Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 1/15/2006 6:59:14 PM EDT
ex-klan-dems are not considered ethical human beings are they?

What planet are Democrats from?
As if attacking Alito weren't enough, they also lied about Roe vs. Wade
January 15, 2006
Mark Davis
DallasNews.com
www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/points/stories/DN-davis_15edi.ART.State.Edition1.3ea33af.html
So, this is how far we have come.

In 2006, a good man like Samuel Alito can be lectured on human behavior by the likes of Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Mr. Kennedy and his colleagues can gang up on a man who seems to have made almost no enemies and paint him as some pernicious closet misogynist bigot.

Meanwhile, their fellow Democrat senator who was an admitted member of the Ku Klux Klan is toasted as a pillar of virtue.

Robert Byrd can hang with lynch mobs in West Virginia in his past and get a free pass; but Sam Alito doesn't get a break for even the most tangential brush with the Concerned Alumni of Princeton, some of whose members might not have been the most enlightened souls in the Ivy League.

I expected this kind of character assassination in the juvenile exercise that these hearings have become. Martha Alito, his wife, apparently did not, brought to tears Wednesday by what has become pathetically routine: the perverse abandonment of basic decency in order to score cheap political shots in an election year.

As despicable as Mr. Kennedy's behavior has been – and this is without even addressing his questionless Bush-bashing diatribes that have wasted the time of the committee, the nominee and the public – his is not the most discouraging sin of these hearings.

That falls to Sen. Dick Durbin of Illinois for a comment he probably let fly without a second thought late Wednesday afternoon.

Mr. Durbin was dwelling on the famous 1985 job application in which Judge Alito expressed pride in his view that the Constitution contains no right to abortion.

The judge was right then, and, if he has remained steadfast in this belief, he is right today.

But the fraud of Roe vs. Wade is so tightly woven through our society that those words have grown more controversial as the concrete of that horrible decision has dried.

The sad fact is that because of Democrat dishonesty on the issue and the complete failure of Republicans to call them on it, a majority of Americans probably do not have the slightest clue what would happen should Roe vs. Wade be punted.

And, apparently, some U.S. senators with law degrees do not know, either.

Mr. Durbin's quote to Judge Alito: "I'm concerned that many people will leave this hearing with a question as to whether or not you could be the deciding vote that would eliminate the legality of abortion, that would make it illegal in this country."

This is a moment of such profound deviousness or ignorance that the mind staggers.

Either the senator does not know how our system works (despite his Georgetown law school diploma), or he sought to foist an intentional scare on an underinformed America.

The moment Roe is reversed, every state gets to make its own abortion laws.

That's it. No federal ban on abortion. No back alleys. No coat hangers.

This is not like a light switch. Roe made abortion legal across the land, but the absence of Roe does not bring a coast-to-coast ban. It would simply fall to the 50 state legislatures to fashion their own laws, and that is where those favoring and opposing abortion rights would properly have it out to determine how easy or difficult it should be to terminate a life inside the womb from Massachusetts to Texas, from New York to Alabama.

Most states probably would keep the status quo of abortion guidelines that have become familiar in the 32 years of the Roe era. Some would curtail abortion availability, but still others might liberalize it even further.

If more people grasped this, we could probably have a reasoned debate about Roe, and more people could bring themselves to see that the abortion emperor has never had any clothes.

It was a sham for the Supreme Court to concoct a universal abortion right in the Constitution in 1973. Intentionally misrepresenting the effects of Roe's reversal is unforgivable.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:16:04 PM EDT
tag
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:18:47 PM EDT

Robert Byrd can hang with lynch mobs in West Virginia in his past and get a free pass

Get it? HANG with lych mobs? He made a pun
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:33:16 PM EDT
Why will a nominee never fire back at the panel? I mean, come on, with the dirtbag demonrats that are on the committees it would be easy to knock one out of the park.


Sen Kennedy: " Are you telling me that you would rule to overturn the NFA, you would put those killing machines back on the street?"

Nominee Alito: " Senator the last time I checked the death toll from lawfully owned machine guns was the same as your car."

Sen Kennedy: " No further questions."


I would laugh.



96Ag
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:35:05 PM EDT
Because if they are Republicans the media will put it on every front page of every paper in the Country
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 7:42:39 PM EDT

Originally Posted By 96Ag:
Why will a nominee never fire back at the panel? I mean, come on, with the dirtbag demonrats that are on the committees it would be easy to knock one out of the park.


Sen Kennedy: " Are you telling me that you would rule to overturn the NFA, you would put those killing machines back on the street?"

Nominee Alito: " Senator the last time I checked the death toll from lawfully owned machine guns was the same as your car."

Sen Kennedy: " No further questions."
I would laugh.
96Ag



I suspect that there is just enough bipartisan pomposity about the "dignity" of the Senate to defeat a nominee who bit back.
Link Posted: 1/15/2006 8:35:09 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FLAL1A:
I suspect that there is just enough bipartisan pomposity about the "dignity" of the Senate to defeat a nominee who bit back.



Sadly, I think you hit the nail right on the head.
Top Top