In a July 7 New York Times Magazine article ("The Place of Women on the Court"; HT to an e-mailer) apparently scheduled to appear in its July 12 print edition (based on its URL), Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg told the Times's Emily Bazelon that "at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don't want to have too many of."
Who is this "we" Ginsburg refers to?
Alleged reporter Bazelon did not follow up on this astounding admission.
Here, in full context of the Q&A discussion about women's reproductive rights, is Justice Ginsburg's statement:
Q: If you were a lawyer again, what would you want to accomplish as a future feminist legal agenda?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Reproductive choice has to be straightened out. There will never be a woman of means without choice anymore. That just seems to me so obvious. The states that had changed their abortion laws before Roe [to make abortion legal] are not going to change back. So we have a policy that affects only poor women, and it can never be otherwise, and I don’t know why this hasn’t been said more often.
Q: Are you talking about the distances women have to travel because in parts of the country, abortion is essentially unavailable, because there are so few doctors and clinics that do the procedure? And also, the lack of Medicaid for abortions for poor women?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: Yes, the ruling about that surprised me. [Harris v. McRae — in 1980 the court upheld the Hyde Amendment, which forbids the use of Medicaid for abortions.] Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion. Which some people felt would risk coercing women into having abortions when they didn’t really want them. But when the court decided McRae, the case came out the other way. And then I realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong.
Q: When you say that reproductive rights need to be straightened out, what do you mean?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no business making that choice for a woman.
Q: Does that mean getting rid of the test the court imposed, in which it allows states to impose restrictions on abortion — like a waiting period — that are not deemed an “undue burden” to a woman’s reproductive freedom?
JUSTICE GINSBURG: I’m not a big fan of these tests. I think the court uses them as a label that accommodates the result it wants to reach. It will be, it should be, that this is a woman’s decision. It’s entirely appropriate to say it has to be an informed decision, but that doesn’t mean you can keep a woman overnight who has traveled a great distance to get to the clinic, so that she has to go to some motel and think it over for 24 hours or 48 hours.
I still think, although I was much too optimistic in the early days, that the possibility of stopping a pregnancy very early is significant. The morning-after pill will become more accessible and easier to take. So I think the side that wants to take the choice away from women and give it to the state, they’re fighting a losing battle. Time is on the side of change.
It's pretty hard not to see Ginsburg's early perception of Roe as legalizing a convenient means for minimizing the number of poor, who "just happen" to be disproportionately non-white. Also recall that at the time, Medicaid was a program predominantly benefitting only the poor, and not the near middle-class entitlement into which more recent Congresses have morphed it.
Given Ginsburg's stated "at the time" position, there's little doubt that she would have declared the Hyde Amendment, which "barred the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortions except where the life of the mother would be endangered or in cases of rape or incest," unconstitutional. In the related case, Harris v. McRae, the Court upheld the Hyde Amendment by a 5-4 vote.
In its November 30, 2007 Henry Hyde obituary, the Washington Post quoted Dr. Wanda Franz, president of the National Right to Life Committee, who asserted that, "By conservative estimate, well over one million Americans are alive today because of the Hyde Amendment -- more likely two million."
So 1-2 million babies have been born into financially poor circumstances in the three-plus decades years since the Hyde Amendment became law. This apparently doesn't please Justice Ginsburg, or perhaps didn't please her at the time.
Ginsburg gets the wiggle room, in my opinion, because she told Bazelon that she "realized that my perception of it had been altogether wrong." The problem is that we can't tell what "it" is. Is it Roe v. Wade, the Hyde Amendment, or the facts and circumstances of the specific case?
Thanks to the remarkably incurious Bazelon, we don't know. What we do know is that at least for some time during her legal career, in her early 40s, Ginsburg, as a member of the unidentified "we" referred to earlier, thought that abortion as a means of controlling the population of relative undesirables was okey-dokey.
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
—Tom Blumer is president of a training and development company in Mason, Ohio, and is a contributing editor to NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Back to the future
July 9, 2009 - 12:13 ET by DontFeedTheTrollsAt some point in the future, people will look at us as a civilization and think 'What tremendous barbarians they were!'.
D
Write Congress and Senate and tell them what YOU think!
Keep the ILLEGALS out, join NumbersUSA to send free faxes to your reps.
Or, as Tom Sawyer would
July 9, 2009 - 13:30 ET by mattmOr, as Tom Sawyer would say, what a pack of flatheads!
How were we so idiotic as to let these depraved bottom-dwellers into positions of power?
Could you really blame God if he just obliterated everything?
and they call us racist
July 10, 2009 - 07:27 ET by AJBBarbarians indeed. I always find it interesting that the party of love and tolerance is the ones who's main plank in their platform is to eliminate inner city babies. Now we know they think they're undesirable and we certainly don't want 'too many of them'. Fully 80% of Planned Parenthood clinics are in the inner city. Black women have three times the number of abortions as other groups combined. Its ALL being funded by the liberal democrats in congress.
It used to be we could telol the racists by their white hoods and robes. They have shed those for suits and ties and have taken over the halls of justice and legislature.
Most Disgusting Aspects
July 10, 2009 - 09:30 ET by Wildcatter1980That people will not admit that abortion is the taking of a human life and that people will not admit that a fetus should have rights and protections, too.
Once conceived, the fertilized embryo is growing. It does not matter if it is one cell or more, it is growing. In this day and in this country, he or she has a very good chance of living into their 70's.
Abortion advocates who refuse to answer the simple question "Do late-term fetus' have rights and protections?" says more about the abortion advocates knowing and not wanting to admit that abortion is the taking of human life probably out of guilt over that very fact.
--
We already have term limits. They are called elections. We can & should vote out those who do not represent & serve us! - Me
The good justice revealed
July 9, 2009 - 12:24 ET by east tennessee john"populations that we don't want to many of." It's amazing what the so-called progressive elitists will admit to, yet get to slide by with. Why that's almost as inflamatory as saying we, as a nation would have beemn better off if Strom Thurmond was elected President in 1948, isn't it?
