SwiftVets.com

[fortdixlover]

From GeorgeWBush.com newsletter, a scathing critique of the Phila. Inquirer's 21-day John Kerry advocacy series:

Now that The Philadelphia Inquirer is openly campaigning for John Kerry with an unprecedented 21-day endorsement series, we will continue to update you each day by e-mail with a fact-checked response of the criticism leveled by the Inquirer in their effort to help elect John Kerry. Enclosed is a daily rebuttal with the real facts about President Bush's record of accomplishment and his vision for a safer and stronger America.

Since The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial page is now openly campaigning for John Kerry's election, daily excerpts from their commentary have been renamed here as:

THE KERRY DAILY ADVOCATE

Their motto?

"If Kerry's Foragainst it...So Are We!"

October 16, 2004
Today's excerpt:

Today, The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board offers commentary about the "high stakes" of this election by referring to the issue of Supreme Court nominations. Here's part of their take:

The court matters, a lot. The court is inevitably political, but it should not be thoroughly political. It should have a balance of views, which is why preemptive litmus tests are wrong. The best justices evolve and surprise the presidents who appoint them. The focus should be on intellect, integrity and the gift of persuasion.

We don't know how John F. Kerry would handle the awesome task of nominating judges. We do know how George W. Bush would; he's told us. And his approach is the wrong one.

So let's see if we have this correctly: The Philadelphia Inquirer is openly campaigning on their editorial pages for the election of John Kerry, yet they openly admit they don't know how John F. Kerry would handle the awesome task of nominating judges?

But what about the "high stakes" they talked about? How do you justify your advocacy on behalf of a candidate whose principles are unknown on such an important issue? That's just mind-boggling.

Since the Inquirer editorial board doesn't have a clue, here's some food for thought:

Kerry Would Appoint Activist Judges:
American institutions ranging from the Pledge of Allegiance to same-sex marriage to partial birth abortion will soon be decided by the courts. Kerry has an extreme record of supporting activist judges who will legislate their personal preferences from the bench.

Soft-on-Crime Judges: In 2000, Kerry voted to confirm two judges to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals who have since voted to strike down California's "three strikes" law for habitual criminal offenders. One of those judges is so far outside the mainstream that his decisions have been reversed or vacated seven times in just four years on the bench, with a majority of the reversals occurring in decisions deemed by the Supreme Court to be too lenient toward criminal defendants or too harshly critical of the efforts of law-enforcement.

Anti-Religion Judges: Nearly two out of every three Democrat-appointed judges on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - eleven Democrat-appointed judges in total - failed to join an opinion supporting the Pledge of Allegiance when they had the chance. Eight of the eleven anti-Pledge judges were confirmed while Kerry was serving as a Senator, and Kerry supported them all. Kerry's judicial appointments will be in the same mold, legislating from the bench and threatening the existence of American institutions.

The Supreme Court should strictly interpret the rule of law. It would be anti-democratic to allow nine unelected people to set the country's social policy based on their own preferences.

Let The Philadelphia Inquirer editorial board know how you feel!

Write them a letter:
inquirer.letters@phillynews.com

editor@phillynews.com

Letters Editor
The Philadelphia Inquirer
Box 41705, Philadelphia, PA 19101
FAX: 215-854-4483
Telephone: 215-854-4543

Give them a call:

Reader comments by phone to 215-854-5060.

[Me#1You#10]

Moving to Geedunk

Please reserve the main forum for topics directly related to SVPT issues.

Thanks