| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Sgt. America" |
| Date: |
09 Aug 2005 09:26:41 PM |
| Object: |
NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts |
This is yet more evidence that fanaticism and extremism on the abortion issue
is very much mainstream on the "pro-choice" side. The only thing proven by
NARAL here is that *they* are the extremists to make such a ridiculous claim.
From article below:
'The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association, linking Roberts with
"violent fringe groups" and a "convicted . . . bomber" because he made the
same legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary to the ad's
message, Roberts didn't argue in favor of them or their actions.'
http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html
NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts
Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic bomber and excused violence. In
fact, Roberts called clinic bombers “criminals” who should be prosecuted
fully.
August 9, 2005 Modified:August 9, 2005
Summary
-------
An abortion-rights group is running an attack ad accusing Supreme Court
nominee John Roberts of filing legal papers “supporting . . . a convicted
clinic bomber” and of having an ideology that “leads him to excuse violence
against other Americans” It shows images of a bombed clinic in Birmingham ,
Alabama .
The ad is false.
And the ad misleads when it says Roberts supported a clinic bomber. It is true
that Roberts sided with the bomber and many other defendants in a civil case,
but the case didn't deal with bombing at all. Roberts argued that abortion
clinics who brought the suit had no right use an 1871 federal
anti-discrimination statute against anti-abortion protesters who tried to
blockade clinics. Eventually a 6-3 majority of the Supreme Court agreed, too.
Roberts argued that blockades were already illegal under state law.
The images used in the ad are especially misleading. The pictures are of a
clinic bombing that happened nearly seven years after Roberts signed the legal
brief in question.
Analysis
--------
NARAL Pro-Choice America released a new ad focusing on John Roberts, President
Bush's nominee to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's vacant Supreme Court position,
called "Speaking Out," on August 8. NARAL said it plans to buy half a million
dollars worth of airtime in coming weeks on national cable networks, as well
as well as on networks in Maine and Rhode Island.
The ad shows images of a bombed clinic before a woman identified as Emily
Lyons appears on screen, saying "I nearly lost my life." An announcer says,
"Supreme Court nominee John Roberts filed court briefs supporting violent
fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber".The announcer then urges viewers
to "call your Senators" and "tell them to oppose John Roberts" because we
"can't afford a Justice whose ideology leads him to excuse violence against
other Americans."
A False Implication
-------------------
In words and images, the ad conveys the idea that Roberts took a legal
position excusing bombing of abortion clinics, which is false. To the
contrary, during the Reagan administration when he was Associate Counsel to
the President, Roberts drafted a memo saying abortion-clinic bombers "should
be prosecuted to the full extent of the law." In the 1986 memo, Roberts called
abortion bombers "criminals" and "misguided individuals," indicating that they
would get no special treatment regarding requests for presidential pardons.
Reagan in fact gave no pardons to abortion-clinic bombers.
The 1986 draft is on file at the Reagan library. The White House furnished a
copy to FactCheck.org. (See "supporting documents" at right.)
Seven Years Earlier
-------------------
The ad fails to mention that the "court briefs" it mentions are actually from
nearly seven years before the abortion clinic bombing talked about in the ad.
The woman in the ad, Emily Lyons, was injured by a bomb blast at the New
Woman/All Women Health Clinic in Birmingham on January 28, 1998 that also
killed an off-duty police officer. The bomber was Eric Rudolph, who was
captured in May 2003 after a five-year manhunt. Rudolph pleaded guilty and in
July 2005 was sentenced to two consecutive life terms without parole.
The brief that Roberts signed, and on which the NARAL ad is based, is from
another matter entirely. It is dated April 11, 1991. Furthermore, it is from a
civil lawsuit brought by abortion clinics against protesters who were
blockading the clinics. Bombing was not an issue.
Supporting Anti-abortion Groups?
--------------------------------
The ad contends that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe
groups and a convicted clinic bomber." Indeed, Roberts' name appears on the
"friend of the court" brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic that
the ad shows. But what Roberts was supporting wasn't violence or bombing or
even the behavior that was the subject of the lawsuit - blockades of clinics.
In fact, Roberts went out of his way to say that the blockaders were
trespassing, which is a violation of state law. What Roberts argued was that a
federal anti-discrimination law couldn't be used against abortion blockaders
because they weren't discriminating against women – they were blockading men,
too.
