Mr. Bush's choice. I don't know what to think about this guy really. He is supposed to be conservative, but he is said the following:
Ã“Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land. ... There is nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent.Ã”
I don't like that. I don't like that at all.
The more I think about that the more it bugs me. Why didn't Mr. Bush nominate a red blooded pro-lifer? Why go half way? I am seeing a mixed message on this guy. The two quotes I posted earlier seem to be the cause of it. On the one hand Mr. Roberts says he is against abortion. On the other, he says he could go with Roe v. Wade. How can you hold both positions? The liberals are attacking him from places such as NARAL with quotes like the one from Agent Tim here. But, how can he be for Roe v. Wade and against it? Is he pro-life or not?
Note: Don't get me wrong. This guy may be a great justice who does lots of good things for the court. Many people say he will. I am just asking some questions.
If you have any light to shine, please leave a comment.
Update: J.S. from Lakeville, MA has a good comment to share on this topic. Read on.
He said that "precedent" statement to get thru without a fight...with the previous written statement he made in '90, I think it is pretty obvious how he will vote if abortion issues hit the Court again...he will be on our side! GW knows what he is doing on this one...time will tell, and hopefully, he will fill that vacancy for for thirty years or so!
Good comment! Any other thoughts on this issue?