October 28, 200422 yr Voting for Bush!? :thumbup 603067[/snapback] For the record: Any woman who votes for Bush does not get it. A woman who votes for Bush should not be able to vote. Why? Because they obviously do not feel they should be in control of their body and make decisions about their own body. And if they can't regulate their own body, how in the world can they be considered smart enough to know how to vote for the leader of the free world? They can't fathom what is good for themselves! Basically, a woman voting for Bush is saying, "You're right, I don't know what is good for me, my body, or my life. I shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that affect me, sorry for thinking otherwise Sir, I am going back to the kitchen now to cook you dinner." 603072[/snapback] I am not voting for Bush for that reason! :thumbup 603107[/snapback] That is a big sticking point, because if he gets elected Roe V Wade will be over turned. He will jam the supreme court full of judges who will help him overturn it simple as that. 603112[/snapback] Just like Reagan's judges overturned it in the Health Services case, right? Roe v Wade will not be overturned because no one agrees when the life begins. It will only be limited, and I think abortion right now is just fine. I don't agree with it but it's not an issue I have the strongest opinion in because it does not directly cater to me. 603238[/snapback] Um, no. It will be overturned. Planned Parenthood v Casey was not supposed to come out the way it did. Justice Kennedy was on the side of reversing Roe v Wade but changed him mind last second. He accepted the comprimise but the jaded religious right never has. Kennedy was the exception rather than the rule. If Bush gets reelected, you bet your ass he knows who will be nominated and it will not be an always vacillating judge like Kennedy. Ask Jerry Falwell. They believe in Bush and they believe he will reward them for unquestioned loyalty with Planned Parenthood on a platter.
October 28, 200422 yr I was talking about Webster vs United Health Services (1989), which showed that conservative judges won't overturn Roe v Wade, at most limit it.
October 28, 200422 yr I was talking about Webster vs United Health Services (1989), which showed that conservative judges won't overturn Roe v Wade, at most limit it. 603246[/snapback] Right. But that case is based on Planned Parenthood which set up the standard. Cant ban abortion but can do time, place, and manner restrictions. UHS was one of many cases to test the standard. PP was decided by a plurality of the court. Thats extremley tenuos right now. Kennedy joined up with the plurality decision(which UHS is based on). As of now the plurality in PP still exists. UHS didnt change that because of stare decisis. The same group that held together PP held together under UHS. But once O'Conner is gone, the plurality dies. Now what you point to is that conservative judges wont overturn Roe v Wade. The only reason Roe and PP havent been cut down is because of Kennedy's suprise betrayal. The likelihood of that happening again is not very good. Why? Because they screwed up with Kennedy. They thought they had a judge who would kill Roe but Kennedy wasnt as anti due process-privacy derivitave as they thought he would be. But this time around, they WILL, I repeat, WILL, get another Scalia or Thomas on there to replace OConner. Kennedy is not cut from the same mold as those two nuts. Theyll find one. I just know it.
October 28, 200422 yr How could Webster vs United Health Services (1989) be an extension of Planned Parenthood vs Casey (1992) if Webster was three years its predecessor?