Roberts was serving as Deputy Solicitor General in the administration of
George H.W. Bush. He was one of six Justice Department officials who submitted
the brief on behalf of the United States government.
The case began as a lawsuit against protestors who hold "antiabortion
demonstrations in which participants trespass on, and obstruct general access
to" abortion clinics by blocking the entrances and exits. Lawyers for abortion
clinics took the position that the protesters conspired to violate the civil
rights of women. There was no disagreement that the protestors had committed a
state crime by protesting on the private property of clinics. Upon appeal, the
question was whether the protestors also violated federal law by intentionally
denying women equal protection under the law and prevented them from
exercising their constitutional right to interstate travel.
In Roberts' brief, and in oral arguments he made in person before the Supreme
Court, the government argued that a particular part of U.S. law (Section
1985(3) of Title 42, which derived from the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871) applied
only to conspiracies to deprive people of civil rights due to racial
discrimination, not gender discrimination. They also argued that the
protestors did "not aim their anti-abortion activities exclusively at women"
but "at anyone, whether male or female, who assists or is involved in the
abortion process – doctors, nurses, counselors, boyfriends, husbands and
family members, staffs, and others." The court, in a 6-3 decision, ultimately
agreed with much of the government's argument, saying that "the characteristic
that formed the basis of the targeting" for protest "was not womanhood, but
the seeking of abortion," which is entirely voluntary. The court also found
that the protestors did not engage in a conspiracy to deprive women of their
civil rights.
To be sure, anti-abortion protestors saw the court's decision as a victory. It
made them subject only to state actions for simple trespassing on the clinic's
private property rather than for federal claims involving civil rights
violations, at least as long as the protests stayed non-violent and didn't
raise charges of assault or inciting to riot. But the ruling and the argument
that led to hardly excuses violence, as the NARAL ad falsely claims. Nowhere
in Roberts' court brief or oral arguments does he defend or excuse acts of
violence.
Guilt by Association
--------------------
The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association, linking Roberts with
"violent fringe groups" and a "convicted . . . bomber" because he made the
same legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary to the ad's
message, Roberts didn't argue in favor of them or their actions.
The "fringe group" in question is Operation Rescue, a zealously antiabortion
group that had a history of staging confrontational protests around the
country, and which the lawsuit was aimed at stopping. Originally led by
Randall Terry, Operation Rescue protesters would stand in front of local
abortion clinics, sometimes screaming "Mommy, mommy," waving crucifixes, and
pleading with pregnant women to turn away. They sometimes pressed against car
doors to keep pregnant women from getting out. Hundreds would go limp to make
it more difficult for police to clear them away. More than 40,000 people were
arrested in these demonstrations over four years.
Although these methods in some ways mirrored the non-violent tactics used
earlier by civil-rights activists, some saw Operation Rescue's actions as
relying on the threat of violence, at least. In his dissent, Justice Stevens,
describes the protests as instances where “the duly constituted authorities
are rendered ineffective, and mob violence prevails.” Justice O’Connor, in her
own dissent, spoke of "the threat of mob violence" raised by the blockaders.
The ad also links Roberts to a "convicted clinic bomber." That refers to
Michael Bray, one of those named in the lawsuit. (His wife's name came first
alphabetically, which is why the case is called Bray vs. Alexandria Women's
Health Clinic in the first place). Bray himself had been convicted years
earlier, in 1985, of conspiracy and possessing unregistered explosive devices
in connection to a series of 10 bombings at abortion clinics in Virginia,
Maryland, Delaware, and Washington D.C. He eventually served just under 4
years in prison. In 1993 he wrote a book titled A Time to Kill , which argues
that killing abortion providers is morally justified.
Whatever one thinks of Bray, Terry, or Operation Rescue, it is misleading to
say that Roberts supported them. He was not their attorney; the protestors had
their own attorney, Jay Alan Sekulow, for that. Roberts argued the
government's position.
NARAL would have every right to say that Roberts argued for a legal result
with which they disagreed. They could also say accurately that many persons,
including three Supreme Court justices, also disagreed and saw a threat of
"mob violence" going unchecked because of that position. But it is false to
suggest that Roberts supported the actions of "violent" groups or clinic
bombers because he argued that a law aimed at the Ku Klux Klan could not be
used against those who blockade abortion clinics.
