NEW ARGHHS! Levels 11-20

[TheGeneral]

NEW ARGHHS!: "World" Mag Alito Cover Puff-Piece; Lower-Courts-Must-Follow-Supreme Court Big Lie Continues To Spread; Alito's "Religion;" Coulter Cheers Bush; Sekulow Hits Brick Wall; Buchanan Cheers For Alito; And A Riddle About Conservatism

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=452

[Robb Klaty]

What about Howard Phillips endorsement of Alito? He is the one man whom I trust more than probably any other concerning these matters. Is he wrong too?

[Joe_Liberty]

I think he is wrong. See http://www.theamericanview.com/forums/showthread.php?t=323 for discussion of this issue.

[The Kangaroo]

Conservative opposition to Alito appears to be minimal, and liberal opposition is all but entirely limited to concern over how he "might" rule on abortion, so, it appears he's in.

[Areopagus]

NEW ARGHHS!: "World" Mag Alito Cover Puff-Piece; Lower-Courts-Must-Follow-Supreme Court Big Lie Continues To Spread; Alito's "Religion;" Coulter Cheers Bush; Sekulow Hits Brick Wall; Buchanan Cheers For Alito; And A Riddle About Conservatism

Link to full article:
http://www.theamericanview.com/index.php?id=452

It does mention the 2000 “Planned Parenthood v. Farmer” case where Alito voted to strike down a New Jersey ban on partial-birth abortion. Noting that Alito could have “safely indulged any bent toward ideological activism” if he had wanted to by voting to make this form of infanticide illegal (which, of course, it already is according to God’s Law), this story says that instead he declined to do so. Instead, “he wrote that since the U.S. Supreme Court had invalidated a similar Nebraska law because it lacked a health exception, the New Jersey law had to go.”


Was it Alito’s, A) “serious Catholic” faith; B) “outstanding credentials;” C) “careful analysis;” D) some other ‘conservative’ quality; or E) the Nietzschean triumph of will over conscience that caused him to ignore the following:

April 1998

Why the argument for partial-birth abortions is wrong:
The Physicians' Ad-Hoc Coalition for Truth (over 600 doctors, most ob-gyns and fetal/maternal experts), along with former Surgeon General Koop have publicly verified that there are no medical conditions, either maternal or fetal, that necessitate the use of partial-birth abortion to remove the baby, or to preserve the mother's health or future fertility. The American Medical Association decided to support a ban on partial-birth abortion, after a careful study faied to find "any identified circumstance" in which it is needed. Even the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG), a pro-abortion organization, has issued this statement: " A select panel convened by ACOG could identify no circumstances under which this procedure would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." http://www.usccb.org/prolife/issues/abortion/fact198.htm

I vote for E. He was just a “regular guy” doing his job; following illegal orders just like the Nazis.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal indicted and convicted ten Nazi leaders for "encouraging and compelling abortions," an act which the Tribunal characterized as "a crime against humanity." As with their other crimes against humanity, the Nazis protested that "we were just following orders." Lieutenant General Richard Hildebrandt, the SS (Schutzstaffel) Chief of the RKFVD's Race and Settlement Office in Berlin, stated that "Up to now nobody had the idea to see in this interruption of pregnancy a crime against humanity." - Nuremberg Military Tribunals,IV:1081-84. Nuremberg: NO-3512.

A solution for the incurable federal court is the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.776.IH: