What are the chances...

[RobMoney$]

Abortion laws change significantly if McCain/Palin are elected?


Abortion is obviously a topic many are passionate about. After an exchange in another thread yesterday with Ms.Peachy and others, I was thinking about this topic sporadically throughout the day.

The reason that I ask is it feels to me like Roe v Wade isn't going anywhere no matter who is elected. Obviously, the SC appointments are the main issue, and it could be that Rv. W won't be affected until well after McCain is gone, but it just feels to me that the issue is so entrenched that the guy in the Whitehouse really doesn't have a huge impact on it. Obviously, he has more impact that any one person does, but it just doesn't feel like he's got that much impact on it. I don't think McCain cares very much about abortion as an issue. Combine that with a Democratic Congress and I think that Federal law is unlikely to change at all. I think it's used more as a threat by both sides.

And I get the pro-choice folks that ask me how I can vote for McCain/Palin, but my thought is putting McCain in the Whitehouse isn't really going to affect abortion that much.
You think that's right?


I see these folks that are single issue abortion voters, it kind of makes me wonder...and I mean that from both sides. If you're a staunch pro-life person, I'm not sure that McCain is really going to help you that much. If you're a big pro-choice person, I'm not sure that McCain is really going to hurt much.

Agree? Disagree?

I'm not really in love with this thought. It's just been rattling around a little bit as someone who is pro-choice, but supporting McCain. Maybe I'm trying to justify it in my own mind, I dunno.

Note: When I say "change" towards pro-life. I don't mean abortions are outlawed. Maybe that means the abortion issue becomes a state issue. Or that abortions are significantly more difficult to obtain. Basically, significant movement from where they are to today, to something more towards the Pro-Life position. I know that's a blurry definition and that's ok I think.

[King PSYZ]

Tha chances are very high as both McCain and Palin have made it a mission statement in their march toward the white house.

Considering the way Bush tossed the constitution in the gutter and ignored all due process I don't see what would stop McCain from doing the same thing. And if not by decree, than by SC appointees

[Bob]

I don't see what would stop McCain from doing the same thing. And if not by decree, than by SC appointees

pretty much. i'm not an expert on this (perhaps i should be) but if i may repeat what ms. peachy (i think) once said, justice stevens is the main person standing in the way of a majority of the court being able to overturn roe v. wade. he's old and the chances of him retiring in the next 4-8 years are high. john mccain will be the person to appoint his replacement. if he appoints a conservative judge, like he says he's going to, and if that judge does in fact turn out to be a conservative (sometimes they surprise you), then the chances of a mccain presidency resulting in roe v. wade getting overturned are fairly high, it's just a matter of the right case making its way up the chain.

of course, you know technically, the supreme court isn't in the business of making law or policy (mccain wouldn't appoint a judicial activist! that's what liberals do! them and every supreme court justice ever), it's just there to apply law to facts and interpret the constitution but...well.

[yeahwho]

I have to tell you, the republican convention sent out a strong signal that they are anti-abortion with each succeeding speech this last week. Then to really drive this point home we have a selection of a VP candidate, hand picked by McCain who represents the abstinence stance and pro-life agenda so strongly she has a pregnant 17 year old unmarried daughter and a downs syndrome baby after age 40.

This leads me to no other conclusion than they'll put a 100% effort into pushing that Roe v Wade be overturned.

It also led me to a great band name, the Hugh Downs Syndrome.

[Randetica]

dont even get me started

[Documad]

Bush has done everything he can to overturn Roe v. Wade. So will McCain.

The ONLY reason that Bush was unsuccessful is because Justice Stevens is still alive. Justice Stevens is 88 years old. He deserves to retire. :rolleyes:
I'd give it a 90-95% chance that Roe v. Wade is overturned if McCain is elected. All it takes is replacing Stevens with an anti-choice judge. The right to abortion have already been reduced and reduced and reduced so that there is really nothing left except overturning Roe itself.

The 5-10% chance is because an anti-choice judge could decide that he/she does not have the stomach to overturn Roe--it could have profound political consequences for one thing. Many people, especially young women, take the right for granted and there could a sort of social revolution if the law is overturned. There are women, for instance, who are publicly anti-choice for political or business reasons but who have had abortions. A couple of presidents have been disappointed that the justices they appointed so that could happen with McCain, but surprises are less likely today than in the 1950s when Eisenhower appointed Warren.

[RobMoney$]

Considering the way Bush tossed the constitution in the gutter and ignored all due process I don't see what would stop McCain from doing the same thing. And if not by decree, than by SC appointees


I hate being in a position of having to defend Bush, but he couldn't skirt the due process of nominating and confirming Justices Roberts & Alito.
And I also think it's a mistake to say just because Bush was wiping his ass with the constitution automatically means McCain will follow suit.
There are millions of GOP members in this country that do not support what Bush has done, and I think McCain is one of them.

But I digress,

Anyway, you lost me with your comment "And if not by decree, than by SC appointees".
You guys do realize the President cannot decree such a thing, right? **I'm looking at you, Bobalou**

You also realize that any SC nominee will have to be confirmed by Congress (checks & balances) which is controlled by Democrats, right?
In other words, even if a Liberal SCJ were to step down, and McCain were to nominate a conservative Judge that the Dems thought would be a threat to Rv. W, then they could simply block the nomination, which they would surely do.