Footnote: Soon after the Supreme Court ruled in the case, Congress passed a
new law specifically aimed at the blockaders. The 1994 Freedom of Access to
Clinics Entrances (FACE) act, signed by President Clinton, makes it a federal
crime to use force, "threat of force," or "physical obstruction" to injure,
intimidate, or interfere with anyone "obtaining or providing reproductive
health services." That act in part gave rise to state legislatures and court
systems creating so-called "buffer zones" that force protestors to stay a
certain distance away from health clinics, which the Supreme Court has allowed
to stand.
--by Matthew Barge
Sources
"Rudolph gets life for Birmingham clinic attack," CNN.com, 18 July 2005
Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 506 U.S. 263, 13
January 1993
Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae Supporting Petitioners, Bray v.
Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 11 April 1991
Oral Argument, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 16
October 1991
Oral Argument, Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health, U.S. Supreme Court, 06
October 1992
National Organization for Women v. Operation Rescue, U.S. Court of Appeals,
Fourth Circuit, 914 F.2d 582, 19 September 1990
Guy Taylor, "Court won't rule on clinic buffer zones," Washington Times, 19
April 2005
Michael Powell, "Randall Terry Fights Gay Unions. His Son No Longer Will,
Washington Post 22 April 2004: C1.
.
|
|
| User: "Society" |
|
| Title: Re: NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts |
10 Aug 2005 01:18:12 AM |
|
|
"Sgt. America" <123@2.2> wrote in message news:42F965E1.E107565D@2.2...
This is yet more evidence that fanaticism and
extremism on the abortion issue is very much
mainstream on the "pro-choice" side. The only
thing proven by NARAL here is that *they*
are the extremists to make such a ridiculous claim.
Yes, but are feminists and other cheerleaders
for abortion liars due to nature or nurture?
<giggle>
From article below:
'The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association,
linking Roberts with "violent fringe groups" and a
"convicted . . . bomber" because he made the same
legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary
to the ad's message, Roberts didn't argue in favor
of them or their actions.'
http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html
NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court
Nominee Roberts
Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic
bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts
called clinic bombers "criminals" who should be
prosecuted fully. [...]
Once again we see that pro-abortion means pro-lie.
--
All excuses for feminism depend on lies.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Shawn Hirn" |
|
| Title: Re: NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts |
10 Aug 2005 10:10:40 AM |
|
|
In article <11fj71micf1v65a@corp.supernews.com>,
"Society" <Society@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
"Sgt. America" <123@2.2> wrote in message news:42F965E1.E107565D@2.2...
This is yet more evidence that fanaticism and
extremism on the abortion issue is very much
mainstream on the "pro-choice" side. The only
thing proven by NARAL here is that *they*
are the extremists to make such a ridiculous claim.
Yes, but are feminists and other cheerleaders
for abortion liars due to nature or nurture?
<giggle>
From article below:
'The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association,
linking Roberts with "violent fringe groups" and a
"convicted . . . bomber" because he made the same
legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary
to the ad's message, Roberts didn't argue in favor
of them or their actions.'
http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html
NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court
Nominee Roberts
Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic
bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts
called clinic bombers "criminals" who should be
prosecuted fully. [...]
Once again we see that pro-abortion means pro-lie.
You're one to talk! Anti-abortion supporters, such as you wrote the book
on lying. That being said, it is amusing to sit back and watch the
arguments between people on the far right and the far left regarding
Roberts' Supreme Court nomination. I am a NARAL member, but I am not so
entrenched in the reproductive rights cause that I cannot see the game
that's being played here by groups on both sides of the issue.
Don't you see, this is all a game and you are one of the pawns. I refuse
to play this game. The power brokers in the reproductive rights groups
must recognize that Roberts' nomination may not bad, so they must be
putting on a dramatic show for the public.
Many anti-abortion supporters, such as you and the Senate Republicans
support Roberts' confirmation simply because he's a conservative who was
nominated by a conservative president. That strategy has backfired for
you people several times, yet you are too stupid to realize what's
happening now. You are also being stoked by well meaning individuals on
the left who also have not realized that they are pawns in this game
too. This is why I take amusement at watching this game unfold.
What is really happening is, reproductive rights groups such as NARAL
and Planned Parenthood are putting on a show to generate more support
for reproductive rights. Reproductive rights groups are attempting to
make Roberts look like he is against reproductive rights. They are doing
this because they know that past history suggests that Supreme Court
nominees who have an ambiguous record on civil rights tend to support
their side on abortion rights cases after they are appointed to the
Supreme Court. These pro rights organizations are using reverse
psychology on people like you. This is the only explanation I can thing
of for why the groups such as NARAL are all claiming to be bent out of
shape over Roberts' nomination.