Dead Limbs on the Tree
July 9, 2009 - 12:27 ET by allanfLiberal policy seem guaranteed to ensure that liberals don't reproduce. Left wing women's groups seem to actually celebrate abortion. It is not as a sad but necessary evil, but something to revel in. The same holds true of gay marriage. Again something not to be tolerated but celebrated.
None of these policies lead to the production of more liberals.
Indeed, and our side are called the racists.
July 9, 2009 - 12:32 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltIt certainly wasn't the anti-abortion forces that would want abortion rights being expanded.
Bizzaro-world.
The Democrats ARE The Party of Eugenics, After All.
July 9, 2009 - 14:53 ET by farstar99The Democrats are the party of slavery.
The party that opposed emancipation.
The party that opposed voting rights.
The party that opposed civil rights.
Yet the party leadership has never had the brains to press this home.
What are they waiting for?
For the press to start loving them?
Selective Reduction
July 9, 2009 - 14:02 ET by Pilgrim1949Ahhh, yes.....
Surely this would not fall under the classification of condesending or hat---um, uh, er---"mild distaste" speech directed at certain classes of "them" that "we" might wish to keep in their numeric place, would it?
No, of course not. Nothing to see here. Move on....(.org?)....now (NOW?)...
Cultural Effete Lib business as usual (with no small sense of irony regarding another infamous Someone's quite efficient "Planned" reduction in another ethnic population of which said Justice might be faintly aware? Hmmm??? Nah, not even on the radar.)
Liberal racism
July 9, 2009 - 12:29 ET by sevenThis is pure bigotry.
How about you liberal trolls. Your highest honored judges are bigots.
I agree. Do you think
July 9, 2009 - 12:37 ET by ricklailI agree. Do you think that she was aware that Margaret Sangers whole concept behind aborion and birth control was to get rid of the blacks?
Semper suprene nitens
Liberal Racism
July 9, 2009 - 12:52 ET by deerjerkydaveWhen you look at the demographics of who has the most abortions, blacks account for the lion's share. Sounds like the type of people we have too many of, eh Ginsburg?
"JUSTICE GINSBURG: The basic thing is that the government has no
July 9, 2009 - 12:29 ET by WhoIsJohnGaltbusiness making that choice for a woman."
Actually, the government has considerably less power in that decision than the woman does when she does the deed. She puts herself in that position and then complains when government doesn't bail her out in a manner of her liking.
It's simple, the Feds should have no position on abortion whatsoever. It should be a community thing, just like alcohol, gambling, etc. Roe v. Wade is just bad law.
I'm not sure if I should
July 9, 2009 - 12:33 ET by dscottI'm not sure if I should feel contempt, disgust or revulsion for the likes of Ginsburg. It really shouldn't surprise me since those of the previous generation to mine, which she represents, had more how shall we say practical considerations in controlling the undesirables. Abortion was a means to an end to limit those on Welfare. As usual, libs sold the entire thing as a right over their body to hide the ugly truth of their desired ends.
The really disgusting thing is judges like Ginsburg created the problem of "unwanted pregnancies" in the first place with women's liberation and No Fault Divorce. Once they started destroying the family by saying only a woman and a child are a family, the idea of the nuclear family removed the limitation of out of wedlock birth. So they doubled down on their arrogance by using Abortion as a means to limit the unwanted byproducts of their feminist agenda.
This is something liberals would really like to keep in the closet. I guess Ginsburg feels society is far enough along to understand and accept her line of thinking. Well I don't and never will. Ginsburg is the reason why the SCOTUS needs to be abolished, when a small group of people think they have the right to alter the Laws without public consent or means to oppose them then it's time for that institution to go or be severly limited in scope and power.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
→ Margaret Sanger
July 9, 2009 - 12:39 ET by Cool ArrowGinsberg and Sanger would have had such great times together.
It begs the question, though. If African Americans don't mind their own genocide, and will not listen to the cries of their own prophets, what makes us think they will listen to white conservative observation.
Did you hear the news? Michael Jackson's dead.
I think that's a common
July 9, 2009 - 12:49 ET by balboaI think that's a common misconception about Sanger. I think there's plenty to misinterpret in her writings, based on my limited dealings with her.
What have we misconceived
July 9, 2009 - 13:03 ET by dscottWhat have we misconceived about Sanger? Her pragmatism in dealing with the little people? Her ideas of limiting the undesirables? Her idea that people of superior breeding will result in stronger and smarter offspring? Bal, I'm surprised at you, all this time I had no idea you approved of the teachings of Sanger. It's one thing to believe in an elite meritocracy running things for the common good which we could debate all day long, but really...
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
I wish I could remember the
July 9, 2009 - 13:08 ET by balboaI wish I could remember the specific quote that someone had posted months ago, but I looked up the actual text in the actual article, and it seemed what she was talking about was different from what was being claimed.
→ Thanks bal
July 9, 2009 - 13:12 ET by Cool ArrowGood to know she didn't allow for ambiguity when it comes to abortion, huh?
→ Bal
July 9, 2009 - 13:05 ET by Cool ArrowI'm pretty sure she's been dead a long time.
Pretty sure there are still people living who have dealt with her. Are you one of them?
Balboa, Maragaret Sanger
July 9, 2009 - 13:39 ET by LiberalliesBalboa,
Maragaret Sanger was part of the eugenics movement in the USA. You do know what eugenics is, right?
She is also a self-admitted Nazi.
Additionally, she is the mother of Planned Parenthood.
There is no ambiguity as to what monster this evil woman was.
Regardless, don't take awy from what Ginsberg said.
Ginsberg has admitted that abortion is ALL ABOUT CONTROLLING CERTAIN POPULATIONS in our society.
That is what abortion has always been about. It has NEVER been about the euphimisims used by the left, "Reproductive Rights", "Women Rights". I hope that you are not still being blind and claiming that abortion is about these things.
and in fact abortion is about two things....MONEY and racist, elites on the left controlling what they consider undersirables human beings in our society.
NOW, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the Pro-baby killing organizations have finally been unmasked. Anyone that support these organizations is a racist. In fact, they are no different than the Nazis, Communists leaders in Soviet Union, China, etc, etc who have all used murder and mass killings to get rid of undesirable populations in their nations.
