Johnny wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:180420052005301426%dbarnes@aol.com...
In a speech earlier this month at Goucher College, O'Connor herself
said she was surprised at all the violent threats she received. "I
don't think the harsh rhetoric helps," she told the crowd. "I think
it
energizes people who are a little off base to take actions that
maybe
they wouldn't otherwise take."
"Actions that maybe they wouldn't otherwise take?"
She couldn't possibly be talking about pulling someone's feeding tube
or
abortions
No. She talking about assassination attempts, kidnappings, and death
threats from people like you.
though since those she wants to paint as EXTREME are not for
killing people on a DEMAND basis.
Nor is anyone else (with rare exceptions). And the people that she
paints are "extreme" are extremists. That is why she paints them as
such. People like you that want to destroy America and the freedom and
liberty that we enjoy, and instead want to impose on us a totalitarian
and/or theocratic government.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/050417/nysu014.html?.v=3D6
O=B9Connor went on, criticizing the conservative Christians, who she
apparently thinks are not "thoughtful citizens" - but rather part
of
the "extreme" in America:
Not pulling feeding tubes and not being for abortion on DEMAND are
EXTREME?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!
No, but thinking that you can force others to do as you demand is.
Forcing women to continue their unwanted pregnancies against their
wills is extremist. Ignoring the law and forcing people to suffer
because you do not like their decisions that is their right and duty to
make is extremist. People like you are extremists.
http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/education/bal-md.oconnor08apr08,1,44935
06.story?coll=3Dbal-education-top&ctrack=3D1&cset=3Dtrue>
Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said harsh political
rhetoric
could spur violence against the nation's judges, offering a veiled
response last night to some national figures who in the past week
have
blasted the courts for failing to intervene in the case of a
severely
brain-damaged Florida woman.
Speaking before a crowded auditorium at Goucher College in Towson,
O'Connor said she never anticipated her work as a judge would be
accompanied by violent threats and said "thoughtful citizens"
should
demand an end to fiery extremism on either end of the political
spectrum....
Political leaders, most prominently House Majority Leader Tom
DeLay,
said the nation's courts would have to answer for Schiavo's death.
O'Connor said tensions have historically existed between Congress
and
the courts, but she added: "It isn't any more pleasant today. ...
And I
hope that we will see an end to this, but it won't happen right
away,
and it will take the work of thoughtful citizens who say, 'We don't
want to have this from either extreme, so let's move on.'"
The only way to move on is to set the record straight
That is what we want to do, but extremists like you also believe is
historical revisionism and ignoring the facts.
and to STOP acting as
if people who are against killing other living humans in utero or
extra
utero are somehow EXTREME.
When they try to force others to suffer for their beliefs, then that
starts moving into extremism.
Why did O'Connor go with the religion card?
Because that is where most of the extremists are right now.
We all know it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of religion,
another
requirement of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Actually, that one is based on the First Amendment. The Civil Rights
Act of 1964 is far more limited, only dealing with employment, voting,
education, and public accommodation.
And religious extremists want to discriminate, and force everyone to
follow what their own religion dictates while ignoring the dictates of
the religion of the people that they are trying to suppress.
Why would a Supreme Court justice want to discriminate against
citizens on
the basis of their religion?
She doesn't. She is trying to prevent that discrimination.
On the other hand, I would not be surprised if Scalia and Thomas were
inclined to decide cases purely on the basis of their religious
beliefs, since they have evidently done so in the past. They certainly
do not respect the diversity of other religions.
Doesn't she know the law of the USA?
Far better than you do.
Mark Sebree
.