...And all of this is based on the assumption that the next retiring SCJ would be a liberal in favor of Rv. W. Otherwise you'd just be replacing a conservative with another supposed conservative, which would mean status quo.


...And all of that is based on the fact that it would take years for legislation to make it's way to the Supreme Court for the issue to even be considered.


Sorry guys, I just can't see it happening.

[QueenAdrock]

Depends if any of the old guys on the bench die. So, 50/50.

[RobMoney$]

I'd give it a 90-95% chance that Roe v. Wade is overturned if McCain is elected. All it takes is replacing Stevens with an anti-choice judge. The right to abortion have already been reduced and reduced and reduced so that there is really nothing left except overturning Roe itself.

Ginsberg is 76, and Kennedy is 73, both of whom are considered Pro-Choice and expected to retire soon.

The 5-10% chance is because an anti-choice judge could decide that he/she does not have the stomach to overturn Roe--it could have profound political consequences for one thing. Many people, especially young women, take the right for granted and there could a sort of social revolution if the law is overturned. There are women, for instance, who are publicly anti-choice for political or business reasons but who have had abortions. A couple of presidents have been disappointed that the justices they appointed so that could happen with McCain, but surprises are less likely today than in the 1950s when Eisenhower appointed Warren.


Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, and Souter was appointed by Bush Sr., and both of these guys are considered to have bucked the GOP and are in the "Choice" camp.

[saz]

if mccain/palin were elected, then there is no doubt in my mind that they'd do everything they could to get roe v. wade overturned. not only is palin a super christy hardcore right-winger, but mccain has an extensive, better yet exhaustive anti-abortion record.

and i wouldn't count on congressional democrats to block any future supreme court picks from a mccain administration. the dems afterall approved alito. they even approved mukasey as attorney-general, even though he doesn't think waterboarding is a form of torture. they always cave and give into every one of bush's whims.


Overturn Roe v. Wade, but keep incest & rape exceptions

McCain said he thought Roe v. Wade should be overturned and said he would support exceptions to a ban on abortion in cases of rape, incest, and when the mother’s life is in danger.

Source: Boston Globe, p. A11 Jan 22, 2000

john mccain on abortion (http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/John_McCain_Abortion.htm)



Supports repealing Roe v. Wade. (May 2007)
Voted YES on defining unborn child as eligible for SCHIP. (Mar 2008)
Voted YES on barring HHS grants to organizations that perform abortions. (Oct 2007)
Voted YES on expanding research to more embryonic stem cell lines. (Apr 2007)
Voted YES on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions. (Jul 2006)
Voted NO on $100M to reduce teen pregnancy by education & contraceptives. (Mar 2005)
Voted YES on criminal penalty for harming unborn fetus during other crime. (Mar 2004)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions except for maternal life. (Mar 2003)
Voted YES on maintaining ban on Military Base Abortions. (Jun 2000)
Voted YES on banning partial birth abortions. (Oct 1999)
Voted YES on banning human cloning. (Feb 1998)
Rated 0% by NARAL, indicating a pro-life voting record. (Dec 2003)
Expand embryonic stem cell research. (Jun 2004)
Rated 75% by the NRLC, indicating a mixed record on abortion. (Dec 2006)
Prohibit transporting minors across state lines for abortion. (Jan 2008)

voting record on abortion (http://www.ontheissues.org/john_mccain.htm)

[yeahwho]

Lets do a quick fact-check overview on each candidates current position, McCain was for it before he was against it....

abortions (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/abortion.html)


On the SCOTUS judge selection (http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/issues/judges.html)

The evidence is compelling that John McCain really likes the idea of overturning Roe v. Wade.

Neither candidate is hiding anything here. It's obvious and it pisses me off that other issues get avoided while we consume ourselves with a fucking religious belief.

I wish we could just get over the abortion issue for one election and start focusing on infrastructure, poverty and massive debt beyond all other debts, so when that child decision comes, the planet is ready to suffice a nurturing world.

Am I alone when I say this is a red herring? I have been involved with an abortion, women I know have been involved with abortions, none of them are trying to judge anybody on this planet. We all volunteer and we all pay taxes.

Let's keep the government off our bodies. Let's be fair and have a safe viable option for those not as fortunate as Sarah Palin's family to continue their lives as they choose. Is there anything wrong with freedom to have this choice? Look at the criminal docket's nationwide and do the math on the poverty, divorce rates and drug abuse involved. How will that fair when an unwanted pregnancy is forced by law?

[RobMoney$]

and i wouldn't count on congressional democrats to block any future supreme court picks from a mccain administration. the dems afterall approved alito. they even approved mukasey as attorney-general, even though he doesn't think waterboarding is a form of torture. they always cave and give into every one of bush's whims.


Dems not having a backbone? Really? :rolleyes:

[saz]

well...


In other words, even if a Liberal SCJ were to step down, and McCain were to nominate a conservative Judge that the Dems thought would be a threat to Rv. W, then they could simply block the nomination, which they would surely do.

[King PSYZ]

if it weren't for all the politicians that do lead by their religion I would say take Roe V. Wade off the books just because the constitution should not be for or against.