Convenience
July 9, 2009 - 14:37 ET by UnsaneIn my opinion, euthanasia and abortion is about one thing above all:
CONVENIENCE.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Terrible argument. She
July 9, 2009 - 19:45 ET by Rupert CadellTerrible argument.
She is also a self-admitted Nazi.
Source, please.
Additionally, she is the mother of Planned Parenthood. There is no ambiguity as to what monster this evil woman was.
I like the implication that being the founder of Planned Parenthood is worse than being a Nazi. Very amusing.
That is what abortion has always been about. It has NEVER been about
the euphimisims used by the left, "Reproductive Rights", "Women
Rights". I hope that you are not still being blind and claiming that
abortion is about these things.
What nonsense. Are racial minorities being forced to abort? No. They, like women of all races, have the individual choice to abort if they so choose. Regardless of what you have misinterpreted Ginsberg as "admitting", Ginsberg is not the sole arbiter of the left's philosophical take on abortion. Sorry to disappoint.
NOW, Planned Parenthood and the rest of the Pro-baby killing
organizations have finally been unmasked. Anyone that support these
organizations is a racist. In fact, they are no different than the
Nazis, Communists leaders in Soviet Union, China, etc, etc who have all
used murder and mass killings to get rid of undesirable populations in
their nations.
Now I'm just laughing. Ever heard of overkill? There must be some way to argue against abortion without invoking racism, Communism, Nazism and people who are "pro-baby-killing". But I guess you've got to work with what comes to you...
"Pro-baby-killing"
July 9, 2009 - 19:48 ET by BlondeWorks quite well, thank you very much.
How does that make you feel, as a pro-baby-killer?
I hope he fails, too.
Uh, well, I'm not one
July 9, 2009 - 19:54 ET by Rupert CadellUh, well, I'm not one actually, but I do think it's a pretty hysterical way to characterize those who are pro-choice. You know, especially paired with racist, Nazi, and Communist.
Rupert Cadell,Are you
July 9, 2009 - 20:04 ET by LiberalliesRupert Cadell,
Are you denying that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was part of the eugenics movement in the United States? and not just part of the movement, but a leader in it? do you know what eugenics is?
Your post is full of idiocy without any facts...why don't you try finding the facts before you spew such ridiculous nonsense. Typical mindless, drooling Liberal.
Simple yes or no will suffice.
You do know what eugenics is, right?
Instead of attacking my post, why don't you explain by what Ginsburg said that abortion was about controlling certain populations in our society?
and don't do what you claim I am doing. i never said that pro-choicers are like the Nazis or communist.
However, I will say that the LEADERS of the past and todays abortionist, pro-baby killing movements are no different than the Nazis or Communist around the world who have mass murdered sectors of the population.
Shoot listen to the rhetoric of NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc, they claim that a fetus is not a human being. Hmmm...who did that? Oh that is right the Nazis, the Communists in China, Russia, Cuba, etc, etc, etc.
But why don't you start studying about eugenics and Margaret Sanger...eh? you do know what eugenics is, right?
Only an ignorant fool would defend pro-baby killers.
I do love how you claim that I have misinterpreted Ginsberg words. HAHA!
Please do tell us all, what did Ginsberg mean when she said that she believed that abortion was about controlling certain populations in our society. Go for it, explain it. make sure you shave off the Hilter mustache before you do, ok?
happening to have been
July 9, 2009 - 20:12 ET by Rupert Cadellhappening to have been involved in one thing that the Nazis were also involved in does not make one "a Nazi".
So the founders of Planned Parenthood are like Nazis and Communists but somehow those who believe in pro-choice rights are not? Here is your statement: and in fact abortion is about two things....MONEY and racist, elites on
the left controlling what they consider undersirables human beings in
our society. Again, explain to me how so-called elites are "controlling" anything by giving women the right to make a choice for themselves.
Only an ignorant fool would defend pro-baby killers.
Except that they/we are not in favor of fetuses being killed. They are in favor of individual women having the choice to terminate the fetus in their respective bodies. There is a massive difference, which pro-lifers consistently and petulantly ignore.
She is also a self-admitted Nazi.
Still waiting on this one. When did she claim to be a member of the Nazi party?
Ginsberg was clearly referring to the desire to keep birth rates lower in areas plagued by overpopulation and in which many families have more kids than they can afford because they do not have access to or education about basic birth control. And even if I am wrong and Ginsberg was expressing her desire to eradicate "undesirables"...well, Ginsberg doesn't speak for any pro-choice people besides herself.
Rupert,
July 9, 2009 - 20:21 ET by LiberalliesRupert, Rupert,
Hmmm...how is Planned Parenthood giving women a real choice when they want to hide half of the information about an abortion from women? is this what you call a choice?
Ever been to a SALES TRAINING MEETING of an abortion clinic? it is ALL about sales, sales, sales and SELLING an abortion which as you well know, pro-baby killer, they don't call it that, rather about "terminating the pregnancy" or other euphimisim, right?
and I love it....so, are you saying that a fetus is not a human being? Love it, y ou are doing it son, you are using euphamisims in order to de-humanize the baby in the womb of a mother. Oh I know, I know, fetus is the scientific word. I have heard all the argument from the pro-baby killers. Funny, we don't call any other human being by their scientific name, right? Just like the Nazis and Communist you are de-humanizing the baby in the womb of a mother so you don't feel bad when you kill him/her.
as for the source, friend, I am not in the mood to do your homework. There is PLENTY of material about Margaret Sanger on the internet. Do your own homework.
But I am still waiting, pro-baby killer, Margaret Sanger was an eugenics fanatic. Will you deny this? I am still waiting for your answer on this! You ask alot, but you refuse to answer.
Margaret Sanger, a eugenic believer began Planned Parenthood...you tell me what Planned Parenthood stands for if not for eugenics.
But I do love how you have chosen to completly lie about Ginsberg statements. Her words are clear and she clearly talks about abortion being about getting rid of undesirables in our society. Not to mention that she talks in "we", not "I". So clearly she is referring to others who think just like her.
But go ahead, pro-baby killer, keep on defending the murder of innocent human beings. The Nazis and Communist did it too.
Ever been to a SALES
July 10, 2009 - 08:06 ET by Rupert CadellEver been to a SALES TRAINING MEETING of an abortion clinic?