October 28, 200422 yr Here you go: This month, Roe v. Wade reaches its 30th anniversary. But few expected the decision to remain intact so long. Over a decade ago, as Planned Parenthood v. Casey--the landmark case about the restrictions in the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act--was wending its way through the federal court system, analysts were confident the court would reverse Roe. Hadn't Justice David Souter voted in Rust v. Sullivan to uphold restrictions on use of federal money for abortion counseling? Hadn't Justice Sandra Day O'Connor once written in a dissent that Roe was "on a collision course itself"? And Kennedy had a pro-life reputation. The overruling of Roe looked like it was in the bag; a 7-to-2 ruling (the same margin as in Roe itself) did not seem out of the question. Instead, pro-life court-watchers who snapped up the first copies of the Supreme Court's opinion in Casey in June 1992 saw an amazing thing: Most of the restrictions in the Pennsylvania law were upheld, but Roe was "reaffirmed" in an unusual "joint opinion" by those three Republican-appointed "centrists" --Souter, O'Connor and Kennedy. Henceforth, abortion restrictions would be struck down only if they created an "undue burden"--a term that the court barely even tried to define. Justice Harry Blackmun, author of Roe, was in dissent, but so were Roe opponents Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Byron White, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Blackmun was upset that the restrictions were upheld; Rehnquist and his dissenters because Roe was reaffirmed. (Justice White, an anti-Roe Democrat appointed by President Kennedy, resigned in 1993; President Bill Clinton replaced him with pro-Roe Justice Ruth Ginsburg.) For several years after Casey, the court appeared to avoid the abortion issue. But the abstention ended in 2000 with Stenberg v. Carhart, when the court struck down Nebraska's partial-birth-abortion statute. Pro-life observers were shocked at how icily the court brushed aside the horrifying details of the partial-birth-abortion procedure, and reasoned that because the statute might deter more abortions than merely partial-birth ones, it had to be struck down even before taking effect. Also surprised was Justice Kennedy, whose role in modern abortion jurisprudence is remarkable. At the time Casey was handed down, there had been rumors (nothing on the record, naturally) that Kennedy had originally voted with the Rehnquist bloc to overrule Roe but changed his mind. (According to close readers Of Supreme Court tea leaves, there is language in Rehnquist's Casey dissent that suggests it initially was drafted as a majority opinion.) In Stenberg, Kennedy was shocked, shocked, to discover that the "undue-burden" compromise that he had so earnestly helped craft in Casey did not allow states to ban such a grues6me procedure as partial-birth abortion. He dissented angrily, giving horrific details of the procedure in question and intimating that he felt betrayed by the justices (O'Connor and Souter) who coauthored the Casey "joint opinion" with him. In a separate dissent clearly aimed more at Kennedy than at the majority, Scalia wrote: "There is no cause for anyone who believes in Casey to feel betrayed by this outcome. It has been arrived at by precisely the process Casey promised--a democratic vote by nine lawyers.... [T]hose who believe that a 5-to-4 vote on a policy matter by unelected lawyers should not overcome the judgment of 30 state legislatures have a problem not with the application of Casey, but with its existence. Casey must be overruled." In short, "undue burden" was a policy, not a legal principle. At present, the court has three Roe opponents and six Roe adherents--or, perhaps, four opponents and five adherents depending on whatever Kennedy is now thinking. Replacing Rehnquist would not change this, but replacing O'Connor and/or Stevens with a reliable critic of Roe could have an impact. Many court-watchers argue that President Bush has to reward his conservative base when he makes a Supreme Court appointment. But much of the buzz suggests that he could do this by elevating Scalia to chief justice, while fulfilling his "first Hispanic nominee" ambition by naming White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales to Scalia's former slot. The problem with this, though, is that Gonzales is not the conservative jurist that Bush's political base wants. There is concern, for example, over In re Jane Doe, a June 2000 decision by the Texas Supreme Court that not only granted an abortion to a minor but overruled two lower-court decisions; Gonzalez joined the majority opinion and authored a separate concurring opinion. Appointing him actually might move the court in a more pro-Roe direction. The chief justice has only one vote, like any other justice. Vote-for-vote, the Scalia-Gonzales scenario replaces Rehnquist's vote with Gonzalez's. The pro-life base would not be pleased. Here's a scenario: Rehnquist and O'Connor both retire, and Bush moves Scalia to chief justice. This would give the Senate three confirmations to handle: Scalia's elevation, followed by the successors to the associate-justice slots of O'Connor and Scalia. In this case, the president might get two Hispanics onto the court: his pal Gonzalez and a more conservative jurist such as Judge (and Texan) Emilio Garza or Miguel Estrada, whose stalled nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is about to be renewed. Or, one Hispanic (Gonzalez) and a woman, such as fellow-Texan and conservative favorite Judge Edith Jones. The administration will have to think this through very carefully. Effectivley, Kennedy will go back to crush Planned Parenthood and Roe. O'Connor will be gone and so will Stevens. That gives Bush exactly what he needs. He gets a conservative to replace one and a Gonzalez to replace the otehr plus a third conservative if Stevens goes. That kills Roe and PP. http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_..._19/ai_95914220
October 28, 200422 yr If any justice goes during the next four years, it won't be those, it'll be William Rehnquist. He opposed Roe v Wade (he's sick right now and probably has a year or so left in him) and replacing him with another conservative judge would keep the vote total the same.