Pregnancy and choice are very private matters per the GOP mouthpieces in regards to Palin's daughter, so it should be left completely up to the individual.

Of course the mouthbreathers come back with "Well what's to prevent some girl from getting 100 abortions or using them as birth control?" Nothing, and why should they be prevented from doing so? Aside from medical risk, they have to live with that moral choice and their belief system.

What I find funny is the GOP and religious right want us to make sure every baby is born, but then we have a bunch of babies that need state handouts or foster care or end up in neglectful or abusive homes and then they decry the DNC for supporting a "welfare state"...

MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS!

You can't have it both ways. Either let people choose if abortion is right for them and reduce government handouts, or demand they're illegal and be ready with the handouts, CPS staff shortages, a broken foster system, wards of the state, etc.

And Rob, seriously if you think W hasn't largely ignored the whole system of checks and balances you watch FOX News far too much.

[RobMoney$]

Never said he didn't.
I'm not defending him. He's without a doubt the worst President in history. I believe he and his cabinet are war criminals and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

You get my point though that even he can't skirt the due process of nominating a SCJ.


and for the record, I don't watch Fox or CNN. They're both biased IMO.

[RobMoney$]

well...


Yeah, maybe I should have said "they surely SHOULD do, but will probably find a way to fuck that up too." :rolleyes:

[travesty]

Am I alone when I say this is a red herring? I have been involved with an abortion, women I know have been involved with abortions, none of them are trying to judge anybody on this planet.

I'm with you on that.

I think a pro-life position is a must have to get the religious vote if your campaigning on the right. But, I don't think any politician REALLY wants to touch that issue with a 10 ft. pole. Especially someone espousing a pro-life approach. When it comes right down to it the vast majority of the country is pro-choice. I think it is a smaller, but sizeable voting block of pro-lifers that keep stirring the issue to the front of every election. Since the GOP can't win anything without the bibble thumpers, they have to cow-tow. I mean really, even the most devoutly religious people realize that thanks to Roe v. Wade they can CHOOSE to not have one.

I feel that if this is even in the top ten issues you use to judge a candidate... your not paying attention to what is going on in this country.

Interesting read;
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/11/14/what_happens_if_roe_is_overturned/

[Documad]

I am not going to write a treatise on constitutional law, but basically it's the president who picks federal judges. The senate gets to advise and consent. The senate is supposed to give a pass to almost all of the president's picks and only preclude the ones who are unqualified or who have an ethics problem. The president can pick a strong anti-choice candidate (a younger Scalia for instance). There are a couple of reasons why the president will get his anti-choice candidate on the supreme court. (1) the senate will be exceeding its constitutional authority if it doesn't confirm the president's qualified candidate; (2) the president can put up one anti-choice candidate after another; (3) if the senate strikes down all of the president's choices, the senate would be breaking with tradition and violating the constitution, and the american people would not stand for it for long; (4) the judicial candidate will be honest with the president about his viewpoint on abortion but he won't be open and honest with the senate judiciary committee; (5) the candidate will tell the committee that he cannot give a hypothetical judicial opinion and will have to wait and judge each case on its facts; (6) the candidate will tell the senate vague things like he thinks precedent should be followed. This is how the last few anti-choice candidates got in.

The candidates who did not get confirmed were extremely unusual. Witness Bork. That's the left's only success story, right? Common thought is he wasn't confirmed because he was anti-choice, but that's only because he had a long track record of articles he had written that disclosed his extreme right wing positions. McCain will follow the more recent trend of presidents picking justices who didn't write those sorts of articles--stealthy right-wing judges. In my opinion, the more important thing is Bork's role in the Saturday Night Massacre. I think that had a lot to due with him getting voted down.

Since then, the republican presidents changed tactics. They got smart. Their nominees will get confirmed.

[Bob]

i don't mean to be a whippersnapper but...well...

I hate being in a position of having to defend Bush, but he couldn't skirt the due process of nominating and confirming Justices Roberts & Alito.

what? i don't understand what that means


You guys do realize the President cannot decree such a thing, right? **I'm looking at you, Bobalou**

what? when did i say that mccain would decree that abortions would be illegal? i don't think i did. i said he'd appoint justices that would (he'd hope) overturn roe v. wade.


...And all of this is based on the assumption that the next retiring SCJ would be a liberal in favor of Rv. W. Otherwise you'd just be replacing a conservative with another supposed conservative, which would mean status quo....

ok. fair enough. but then you go on to say...

Ginsberg is 76, and Kennedy is 73, both of whom are considered Pro-Choice and expected to retire soon.

so...what? i'm no big city lawyer, but i think you just contradicted yourself?

...And all of that is based on the fact that it would take years for legislation to make it's way to the Supreme Court for the issue to even be considered.

what? what difference does this make? if it happens during the mccain presidency or if it happens years after the mccain presidency, the point is that so long as the mccain-appointed supreme court hears the case, the mccain presidency could very reasonably result in roe v. wade being overturned. by your own admission, whether you realize it or not, it's a matter of "when will it happen?", not "will it happen?"