Nope. And have you? Besides which, I don't see how the business-mindedness of ob/gyns affects the ethics of what they do and whether women decide to make use of it.
so, are you saying that a fetus is not a human being?
Love it, y ou are doing it son, you are using euphamisims in order to
de-humanize the baby in the womb of a mother. Oh I know, I know,
fetus is the scientific word. I have heard all the argument from the
pro-baby killers. Funny, we don't call any other human being by their
scientific name, right?
A fetus is a human being in the embryonic stage. I'm not going to be swayed or trapped by your attempts to make me blurt out that it's not the same as a human. And hold on now, so am I using the proper name or am I euphemizing? You can't have it both ways. Using the correct term for something is, by definition, not a euphemism. And if you want to (wrongly) accuse me of euphemizing by using the term fetus, then I would have to say that you are sentimentalizing by insisting on using the word baby.
Just like the Nazis and Communist you are de-humanizing the baby in the
womb of a mother so you don't feel bad when you kill him/her.
Wow, you just can't make an argument without comparing things you disagree with to historical regimes, can you?
as for the source, friend, I am not in the mood to do your homework.
There is PLENTY of material about Margaret Sanger on the internet. Do
your own homework.
That ain't how it works, pal. YOU made a reckless claim. YOU have to back it up if you want it to be taken seriously. It's what the legal world calls "burden of proof," and it's on you. Hmm, perhaps the reason you don't want to have to provide evidence of your allegations is because most of what's on the internet is constructed by fringe whack-job conspiracy kooks looks like this? Oooh, the guy who made this site included a flash-art swastika! It must be true!!!
Margaret Sanger may have been a eugenics "fanatic" but it does not follow that Planned Parenthood in its modern state is practicing eugenics. Women have the individual choice to abort. When P.P. starts asking for government mandates forcing certain women of certain groups to abort or keep their populations under control, we can talk.
Ginsberg did not use the term "undesirable." You're attribution of that to her is irresponsible.
And now you're calling me "pro-baby killer" and comparing me to Nazis and Communists? Better go ahead and stick that accusation on a good 50% of the U.S. population.
So the founders of Planned
July 9, 2009 - 20:28 ET by LiberalliesSo the founders of Planned Parenthood are like Nazis and Communists but somehow those who believe in pro-choice rights are not? Here is your statement: and in fact abortion is about two things....MONEY and racist, elites on
the left controlling what they consider undersirables human beings in
our society. Again, explain to me how so-called elites are "controlling" anything by giving women the right to make a choice for themselves.
_-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The left wing elites do not want women to know the truth about abortions. Funny what pro-baby killers like you consider a choice. So you consider a choice a woman making a decision when she knows less than half of the information about a medical procedure? is this what you call a choice, really?
How about giving women a video of an abortion. Then giving her a video of what happens to the body parts of the murdered baby. Then giving the mother a video of how the baby screams in the womb of the mother when he/she is burnt alive, or torn to pieces, eh?
Hey, I am all about a woman making a choice, when she is 100% informed of everything that is going to happen to her and her baby.
I ask you again, why did pro-baby killing organizations fight with all their might the distribution to hospitals 3-D ultrasound machines? why are these same evil organizations against women seeing an ultrasound of their baby before they kill it. If it is JUST a fetus and not a human being...what is the harm?
because it is ALL about the money.
Once again, funny that you call a choice a person making a life changing decision with most of the informaton kept from them
c'mon son, I know you can do better, pro-baby killer
and yes, most pro-choicers are 100% misinformed by the elites, the media, Planned Parenthood, etc.
but I am still waiting your defense of Margaret Sanger eugenics belief and that because of these believes she started Planned Parenthood.
Except that they/we are not
July 9, 2009 - 20:56 ET by LiberalliesExcept that they/we are not in favor of fetuses being killed. They are in favor of individual women having the choice to terminate the fetus in their respective bodies. There is a massive difference, which pro-lifers consistently and petulantly ignore.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow...what a twisted logic and irrantional argument.
So, they are not for killing babies, they are just for women being able to make the choice of whether or not they want to kill the baby....OOOOOOHHHH...I get it now!
So, in other words you are saying, that you are not for killing babies, just that women be given the choice of keeping or killing the baby.
Well you do know that a murderer also has the choice to kill someone or not, right? Hmmmm....is the murder any less evil because the murderer had a choice? WOW!
Ginsberg was clearly referring to the desire to keep birth rates lower in areas plagued by overpopulation and in which many families have more kids than they can afford because they do not have access to or education about basic birth control. And even if I am wrong and Ginsberg was expressing her desire to eradicate "undesirables"...well, Ginsberg doesn't speak for any pro-choice people besides herself.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Really? it is clear that Ginsburg is referring to the desire to keep birth rates lower in areas that are plagued with overpopulation and which families have more kids than they can afford? WOW!!! can you please point out to where she makes this clear? c'mon!
and who are YOU or Ginsberg or any other pro-baby killer to decide what is overpopulation or a family that is having to many kids that they can not afford, eh?! Left lunatics, much like yourself and Ginsbergs, during the 1960s claimed that the USA and Europe would see wars and famine by 1990 because of overpopulation. Oooops, they lied, right? Not to mention that what the world is facing today is underpopulation. Go to Japan, Russia, Austria, England, etc. Japan, France, etc are desperate for their native population to have babies and they are passing all types of government incentives for families to have babies. But the culture of death that is so rampant in our world today is destroying the same governments and populations that pushed so hard for abortion to be legalized.
Don't worry, your kind is going to cease to exist soon. Don't take my word for it, even the United Nations is already claiming this, of course unless things change and people start having three to four children per family
Plus, who the hell are you or any other pro-baby killer to decide that an area of our population is overpopulated or families can't afford the amount of children they are having?
So, your "logic" is, "well since they will burden society and burden families, let's just murder them in the most horrific form that humans know!" I know for a fact that Liberals wouldn't stand for an adult human being to be put to death in the manner that babies in the womb of a mother are murdered.
I hope you are just huge ignorant person and that you have never seen an abortion or participated in one or seen what an aborted baby looks like.
