Gisburg declined to answer many questions involving a number of controversial issues, hypothetical facts, or areas in which she is not an expert that were posed by Senators. Yet she was confirmed by a vote of 96-3 because the Senate recognized her reasons for caution as valid and appropriate.

Additionally, Feinstein has somehow managed to convince herself that she speaks[http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-08-24-roberts-feinstein_x.htm
] for the women of the United States. "As the only woman on the committee, I have an additional role to play: representing the views and concerns of 145 million American women during this hearing process," Feinstein said. "It is my hope that Judge Roberts would play a role similar to Justice O'Connor's ... and bring with him a voice defined by temperance and open-mindedness."

The Family Research Council responded by sending a letter to Feinstein challenging her position.

"Yesterday, in a public statement, you claimed to represent 145 million women. Could you clarify how you arrived at this number?

"According to the 2003 American Community Survey of the U.S. Census Bureau, there are 144,513,361 women and girls in the United States and, given our democratic environment and diverse society, we are confident in suggesting that the views of these women are not all represented by you. California, the state you represent, has about 17.5 million women and girls.

"If you are suggesting that you represent 145 million women because of your stance on Roe v. Wade, polls show that women are consistently becoming more pro-life. A 2003 survey by The Polling Company found that 54 percent of women identify their position on abortion as falling within one of three 'pro-life' positions. Additionally, the 2003 study by the Center for the Advancement of Women showed that among twelve top issues for women, abortion ranked number eleven; it was well out paced by issues such as 'improving women's health care' and 'child care.'

"We look forward to the explanation of your statement."

Diane Feinstein is a bit jaded and faded. I guess she thinks that she must talk herself up and claim to represent American women, when in fact she represents a small noisy faction of women who are on the whole a bunch of clueless women.

I doubt that Feinstein has all that much pull and when it comes to these nominations she really is blowing a lot of hot air. These women are starting to show how frazzled and jaded that they have become. If anyone dares to oppose their position the poison darts are thrown at random. They must be running scared because they know that Roe vs. Wade was a bad decision, and that any clear thinking judge would see that it should be overturned, since abortion on demand is murder.

Women do not have the right to do whatever they wish to their bodies. That is a myth. It is also not part of your Constitution since freedoms do not extend that far. The original decision should have been soundly denounced and every effort should have been made to overturn this bad ruling. This decision seemed to be the beginning of judicial activism. Now it seems that these judges are of the opinion that what they rule cannot be overturned through the Parliament. However, such an opinion is not consistent with the intent of your founding fathers.

Judicial activism, if it is allowed to remain as something that is unfettered, will in the end bring about a situation that will continue to cause misery in the United States of America. If the judges are allowed to continue creating their own laws, then the people will have more and more of their freedoms taken away from them.

The judicial activists took away the civil rights of Terri Schindler. The ramifications of that case have not as yet reached their full force. It is bad news for the disabled because suddenly all disabled members of society are faced with a situation where their civil rights can be taken away from them, thus leaving them open to a death sentence of the same nature as the one given to Terri. The activists were intent upon one thing only - the attempt to bring about euthanasia on demand.

This particular case continues all the time with new twists and turns. I continue to wait for a real investigation to begin into what really happened on the morning that Terri collapsed. The members of the office of Bernie McCabe should be sacked since they do not have a clue when it comes to criminal action. They, like so many have failed the greater test of proving that they have real investigative ability, and that they know how to discern a situation where a homicide has been allowed to take place with judicial sanction.

There has been criminal activity in the Schiavo case since it began. I still believe that there was an attempt to kill Terri via what is known as the policeman's hold. This is the same hold that caused brain injury to the Australian youth, Sam Hogan. I have seen a further story on Sam Hogan. He is a schizophrenic and the police were called to pick him up when he had gone walkabout. They used capsicum spray as well as the policeman's hold to restrain Sam. Now he is in the same condition as Terri, he is in a minimally conscious state according to his neurologist (the same as Terri). He cannot talk to anyone and so he cannot tell them what really happened. HOwever, his story throws light onto what might have happened to Terri because the injuries are so similar.