Sorry guys, I just can't see it happening.

can't? or really don't want to?

i do appreciate you italicizing roe v. wade, though. i'm a fanatical bluebooker (not on here, of course, i don't even use capital letters or periods if i can help it) so i liked that :)

also, sorry documad, for crediting ms. peachy with the justice stevens thing. i don't know why i didn't think it was you. who else on this board would know that?

edit: if any of the things i've just said turn out to be dumb i'm putting you all on notice that i'm drunk but it all looks fairly smart to me right now so i'm keeping it

[Documad]

I once took a small seminar where each of us pretended to be a supreme court justice. I picked Stevens. <3

[DroppinScience]

Kennedy was appointed by Reagan, and Souter was appointed by Bush Sr., and both of these guys are considered to have bucked the GOP and are in the "Choice" camp.

I'm pretty sure Justice Kennedy was a Ford appointee, but same diff.

[Documad]

I think we got Kennedy after Bork was denied.

Souter was just a dumb choice for Bush I. Souter had absolutely no record -- a complete dark horse. Then again, Bush I was prochoice for his entire life until he ran for president in 1988. So maybe he intended to stick it to his right wing supporters.

[yeahwho]

Lets just fucking close down the Medical schools across this country and have some gay pastor fuck us up the ass so we can avoid abortions.

Is there a judge who can provide us with that decision? Or do we just wait around as it happens. May as well expedite our stupidity.

Talk about fundamentalist fanatics, hate gays, hate pro-choice, censor books, ban lyrical content, love semi automatic guns. Whatever.

[RobMoney$]

I'm pretty sure Justice Kennedy was a Ford appointee, but same diff.


I stand corrected.
You can't really blame me for not having any memory of the Ford administration though. Who would.

[RobMoney$]

i don't mean to be a whippersnapper but...well...



what? i don't understand what that means



what? when did i say that mccain would decree that abortions would be illegal? i don't think i did. i said he'd appoint justices that would (he'd hope) overturn roe v. wade.

You quoted Psyz saying "And if not by decree, than by SC appointees" and saying "pretty much". The "decree" part was in there.


ok. fair enough. but then you go on to say...

Me: Ginsberg is 76, and Kennedy is 73, both of whom are considered Pro-Choice and expected to retire soon.

so...what? i'm no big city lawyer, but i think you just contradicted yourself?

The key word I said is "expected" to retire. They both could well stay on for another 10-15 years. It's very possible Scalia will step down (and it's been rumored he wants out) which would mean conservative for conservative = status quo. My point is that there's no way of knowing how it'll all unfold.


what? what difference does this make? if it happens during the mccain presidency or if it happens years after the mccain presidency, the point is that so long as the mccain-appointed supreme court hears the case, the mccain presidency could very reasonably result in roe v. wade being overturned. by your own admission, whether you realize it or not, it's a matter of "when will it happen?", not "will it happen?"

It makes a difference because if it's going to take years for it to even be heard, anything could happen in those years. A Democratic President could be in power in the next term and could have appointed two new Liberals by that point.

can't? or really don't want to?

Like I said in my original post, it's possible I'm just trying to justify it in my own mind. So yeah, I realize it may be just wishful thinking on my part.

i do appreciate you italicizing roe v. wade, though. i'm a fanatical bluebooker (not on here, of course, i don't even use capital letters or periods if i can help it) so i liked that :)

also, sorry documad, for crediting ms. peachy with the justice stevens thing. i don't know why i didn't think it was you. who else on this board would know that?

edit: if any of the things i've just said turn out to be dumb i'm putting you all on notice that i'm drunk but it all looks fairly smart to me right now so i'm keeping it

You law students really know how to party.
I'm gonna get drunk and debate politics on the internet!

That must have been absolutely tedious to do while drunk, so I do appreciate the effort and felt obliged to give a response.

[ToucanSpam]

I think that McCain/Palin will push very hard to make it happen and since the issue is so important to their 'values' they will be stubborn enough to make the change.


That's assuming they will win.

[RobMoney$]

You know, I've always been staunchly Pro-Choice, but would it really be so terrible if it were to become a state's rights issue?

So maybe it's not so easy to get the $150 bucks from Damone, and a ride to a "blue state" without your parents knowing about it when you're 15 to get an abortion, but isn't that what this country is all about,...by the people and for the people?

I mean if the folks in the red states are so adamant about this, maybe we should let them have it? I'm all for smaller Government.



DISCLAIMER: I realize that my residing in a NE "Blue" state totally leads to my having no fear of my or my neighboring states desiring to become anti-abortion.

[travesty]

would it really be so terrible if it were to become a state's rights issue?

Wouldn't bother me a bit. More states rights and less federal control can't be bad.(y)

[Documad]

When you look at the older justices, you have to understand that there are many other issues besides abortion and that the abortion thing didn't get big until the evangelicals started to get big, and that's a relatively recent phenomenon. There were emerging issues about how much legal rights corporations had. There were issues about whether the death penalty was legal (remember that there were years when it was illegal in this country?) I was a kid, but I remember when Gilmore was finally executed. There were issues about whether kids could be bused to racially balance schools.

Stevens was a Ford appointee. He was appointed largely because of his business background -- he would be helpful to corporations and understand anti-trust law. He wasn't even all that liberal on rights for criminal defendants (compared to the people who were on the court when he joined). But because of all the conservative appointments since then he appears more liberal now.

