Elena Kagan to be nominated for Supreme Court
I’m still technically on hiatus, but a Supreme Court nomination warrants my comments.
Kagan is a strong liberal and supports abortion, which comes as no surprise. What’s more surprising is that Obama has chosen a candidate who has never served as a judge, which is likely to be the opposition’s main theme. The Washington Post has a good summary of the probable strategy of both sides. Here’s an interesting tidbit:
On the other hand, there are some Democrats who believe that baiting conservatives into a fight, especially on a subject like abortion, could only be good for their party. The theory goes that the GOP would whip themselves into a frenzy, forgetting to campaign on health care or jobs or the economy.
Say what you want about the GOP, but I doubt any candidate is stupid enough to forget to mention jobs and the economy! It seems that pro-abortion Democrats have forgotten that pro-lifers are currently a majority of Americans. So go ahead, let Kagan’s appointment be about abortion! We’re prepared for battle.
I'm sorry I followed your blog I thought this was a prolife blog .It seems to be an american political blog .
I'm niether an american nor a conservative ( in an american sense )
I think many prolife americans have to give up the bully aggresion behaviour and realizie many other prolifers will not come to your aide or even out of the closet with this style of tactic .
putting people into boxes assumtpions are wrong . many people who are liberal minded , gay / homosexual , anthiest , pagan , socilaist , communist etc. believe in prolife .
prolife is a belief it has nothing to do with ones political status , religion , economic or educational status .
It is like lumping all catholics into they must be under rome or european etc. or being a Christian one must not hug trees .
people either believe in abortion or they don't . beleif / conversion of mind does not come from bullying tactics .
bullying behaviour can indeed be changed though. If the bullies own thier part in that behaviour and find new ways to get thier opinions across . state your view without insulting others who are liberal minded or of a certain poliical party .It can and has been done many times before you can do it too .
Right now, we're just concerned with keeping her out of the most powerful position in the country.
@ Rox
Have you read this whole blog?
Rox, I do not consider myself a conservative. I am a moderate. (You'll notice that my criticism was targeted only at pro-abortion Democrats, not the entire Democratic party.) And I absolutely recognize that "liberal minded, gay/homosexual, athiest, pagan, socilaist, and communist" people can be pro-life! Many members of SecularProLife.org are part of these groups. And please tell me, how am I being a bully? That was never my intention.
I do concede one of your criticisms, which is that SecularProLife.org is very USA-centric. We were founded in the USA and, since we've only been around for a little over a year, do not have much in the way of an international presence. There's not a whole lot we can do about that with the limited resources that we have, but if you have a pro-life story from your country that you'd like to share on the blog, all you have to do is ask.
I'm liberal minded, atheist, socialist, and communist all in one person!
And we have plenty of gays and lesbians. But now that I think about it, we don't have any pagans that I'm aware of.
From an AUL mailer:
Elena Kagan has a long track record of pro-abortion advocacy. Kagan not only publicly and repeatedly criticized federal regulations that prohibited recipients of "Title X" family planning funds from counseling on or referring women for abortions, she argued that the regulations amounted to the subsidization of "anti-abortion" speech. She even authored a memo stating that faith-based groups that operate pregnancy care centers should be excluded from receiving federal funds for counseling pregnant teens! This is unacceptable for a Supreme Court appointment.
I have to agree with the second bit, on the basis of separation of church and state. The first part I disagree with her on, but I could maybe see it coming from some sort of broad interpretation of free speech.