Protecting A Woman's Right To Choose . . . To Choose What? A Warning About Hospice.

"In a political threat to possibly derail an appointment of pro-life Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Chief Justice position, leading pro-abortion Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said such a nomination would likely be filibustered."

[10:54 AM 16-Nov-04 | Ryan B. Zempel | Comment] 

from Townhall.com

         In spite of all of the rhetoric of state and national pro-abortion groups during the elections, polling reported in this morning’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel demonstrates once again that candidates who oppose abortion benefit by far greater margins than candidates who support abortion.

           “Even though pro-abortion organizations make a lot of noise at election time, they cannot credibly claim they deliver an increment of votes to candidates that is even remotely close to the right to life voting increment” said Susan Armacost, Legislative/PAC Director of Wisconsin Right to Life.

           In citing exit polling conducted by CNN and Edison Media Research/MitofskyInternational, the Journal Sentinel reported that a candidate’s stand on “moral issues” mattered the most to 21% of Wisconsin voters and 22% of voters nationwide.  “Moral issues” were rated higher than the economy, jobs and terrorism.  Eighty-two percent of those voters for whom “moral issues” were the most important voted for President Bush while only 16% of those voters voted for John Kerry.  Nationwide, those numbers were 79% and 18% respectively.

           “A candidate’s stand on abortion was one of the key moral issues upon which those voters made their decision” said Armacost.  “We have had access to polling for years that has consistently shown that the right to life voting increment is huge and this latest polling is yet another affirmation of what we have always known.  Voters for whom abortion is a top issue have always voted for pro-life candidates in far greater numbers than they have for pro-abortion candidates.”

              Wisconsin Right to Life is widely recognized as one of the most effective right to life political organizations in the nation.  During the past election cycle, the organization carried out extensive statewide activities on behalf of federal and state candidates.  In addition, they carried out a number of other activities to bring their one-half million members and supporters to the polls on election day to vote for Wisconsin Right to Life PAC-endorsed candidates.

"There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too."  Ann Coulter


"Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. Any incorrect ruling will do, but my vote is for a state court that has ordered a disabled woman to be starved to death at the request of her adulterous husband."  Ann Coulter

"The judiciary is out of control," Pat Robertson

“There is nothing in the law, the Constitution or the concept of "federalism" that mandates giving courts the last word. Other public officials, including governors and presidents, are sworn to uphold the law, too.”  Ann Coulter

”Just once, we need an elected official to stand up to a clearly incorrect ruling by a court. “ Ann Coulter

“As never before, the new media are able to focus on instances of judicial misconduct, absurdity, and personal misbehavior among judges. Bill O’Reilly of Fox News Channel has become the number one program on cable news with his regular criticism, by name, of judges who hand down outrageous decisions. Some have even left the bench after his unwelcome attention.”  Thomas Lifson

To the far left, an Extremist Judge is a judge who will not go around the law who will not illegally re-write the constitution and the laws to make them follow left-wing dogma. The leftists (a term that means socialist and supporter of all that is anti-God) want to change the world very quickly and are not patient enough to let the world destroy itself slowly. They want to hasten the process of destruction by controlling the courts--along with the media, the news, and the schools. This way, their newly appointed judges act as dictators with absolute power to destroy.

There is a constitutional process for rewriting the Constitution.  Judicial activism changes the Constitution without going through this process.  http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewFlash.asp?Page=%5CThisHour%5CArchive%5CNTH20050315a.html

Judicial activism rewrites the constitution without going through the process prescribed in law. Judicial activism is lawlessness committed by judges. Judicial activism allows any judge to add to or take away from the words in the constitution based on a judge’s personal whim. These whims almost always lean left, liberal, socialist, anti-God, and anti-Christ. The liberal view is very strange in that the liberal view sees the reading the law or the constitution exactly as it was written as being judicial activism. The liberal view claims that unless a judge is willing to commit liberal judicial activism, that judge is an activist judge. Most of this activisim is exercized regarding a woman's so-called "right" to kill her child, but it also extends into such areas as providing special rights to people who are willing to commit certain types of sins. Convoluted thinking such as this is typical of the liberal mindset.

