Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Those Damned Democrat's -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MrLucky who wrote (975)	4/9/2003 1:06:26 PM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 1604

Kerry vows court picks to be abortion-rights supporters By Glen Johnson, Globe Staff, 4/9/2003 ES MOINES - The potential retirement of Supreme Court justices makes the 2004 presidential election especially important for women, Senator John F. Kerry told a group of female Democrats yesterday, and he pledged that if elected president he would nominate to the high court only supporters of abortion rights under its Roe v. Wade decision. The Massachusetts Democrat also said he would lift a ban imposed by President Bush on aid to overseas groups that provide abortion counseling or assistance in receiving an abortion. In making his pledge about Supreme Court nominees, Kerry denied he was establishing his own litmus test, an accusation that congressional Democrats routinely level against Republicans who say they favor appointing only judges who oppose abortion. The difference, Kerry said, is that the Roe v. Wade has become settled law since the court rendered the decision in 1973 and now defines a constitutional right. ''Let me just say to you: That is not a litmus test,'' Kerry told about 85 women who turned out to listen to him over a continental breakfast in Des Moines. ''Any president ought to appoint people to the Supreme Court who understand the Constitution and its interpretation by the Supreme Court. In my judgment, it is and has been settled law that women, Americans, have a defined right of privacy and that the government does not make the decision with respect to choice. Individuals do.'' In an interview after the speech, Kerry added: ''Litmus tests are politically motivated tests; this is a constitutional right. I think people who go to the Supreme Court ought to interpret the Constitution as it is interpreted, and if they have another point of view, then they're not supporting the Constitution, which is what a judge does.'' He contrasted support for Roe v. Wade ''because it is a constitutional right'' with Republican demands that judicial nominees oppose abortion rights. ''They're trying to undo a constitutional right,'' he said. ''That's the difference.'' While raised a Roman Catholic, Kerry supports a woman's right to choose an abortion, even though the Catholic Church opposes it. As a senator, Kerry has generally supported judicial nominees who favor abortion rights, but he broke ranks with abortion rights supporters in 1986 when he voted to confirm Antonin Scalia, a staunch opponent of abortion, to the Supreme Court. Many abortion rights activists fear that if other abortion opponents are confirmed, Scalia could be part of a future majority on the nine-member court that overturns Roe v. Wade. In his remarks to the Democratic women, Kerry echoed a warning about the president's ability to shape the Supreme Court that Democrat Al Gore made in his 2000 campaign. In coming years, Justices William Rehnquist, Sandra Day O'Connor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Anthony M. Kennedy may step down from the Supreme Court, Kerry said. At least one retirement could come as early as this June, according to court observers. If those retirements or other vacancies occur, the sitting president would have the ability to reshape the current 5-4, conservative-liberal split on the court. During a question-and-answer session with the audience, a woman asked Kerry if he would lift the abortion gag order and appoint judges who uphold Roe, prompting his comments. boston.com.

To: MrLucky who wrote (975)	4/12/2003 10:01:04 AM
From: Tadsamillionaire	Respond to of 1604

What America thinks "Letters from Democrats about Pelosi/KERRY." congress.org As a fellow Democrat, I am deeply concerned by the comments made by Nancy Pelosi today (04/10/03). She does not regret her anti-war vote, and "we could have brought down that statue for a lot less money". What could she possibly be thinking? First we still have troops fighting in theater, second, how much did she expect to spend? These types of extremist views are just what our party does not need to regain our prominence in national politics. I admit I am a "right of center" Democrat, however, I honestly believe that we should have a moderate Democratic Party leader. Nancy Pelosi is doing more harm to the Democratic party than good, and she should step down. Southampton , NY I am an independent voter from texas, and the remarks I am hearing from Mrs. Pelosi and John Kerry, have caused great concern over the forwardness of the democratic party. I have been and my community have been praying for our troops and the president on such a extremely importance topic of the war. I was in favor of the war, but i respect people who differ. In the statements that have come out recently my mind is starting to think maybe I should think really hard where my vote and my families votes go in 2004. How cruel to say such a statement when wives, mother, and fathers are waiting to see if there loved ones will come home. Dachle, Pelosi, and Kerry will never carry my feeling about the men and women who stand a post, while I can sleep at night. Some of these elected leaders have service men and women from there state. I am just an average Texas housewife, but I do have a voice and with this rhetoric sounding my vote will easily go for a person who has values and morals and can keep there mouths shut on such a moment in history where our fellow neighbors have paid the ultimate price to give men and women in another country the same freedom I have had for 40 yrs. Thank you Mr. Bishop for letting me write you this letter. May United States always remain a place where we can argee or diagree but reserve our comments until the last man from here comes home. Mckinney , tx congress.org. As an American Democrat, I am offended by the thoughtless and irresponsible reference to the removal of the butcher of Baghdad to the removal of President George W. Bush given by John Kerry April 3, 2003. I understand Kerrys' desire for change but disagree with his self-serving tactics presented during this time of international tension and war. Kerry insists he is a patriot based on his experience in Vietnam. If he learned anything in Vietnam ...why doesn't he use it today? With servicemen giving their lives in Iraq, Kerry speels his mouth off without regard to their lives, morale and families. He does not honor the Office of The President now nor will he later. He has revealed his lack of integrity and arrogance to the nation. How can he command respect when he honors nothing but political ambition in this time of international crisis? Kerry cannot be considered a serious candidate. The underlying "violent" overtones of his speech may feed some justification by a distraught individual for an assasination attempt or deed of violence etc.as Kerry suggests. Kerry needs to be indicted for major stupidity and for the demise of political decency in his behavior. Kerry plainly seen isn't trustworthy and should be censured by Congress for his lack of integrity. America deserves an apology and frankly so does George W. Bush for these outlandish and horrible words spoken by John Kerry. My hope for today is: May there be a regime change in the heart of this phoney patriot. May angry Americans write and rebuke this disrespectful Senator. May God Protect Our Real Heroes, Our Troops In Iraq. David L Hill South Pasadena CA congress.org