If Roberts turns out to be like David Souter, he will be a major
supporter of abortion-rights. On the other hand, if Roberts turns out
like Scalia or Thomas, the abortion rights groups will have a rallying
cry in the future for when Rehnquist needs to be replaced. Roberts
claims to be a strict constitutionalist. If that's the case, (and it
seems to be) those who support abortion rights should feel a sigh of
relief. Despite what social conservatives such as you think, nothing in
the Constitution grants the federal government the authority to ban
abortion or even heavily regulate it. The best the people like you can
hope for is to push the abortion rights issue to the states. Why? Read
the Constitution and pay particular attention to the 9th and 10th
amendments. A strict interpretation of the Constitution is exactly what
you anti-abortion zealots should fear, but since you apparently have a
reading comprehension problem, you miss that crucial point.
Considering that 7 of the 9 Supreme Court justices were appointed by
Republican presidents, it is safe to stay that you Republicans have done
a lousy job of appointing Supreme Court justices who further your
conservative ideals. Speaking as a liberal, I can only say, "keep up the
good work!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Society" |
|
| Title: Re: NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts |
10 Aug 2005 09:55:51 PM |
|
|
"Shawn Hirn" <srhi@comcast.net> hissed in message
news:srhi-579689.11104010082005@news.giganews.com...
Society noted for the record...
"Sgt. America" <123@2.2> wrote...
This is yet more evidence that fanaticism and
extremism on the abortion issue is very much
mainstream on the "pro-choice" side. The only
thing proven by NARAL here is that *they*
are the extremists to make such a ridiculous claim.
Yes, but are feminists and other cheerleaders
for abortion liars due to nature or nurture?
<giggle>
From article below:
'The ad uses the classic tactic of guilt by association,
linking Roberts with "violent fringe groups" and a
"convicted . . . bomber" because he made the same
legal arguments as they did in the case. But, contrary
to the ad's message, Roberts didn't argue in favor
of them or their actions.'
http://www.factcheck.org/article340.html
NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court
Nominee Roberts
Attack ad says he supported an abortion-clinic
bomber and excused violence. In fact, Roberts
called clinic bombers "criminals" who should be
prosecuted fully. [...]
Once again we see that pro-abortion means pro-lie.
You're one to talk!
Yes, I am. I know a lot about the lies of the pro-abortion crowd.
Anti-abortion supporters, such as you wrote the book
on lying.
There you go again, projecting your own moral
handicaps upon others. Thank you for again
demonstrating just how pro-lie you abortion fanatics
are. Here we have a documented case of your
fellow abortion fanatics preaching lies and you have
nothing but you rant on anyway. Sheesh.
Once again we see that pro-abortion means pro-lie.
You're not a compleat failure in life, tho', little one.
After all, you did add more evidence to the great
swollen mounds of evidence that validate my sig:
--
All excuses for feminism and its blood ritual
of faith called abortion depend on lies.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig Chilton" |
|
| Title: Re: NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts |
09 Aug 2005 10:50:42 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:26:41 +1200,
Comic-book alias, "Sgt. America," wrote:
This is yet more evidence that fanaticism and extremism on
the abortion issue is very much mainstream on the "pro-choice"
side.
ROTFL!!!!!!!!!!!
Since abortion is nothing but a harmless, and hugely-beneficial
REMEDY that enables those who access it to REVERSE an unwanted
medical condition, and thus *restore* all of the well-being and full range
of future opportunities that had been available to them PRIOR to the
onset of the ill-timed condition... it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything having to
do with ensuring that NO girl or woman is denied access to it -- could
even remotely be regarded as "extremism."
In fact, there is no way that defending ANY *remedy* could ever
be regarded as extremism.
But seeking to DENY access to any remedy, to any person or
group of people, would most *assuredly* be extremism. In fact -- it
would be even worse than that. It would be the action of a socio-
pathic psychotic. An act of hateful and pointless insanity. TRULY
the act of a fanatic. Or a profoundly IGNORANT person. Or both.
Not to mention also that of a totally mindless busybody who doesn't
have enough common sense to know the difference between things
that are his/her business, and things which are absolutely NONE of
his/her business whatsoever. Such as the PERSONAL and PRIVATE
decisions and/or behavior of other people. And that is abject
STUPIDITY.
