A lot neo-cons are going “ugh” over the recently appointed Chief Justice Roberts.
Here, in Roberts’ own words before the Senate Judiciary Committee, is why so many pro-lifers are disappointed with what they had hoped would be the nominee to help guide this country away from the abortion holocaust:
“Roe vs. Wade is the settled law of the land…There’s nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent…”
“My faith and my religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don’t look to the Bible or any other religious source.”
And, finally, “The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways…It protects privacy in matters of conscience.”
It is with his choice of words such as these that Roberts slipped the noose of the anti-religious lynch mob comprised of folks such as Senator Feinstein, and allowed Roberts to become Chief Justice.
Since then I have read neo-conservatives ask what, then, is the difference between Roberts and John Kerry when it comes to abortion? Many believe Roberts will turn out to be just a luke-warm servant of the status quo.
But carefully read his words again and remember that this story is just beginning to unfold. Bear in mind that these words may not be platitudes meant as an olive branch to placate the rabid pro-abortion forces. It could be that we have in Judge Roberts a very clever and clear-minded man who had the grace to know that he would be delivered from the snares laid out for him simply by speaking the unalterable truth to men who are no longer capable of recognizing it.
Read Roberts’ words again and remember that a true conservative is not the same as an activist. Activists look at documents like the Constitution and see things that are not there, as is the case with the “rights” to abortion that were "discovered" in 1973. A conservative does not read into the document what is not there, and this is something Roberts will not do. The corollary to this is that Roberts will not ignore language in the Constitution that is there but that might not necessarily aid the liberal agenda.
So now what we need is laws introduced that protect life. They will be challenged, of course. But the pro-life movement stands a better chance if final arbiter of that dispute is a Supreme Court comprised of judges who can clearly interpret the Constitution.