(LifeNews.com) "In a political threat to possibly derail an appointment of pro-life Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to the Chief Justice position, leading pro-abortion Senator Charles Schumer, a New York Democrat, said such a nomination would likely be filibustered."  http://www.lifenews.com/nat961.html

By the way, in the third debate, Sen. Kerry made it very clear that he supports judicial activism as a good way for liberals to rewrite the Constitution without going through the legal process that is supposed to be required before the Constitution could be changed. And he gave a brief demonstration of the process by which the Constitution or any document including the Bible can be changed by a liberal mind. He said that he believes that the Constitution guarantees a woman's right to choose to kill her baby, although he uses euphemisms to make it sound better to his listeners. Well, you can see the kind of mental gymnastics and rationalized speculation and rationalized fabrication that is required to come to Sen. Kerry’s belief.

http://www.aclj.org/ACLJToday.aspx?Section=7

"Since conservatives abhor judicial activism, it is no accident that most "originalist" judges are conservatives -- though they don't believe in "legislating" their ideology from the bench.  liberals like Kerry don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction. They believe that justices like Thomas and Scalia, by wanting to restore the Constitution to its originally intended meaning, are engaging in judicial activism merely when they vote to roll back judicial legislation proceeding from liberal activist judges." David Limbaugh http://www.davidlimbaugh.com/101204.htm

"What secret knowledge, one must wonder, is breathed into lawyers when they become justices of this Court, that enables them to discern that a practice which the text of the Constitution does not clearly proscribe, and which our people have regarded as constitutional for 200 years is in fact unconstitutional?" Justice Antonin Scalia

"[The Supreme Court] is busy designing a Constitution for a country I do not recognize." Justice Antonin Scalia

"The United States Constitution did not create judicial supremacy or consign us to be ruled by a judicial oligarchy; On the contrary, the Constitution separated the vast powers of the federal government into three branches--legislative, executive, and judicial--with an ingenious system of checks and balances so that each branch can serve as a continuing check on the others." Phyllis Schlafly

" . . . though the founders did not create judicial supremacy, this nation has experienced a usurpation of power by judges that may well undermine the integrity of our national government." Albert Mohler

"They [the justices] put themselves above the law and above God." Judge Roy Moore

"If you secularized it enough, if you reduced it to history enough to deny the sovereignty of God, it's OK," Moore

"Nothing in the Constitution confers on the federal courts the final authority to decide how other entities of government may acknowledge God." Phyllis Schlafly

"The Constitution invests no legislative authority in the judiciary--none at all. Nevertheless, activist judges have usurped a legislative power even if they are denied a legislative authority." Albert Mohler citing Phyllis Schlafly

"The judicial supremacists refuse to be bound by the words of the United States Constitution or the intent of its Framers. Instead, they espouse the theory that the Constitution is a 'living document' which can change according to judicially directed 'evolution'." Phyllis Schlafly

A series of activist judges, including several seated on the United States Supreme Court, have pressed this agenda of judicial supremacy. Albert Mohler

As Mrs. Schlafly explains, when the late Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan argued in 1982 for "the evolution of constitutional doctrine" and for the law to "transcend the printed page," he was setting the philosophical framework for judicial supremacy. Similarly, when the late Justice William O. Douglas referred to the Due Process Clause in the Constitution as "the wildcard to be put to such use as the judges choose," he was asserting the spirit and the substance of judicial supremacy in action. Albert Mohler

Since conservatives abhor judicial activism, it is no accident that most "originalist" judges are conservatives -- though they don't believe in "legislating" their ideology from the bench.

Liberals like Kerry don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction. They believe that justices like Thomas and Scalia, by wanting to restore the Constitution to its originally intended meaning, are engaging in judicial activism merely when they vote to roll back judicial legislation proceeding from liberal activist judges. David Limbaugh

What happened? Phyllis Schlafly suggests that nothing less than a revolution has taken place, driven by activist judges. She cites Judge Robert H. Bork who argues that the courts are now dominated by "faux intellectuals of the Left" who practice "politics masquerading as law." As Mrs. Schlafly explains, "Americans believe that revolutionaries usually come dressed in military garb, but Judge Bork details how America has suffered a coup d'etat by men and women in black robes who have changed the rule of law to the rule of judges." Albert Mohler

"All over the nation, special interest advocacy groups are forum-shopping to find judges willing to bypass the Constitution and write their own social and sexual preferences into the law," Phyllis Schlafly

"It's hard to find a more outrageous example of activist judges asserting judicial supremacy that the 4 to 3 decision in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health by the Massachusetts supreme Court mandating same-sex marriage licenses. The Massachusetts state constitution was written by John Adams and adopted in 1780, and any notion that it was intended to include same-sex marriage is absurd." Phyllis Schlafly

But liberals have recently taken to pretending judicial activism is — as The New York Times has said repeatedly — voting "to invalidate laws passed by Congress." Invalidating laws has absolutely nothing to do with "judicial activism." It depends on whether the law is unconstitutional or not. That's really the key point. 

Ann Coulter

Editor's note:  This same type of word re-definition is used by liberals all the time to support evolutionism, globalwarmingism, abortionism, and other liberalistic philosophies.  It is one more form of re-constructionism.  The word re-definition skill goes right into the liberal tool chest with re-constructed history, re-constructed science, re-constructed Bible and theology, and re-constructed news.