Thus, our fanatical Anti-Choicer also would have to be a halfwitted
ignoramus. (No surprise: ignorance and being an Anti-Choicer typically
GO together.)
Since Anti-Choicers are hateful losers who support a loathsome
agenda that seeks to impose IMMENSE hardship upon no fewer
than tens of MILLIONS of women by FORCING childbirth upon them.
AGAINST their will. Resulting in the DENIAL of their rights... their
RELEGATION to second-class-citizen status... their INVOLUNTARY
SERVITUDE to mere, NON-sentient, Stage 2, 3, and 4 reproductive-
process entities which are, in all important ways, equivalent to the
Stage 1 entities that you so *hypocritically* do NOT "defend"-- which
*also* are human, unique, alive, and comprise a stage of development
without which NO births would occur. UNwanted entities which the
WOMEN very sensibly, under their circumstances, often regard to be
parasitic. Further manifestations of that hardship would be the DIS-
RUPTION of their well-being, both short-term and long-term (as in, for
decades or a lifetime)... and the DESTRUCTION of countless of their
opportunities.
NO FACTS support being Anti-Choice. That's why all we ever hear
or see being spewed by them is hate-rhetoric, whines, ludicrous prop-
agenda, lies, and vacuous and emotional blather and silly word-games.
NEVER any relevant facts. Because no such facts even EXIST for
them to draw upon. Their debating arsenal's weaponry is no more
effective than the dust on its floor.
Anti-Choicers are totally without excuse.
Oh -- and lest anyone be moronic enough to think that PRO-Choice
humanitarians/egalitarians lack facts to support *their* stance -- the
outline in the SIG if **filled** with such relevant facts. NONE of which,
to the best of my knowledge, have EVER been disproven.
-- Craig Chilton
(To E-mail me, remove the "_".)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
ANALYZING ABORTION-ON-REQUEST* in the USA
*(Abortion Rights as they have existed since 1-22-73)
Abortion terminates entities (z/e/fs: zygotes, embryoes &
fetuses, up until the 7th month of gestation) which have ALL
of these characteristics in common with sperm and ova:
-- Human
-- Unique
-- As a stage of development, indispensable to future birth
-- Have NEVER experienced conscious awareness
-- Alive
...which makes it hypocritical when abortion opponents
try to defend z/e/fs but NOT sperm and ova.
And the Bible, which is the primary moral authority for the
majority of Americans:
-- In NO way condemns abortion
-- Doesn't even MENTION abortion
-- By Jesus' day, abortion had been around for 1,000 yrs.
-- Contains NO defenses of s/o/z/e/fs
-- Reserves ALL of its protection for already-BORN people
-- That the Bible regards personhood to begin at BIRTH is
made clear by it's immense emphasis on the importance
of BIRTH order, and BIRTHrights.
-- In certain cases, condemned BABIES to horrible deaths
-- Never indicates that there is anything "special" about
fertilization
-- Thus making z/e/f and sperm & ova of EQUAL worth
Abortion-on-request enables women to:
-- Put their lives back on track immediately
-- Restore their well-being to pre-unplanned pregnancy levels
-- Vast majority of women are happy with this decision
-- Most women have no regrets
-- Restore their full range of future opportunities
-- Avoid physical difficulties of a 9-month pregnancy
-- Especially important for young girls, ~12-16
-- Statistically 6-10 times safer than carrying-to-term
-- Avoid the trauma of adopting-out, and wondering later
-- Avoid possibility of changing mind about adopting-out
-- Reduce likelihood of long-term economic deprivation
-- Avoid bringing child into less-loving home
-- Avoid bringing child into unstable environment
-- Wait until timing is better before having children
-- Who then are MORE likely to be loved
-- Who then are MORE likely to be in stable home
-- And thus are LESS like to have troubled childhoods
-- And therefore more likely NOT to become criminals
-- And thus are MORE likely to become successful
Legal abortion-on-request:
-- Is exponentially safer than illegal abortions
-- Thus saving the lives of hundreds or thousands of women/yr.
-- Has been available throughout the USA since early 1973
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 30 million women have had them
-- Between 1973 and 2000, 40 million abortions have been done
Other related facts include:
-- MOST women who have abortions go on to HAVE kids later,
when the timing is better
-- Those children would NOT have been born if the abortions
had not taken place earlier, because the same sperm and
ova would not have matched up.