Kennedy was a Reagan appointee. Reagan picked Bork, Bork couldn't get confirmed, and then Reagan put up Kennedy. When Bork couldn't get confirmed it was a huge deal because appointees almost always get confirmed. I assume that Reagan wanted to pick a safer choice the next time.

Also, the abortion issue wasn't Reagan's most important issue. In the early 80s, Reagan's constituents were also concerned with whether the supreme court had gone to far in recognizing rights of criminal defendants and there were issues regarding how much business should be regulated. He was looking to stack the court with pro-cop law and order types who would undo the work done by the Warren court. Reagan as also trying to get justices that favored free market ideas and would limit Congress's control over business regulations.

Bush I didn't care about abortion on a personal level. He was pro choice, as is his wife. He was the kind of republican my parents were. He had to start talking anti-choice to get nominated by republicans after the religious right took control of the national republican party in the mid 80s. Bush I had to put up candidate who weren't on record as pro-choice, but I don't think her seriously vetted the candidates on whether they were going to overturn Roe v. Wade. I suspect that Bush I thought that overturning Roe would be a dumb idea because it would be disruptive if nothing else. He was a pretty sensible guy.

In my opinion, Clinton should have tried to stack the court with liberals, but because Clinton wasn't all that liberal, he made really poor choices for the court. Clinton also should have appointed young people but instead he picked older, unhealthy ones. He had to pick a woman and thus wasted a slot by picking an older woman who isn't good on liberal issues. I was unbelievably frustrated by Clinton's judicial nominees. I know that the republican-controlled Congress was stalling the confirmation of his judges, but he should have called their bluff. Then again, Clinton was never a liberal. He was pro death penalty, etc.

Bush II had a serious personal agenda against choice, and he selected his justices accordingly.

McCain used to be somewhat pro choice, but he has promised over and over during the course of the last year that he will follow the Bush II model.

[Documad]

Wouldn't bother me a bit. More states rights and less federal control can't be bad.(y)

I agree on some issues, but not when it comes to civil liberties.

Is it okay for one state to decide that employers can discriminate on the basis of race and only hire white employees?

Would it be okay for some states to outlaw birth control?

Until recently, some states were legally allowed to outlaw homosexual sex. That was overturned by the US SCT because homosexuals have basic human rights that are protected by our federal constitution. Women also have federal constitutional rights.

[yeahwho]

If you did not notice some sort of dramatic shift in how government works and affects your personal life this past eight years, your seriously lacking in comprehension skills. It never ceases to amaze me how much bullshit the American citizen can consume.

I say just vote McCain and quit the fishing expedition here. If I thought for one second this thread was going to enlighten me on how the republican's were going to govern I wouldn't bother to even make this post. But this post is to just call bullshit.

John McCain and Sarah Palin will do everything possible to shore up that 10-20% base by electing whichever judge they can to overturn roe v. wade.

This is the only issue they focused on during the convention with any depth.

It doesn't really matter. People vote against their own best personal interest all the time. That amazes me, but I've seen it over and over, then they bitch about their paycheck. We do have a choice today, if you want to keep some choices in your country, especially safe medical procedures, I say stay away from McCain in the ballot box.

[travesty]

Would it be okay for some states to outlaw birth control?

Don't get confused, birth control is a product, not a civil liberty.

However, I see your point on the rest of them.

[saz]

I think a pro-life position is a must have to get the religious vote if your campaigning on the right. But, I don't think any politician REALLY wants to touch that issue with a 10 ft. pole. Especially someone espousing a pro-life approach. When it comes right down to it the vast majority of the country is pro-choice. I think it is a smaller, but sizeable voting block of pro-lifers that keep stirring the issue to the front of every election. Since the GOP can't win anything without the bibble thumpers, they have to cow-tow. I mean really, even the most devoutly religious people realize that thanks to Roe v. Wade they can CHOOSE to not have one.

no offence, but i think to make an assumption like that is naive. look at what the radical right jesus freaks have done and are doing to the country, and still want to do: a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage; creationism taught in schools; no sex education; no contraceptives; the ten commandments on public display everywhere; they "talk" to god, and god "tells" them to go to war; re-writing the constitution to make it more christian; the terry schiavo fiasco; christian prayer in schools; the illegal invasion of iraq; christian missionaries in iraq; attack and nuke iran to bring about armageddon; it goes on and on and on.

these nutjobs want a theocracy, plain and simple. they want to shove christiantiy down everyone's throat. they essentially want to make america into one big mega church.

i think it's very naive and even dangerous to simply write these people off, and that they are not serious about implementing their very screwed up agenda.

[travesty]

these nutjobs want a theocracy, plain and simple. they want to shove christiantiy down everyone's throat. they essentially want to make america into one big mega church.


Point taken. although I don't consider them any more or less threatening than the crunchy green meanies on the far left who also want a country where the gubment will decide and provide everything in their life. Although I think that the far righters have been a little more successful over time the fight between the two has, so far, kept things rather moderate.

I mean, if they were really THAT powerful we wouldn't be talking about Roe v. Wade and I wouldn't have to get a background check to buy a new gun.

It just amazes me that here in the year 2008 with all that we know and all of the science now available and the human history that we have been through... that people still let some invisible man in the sky influence their lives that much, all too often at the expense of their fellow man.

