DISQUS

DISQUS Hello! Jeff Bristow dot COM is using DISQUS, a powerful comment system, to manage its comments. Learn more.

Community Page

Jeff Bristow dot COM

The official site for all things going on inside Jeff's brain
Jump to original thread »
Author

A Case for Obama?

Started by Jeff · 8 months ago

This past week I have received a number of emails from people with some arguments for me to consider about Obama. Here I would like to share some of those arguments along with my rebuttal and reasoning for not being able to support Barack Obama in 2008. If anyone has stronger arguments please post i ... Continue reading »

3 comments

  • Chris

    9 months ago

    I just discovered your website, and as a believer, teacher, and mentor for others I must respond to your belief on abortion.

    First - let us look to Biblical Truths

    There is only one way to heaven: Salvation provided by God, through Jesus, to the repentant, believing sinner (John 3:16)

    - Man has a sin nature.
    - Without salvation from his sin nature, he will go to Hell.
    - Upon salvation from his sin nature, he will go to heaven (after death or rapture)
    -Man
    reply
  • Christine

    9 months ago

    I am under the impression that Bush's appointments to the Supreme Court have not necessarily made much difference in the likelihood of the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade if it were revisited. Am I misinformed? I would have had much more respect for Bush if he had said "yes abortion is a litmus test for my appointees and y'all may as well approve the first one I send you because I will keep sending you pro-life appointees until the Senate approves one." Instead he tries to appoint his inner circle lady lawyer friend with minimal if any appropriate experience??
    reply
  • Jeff

    9 months ago

    Christine - It is true that Bush did not use the abortion issue as a litmus test for all of his appointees. And he certainly did try to get some of his 'friends' onto the bench. But he did look for one thing from each appointee, that each person be a 'Constitutionalist', meaning that they will not look to other documents, individuals, countries, or personal beliefs to interpret the constitution. A lack of this view has been what is causing the Judical branch to legislate from the bench. And that is not their job, their job is to interpret the constitutionality of Legislation that the Legislative branch passes. The Judicial branch should not be guiding anti-abortion or a pro-abortion agenda through results of a trial or court hearing. Creating laws is the job of the Legislature and needs to be handed back to that branch of government. A Constitutionalist judge is far more likely to repeal Roe vs Wade so that the Legislature will need to tackle this item, rather than the courts dictating it.

    I don't believe that any President should ask for anything more from their appointees than that. However, what appears to be the case more often than not, is that constitutionalists tend to be pro-life, rather than pro-choice. Roberts and Alito are pro-life, however they are unable to make any headway on any pro-life issues since the court is still balanced the other way. Two more appointments are coming up in the next 4 years (at least that appears to be the case), so the next President will have a task that can dramatically impact the pro-life cause. McCain says he is committed to appointing Judges that will be constitutionalists, which tells me that there is a strong possibility that they will repeal any issues that may have been legislated from the Judicial branch.

    Chris - I will have to get back to you later to address your points regarding sin nature and abortion.
    reply

Add New Comment

Returning? Login