October 28, 200422 yr How could Webster vs United Health Services (1989) be an extension of Planned Parenthood vs Casey (1992) if Webster was three years its predecessor? 603258[/snapback] My mistake. Maybe UHS was a upholding of Roe, but Planned Parenthood is the seminal case as stated above. Roe is no longer the law. Planned Parenthood is. States simply cannot put an undue burden on right to get an abortion. That leaves a lot of options open. Its a good comprimise. But the religious right wants it their way or the highway. And theyll get it if Bush is reelected.
October 28, 200422 yr If any justice goes during the next four years, it won't be those, it'll be William Rehnquist. He opposed Roe v Wade (he's sick right now and probably has a year or so left in him) and replacing him with another conservative judge would keep the vote total the same. 603262[/snapback] OConnor and Stevens are very very old. I dont think they make it. One of those two will be gone. As of now. Stevens is holding out so Bush cant get another Scalia on there.
October 28, 200422 yr I would put my entire savings account on Rehquist going down first, and his replacing would be moot. Also, by the time one of the other older justices goes (one of the ones that kept abortion law in tact), the Senate might not be Republican controlled. Right now its projected to be 52-46-1 (1 race to close to call), which essentially makes it 47 Dems. If they gain two more seats next election they split the chamber, and three they take complete control. Besides that, I'm not completely convinced this Senate will approve a radical religious right candidate. There are several Republican women in Congress that don't see eye to eye with the party on abortion, and even if they do stand with the party they will do so maybe once (to replace Rehnquist) but not twice when a second justice goes down.
October 28, 200422 yr I would put my entire savings account on Rehquist going down first, and his replacing would be moot. Also, by the time one of the other older justices goes (one of the ones that kept abortion law in tact), the Senate might not be Republican controlled. Right now its projected to be 52-46-1 (1 race to close to call), which essentially makes it 47 Dems. If they gain two more seats next election they split the chamber, and three they take complete control. Besides that, I'm not completely convinced this Senate will approve a radical religious right candidate. There are several Republican women in Congress that don't see eye to eye with the party on abortion, and even if they do stand with the party they will do so maybe once (to replace Rehnquist) but not twice when a second justice goes down. 603269[/snapback] Yeah I know Rehnquist will go down first but he wont be alone was my point. The thing is Juanky, it doesnt have to be a radical relgious right winger. Nothing about Scalia or Thomas says "radical relgious right winger." The Bush standard is one who will be a strict read of the Constitution right? Thats a buzz word my friend. Roe v Wade, the right to privacy, and the a lot of things we take for granted every single day are not strictly in the C. They emanate from the due process clause. So like Bush said, he will get someone to fit that mold and that mold will end up reversing Roe, not on any religious grounds, but on due process grounds. And as far as teh Senate goes, there is only so much that can be done. They cant knock someone down because they dont like his political leanings or dont like that he might overturn Roe v Wade. The person has to be unfit to sit on the bench. Thats why the Anita Hill hearings happend. Everyone knew which way Thomas was leaning on Roe and nobody stopped that. Plus they can only clog things up for so long before there is a public backlash at the Senate.
October 29, 200422 yr The thing is Juanky, it doesnt have to be a radical relgious right winger. Nothing about Scalia or Thomas says "radical relgious right winger." The Bush standard is one who will be a strict read of the Constitution right? Thats a buzz word my friend. Roe v Wade, the right to privacy, and the a lot of things we take for granted every single day are not strictly in the C. They emanate from the due process clause. So like Bush said, he will get someone to fit that mold and that mold will end up reversing Roe, not on any religious grounds, but on due process grounds. 603321[/snapback] Yeah, I know well about the word privacy not being mentioned once in the Constituion, rather an interpreted right through three different amendments. And I myself would not consider myself a tight constructionist, because those people smell funny. But my point is I only believe one justice will be replaced in this upcoming term, and that will be Rehnquist. I think 2008 will be alot bigger towards how the court sits. I'm also not convinced the second justice would be an anti-Roe justice, Rehnquist's replacement will be anti-Roe but so is the Chief Justice, so matter it not.
