Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics & Current Events' started by Father Ted, Jul 8, 2005.
I know it's from smudge but...
I'm hearing rumblings from some of my friends on the Hill that Stevens might go as well.
Wow...if you've got time to waste here's an informative article by Pat Buchanan:
I guess if I want to abort the baby I had with my gay husband whilst smoking medical marijuana, I better do it now.
Might as well just shoot yourself, if that's the case.
I can't wait for a return to back-alley abortions!
.. seriously though, Robert Novak should be publicly executed
Wow, BushCo could get a three-fer. Utterly ********ing depressing.
3 picks, and possibly 4, if Ginsburg retires within 3 years.
The Bush Court will stamp it's footprint for decades to come!!! Woohoo!! I'm going to have fun watching the liberals in meltdown mode!!!
Don't start celebrating too soon. Reep Presidents did, after all, appoint seven of the nine justices that right wingers love so much to rail against.
On second thought, I can just enter into a sham marriage, my now secret gay boyfriend and I will have a back alley abortion, and I'll get hooked on prescription pain killers. Life is better on the winning team.
two kick ass posts on the first page of one thread. dopetastic
I referenced this article in the thread about O'Connor.
Of course, now as soon as I post it.....Wild Bill will probably announce he's calling it quits.
Geez, all you folks need to grow up just a bit. Back Alley abortions are not right around the corner. I am sure many of you live in New York and California where state legislatures will decide the issue. For the first time in many years, Democracy will get closer to the people. Now state legislatures will have some importance.
Stop with the hyperbole and start looking at the facts. Your lives won't change dramitically. If this is so bad, then you need to find a place more attune with your ideals. Canada is not that far away.
Rumor has it that Ruth Ginsberg is having lasik surgery and will throw away her gigantic glasses for good.
The votes of all the "states'-rights" justices during this session were not encouraging.
There are a lot of creepy people with a lot of creepy agendas that are being carefully listened to now re: the supreme court. That doesn't make me feel good.
And man... if all some of you care about in terms of supreme court justices is that it will piss off the other side then, well, damn... these must really be divided times.
People need to read the constitution. The states were the ones granting powers to the federal government. What has happened is the federal government has expanded its power using the 14th amendment.
Nobody is trying to piss the other side off. I'd rather live in a society where we can debate the issue. Abortion has really never been debated. The Supreme Court in the '60 legislated by judicial fiat. Since that time, we have had a bunch of people on both sides yelling at each other. That is not democratic. I think once this issue goes back to the states, some compromise can be hashed out by the local communities.
I've always felt Roe was a bad decision. How can 9 people decide when life begins? Roe tried to neatly divide life into trimesters. When the Supreme court overturned Plessy v. Ferguson, they used sociology as one of their reasons. Now, let's fast forward to abortion. Technology has given a glimpse of what is actually happening in the womb. Do you think those same 9 justices would have voted the same way if they had access to modern technology?
If Roe(Casey) is overturned, do I think some states will make some horrible laws? Absolutely. Still, that is for the local communities to decide, not the federal government. I just don't see abortion being outlawed throughout the land. I really believe if states have more power our democracy will become more vibrant.
Flame away if you will........I am not trying stir up a honest nest, just expressing my views.
majority vote doesn't decide where life begins either.
But then it comes down to whether you think a woman's right to choose should or should not be a fundamental right....doesn't it? You obviously do not.
I mean look at your rationale.....you admit that some states might make horrible laws but that's the price we pay for democracy. Would you be willing to make that same argument regarding say...segregation....because that is the exact argument that was made by many in the South. However, now most believe that segregation affects such a fundamental right....that it should not be left to the states to decide. Can you understand why many...including many women...feel the same about reproductive rights and would not want a right they consider fundamental, left to the states?
Just to add to yossarian's point. ..
Judicial fiat in the 60's? Render unto me an effin' break. Name some cases Mr. I Can Make Unsupported Assertions But Can't EVER Back Them Up Man.
If your problem is that you think Clarence Thomas is the only justice with a handle on the Constitution you need to start your bitching sometime circa 1837, and stop trying to blame the Supreme Court for Woodstock.
If you're just griping about Roe only, I'll just point that the decision was 1974 and leave the rest of your milquetoast analysis to stand for the lameness that it is.
Wow. Just wow.
The 14th amendment? Of all the things to blame I'd have thought the commerce clause would be at the top of the list.
Of course it has been. It was hotly debated for the past 50 years.
As John pointed out, Roe is a '74 decision. But beyond that, what was "legislated" in the 60s? The proper application of the exclusionary rule? Miranda? The overturning of Olmstead v. US? This is such a broad brush that really demonstrates the ignorance of people who make these claims.
That's fine. We're not a democracy.
There is no compromise on the issue of "right to choose". It is an either or question for most states.
So you're arguing that random states can better decide than 9 of the most highly educated men in this country? Why?
Interesting. What do you think the Court used in giving the Plessy opinion in the first place?
They have the opportunity to revisit the question at practically any session. They decline to do so, suggesting they approve of the decision.
By that argument, we should repeal our anti-slavery amendment. Sure, it might lead to some horrible laws. But hey - that's for the local communities to decide.
Given the polarization of the country all you'll see is an increase in that factor.
No one's flaming you. They're questioning your remarkably unsupported assertions.
No one has answered the question, who gave the federal governement their power?
We The People of the United States.
Next question, what was the purpose of giving the federal government its power?
A: In order to form a perfect union, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.
What other rhetorical questions do you need answered?
You seem to be arguing that the wrong side won the Civil War.
Women are not a minority nor are they disenfranchised. Blacks were. If this issue goes back to the states, you are not going to see the right to an abortion disappear. Of course, some states will severly limit the procedure. The fact is, in most states, abortion will be allowed.
What if the Supreme Court decided that human life began at conception and that it had federal protection. Do you want the federal government to have that kind of power? I am sure many of you then argue for states rights.