Honestly, I pray for individuals like you, the twisted logic and the evil, truly, truly evil ideology that you promote is appalling.
It never ceases to amaze me how in the USA baby whales, baby turtles, baby anything that is not a baby human being has more rights under the law than a human baby. Incredible!
So, they are not for
July 10, 2009 - 08:15 ET by Rupert CadellSo, they are not for killing babies, they are just for women being able
to make the choice of whether or not they want to kill the
baby....OOOOOOHHHH...I get it now!
Thank you for making my point for me. You can argue that this is not much better ethically. However, it annihilates your stupid argument abou how abortion is about eugenics and social control.
and who are YOU or Ginsberg or any other pro-baby killer to decide what
is overpopulation or a family that is having to many kids that they can
not afford, eh?!
We're not deciding that, dumb ass! The whole f---ing point is that the individual woman decides. How many times does this have to be explained to you? That's why your nazi/Communist/baby-killer arguments are incorrect.
I hope you are just huge ignorant person and that you have never seen
an abortion or participated in one or seen what an aborted baby looks
like.
That's just obfuscation. We all understand that abortion is the termination of a fetus. One must decide for oneself if that is something he or she can ethically be involved in. But how "gross" the process of it looks pertains to absolutely nothing. That is why pro-choice groups find it irritating when pro-life sides use garish pictures. Because how unpleasant or difficult to look at something is does not affect the morality of it.
It never ceases to amaze me how in the USA baby whales, baby turtles,
baby anything that is not a baby human being has more rights under the
law than a human baby. Incredible!
Actually you're quite wrong, and this is why it's necessary to distinguish between fetuses and babies. Once born, babies have innumerable legal protections. So long as they are still in the womb and have not developed to a certain point, they are still an extension of the mother's body. And the mother, not you, not me, not the legislative branch of the US government, gets to decide what to do with her body.
Bet you never consider this...
July 14, 2009 - 00:03 ET by UnsaneAnd the mother, not you, not me, not the legislative branch of the US government, gets to decide what to do with her body. I think it is quite amusing that those who are so hell bent on keeping abortion legal love using this argument. It is ONLY the woman who decides what to do with her body, right?
Funny how none of you ever suggest she keep her knees pinned together to begin with.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
...she keep her knees
July 14, 2009 - 06:54 ET by Rupert Cadell...she keep her knees pinned together to begin with.
Well, I wouldn't want the government involved in that part of it either, would you? But OK, I'll indulge you:
Women who don't want children should not have sex.
There, I said it. Let's see how that works out...
Common sense only
July 14, 2009 - 09:40 ET by UnsaneIt's simply common sense, Rupert. Yet, for all the pro-abortion crowds's screeching and screaming about how only the woman decides what to do with her body and how the government should stay out of her uterus, I never, ever see any reference to the fact that all she needed to do was to keep her knees pinned together to begin with. Hmmmm...isn't THAT a woman deciding what to do with her body?
And it is obvious from that last sentence you look upon the notion that if you don't want children or can't handle the responsibility of children then you should not have sex with only the utmost in contempt. I don't know why...on the individual level, people do not need sexual intercourse in order to live.
In my mind, the only reason the pro-abortion crowd loves abortion so much has zero to do with women's rights and everything to do with convenience. But none of the pro-abortion crowd will ever admit it, so they go hiding behind things like women's rights, the right to privacy (which I still can't find in the Constitution), etc.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Except one problem, the
July 14, 2009 - 11:46 ET by dscottExcept one problem, the premise that only you have the right to do what you wish with your own body is false. It's no more true for men than it is for women.
Do you have the right to commit suicide?
Do you have the right to cut off your finger, arm or leg?
Do you have the right to be under the influence of drugs?
The same underlying principle is involved with abortion, society sets boundaries for a reason, it's called the norms of behavior expected from everyone who participates in that society. Abortion is a violation of the norms of society of a mother safe guarding the child under her charge. Without such an expectation the existence of society itself is threatened. In this manner norms are self reinforcing between the individual and society. Only an anarchist or sociopath believes they have no responsibility to society regarding the treatment we extend to others.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Interesting perspective.
July 14, 2009 - 12:57 ET by Rupert CadellInteresting perspective. Is it really against the law to cut off your own finger? Guess I learned something today.
Of course, from a pure libertarian standpoint, all of those things should be legal. But insofar as they aren't, you offer a powerful rebuttal to what I and many others take for granted in the debate.
Actually, that should be
July 14, 2009 - 14:44 ET by dscottActually, that should be intuitively known, anyone who attempts mutilate themselves would be committed to the mental hospital for a psyc evaluation.
Being a libertarian and being an anarchist are two different things, even libertarians recognize the need for some government or rather society's claim upon it's members. I suggest a reading of John Locke's Treatise on Goverment. The founding Fathers were greatly influenced by John Locke, and you can see it reflected in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Good points
July 14, 2009 - 13:04 ET by UnsaneGreat points, all. Too many posters here repeatedly miss the point that in fact many laws exist as an extension of societal norms, mores, folkways, customs, and traditions. (Whether they are anarchists or raised by wolves I have no idea.)
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
As an aside....
July 17, 2009 - 00:07 ET by HillbillyKingWhile someone who suffers from Body integrity identity disorder may very well be committed, I don't think that they are actually prosecuted because I don't think that it is really illegal. If y'all could find the statute or code proving otherwise I would welcome it.
Oh, and there is a doc film dealing with that type of thing called Whole.
As for suicide, there were (and are, in some cultures) laws against suicide, BUT in other cultures suicide is revered. I like this take on the whole thing.
Oh and once you reach a certain age (in most countries) you damn well have the right to be under the influence of a drug {alcohol is a drug ya know} ;-)
None of my info changes the point that was made by ds. Social deviance (& all it entails) will always be a way of managing human behavior.
On the other hand, at what point does deviant behavior become the norm?
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself.- Thomas Jefferson
and you don't want people
July 9, 2009 - 20:13 ET by Liberalliesand you don't want people to use "pro-baby killer" why? it is too strong for you to face the truth?
Abortionists are pro-baby killers. What, did you believe that an abortion kills a horse, a cow, a kangoroo? Oopps. no son, Abortions kill a human baby. So, yes, pro-baby killers. Call it what it is.
