Democrats have too long taken a bum rap for liberal social laws created by the U.S. Supreme Court. Democrats have appointed only two justices in the past 35 years. It is Republicans who appointed Brennan, Stewart, Burger, Blackman, Powell, Stevens, Kennedy, O'Connor and Souther.
These justices supplied the five majority votes in the following cases: 1972 legalized sale of birth control; 1973 Roe vs. Wade; 1980 took down the Ten Commandments; 1992 upheld partial birth abortions. Ironically, Souter (a G.H.W Bush appointee) broke the tie on partial birth while White (JFK appointee) voted flat out against it.
Anyone who understands case law would know why many pro-life believers vote Democratic. They vote by the record, not by the rhetoric. An old political adage is to never solve a problem that gets you elected. Why would a smart "conservative" who gets endorsed by pro-life advocates not support a party that appoints liberals to the court to keep legal the "liberal" laws he campaigns against to get elected? "Conservative" rhetoric and liberal appointees make a tag team that equals nothing less than partisan gimmickry.
How come politicians who vote for a president who appoints liberals is considered a "conservative" while office-holders of the other party whose job it is to uphold what has become the law of the land are labeled "liberal"?
Have any of the Republican candidates in November ever voted for a president that has not appointed one of these justices listed above? Ask them.-- Chuck Spalding, Bardstown.