Maybe Opus can explain to me how the logic works. In one breath he says he's not for the (buzzword) "Litmus Test", yet in the very next breath he says a pro-life stance would disqualify Roberts. At least admit to what you're actually saying, Durbin. Sheesh.

quote:

Sunday, July 24, 2005 11:43 a.m. EDT Durbin: Pro-Life Stance Would 'Disqualify' Roberts The Senate's No. 2 Democrat said Sunday that if Judge John Roberts doesn't recognize that the Constitution's right to privacy covers the Roe vs. Wade abortion decision, it would "disqualify" him from serving on the Supreme Court. Asked on NBC's "Meet the Press" if President Bush had "the same right" to appoint pro-life justices that President Clinton had to appoint pro-choice justices, Durbin at first insisted, "I'm not looking for a litmus test." "As important as reproductive rights and women's rights are, I just basically want to know that if the next case involving privacy and personal freedom came up, what he believes," the Illinois Democrat claimed. Asked, however, what he would do if Roberts "said he did not see a right to privacy in the Constitution," Durbin told MTP host Tim Russert: "I wouldn't vote for him. That would disqualify him in my mind." Asked whether he intended to question Roberts directly about his position on Roe vs. Wade, Durbin said: "I'm going to get very specific. But I've had an experience with him before. He didn't get very specific in his answers when he was up for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals."

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Maybe Opus can explain to me how the logic works. In one breath he says he's not for the (buzzword) "Litmus Test", yet in the very next breath he says a pro-life stance would disqualify Roberts. At least admit to what you're actually saying, Durbin. Sheesh.

Eh, sounds like a litmus test to me - Durbin should simply call as such. I tend to agree with it, however, because on the one hand strict constructionists like Scalia, Thomas (and presumably Roberts maybe) believe firmly in the constitutional right to privacy - yet for some reason or another this right to privacy seems to be thrown completely out the window when it comes to a woman's right to choose what she wishes to do with her body.

Now don't misunderstand me - I really can't say that I'm a "pro-rights" kinda guy, even though I'm a pretty looney Lefty. I tend to sit on the fence with this issue and see the logic and difficulty with both sides (which I guess makes me kinda wishy-washy on this, but I try not to lose too much sleep). But in terms of interpreting the constitution, I do seem to see a conflict with the issue.

What's with bashing Durbin so much lately by the Right? Was it all because of that whole Nazi comment thing or something? Anyone wonder why Bush blocked the latest release of Abu Ghraib photos?:

http://www.ccr-ny.org/v2/reports/re...j8m&Content=608

What's in those photos?:

http://www.veteransforpeace.org/Rue...feld_050704.htm
http://www.aclu.org/2004memberconf/Program/program.htm

Or how about why Bush is attempting to block any investigations into torture?:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050721...rms_congress_dc

The question that Durbin really failed to pose is not that we're so like Nazi Germany (which on the surface is ridiculous), but why we aren't so different.

Sorry for the topic derailment.....

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...