Most pro-choicers are 100% misinformed about the abortion issue. Not to mention, as I have proven, most pro-choicers who see pictures, photos of an aborted baby turn pro-life. There is a reason why NOW, Planned Parenthood, etc, etc go crazy when pro-life politicians use in their political commercials pictures of aborted babies.
Maybe you can explain, supporter of pro-baby killers, why Planned Parenthood, NOW and other similar groups fought with tooth and nails for OBGYNs not to ever use the new 3-D ultrasounds that clearly show a human baby in the womb of a mother?
Pro-baby killers, they are on the side of Satan. Abortion is a demonic practice. Don't like the truth, don't read my posts and move on son.
I know people like you, they much rather make fun of Pro-lifers because we are not politically correct with our language and we say it like it is. You much rather stick your head in the sand and believe that all abortionist are poor innocent people.
By the way, did you know that there is a disproportionet number of abortion clinics in minority, low-income areas? did you know?
and why are abortion clinics so dead against women being counseled and shown an abortion procedure and how the baby comes out before they decide to have an abortion? oh ooops, the mother to be could realize that they are killing a human being and not just getting rid of a bunch of cells.
bal, hear it straight from the horses mouth
July 9, 2009 - 19:33 ET by R D Helmhttp://www.blackgeno...
It the second video down the page.
-Dave
"Obama's health care 'reform' plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof." - Herman Cain
Eugenics
July 9, 2009 - 12:43 ET by 10ksnookerHas always been part of leftist doctrine.
WOW!!! I mean just
July 9, 2009 - 12:45 ET by LiberalliesWOW!!! I mean just WOW!!!!
Many of us Pro-life have always said that it is about controlling the population of minorities. The abortinist, pro-baby killers have always claimed that that is not the case.
I am glad that the abortionist mask has been taken off.
What monstrocity, what pure evilness.
Abortion is one of the greatest evils in our society!
I await to see how the abortionist, the pro-baby killers will defend her statement.
WOW!!! just WOW!!!
Logic implosions
July 9, 2009 - 13:03 ET by KC MulvilleIf you want an abortion, but the closest clinic where you can get one is a long distance away ... Ginsburg complains that's a "burden?"
Another intellectual cheat is: "Time is on the side of change." This also comes up in the gay marriage debate. What it means is that whenever one side believes that the next generation will agree with them, they want the present generation to surrender and allow it to happen now. They're impatient, so why don't you just give up now? The assumption is, of course, flawed.
So, in setting social policy, liberals want us to disregard the opinion of older, more experienced adults ... and instead favor teenagers ... but they call this "progress?" That's setting policy by the lowest level of experience: let the least wise rule!
Last note: James Taranto of the WSJ, who writes a wonderful column called Best of the Web, coined the phrase: The Roe Effect. The Roe Effect is that abortions occur among people who believe abortion is OK (obviously) and teach their children that abortion is OK. Therefore, with more abortions in that group, the overall percentage of children will grow up believing that abortion is OK is likely to shrink. So much for time on the side of change.
→ KC you magnificent B@stard
July 9, 2009 - 13:11 ET by Cool ArrowNot an insult, just quoting a great general.
One of these days NB is going to commission your posts.
Your post explains why the clinics are so conveniently located to certain ethnic neighborhoods as well.
Thanks
July 9, 2009 - 14:15 ET by KC MulvilleHigh praise indeed ... thank you.
I still don't grasp the logic behind other points in the abortion rationale. One that bothers me (along with many others) is the whole argument about "back-alley" abortions. That is, if you make abortion illegal, it will force women who want abortions to go to unsanitary and dangerous abortionists.
When the law says that you can't rob banks, does that "force" thieves into "risking" shootouts with the police? No, the law says, don't rob banks in the first place. That should reduce police shootouts to a minimum!
Ditto,
July 9, 2009 - 16:50 ET by UpNorthKC, great post. I've never seen the lib philosophy summed up so well.
Wonder if anyone in the State Run Media picked up on this, or if the powers that control the newsrooms just quashed the story?
Another proposition...
July 10, 2009 - 23:28 ET by Tailgunner"...
•They presume that polls of young people are accurate
•They presume that whatever young people believe now is exactly what they will believe later
•They don't accept the possibility that young people will change their minds later..."
They also presume that what is clearly wrong now will be 'right' later.
That can include a lot of things.
Nationalized Healthcare is a DEATH SENTENCE.
Ginsberg and Pelosi too!
July 9, 2009 - 13:11 ET by metaphorsbwithuSo the right to "choose" is really the right to choose which babies from what groups should survive according to however "we" want to profile them and what burden they might place on the economy?
Didn't Nancy Pelosi make a similar statement in supporting government-paid abortions and contraception, arguing that they would help the economy by reducing entitlements, healthcare spending, and so on?
These people are chilling!
metaphorsbwithu
Zero population growth is
July 9, 2009 - 13:16 ET by RR GOPZero population growth is to me a worthy ideology. We have seen all throughout our history the misery and death that results when a population outgrows its resources.
But the idea of killing babies is wholly barbaric. How about just using protection in the first place? Also, there seems to be far fewer parents out there who can keep an eye on their hormone crazy offspring, and many even gloat when their underage daughters present them with a grandbaby.
Somehow all of this has become the norm in many families and communities. Sure, unwanted pregnancies have always happened but it seems to be happening a lot more, and with young unmarried girls actually wanting to get pregnant piled on top of that.
One of the 34% who thinks George W. Bush was a great President. One of the 61% who wants to bring back the stock and pillory (yep...approval for Congress now at 39%...do you believe that!?).
Zero population growth kills a society.
July 9, 2009 - 13:28 ET by sevenIt gets taken over by Muslims.
ZPG causes the average age to rise and that means productivity falls, People retire long before the die.
It's also the main reason...
July 10, 2009 - 23:19 ET by Tailgunner...that Social Security is quickly going bankrupt.
Nationalized Healthcare is a DEATH SENTENCE.
Zero population growth is
July 9, 2009 - 13:43 ET by Dan The Man 2Zero population growth is to me a worthy ideology. We have seen all throughout our history the misery and death that results when a population outgrows its resources.