October 29, 200422 yr Both of my parents are voting for Bush so the President has their votes. :thumbup
October 29, 200422 yr There is no way Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Its not politically viable. There may be new deciisons that limit the scope of roe but not completely going against it
October 29, 200422 yr A woman has a right to homocide. You're saying it's okay for women to kill homosexuals? :shifty
October 29, 200422 yr There is no way Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Its not politically viable. There may be new deciisons that limit the scope of roe but not completely going against it The Supreme Court doesn't exactly have to answer to the will of the populace.
October 29, 200422 yr So what do we do with those 40 million extra children? Throw them all in foster homes? No, we let all of these concerned Christian citizens on here raise them. Anyone on here (over the age of 18) want to step up and adopt a child or three?
October 29, 200422 yr Then I want those women to go up to women who have been raped and impregnated that way and had an abortion because of that, and tell them that they are killers. So 40 million women have become pregnant from rape and stuff like that? There needs to be some way to prevent that ridiculous amount of abortions. 603186[/snapback] So what do we do with those 40 million extra children? Throw them all in foster homes? :plain 603235[/snapback] better than throwing them in a dumpster.
October 29, 200422 yr There is no way Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Its not politically viable. There may be new deciisons that limit the scope of roe but not completely going against it The Supreme Court doesn't exactly have to answer to the will of the populace. 603895[/snapback] When the Supreme Court passes something Congress doesn't like, they can dump it with the help of the states.
October 29, 200422 yr There is no way Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Its not politically viable. There may be new deciisons that limit the scope of roe but not completely going against it The Supreme Court doesn't exactly have to answer to the will of the populace. 603895[/snapback] When the Supreme Court passes something Congress doesn't like, they can dump it with the help of the states. 604004[/snapback] You actually think that would happen?
October 29, 200422 yr There is no way Roe v. Wade gets overturned. Its not politically viable. There may be new deciisons that limit the scope of roe but not completely going against it The Supreme Court doesn't exactly have to answer to the will of the populace. 603895[/snapback] When the Supreme Court passes something Congress doesn't like, they can dump it with the help of the states. 604004[/snapback] You actually think that would happen? 604007[/snapback] Nope. But where there's a will there's a way.
October 30, 200422 yr That is a big sticking point, because if he gets elected Roe V Wade will be over turned. He will jam the supreme court full of judges who will help him overturn it simple as that. I got a thousand bucks says this is B.S. You willing to back your propaganda with some green? And I'll give you 10:1 all you gotta put up is a $100 to win the grand. 604156[/snapback] What propaganda? What proof do you have that he wont put the judges that overturn Roe? Right now Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas will overturn it. That leaves replacments for Rehnquist and OConnor. Bush's test is how one approaches the Constitution. Its clear that its a stricter, Scalia school of thought he wants and thats in direct conflict with right to have an abortion.
October 30, 200422 yr Voting for Bush!? :thumbup 603067[/snapback] For the record: Any woman who votes for Bush does not get it. A woman who votes for Bush should not be able to vote. Why? Because they obviously do not feel they should be in control of their body and make decisions about their own body. And if they can't regulate their own body, how in the world can they be considered smart enough to know how to vote for the leader of the free world? They can't fathom what is good for themselves! Basically, a woman voting for Bush is saying, "You're right, I don't know what is good for me, my body, or my life. I shouldn't be allowed to make decisions that affect me, sorry for thinking otherwise Sir, I am going back to the kitchen now to cook you dinner." 603072[/snapback] Maybe she's not voting on the pro-choice/pro-life deal. God forbid. And God forbid Holly or any other woman think that a concieved child has a right to be born, rather than conviniently killed to save some money.
October 30, 200422 yr Still undecided, but leaning about 55% - 45% Kerry. That's rapidly evening back out towards Bush now, though. First election where I'm going to hate the results, no matter who wins. 603222[/snapback] That surprises me about you. I was about 50% Kerry (and Bush), but recent events around town have led me to be 100% Bush.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.