyer-like fashion that doesn’t give any real indication about how they would vote on Roe.

Oh really, Stuart? What about when Roberts told senators Roe v. Wade was “the settled law of the land” and that “there’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.” Was he lying?

Then:

He claims he has no personal issues with applying Roe v. Wade. Either he is a liar, or he has serious ethical flaws. You can indulge in these nudge-nudge-wink-wink games all you like, but I happen to think the SC– as the source of the so-called “right”– should be held to a higher standard.

Try to consider a few things:

1. Unfortunately, the Democrats have made it impossible to get a SCOTUS appointment who is on record as favoring overturning RvW. It’s not honest to fault presidents who desire appointing such justices but have to seek out stealth appointees and merely hope for the best. Blame those who gleefully use the new verb they coined “Bork”.

2. As someone who thinks RvW is an atrocious decision both on results and the application of law, if I were interviewed by the Senate I could honestly say, “RvW is the settled law of the land” – because it is. That’s not to say that it can’t be overturned later depending on the makeup of the court or a due to a just decision on some future case which has the effect of negating RvW – it’s merely on honest answer that leaves it up to the questioners to decide whether to dig deeper or not. He also said, “there’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent”. One could say that without elaborating further and including “unless some case comes along that in the name of justice and sound law would negate that precedent”. Sure, a half truth can be the equivalent of a lie, but it can also be merely exercising wisdom, it depends on the nature, intention and circumstances involved and precisely what is said. Again, if it weren’t for the Dems, an appointee that has the proper view of RvW wouldn’t have to be “creative” in his responses. Sad commentary, I know, but it is what it is.

I like the story of when the Arians were looking to apprehend St. Athenasius (I don’t know if it’s mere legend or verifiable). St. Athenasius was on the bank of a river when two men rowed up and asked him if he’s seen Athenasius. The good saint replied, “He’s right in front of you…row faster!”, which they did. I don’t know Robert’s heart and mind, but if they are properly ordered, I can see how his responses to the Senate were ethical. Nevertheless, if we believe that RvW is bad law and that presidents and their nominees to SCOTUS should be soundly anti-RvW, you need to fault the Dems and the people who vote for them. I’d add that it’s the sum of these sorts of things why one should never vote for a pro-abort politician (for any office) and at least be leery of voting Dem because the party influence over its members.

And lets not forget that it’s the type of jurists that go along with RvW which can justify all sorts of bad decisions that favor big business and big government to the detriment of justice and the common man ( i.e. the Kelo decision).

You’re right about the political parties, and the illogical pairing of their respective positions. But while you and I may be pro-life AND anti-war, the powerful dichotomy of our corrupt political parties forces candidates (and therefore voters) to decide whom they’d rather save—millions of unborn babies or millions of yet-to-be-slaughtered human beings. As Giuliani has shown, you can’t earn your party’s nomination unless you pay lip service to its hallmark “values” issues. Romney knows it, and has flip-flopped accordingly on same-sex marriage. You have to either side with the baby-killers on the Left or the homophobic gay-bashers on the Right. Who knows what Obama feels inside.

None of our candidates, not even Huckabee, see abortion as a vital issue; they’re all just taking the side their party tells them to. Make no mistake, though—McCain, Hillary, Romney, or Huckabee WILL all take us to war against Iran. Obama will not, nor will Edwards or Ron Paul. And that’s why the people who stand to make billions on another war are doing everything in their power to smear these candidates, the ones who can’t be bought.

I’m glad you mentioned the concentration camps, because they exemplify what happens when an entire nation refuses to think for itself. Why not do some research on the powerful special interest groups who co-opted the Bush Administration into the 935 lies they told about Iraq? And why not ask yourselves which campaigns these same corporations and foundations are currently funding. By all means, do your own research–don’t take my word for it. We have an obligation to make sure our government never again sends our soldiers to kill and die UNLESS the cause is just and threat real. Single-issue voters are turning their backs on the future of this country, which includes, I might add, unborn babies who WON’T be aborted.

One would hope that any response could be made with a minimum of calls to “uplift society”, complaints about the health care system, and other such diversionary tactics.

For instance, it isn’t that people were in favor of dropping atomic bombs on the Japanese — they were merely in favor of “ending the war quickly”. There, aren’t you glad I just cleared that up for you? Likewise, those dreaded neo-conservatives aren’t in favor of torture, per se — they’re merely pro-information, as in extracting however much of it is needed in order to prevent future terrorist attacks. Lastly, a fair number of those favoring the death penalty are, when all is said and done, simply “pro-security”.

So the next time any of these issues come up, let’s all remember nomenclature games like the ones Gerald has introduced us to. And when that day comes, no doubt Gerald himself will be leading the way calling for an increased understanding of all those positions I enumerated, lest we allow “dark shadows of cynicism to invade and form the thinking process” and thereby dissuade us from “a higher aspiration than self-interest”. Because if there’s anything that can be said for all those anti-choicers picketing outside the clinics, it’s that they’re all motivated solely by naked self-interest.

(And for the record, I do not for a moment think that putting to death a sadistic murderer who endangers both prison guards and fellow inmates is in any way comparable to killing a fetus — I only made the analogy because I know relatively few people on this site seem to be able to make that distinction.)

Let’s also note for future reference Gerald’s reflexive habit of issuing big steaming piles, much like a squid squeezing out ink in order to make a getaway, every time he’s confronted with a difficult question. In lieu of a straight answer, he gives us lofty doublespeak about “the role that language and leadership plays in unleashing forces that lie hidden within the human spirit”, and other such blather more flatulent than even Obama himself (and that’s saying something). In this thread, at least, the ends of all that are made clear: i.e. getting the rest of us to swallow nuggets such as “he’s not pro-abortion — he’s pro-CHOICE”.

And here I was all along thinking that Obama actually *enjoyed* abortions, in the way an English lord thrills to the call of the fox hunt. But now I know better — thanks for clarifying that up, Gerald. I feel so relieved now, though I do feel embarrassed for all those bishops and popes. What asses they were, to engage in so much hand-wringing over a simple misunderstanding regarding politicans who are merely pro-choice.

Fact two: Given the way that Democrats treated Bork and Thomas, in large part due to their already-published opposition to Roe, Republican nominees since that time have learned to keep their heads down, and to thread the needle very carefully in saying that they’ll treat Roe as a precedent or as “settled law” (both of which are meaningless concessions, given that Supreme Court Justices overrule “settled law” all the time).

That’s not true. Out of the Justices currently serving on the Court, Scalia and Thomas have voted to overrule Roe. Roberts and Alito are almost certain to vote that way. The Republican Justices who have voted to affirm Roe are Souter, Stevens, and Kennedy. Kennedy wouldn’t even be on the Supreme Court but for the fact that the Democrats pulled out all the stops to block Bork, who would have been the fifth vote to overrule Roe in 1992. Moreover, no one — not even Kennedy himself — knew that he would ultimately vote to affirm Roe in that 1992 case; in fact, Kennedy switched sides at the last minute in that case. Souter — nobody really knew what he was going to do; I suspect the main reason he was named to the Court is because the previous nomination (Bork) had gone down in flames, leading Bush to look for a non-descript judge who hadn’t taken any positions that could be demonized.