"The test is basic -- any person who thinks it's his or her job to push an extreme political agenda rather than to interpret the law should not be a Supreme Court justice."Is it actually possible that the irony of this statement is completely lost on him? Frankly, I couldn't agree more with his statement, but I wonder if he really believes it. If I understand him correctly, Kerry delusionally believes that President Bush's potential nominees would be the ones "push(ing) an extreme political agenda."
Right. As opposed to, say, the leftist Supreme Court justices who manufactured a supposed "right to privacy" found nowhere in the Constitution or in American jurisprudence for nearly 200 years? As opposed to justices who manufactured a right to kill babies in pursuit of a feminist and libertine political agenda? As opposed to justices who decided that they would ignore the Constitution and no longer allow states to pass their own laws on issues of morality?
Kerry's words are indicative of someone who supports strict constructionism--but we all know he doesn't. What he's actually saying is "Now that the liberal, activist judges have imposed, by law, a worldview which most Americans (and the Constitution) find repugnant, I will not tolerate anyone who tries to return us to the moorings of the Constitution."
Kerry also noted that whatever else one of Bush's potential nominees believes, if he or she doesn't strongly support baby-killin', Kerry will see to it that the nomination is snuffed (not unlike those aborted babies).
When Kerry returned from Vietnam, he famously joined with the protesters, many of whom were the same people calling returning soldiers "baby-killers." Ironically, it turns out that Kerry himself is actually the baby-killer. Kerry, as a pro-abortion U.S. Senator, has many times more dead-baby blood on his hands than anyone who served in Vietnam. And yet the same folks who were so concerned about dead babies in Vietnam love him.
No comments:
Post a Comment