Senator Obama's selection of Senator Joe Biden of
Here's the contrast: Senators Biden and Obama both voted against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court of the
Justice Alito was confirmed by a 58-42 margin in the United States Senate. In commenting on why he voted "no" to Judge Alito, Sen. Biden said: "I think Judge Alito should not be on the court. He's a decent man with wrong ideas." Never once does Sen. Biden acknowledge the tremendous academic record of Justice Alito, who attended
Sam Alito served in the Justice Department as well as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. He's considered one of the best legal minds in the country. Yet when he came before the Judiciary Committee, Sen. Biden said, "When I look at all the evidence before us, Judge Alito's writings, his statements, his judicial records and his opinions, and the little we learned about him in these hearings, I am forced to conclude that he should not serve in the Supreme Court. I will vote no." Sen. Biden's leadership in trying to derail the nomination of Sam Alito should cause pause for those conservatives who are considering the idea of supporting the Obama-Biden ticket. Despite Sen. Obama's well-intentioned plans to reach out to evangelicals, the "no" votes on the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito will serve as a warning sign. It must be remembered that both Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden voted against both Roberts and Alito.
Concerning John Roberts, Senator Biden, who serves on the Judiciary Committee, said, "I have serious doubts that Judge Roberts will fall into the category of the justices from Chief Justice Marshall to Souter, Kennedy, Ginsburg, O'Connor, who look at the Constitution, quoting Marshall, as a Constitution intended to endure for the ages to come, and consequently to be adapted to the various crises of human affairs. That's an expanding document." Sen. Biden went on to note that he had "closely reviewed Judge Roberts' past writings as a political appointee and a government lawyer, his personal statements and commentaries during his tenure in private practice and his testimony before this committee." After considering all of this, Sen. Biden voted "no" as did Democratic Presidential Nominee Barack Obama.
John Roberts is one of the preeminent constitutional scholars and advocates in
Although there has not been much discussion on the issue of judicial nominees so far in the political campaigns--other than the excellent question to Barak Obama and John McCain posed by Rick Warren at the Saddleback Forum - the issue is now sure to be front and center. Senators Obama and Biden voted against Roberts and Alito; Senator McCain voted for them.
As previously mentioned, despite Sen. Obama's attempt to reach out to the conservative, evangelical and pro-life Catholic base of the Republican Party, the Supreme Court nominee history will thwart that effort. Young evangelicals are just as committed to the issue of life as their parents' generation. Young people of faith understand the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional Republic. These same young people will look at the evidence and realize that Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden voted against two of the best-qualified Supreme Court nominees we've had in our lifetime.
Barry, you should be thrilled with the prospect of a change in the direction of the Supreme Court. I certainly would not be.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I have to laugh when reference is made to slavery, especially by Christians. In the time that slavery was practiced it was an accepted and LEGAL practice that was endorsed by the U.S. Government *at the time* and determined to be a true and correct form of treatment of African Americans. It was God himself that the governing powers determined was in favor of this practice. If *back then* it was believed that God was a loving God who wanted equal treatment of all humans regardless of color, origin, race, and all individuals that bear similarity to Him are equal, as we *now* recognize correctly, slavery NEVER would have been practiced. Only out of greed, corruption, misinformation and a false necessity with total disregard for reason or logic was it embraced. And if it wasn't in the name of God that people accepted it, then in the name of who was it?
Although now we know the TRUTH, this exact same type of greed, corruption and misinformation is running rampant in our society today. With the turning back the clock on already established statutes, we are potentially in a situation where abortion could be universally illegal, embraced by a government that doesn't care that denying choice to it's citizens has the greatest impact on minorities and the poor. In addition to this it wants to have controlling powers over who can marry who, what social benefits homosexual couples can receive and an abhorrent invasion into the general public's privacy and personal security.
So I must applaud the person who took the bait with the choice of name I used for posting. Clearly showing that you allow your on the surface perception of me cloud your judgment. To quote the great author, Shakespeare "what's in a name? a rose by any other name would smell as sweet." How true then such a name as farcy would raise suspicion about my credibility without reading into the substance of my words.