Ask the Chinese about that philosiphy and how it has turned out. I suppose you never read Brave New World or Logans Run or any of the books where growth is planned. When any population outgrows it resources there are natural and unnatural consequences.
Starvation and war and death are some consequences. No planned population control will always be a disaster.
Please tell me you're kidding
July 9, 2009 - 14:00 ET by Iowa Boy"Zero population growth is to me a worthy ideology. We have seen all
throughout our history the misery and death that results when a
population outgrows its resources."
The misery and death you ascribe to "over population" is beacuse of governments interfering with and limiting the freedom of its people. If Ethiopia had been free, it's people would have been able to develop new methods to produce or procure food and to protect themselves from rampaging insurgents who hijacked the food relief that was sent to them from elsewhere.
Our own population in the USA contines to grow and not only can we produce enough food to feed ourselves (some would say over feed) but, have enough left over to export to other countries at great profit. Why? Because free people, left to themselves to innovate and find better and more economical ways of producing food (or anything else for that matter) will do just that.
OVER population is a catch phrase used by elitests who wish to CONTROL the population.
"Our liberties we prize and our rights we will maintain." Official Motto of the State of Iowa
RR GOP, Are you a
July 9, 2009 - 14:04 ET by LiberalliesRR GOP,
Are you a Conservative GOPer? Zero population growth is a worthy ideology? Wow!
1) How do you push zero population growth? The only way to do it is like China is doing, FORCED abortions or FORCED vasectomies, tube tying, etc, etc.
or like in Europe...
Complete and utter collapse of any type of morals and higher values and standards.
2) If you do not have population growth, how the heck do you take care of your elderly? You can't, you won't. So zero population growth will naturally turn into forced euthanasia.
Honestly, how the heck can anyone believe that zero population growth is a worthy ideology.
Not to mention that the human brain is the GREATEST resource when population seems to outgrow natural resources.
You must be a RINO, RR GOP.
Nah
July 9, 2009 - 14:42 ET by UnsaneAs I look at famines and other maladies that you ascribe to high populations, I don't see that at all.
Many famines are caused by poor infrastructure or lack of access to markets. Quite a few are caused by bad government policies which force markets to fail. And in the last century, some have been quite purposely caused aod foisted among people.
Zero Population Growth brings on its own population problems. Ask the Europeans, or thr Japanese or Russians (who are witnessing massive contractions of their populations). A worthy ideology? Nah.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
again?
July 9, 2009 - 13:22 ET by rowdygirlSo if we kill off all the undesirables, through free abortion(technically murder), we'll have a perfect race?
Didn't someone already try this and they called it the holocaust?
I actually thought that it
July 9, 2009 - 13:26 ET by RD Kingwas common knowledge that abortion was used for one of the first versions of who lives and who doesn't, obamacare is next, it surprised me that the reporter is surprised at the remarks of yet another unqualified judge.
I have a neighbor who suggests a little more lenient method, he claims that just sterilizing those who vote stupid allowing them to no longer reproduce will help the country.
I wonder which side....
July 9, 2009 - 13:29 ET by HillbillyKingol' Ruth would of took in this case...
Buck v/s Bell
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough."
Very compelling book exposing and examing Eugenics....
War against the weak: Eugenics and America's campaign to create a master race
Never underestimate the depraved nature of certain "enlightened" minds.
I never submitted the whole system of my opinions to the creed of any party of men whatever, in religion, in philosophy, in politics or in anything else, where I was capable of thinking for myself. - Thomas Jefferson
"Three generations of imbeciles are enough"
July 9, 2009 - 13:50 ET by SickofLibsI'm no lawyer, but can't this precedent be applied to the extended Kennedy clan?
The truth hurts...
July 9, 2009 - 13:42 ET by mizflame98and it looks quite ugly too.
“It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds”
Samuel Adams
I think this article
July 9, 2009 - 14:04 ET by ElyasI think this article highlights how the Conservative and Liberals view the poor.
Liberals view themselves superior to the poor and will help them, but never view them as equals.
Conservatives view the poor as equals and will not only help by giving, but also by teaching.
Posted this on Greenpeace article, seems appropriate here:
July 9, 2009 - 14:11 ET by BO STINKSLIBERAL DEMS: FUNDING AND PROMOTING THE EXTERMINATION OF INNER CITY BABIES FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS (h/tip to NB poster)
Btw, where are all our resident Dems re: this thread? Too scary for them to contemplate that they might just be on Ginsburg's list of undesirables???
"The preservation of the sacred faith of liberty & the destiny of the republican model of gov't. are justly considered deeply...finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the American people."
GW's 1st inaugural address
What's really fascinating
July 9, 2009 - 14:31 ET by dscottWhat's really fascinating is zero population growth had already been achieved in the US of it's citizens. That reduction in birth rate was due entirely to wealth. The wealthier a society is, the lower the birthrate. Were it not for illegal immigration and their prolific anchors for citizenship the population would not have risen over 300 million. Interesting that they want latinos instead of the others...
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Well, the good news here is that it will
July 9, 2009 - 14:46 ET by spmcintyreprevent more liberals from being born...
I just want to know one thing, why is it that the only sacred part of the human body to a lib, is the womb? They are trying to pass legislation on everything else we eat, drink or insert anally, but tell a liberal woman that you are prolife and OMG, put on the radiation suits, cause its gonna get nuclear in here...
...how about we have a recall vote on Senator/Congressperson so and so....
Ruth Bader Meinhof
July 9, 2009 - 15:50 ET by nandrelli(I gave her that name because she isn't an activist judge, she is a terrorist judge)
"...populations that we don't want too many of."
Incredible that a Supreme Court judge could make a statement like that, in public, and there was no follow-up question about it.
And what the interviewer did ask was about "reproductive rights", a term I always considered an oxymoron. What does killing an unborn baby have to do with "reproduction", it's actually "pre[birth]-destruction".
But what do I know, I'm just a "typical white person" (credit to B.H. 0bama for that phrase) with an IQ of only 135, so I don't qualify as a genius, which I guess means someone like Ginsburg is so much smarter than I am that I should be thankful I'm not one of the people she "doesn't want too many of".
The Left's dirty little secret...
July 9, 2009 - 17:10 ET by PrairieSky"Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion."
Isn't that sweet? "...Populations that we don't want to have too many of..." Who, exactly, was Ginsburg referring to? She obviously wasn't courageous enough to be specific, and the gutless reporter was more than happy to let her off the hook, but the bottom line here is that the Left, despite all their protestations and minority and women's welfare pontificating, had and still appear to have an agenda to use abortion in an attempt to limit the number of who they consider to be "undesirables." Look at how Sarah Palin's decision to have her Downs Syndrome son, Trig, was handled by the insane, leftist libs...When the story was revealed about the Palin's decision to have Trig, knowing in advance that he would have Downs, many on the Left despicably said that he should have been aborted because he wasn't "normal", would be a burden, and they just couldn't fathom why anyone would want a "damaged" child...I remember some of the comments well, and this type of vile thinking continues considering the load of BS that the HuffPo contributor, Eric Nelson, unloaded last weekend after Sarah's comments when she referred to Trig.
Who knows who Ginsburg was referring to when she made this comment...Was is the mentally or physically disabled, minorities, or just a child that a woman finds herself pregnant with and sees the whole situation as an inconvenience that should be done away with? We'll likely never know, but it is a glimpse into the thinking of many, if not most, on the Left...
Despicable.
"The problem is not that people are taxed too little...the problem is that government spends too much." ~President Ronald Reagan
Roe vs Wade & Global Warming (Climate Change)
July 9, 2009 - 17:09 ET by ronny117Believe it or not, the two concepts are connected. Both are an attempt by the "elite" to repress third world nations... Ginsburg's admission or slip is just one more piece of the puzzle....
The 1975 Conference in Research Traingle Park, North Carolina, organized by Margaret Mead, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, where global warmed got its start to curb world populations. (Where the Global Warming Hoax Began: Marjorie Mazel Hecht)
Ginsberg: "I’m not a big
July 9, 2009 - 17:28 ET by deerjerkydaveGinsberg: "I’m not a big fan of these tests."
Inerpretation: I'm not a big fan of women making INFORMED choices.
WOW!
July 9, 2009 - 19:35 ET by BufordImagine the outcry if Justice Thomas had made that comment.
I'll keep my freedom my money and my guns, you can keep the "CHANGE".
I recall there being a huge
July 9, 2009 - 19:36 ET by Free StinkerI recall there being a huge outcry over comments he didn't even make . . .
Can you imagine the sh*t-storm that would be raging...
July 9, 2009 - 19:51 ET by R D Helm...if Scalia, Alito or Roberts had said this?
Right now, there would be a mob of maggot-infested, sign-toting, sloganeering smelly people, surrounding the SCOTUS building right now.
-Dave
"Obama's health care 'reform' plan is to blow up the building in order to fix a leak in the roof." - Herman Cain
And those comments from the
July 10, 2009 - 08:27 ET by dscottAnd those comments from the mouth of Robert Byrde (the former leader/grand imperial wizard of the Ku Klux Klan) would be consistent in his day to that now of Ginsburg. Birds of a feather do flock together.
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
So This Leftist Scumbag Admits
July 9, 2009 - 21:01 ET by reasonsjesterThat Roe v. Wade had less to do about the law and more to do with the political climate on the left. I'm sure that this is exactly what the Supreme Court was designed for - so five or six leftists in black robes can overrule the state legislatures and set social policy for the entire United States. Classic statist piece of garbage with no respect for the law and no respect for the people.
Responsibility is the price of freedom. - Elbert Hubbard
Joseph Mengele Ginsburg
July 10, 2009 - 08:28 ET by charlietexasA supreme court justice who thinks that we should manipulate population control and government deemed unfavorable elimination of populations (the poor and black) by allowing the free exercise of abortion and having the government pay for it? Would Obama be alive today if his mother had a chance to have an abortion paid by the gov't? Barry out of the way?
The Nazis would have pinned a medal on her. Oh, they would have gassed her first and then taken her idea. Only arian babies to be born.
And now comes Sotomeyer....what has she got under her robe?
And what of Sotomayor?
July 10, 2009 - 09:31 ET by dscottAnd what of Sotomayor? Why would the racist Ginsburg be promoting her unless Sotomayor had a similar outlook on Abortion and other issues. I have to wonder what comments have come out of her mouth in regards to controlling the undesirables?????
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.
Where's the big surprize??
July 10, 2009 - 10:27 ET by grumpyoldbThe Founder of Planned Parenthood stated that the goal of the organization was "to control the population of the lesser races".... So where is the suprize in what Ginzberg said.....
Goes back to a creed created in Darwin's "Descent of Man"
July 10, 2009 - 15:05 ET by AtTheWaterCoolerI've linked to your post from Darwin's Eugenics part of http://www.jeremiahfilms.com/released/discerningScience/Origins/ a series of articles on origins
"Frankly, I had realized that at the time Roe was decided...
July 10, 2009 - 20:36 ET by Tailgunner...that the Ku Klux Klan didn't admit women. So I went where I could help them accomplish their agenda in spite of my limitations."
Racist liberals like Ginsburg and Sotomayor prove that a gavel can be just as intimidating as a burning cross and as deadly as a noose.
Nationalized Healthcare is a DEATH SENTENCE.
Yep, and Pelosi fits right
July 10, 2009 - 20:45 ET by bigtimerYep, and Pelosi fits right in there with the Gavel reference...(just had to throw that in there with what all she has done in the House)
Btw...I heard a snippet somewhere today that Little Lindsey Graham is going to vote for Sotomayor...isn't that special.
Wonder if the NRA is going to remember that.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
It takes only one person of
July 11, 2009 - 08:57 ET by dscottIt takes only one person of the opposition party to approve a nominee. So what is being offered to Lindsey by the Dems? Sessions needs to lean on all the GOP members of the Judiciary Committee and let them know, they are in the catbird seat and shouldn't screw it up by selling their votes cheaply. We know any of the judges Obama nominates will be liberal, they should hold out for the least offensive of them!
Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, starving the poor one gallon of ethanol at a time. Fill your tank with E85 and cull a village.