-- Those "2nd-round" kids STARTED reaching age 13 in
significant numbers by 1988. By the early 1990s, millions
of those "2nd-round" kids were in their mid-teens by the
early 1990s.
-- Mid-teens is the highest risk age for crime, and this
continues into the early 20s.
-- As pointed out above, wanted and loved children are
LESS prone to criminal behavior.
-- By 1995, millions of "2nd-round kids" were entering the
workforce. Perhaps a million-plus MORE have entered it
every year SINCE. By 2000, the oldest ones had reached
the age where they could be getting quite successful.
-- Since the early 1990s, the rate of violent crime in the USA
has declined dramatically, and by 2000 was at 40-year
lows in many categories.
-- The decade of the 1990s, and the 21st century to date,
in the USA, has been the most economically-dynamic
period of time for any nation in the entire history of the
world.
Although the exact figures may be impossible to derive, the
probability that abortion-on-request has SIGNIFICANTLY benefitted
all of America's society in terms of the crime rate and the economy
is QUITE strong, despite the temporary anomaly caused by the attack
on Sept. 11, 2001. And a strong U.S. economy benefits the entire
world.
-- Originally posted to alt.abortion
and talk.abortion on Aug. 13, 2000
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton <>
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts |
10 Aug 2005 05:13:51 PM |
|
|
Sgt. America wrote:
This is yet more evidence that fanaticism and extremism on the abortion
issue is very much mainstream
with droolers like "Sgt. America".
on the "pro-choice" side. The only thing proven by NARAL here is that
*they* are the extremists to make such a ridiculous claim.
Well, this is what Bush gets when he rushes to nominate a Supreme Court
candidate without fully vetting him. And that's why the White House is
dragging their heels about releasing documents about Robert's previous
work. They don't want any more nasty surprises.
John Roberts filed an amicus brief on behalf of a convicted clinic
bomber, namely Michael Bray. That is a fact, Sarge. Bray has
associated with the Lambs of Christ and Operation Rescue, both lunatic
fringe anti-choice groups. LoC and OR both *claim* to be non-violent,
and yet violence has followed in their wakes like a bad smell follows a
skunk.
Say what you will about guilt-by-association. In this day where "swift
boat" has become a verb, I don't think it's too far over the top to
link Robert with domestic terrorists.
Btw, John Roberts was one of the three judges who ruled that the phony
Guantanemo trials should go forward, even though the defendents' rights
to due process were being egregiously violated. This happened just
last month, and three government prosecutors resigned in protest rather
than take part in what amounts to Stalinist show trials. To me, this
is a far more compelling red flag as to what kind of Supreme Court
Justice John Roberts will be.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: NARAL Falsely Accuses Supreme Court Nominee Roberts |
10 Aug 2005 05:19:33 PM |
|
|
"spartakus@my-deja.com" <spartakus@my-deja.com> wrote in
news:1123712031.760910.101600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
Sgt. America wrote:
This is yet more evidence that fanaticism and extremism on the
abortion issue is very much mainstream
with droolers like "Sgt. America".
on the "pro-choice" side. The only thing proven by NARAL here is that
*they* are the extremists to make such a ridiculous claim.
Well, this is what Bush gets when he rushes to nominate a Supreme
Court candidate without fully vetting him. And that's why the White
House is dragging their heels about releasing documents about Robert's
previous work. They don't want any more nasty surprises.
John Roberts filed an amicus brief on behalf of a convicted clinic
bomber, namely Michael Bray. That is a fact, Sarge. Bray has
associated with the Lambs of Christ and Operation Rescue, both lunatic
fringe anti-choice groups. LoC and OR both *claim* to be non-violent,
and yet violence has followed in their wakes like a bad smell follows
a skunk.
Say what you will about guilt-by-association. In this day where
"swift boat" has become a verb, I don't think it's too far over the
top to link Robert with domestic terrorists.
Btw, John Roberts was one of the three judges who ruled that the phony
Guantanemo trials should go forward, even though the defendents'
rights to due process were being egregiously violated. This happened
just last month, and three government prosecutors resigned in protest
rather than take part in what amounts to Stalinist show trials. To
me, this is a far more compelling red flag as to what kind of Supreme
Court Justice John Roberts will be.
perhaps this is the kind of supreme court justice sarge and a few other
extremists want?
--
"What's so tough about the truth?" coward bobby heishman, the abortion
newsgroups most prolific liar posting as "Osprey," in
news:1123435349.198105.277950@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