[saz]

Point taken. although I don't consider them any more or less threatening than the crunchy green meanies on the far left who also want a country where the gubment will decide and provide everything in their life.

you referenced an absurd republican talking point and a sweeping generalization. individuals like ralph nader or cynthia mckinney do not want the government to decide and provide everything in people's lives. what people like nader are calling for are a restoration of regulations, so corporate america, whether it's enron, haliburton, or blackwater can't run amok and can't screw over average taxpayers for billions, ditto predatory lending. they're also calling for single payer, universal healthcare, which is not a hindrance for the average citizen. if both conservative and socialist leaders and politicians all throughout europe and canada can fund and support universal healthcare, while balancing the books, why can't it be done in america? from a personal perspective, a few years back a family member had serious surgery. it didn't cost us a dime, nor did the time spent in hospital. the surgery and care were top notch, with a full recovery. now, if we didn't have that kind of coverage, we'd be paying for it through the nose and making serious, major sacrifices, putting our homes up and so forth.

the greens and nader just want to make life easier and their government more accessible to the average citizen. they're not frightening nor to they spew warmongering rhetoric or hatred for anything that's slightly different or foreign, whether it's gays and lesbians, immigrants, mexicans, arabs, the poor and disenfranchised et al. greens don't try tell people how to live their lives, nor do they shove a moral "family values" agenda down their throats.

remember, the religious right began to grow in the 70s and only took full control of the republican party probably somewhere in the late 80s or early 90s. not only could it get to a point where we're no longer discussing roe v. wade, but also, a background check, come on. i still can't fathom what a citizen needs with an ak-47 or anti-tank artillery.

[DroppinScience]

Whoops, looked up Kennedy. Documad's right, he was indeed appointed by Reagan.

[travesty]

My point is that there is a far left and far right and the fight between them keeps things somewhere in the middle. By espousing that one party's platform would be the best thing for the country in all apsects is insane. That's why there are elections and term limits and checks and balances. For the minority, it is unfortunate that the majority rules.... but that's how the game is played around here.

Also, are you telling me that there were no religious zealots until the 70's maybe 80's?! That's odd. I seem to remember school prayers, 10 commandments in the court building and presidents being sworn in on Bibles long before the 80's. In fact this country was almost entirely devout Christian since it's inception. If anything, the "progressive" movement is the relative newcomer. Maybe the church goers just got a little more vocal and uptight when they felt threatened by all the hippies that came along in the 60's.

Believe me I don't want to go back to the wild west where we all go to church on Sunday, carry a six shooter and hang people in the name of the lord. But I also don't want the government telling me that my business has become "too successful" and needs to be regulated and taxed more. Or that I can't have the things I deem necessary to defend my person and property.

I don't think everyone needs a tank, but an AK-47 is not much of a defense these days if the citizens ever had to fight our government. I don't want the feds getting into my business but a completely free market can be trouble for the population. See what I'm saying??? We need both the far left and the far right in order to keep things somewhat sane around here.

[Documad]

Don't get confused, birth control is a product, not a civil liberty.

However, I see your point on the rest of them.

I am not confused.

The same constitutional theory that supports a right to abortion supports the right to make other personal sexual decisions. Without that constitutional right, your state, local, or federal government could outlaw the sale of birth control products. They are illegal in some countries and they used to be illegal in some states before the US SCT ruled otherwise (Griswold case). The supreme court is important.

[Bob]

You law students really know how to party.
I'm gonna get drunk and debate politics on the internet!

That must have been absolutely tedious to do while drunk, so I do appreciate the effort and felt obliged to give a response.

right, well, i mean honest to god, i'm not trying to be condescending here, but i really want you to think about whether you really truly honestly believe that a mccain presidency won't have a significant chance of roe v. wade being overturned, because from what you're saying it really sounds like you're purposely trying not to think about it (you even admit it, kind of).

mccain has repeatedly said he wants to overturn roe v. wade (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXNSa_xCpzk) (the daily mcbush, i know :rolleyes: but just ignore that and listen to what mccain actually says). you keep saying "well maybe it'll be a conservative judge that gets replaced and we'll just go back to status quo" but come on think about that. stevens is 88 years old. after 4 years of mccain he'll be 92, after 8 he'll be 96. do you really think he isn't going to retire before he's 96 years old (if he lives that long)?

that's all it could take, that's the minimum that needs to happen. and as you yourself admit, there's a possibility that two other liberal (that's debatable but abortion-wise, yes) judges could retire as well. mccain would get to replace them, too. it doesn't matter if conservative judges retire, he only needs to replace one pro-choice judge and that's it, that's the game. do you really in your heart of hearts not expect that to happen? i admit, i'm not a fortune teller, i can't say for sure that the judge he appoints will actually go through with it (or that other judges will act as we predict they'll act, many judges are also human beings), or that the right case won't make its way to the court before some conservative judges retire and the next president, who might be more liberal, appoints pro-choice judges to replace them, but damn, think harder about this.

again, i'm not trying to be condescending (though i may be failing) and i'm not trying to tell you how to vote or anything, i'm just saying, the possibility of a mccain presidency resulting in roe v. wade getting overturned is far more reasonable than you seem to be willing to bring yourself to admit. if you're comfortable with that, if other issues are more important to you, or if you think roe v. wade getting overturned won't have much of an impact, that's fine, that's not my business at all, it's just you seem to be minimizing the risk of the case getting overturned here and i'm really not sure you're basing it off the facts.

