Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Obama's pick for Justice, Republicans, abortion

“The essence of being a Republican is the belief in free markets, the belief in individual responsibility, the belief in the faith of the individual. This is what our party is about.” -- Eric Cantor, on whether there can be pro-abortion Republican candidates. -- reported 14 May
Republican party chairman, Michael Steele: The choice issue cuts two ways. You can choose life, or you can choose abortion. You know, my mother chose life. So, you know, I think the power of the argument of choice boils down to stating a case for one or the other.

Q by Lisa DePaulo. March 11, 2009 : Are you saying you think women have the right to choose abortion?
Michael Steele: Yeah. I mean, again, I think that’s an individual choice.
Q: You do?
Michael Steele:Yeah. Absolutely.

Q:Do pro-choicers have a place in the Republican Party?
Michael Steele: Absolutely!

Q: How so?
Michael Steele: You know, Lee Atwater said it best: We are a big-tent party. We recognize that there are views that may be divergent on some issues, but our goal is to correspond, or try to respond, to some core values and principles that we can agree on.
“A vacancy on the Supreme Court. This is something we haven't seen in awhile. Let's just hope the president is better at picking a justice than the justices were at picking a president.” --Jay Leno. 1 May
I do not wish to constantly revisit this topic. I am a catholic. I am a democrat. I am pro-life. I am anti-abortion. I have maintained that the distinguishing principle of the Republican party is hypocrisy. I also maintain, that, many so called pro-life, or anti-abortion, Republicans are only Republicans. President Obama has been reflexively attacked by catholic Republicans, including the episcopacy over this. Now, with the following two additional facts, we may see which master they [catholic Republicans] serve.

I lifted this directly from the Wikipedia to-day:
In Center for Reproductive Law and Policy v. Bush[40], Sotomayor upheld the Bush administration's implementation of the "Mexico City Policy" which requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. funds to "neither perform nor actively promote abortion as a method of family planning in other nations". Sotomayor held that the policy did not constitute a violation of equal protection, as the government "is free to favor the anti-abortion position over the pro-choice position, and can do so with public funds".[41]
I lifted this directly from christianitytoday.com to-day:
In 2004, she ruled that a group of clinic protesters could proceed with its suit.
Ted Olsen | May 26, 2009 9:30AM

In 1989, members of Amnesty America entered an abortion clinic in West Hartford, Connecticut, chained themselves together, and blocked the entrance. When police arrived, the protesters used passive resistance to continue their protest (among their techniques: covering their hands in maple syrup to make handcuffs less useful).

The police dragged the protesters out anyway, and Amnesty America members sued, saying several of them suffered lasting physical damage from the police officers' actions (among the claims: an officer rammed a protester's head into a wall).

A district court issued a summary judgment for the town of West Hartford, but Sotomayor's Second Circuit Court of Appeals vacated the judgment and sent it back to the lower court for a jury trial.

"It is entirely possible that a reasonable jury would find, as the district court intimated, that the police officers' use of force was objectively reasonable given the circumstances and the plaintiffs' resistance techniques," Sotomayor wrote. "Because a reasonable jury could also find that the officers gratuitously inflicted pain in a manner that was not a reasonable response to the circumstances, however, the determination as to the objective reasonableness of the force used must be made by a jury following a trial."

Sotomayor also warned the group that its lawyer was unprofessional. He "has hardly acted as an effective advocate for his clients by presenting briefs so haphazardly prepared that they contain almost no legal argument," she wrote. His behavior was so bad, she wrote that, "we would be within our discretion to summarily dismiss this appeal. We opt, however, to consider the merits of this appeal because plaintiffs' claims are substantial enough to merit a trial, and declining to consider this appeal would unfairly penalize plaintiffs for Williams's failings as an advocate."

Pro-lifers seem unimpressed by the decision. "Though not concerning abortion policy directly, the case is viewed as a stand against free speech for pro-life advocates," says a briefing at LifeNews.com. Eh? It's hard to see the decision as anything but a good thing for this particular pro-life group. The question is more about how large the decision's implications are.
President Barack Obama was attacked for having the temerity to speak at Notre Dame. He spoke of a common ground. The Republicans were against any selection Mr. Obama was going to make for the Supreme Court, they were preparing, at least, since the announcement of justice Souter retiring. We will now see, how they will react to, or merely attack Sonia Sotomayor. It is, certainly within the realm of possibility, that Ms. Sotomayor is not in favor of abortion. It is to be remembered that Alito and Roberts were evasive on the issue, and that bushjr stated, that, he had no idea, whether Miers had an opinion. Also note: I have not seen, or expect logical continuity, or coherence, or consistency, or one to one correspondence, concerning Republicans’ words, or words and deeds.

No comments: