Tuesday, July 05, 2005

Boxer perpetuates lie

Barbara Boxer (D -Ca) continued to perpetuate one of the oldest canards in the abortion controversey by claiming that if Roe v. Wade were overturned that 5000 womenwould die. In an article written by Justin Norton for the AP wires, Boxer claims that she will use the filibuster to block any pro life nominee who may be chosen by the president to replace retiring justice O'Connor.
Boxer is just one of those senators caughtup inher own rhetoric. She has no clue of hte history of the abortion tragedy and probably is so stupid that she does not know that Lawrence Lader and Dr. Bernard Nathanson, M.D. made up the abortion death statistics back in the late sixties. Nathanson told usyears later that they had to make up something and that the media was a willing accomplice to the lie.

Fortunately now we have the blogs to keep the press honest.

From the article: .

Seven Democrats and seven Republicans signed a pact this spring pledging not to filibuster judicial nominees except in extraordinary circumstances, and three judges whose nominations had been held up were soon confirmed.

The so-called compromise will soon have its first real test. What will be interesting is if those Democrats who are up for re-election are going to tie themselves to such extremists as Boxer and Kennedy.

From the article:

Boxer called a threat to legalized abortion an "extraordinary circumstance."
"It means a minimum of 5,000 women a year will die. So all options are on the table," she said.

Here is where the senator from California thinks that the American people are idiots.

Boxer called O'Connor a crucial moderate voice, saying the first female appointed to the high court was a strong backer of environmentalism and reproductive rights.

"She has been a powerful voice for moderation," Boxer said. "This is a philosophy her successor should embrace ... We cannot go back to the dark days. Roe must remain the law of the land."

Calling O'Connor a moderate in her judicial philosophy is extraordinary in its ignorance. "Moderate" is a political term and O'Connor was many times a "legislator" as a justice. Her decisions were highly personal to the events of the case. She ruled and decided cases as an inquisitor with unbridled power and in acting as the swing vote in so many cases was able to leave her personal imprint on the many decisions that she either authored or voted with the majority.

Years from now the legal historians will refer to this as the O'Connor legacy. A hodge podge of decisions - some that affirmed the role of the court as an interpreter of the law, others that were outright legislative enactments without the messy democratic process. Her affirmation of Roe in Casey contradicted her dissent in Akron when she said that Roe was on a collision course with itself. Apparently, as we found with Justice Kennedy, justices of the SupremeCourt can be lobbied and cajouled and compromised. Potomac fever does not just affect presidents and congressmen.

As for Boxer, she is almost irrelevant. But for the fact that she hails from California, she would be a tinny noise in the background But we can not ignore what the leftists want to do. We must show the president and the senate that the will of the people is for the court to interpret the constitution, to protect the basic rights of the individual ( including the right to life and property), and to hold back the power of government from those it would destroy. There is a reason for the Bill of Rights. It is to limit governmet and protect the people, even people in their mothers' wombs.


At 9:17 PM, Blogger John K. Walker said...


O'Connor's contradictory reasoning between AKRON and CASEY was what caused Scalia to personally cite her in his CASEY dissent. This attack was what she complained about at Justice White's retirement press conference in Colorado: that some "professor" types (Scalia) were supposedly getting personal. (Since Carolyn Gerster told the Reagan search team in 1981 that O'Connor had pushed the legalization bill in the AZ legislature prior to ROE, no one should have been too surprised that she was a pro-abortion vote on the court.)

As I mentioned to you once, this event was also where she misstated the US Supreme Court's own rules concerning assigning the writing of opinions.

John K. Walker

At 2:43 PM, Blogger cvaldivia93 said...

I need some history here - what, exactly, does Ms. Boxer think that these 5,000 women/yr will die of? Childbirth? Or the "backalley" abortion?



Post a Comment

<< Home