[saz]

My point is that there is a far left and far right and the fight between them keeps things somewhere in the middle. By espousing that one party's platform would be the best thing for the country in all apsects is insane. That's why there are elections and term limits and checks and balances. For the minority, it is unfortunate that the majority rules.... but that's how the game is played around here.

Also, are you telling me that there were no religious zealots until the 70's maybe 80's?! That's odd. I seem to remember school prayers, 10 commandments in the court building and presidents being sworn in on Bibles long before the 80's. In fact this country was almost entirely devout Christian since it's inception. If anything, the "progressive" movement is the relative newcomer. Maybe the church goers just got a little more vocal and uptight when they felt threatened by all the hippies that came along in the 60's.

Believe me I don't want to go back to the wild west where we all go to church on Sunday, carry a six shooter and hang people in the name of the lord. But I also don't want the government telling me that my business has become "too successful" and needs to be regulated and taxed more. Or that I can't have the things I deem necessary to defend my person and property.

I don't think everyone needs a tank, but an AK-47 is not much of a defense these days if the citizens ever had to fight our government. I don't want the feds getting into my business but a completely free market can be trouble for the population. See what I'm saying??? We need both the far left and the far right in order to keep things somewhat sane around here.


it's not insane. the contemporary perception in america that individuals like nader, mckinney and the greens are "out there" or "extreme" is really bizarre, considering that in canada or europe they are considered very mainstream and electable. and by today's standards, fdr, truman and lbj would be considered too "out there" for democratic power brokers as well.

no, the religious nuts have always been around, however they didn't become a major political force and extremely powerful entity until the 80s. and the founding fathers such as franklin, jefferson and adams weren't the biggest fans of christianity. in fact, they ridiculed it. in addition, look at william jennings bryan. he was quite religious but didn't have an extremist right-wing agenda. he was a man for the people.

again, you're relying on a very cliched and ignorant republican talking point that the government would tell you that your business has become "too successful" and needs to be regulated and taxed more. regulations only exist to ensure a fair, level playing field and that corporate greed doesn't run amok and fuck over the average citizen, as well as the country. just look at all of the deregulation that has occurred under eight years of bush and all of these years (up until the '06 mid-term elections) of a republican controlled senate and congress, and then all of the resulting corporate scandals, disasters, greed and the aforementioned predatory lending/foreclosure crisis. corporations don't give a shit about anyting except turning a profit and they will run amok without regulations. you can have a very successful, strong free market economy with regulations. again, if it works in europe and canada, why not in america?

i don't anticipate americans ever having to fight their government. however, without strong regulations and government oversight, private mercenary firms like blackwater will continue to do as they please and become more and more powerful. what's even more frightening is they're essentially a far right-wing private paramilitary mercenary outfit, with super freak erik prince running the show, who essentially views the iraq quagmire and the war on terror as the new crusades.

[travesty]

it's not insane. the contemporary perception in america that individuals like nader, mckinney and the greens are "out there" or "extreme" is really bizarre, considering that in canada or europe they are considered very mainstream and electable. and by today's standards, fdr, truman and lbj would be considered too "out there" for democratic power brokers as well.

Thankfully, you are right. We are not Europe and we are not Canada (yet), we are America. There are a lot of people who would be considered electable in Europe but not here. That is irrelevant and moot.

look at william jennings bryan. he was quite religious but didn't have an extremist right-wing agenda. he was a man for the people.

Like I said the far right is a smaller, albeit very vocal group. Just because you are religious does not mean you are far right.

again, you're relying on a very cliched and ignorant republican talking point that the government would tell you that your business has become "too successful" and needs to be regulated and taxed more. regulations only exist to ensure a fair, level playing field

Then what exactly is a "windfall" profit tax? Why are so many of Obama's economic plans geared toward Small Businesses and what happens when my company grows large enough to no longer be considered a "small business"? Seems to me that under Obama I would then be taxed more. Where is the incentive for growth in that plan? Does that seem FAIR? Does that sound like a level playing field? If it does then we'll have to agree to disagree because to me it's absurd.


and that corporate greed doesn't run amok and fuck over the average citizen, as well as the country. just look at all of the deregulation that has occurred under eight years of bush and all of these years (up until the '06 mid-term elections) of a republican controlled senate and congress, and then all of the resulting corporate scandals, disasters, greed and the aforementioned predatory lending/foreclosure crisis. corporations don't give a shit about anyting except turning a profit and they will run amok without regulations. you can have a very successful, strong free market economy with regulations. again, if it works in europe and canada, why not in america?

So am I being led to believe that the super-awesome Canadian and European markets have no corporate greed and no corporate scandals? How about Parmalat, how about Siemens. Psssshw, you have some real blinders on sazi. Corporations are run by people....people are greedy. Next time to want to blame the big bad "corporations" for all of your woes remember who owns them.. likely its your friends, neighbors and fellow Americans. Keep in mind that "free market economy with regulations" is an oxymoron. Anyone who blames "the corporations" is a tool. Blame the people running the corporations and I'll listen. Until then you try running a business sometime without making a profit and let me know how that goes.

i don't anticipate americans ever having to fight their government. however, without strong regulations and government oversight, private mercenary firms like blackwater will continue to do as they please and become more and more powerful. what's even more frightening is they're essentially a far right-wing private paramilitary mercenary outfit, with super freak erik prince running the show, who essentially views the iraq quagmire and the war on terror as the new crusades.

I think you just dismissed your own point. With the current regulation and oversight of the second amendment the people are not adequately armed to defend themselves from the whim of these "right wing, paramilitary mercenary outfits". Those fucking douchebags were patrolling the streets of NOLA during Gustav and had access to to the name and address of every gun owner in town! I don't know about you, but if I lived in NOLA that would scare the shit out of me. That really is a police state. If these chodes can have fully auto AR-15's, hand grenades and more without being sworn in as police officers, then why can't I as a law abiding citizen obtain the same level of armament to defend myself on my own? The constitution says I am guaranteed the right to bear arms in order to defend myself from the government. It doesn't say that I am only guaranteed the right to bear small, fairly ineffective arms. I am sorry but if you are appalled by the conduct of Blackwater and the violent disregard for our liberties by overzealous police officers all over this country (read; outside the RNC) then you need to support the 2nd to its fullest. If you plan to rely on these people as your sole source of security in an emergency situation, then good luck to you.

[saz]

no it isn't irrelevant nor moot. my point was that these people are attacked and ridiculed by ignorant republicans, then the media talking heads pick up on these talking points and repeat them. it's all dem/repub/repub/dem on the corporate news channels. you hear or see nothing about barr, nader or mckinney. americans need and deserve more voices and choices, as opposed to the two corporate parties. it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

exactly, that's why i brought up william jennings bryan. he was religious but was a man of the people.

regarding obama's windfall profit tax? i really need to read up on it. plus, i'm not an obama supporter. perhaps one of his more ardent supporters on here can enlighten us.

no, of course there is corporate greed in canada and europe. however, canada and europe haven't been beset and plagued by constant corporate collapses, with thousands being screwed out of their pensions and savings. predatory lending and the foreclosure crisis is uniquely american. no, i don't have blinders on, and you don't have to be so combative. i'm not american, and no, a free market with regulations is not an oxymoron. i live in a free society, with a capitalist economy, which co-exists with regulations. and resorting to childish name-calling is exactly that: childish. we may disagree, but be civil and don't result to juvenile tactics. anyways, blaming corporations involves blaming the greedy people who run them. that's kind of a strange assumption that you would perceive that i think corporations aren't run by individuals.

the constitution also does not say that you have the right to bear ak-47s, bazookas etc. as we all know, it was written in the late 18th century, and the main weapon of choice back then was the musket. they very likely included that provision in case the british came back. obviously, the british aren't coming back, but there are these creepy mercenary groups now. as an outsider, i think the second amendment should be left alone, only because there are far more serious, gripping matters the country faces.

[alien autopsy]

people who care about abortion are fucking idiots.

what right do you have to tell me how or how not to live?

its a stupid issue that shouldnt even be bothered with.

its a weapon of mass distraction.

[travesty]

no it isn't irrelevant nor moot. my point was that these people are attacked and ridiculed by ignorant republicans, then the media talking heads pick up on these talking points and repeat them. it's all dem/repub/repub/dem on the corporate news channels. you hear or see nothing about barr, nader or mckinney. americans need and deserve more voices and choices, as opposed to the two corporate parties. it shouldn't be that way, but it is.

I agree wholeheartedly. The fact that a presidential election only has two candidates and that the entire American populus is split nearly even at about 48% each doesn't leave much room for anyone esle. It's truly sad.



regarding obama's windfall profit tax? i really need to read up on it. plus, i'm not an obama supporter. perhaps one of his more ardent supporters on here can enlighten us.

It really just goes to further an already biased taxation system that rewards you for staying poor and penalizes you for being successful. It sucks.

predatory lending and the foreclosure crisis is uniquely american.

Some call it predatory lending, some call it opportunity. No doubt that even while many mortgages are in foreclosure, many others are solid and have helped people buy a house who up til then could not have. Is it "predatory" because the people using it are too ignorant to understand what they are buying? I'm just trying to clarify the term.

no, i don't have blinders on, and you don't have to be so combative...... and resorting to childish name-calling is exactly that: childish. we may disagree, but be civil and don't result to juvenile tactics

I apologize....I am enjoying our exchange


the constitution also does not say that you have the right to bear ak-47s, bazookas etc.

In fact I am sure that it does, isn't an AK-47 an "arm". Isn't a bazooka an "arm"?

It also doesn't say that I CAN'T have a bazooka. As you know the constitution is interpreted as much for what it does say, as for what it doesn't. Here's an interetsing take on it from Wiki

Another one of the most important early commentaries on the Second Amendment was the 1833 book Commentaries on the U.S. Constitution authored by Associate Justice of the Supreme Court Joseph Story. Both sides in the modern gun debate have excerpted parts of this commentary to support their particular points of view:

§ 1890 of the book describes the Second Amendment:

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. (does that ring true to the last 8 yeasr or what?)

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.[29]

And if the Britsh do come back, We're ganna have to whip their ass again..hehehe