I’m sure this will be everywhere soon enough but rumors are flying that pro-abortion Justice John Paul Stevens,89, is retiring. Not good.
Why couldn’t all these folks have retired a year or two ago? Well we know the answer. Because then the sacred right to abortion may have been jeopardized. Could you imagine being the kind of person that puts off your own retirement so that more babies could be killed.
Now, lots of people are going to say it could be worse. And that’s true. Disaster would be if Scalia or Thomas stepped down during Obama’s reign. Some people even are saying that it’s almost meaningless because you’re likely replacing a pro-choice justice with a pro-choice justice. But here’s the thing. You’re replacing an old pro-choice justice with a likely young pro-choice justice with years of ridiculous anti-life rulings ahead of them.
Life News reports:
Justice John Paul Stevens could become the next Supreme Court justice to retire if the speculation that has started today is correct. Stevens has hired just one law clerk for an upcoming Supreme Court session, which observers say is an indication he could be considering a retirement bid.
Stevens confirmed through a spokesman today that he will have just one law clerk for the session that begins in October 2010.
Typically, members of the court have four attorneys who work for them whereas retired justices hire only one.
Methinks that the next nominee might get a little more heat than Sotomayor did just because Obama’s simply not as popular and Republicans are starting to strut a little bit. But no matter what we’re getting another pro-choicer on the bench. A younger one.
For more on this story check out Life News.
HT Pewsitter
September 3, 2009 at 7:10 am
Sotomayor had only one abortion related case in her career, and she ruled in favor of the pro-life camp.
September 3, 2009 at 7:12 pm
I would like to take this chance to thank all those seamless garment types who gave us Obama. This makes two opportunities to correct the Supreme Court flushed down the toilet. Thanks a lot!
September 3, 2009 at 8:22 pm
In my dealing with probama Catholics, they mentioned that there was a chance to overturn Roe v Wade during the Bush years, and the pro life justices didn't do it then, because overturning this law was considered a "dead issue". They wanted to know why we as a pro life movement felt that we had to keep up the fight legally. I guess it would have something to do with the likes of us not wanting to advocate child abuse and slaughtering, even if some would callously refer to it as a "dead issue".