My tongue-in-cheek 'play on words' with your posting name (Farcy) refers to my disagreement with this statement of yours:
"But your emotions degrade the quality of your argument to the point that it loses any credibility or indication that reason is being used."
It was Not meant to 'suspect your credibility'...but to address the LACK of substance I found in those words. It refers to my opinion that the whole statement was so ridiculous as to border on the comic. While we shouldn't let our emotions rule over our ability to think things through...having strong feelings on a subject does not mean that a person has not thought the situation through completely...does not mean the person is not right. Hence my example of Jesus' emotional response to wrong-doing He encountered.
When you talk of Roe v. Wade establishing a legal statute, that's where many problems come from. It is NOT within the Constitutional jurisdiction of the court system (including the Supreme Court) to be changing laws by the decisions handed down. It is the Legislative Branch's duty to make laws by the prescribed steps...it is the Judicial Branch's duty to uphold the laws already in place. This has been a mess for so long that many people don't even stop to think about what is actually happening here.
I'm a bit confused with your first paragraph - where you talk about slavery and Christianity... Basically - doesn't what you said, just prove what I said above? Slavery was once accepted in America...it was wrong to do so...it was right to go back & abolish something once thought as acceptable that in truth was not acceptable. This should be seen as an example of how wrong it can be to be 'politically correct' and in tune with the world system. Slavery was actually done in the name of Economic expediency more so than in the name of God, but even if some claimed He was in favor of it...they did so out of an ignorance of the true nature of God. Many things have been done in the 'name' of God (and Allah) that are wrong... the Crusades... (Jihad terrorism...) etc.... Today, America is doing the same thing as was done during slavery... we have allowed society's political correctness and economics, etc... to determine what will be acceptable in our nation -- instead of listening to the dictates of God & truth.
To Ann L,
But emotions based on a belief system that certain things are wrong (when they actually may not be), can seem like a viable substitute to reason, and for that matter reality as a whole. However it should not be a substitute.
For example;
Same sex couples, getting married and having sex and saying oh it's "wrong" because it's "disgusting," "immoral" and not "normal." Because the "Bible says so" that's what I know my God tells me so, because "it is so," and so fourth. In other words a complete lack of a logical "why?" based on sound judgment not predisposed biases.
Your reasoning why abortion is murder therefore it should be done away with, is flawed because of comparing it with murder in the first place. Murder is a specific term, referring to killing another as an act of revenge or insanity. And using that term to describe abortion indicates an emotional response without substance.
To you the word of God may be truth but I am a skeptic and require observations and evidence.
Getting back to my slavery point, the meaning behind it I intended was that if slavery was legal in the past, although wrong, the governing forces still determined it was economically necessary as you pointed out. To justify it's correctness there NEEDED to be a religion factor, to reassure to the masses that this was God's way and He intended it to be this way. In order to criminalize slavery it wasn't the redefining of God's way that made that possible, it was questioning what people took God's truth to be which was in stark contrast to another truth: found by using reason and scientific fact that subjects used as slaves were NOT lesser beings.
I compare this with what's going on today how religious leaders say they speak the truth when they say homosexuality is wrong, or God's people would never allow the taking of an unborn child. They play on peoples emotions to agree with them and let themselves be controlled. I strongly honor those who question that and don't succumb to such influence and will accept logic and observations that perhaps there is an alternative that is true and real.
There are real families out in the world that are grateful they are allowed to choose whether a child is right for them to raise, or that a person that they met can be their lifelong partner in the future. It is a serious choice that people make and maybe occasionally fleetingly but the choice is theirs.
Ann L: "As for Obama...he's the most liberal senator (based on his voting record) and can't even legitimately prove that he's a natural born citizen."
That's not true. Those who don't want him elected have happily created and spread numerous falsehoods. Repeating the media's obviously questionable claims, which have now been disproved, as true does take away from your credibility.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html
The Constitution indeed should not be changed by the votes of the Supreme Court Justices, but only by the people of the United States. Obama and Biden's judicial philosophy towards picking Supreme Court Justices does not recognize the authority of the Constitution as an essential framework for government but rather approves picking Justices that will "legislate from the bench", who decide law not based on Constitutional directives but upon their own particular political position. This is certainly not what our forefathers intended.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.