PDA

View Full Version : President Bush to announce new Supreme Court nominee tonight



jmcclain19
07-19-2005, 04:58 PM
At 6PM Pacific Time tonight, the President will make a prime time address announcing the new nominee to the Supreme Court

http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0719ScotusBush19-ON.html


Bush to name court pick tonight

Associated Press
Jul. 19, 2005 10:25 AM

WASHINGTON - President Bush has decided whom to nominate to succeed Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court and was poised to announce his pick in a prime-time Tuesday night address.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the Bush administration was asking television outlets to broadcast the speech live. Bush's spokesman would not identify the president's choice. But there was intense speculation that it would be Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

The televised speech was scheduled for 6 p.m. Arizona time.

The tension was palpable in the West Wing of the White House; after a day of intense speculation, McClellan walked into the press briefing room and said bluntly: "The president has made a decision and will be announcing his nominee to the Supreme Court at 9 o'clock." McClellan said the American people expected that the Senate confirmation process would be a dignified one.

Bush said he has considered candidates from all walks of life for the Supreme Court but refused to tip his hand on whom he will name.

He had said ever since O'Connor's July 1 announcement that he wanted to move with some speed and that he wanted the new justice to be seated before the court begins its fall term in October.

The dynamic might have changed a bit when Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist last week put out word that he had no intention of stepping down and that he would continue on the court despite his battle with thyroid cancer.

Bush, at a news conference Tuesday, would not even say if he had finished interviewing candidates. Though Washington was abuzz with speculation about Clement, the president ignored a question about what he thought of her.

"I guess the best way to say it is, I'll let you know when I'm ready to tell you who it is," the president said. He jokingly acknowledged that he was trying to dodge the question.

"I'm comfortable with where we are in the process," the president said. He said he has considered a variety of people from different walks of life, some of whom he knew before and some he had never met.

"I do have an obligation to think about people from different backgrounds that have shared the same philosophy, people who will not legislate from the bench," Bush said. He spoke at a press conference with visiting Australian Prime Minister John Howard.

At Clement's office in New Orleans, a man who identified himself as a law clerk said the judge was not available. "That's what I've been instructed to say," he told a caller who asked if she were in Washington.

Interest groups say another female candidate thought to be under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones, who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

There was no word from the White House on when Bush would disclose his selection, but officials familiar with the process said it appeared an announcement was imminent. White House press secretary Scott McClellan would say only: "The president is closer today than he was yesterday on naming a nominee."

Asked whether he expected an announcement, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., said Tuesday, "I don't know, but I don't think so."

In a sign that Bush was getting close to naming his pick, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., chairman of the Judiciary Committee, was called to the White House on Monday. Specter, who would lead the confirmation process in the Senate, has said he hopes Bush selects a moderate jurist.

In anticipation of a selection, officials said the White House had contacted selected Republican senators they hoped would serve as advocates for the nominee in media interviews in the initial time following an announcement. Democrats scoured the rulings and writings of leading contenders, including Clement, a 57-year-old jurist who was confirmed on a 99-0 vote by the Senate when she was elevated to the appeals court in 2001.

White House officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to talk publicly about the process, said Bush's timetable appears to have been accelerated and that a choice could come as early as Tuesday. They said Clement is a leading candidate, but cautioned that the president had not made a final decision and that there were other prospects still in the mix.

Any announcement would turn the spotlight in Washington toward the Supreme Court vacancy and away from news about Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove, and the ongoing federal probe into who leaked the name of a CIA officer.

White House officials have refused to discuss the names of top prospects being considered as a replacement for the departing O'Connor, who was the first woman appointed to the court.

Other possible candidates are conservative federal appellate court judges Samuel Alito, J. Michael Luttig, Michael McConnell, John Roberts Jr., Emilio Garza and J. Harvie Wilkinson III; and former deputy attorney general Larry Thompson.

Other names thought to be under consideration were: Maura Corrigan, a judge on the Michigan Supreme Court; Cecilia M. Altonaga, a U.S. District Court judge for the Southern District of Florida; Mary Ann Glendon, a Harvard Law School professor; Karen Williams from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va.; Janice Rogers Brown, recently confirmed by the Senate for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; and Priscilla Owen, who was just confirmed for a seat on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

RBA
07-19-2005, 05:14 PM
Edith Clement Pro-Killing, Not Good for Supreme Court

Tuesday, July 19, 2005 02:21:07 PM

Edith Clement is being touted as proper and clean for Supreme Court appointment. Not if the pro-lifers have anything to say and do about it. She has stated that the United States Constitution permits the right to have an abortion and that "the law is settled in that regard."

"The thought of Clement on the bench also has eased fears among abortion-rights advocates. She has stated that the Supreme Court, 'has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion' and that 'the law is settled in that regard.'" — Fox News, July 19, 2005

Nix on Clement.

Does further commentary need to be added for those knowing full well that abortion is outright murder? I don’t think so.

America does not support murdering human beings, except for the theologically and politically liberal womb baby killers who have made that their litmus test for admitting judges.

However, genuine Americans who are into a moral base do not agree with the liberals and so will work night and day to see to it that every pro-baby killing judge is dismounted. That of course accents those on the US Supreme Court.

God is watching America. God will weigh into America’s present-tense and future-tense.

For those aware of the wrath as well as the love of God, they will always align with the biblically revealed truth. God considers killing womb babies abhorrent according to the divine revelation. Therefore, to transgress against that baseline is to beg for the anger of the divine to settle upon one’s soul as well as one’s nation.

To stave off divine wrath against America, one must make America aware of every nomination to the Supreme Court especially. That includes providing the truth texts regarding Edith Clement.

FOOTNOTE:

THE BIBLE AND ABORTION

It is alarming to realize the nonchalance on the part of many concerning abortion. But it is not new. A popular newsmagazine quoted one medical opinion: "Abortion is finding its place as a perfectly acceptable and valid health measure. We no longer think of it as a crime."

There are those who say that every woman has a right to control her own body. That is true. Then, having control over her own body, she should not become pregnant if she does not want children. That is control! When she becomes pregnant, then she has lost her control over that situation.

But more importantly, only God has final rights to any person's body. He brought that body into life and someday will take that body out of life. In the meantime He provides the very sustaining power for the body's life to continue.

The Bible speaks of a fetus as a person, not simply tissue that can be discarded if found to be a bother or nuisance. Since the fetus is a person from the moment of conception, then the destroying of the fetus is killing a person. "In the past, some people have mistakenly speculated that perhaps the body might be in the process of formation for some time, and then 'God breathes a soul into it.' They had it backward. The life that is present forms matter into a body for itself' (Joseph Breig, "Life Forms Matter," The Catholic News, Jan. 24, 1974, p. 8).

"Your hands shaped me and made me. Will you now turn and destroy me? Remember that you molded me like clay. Will you now turn me to dust again? Did you not pour me out like milk ... and knit me together with bones and sinews? You gave me life and showed me kindness, and in your providence watched over my spirit" (Job 10:8-12 NIV).

"Before I was born the LORD called me; from my birth he has made mention of my name...and now the LORD says--he who formed me in the womb to be his servant..." (Isaiah 49:1, 5).

"The word of the LORD came to me, saying, ‘Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations’" (Jeremiah 1:4-5).

In the following passages we note that personality is ascribed to the unborn.

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that fully well. My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place. When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body. All the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be" (Psalm 139:13-16).

"Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him" (Psalm 127:3).

Exodus 21:22-25 relates how Israel was to judge a circumstance relating to the death of the unborn:

"If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender must be fined whatever the woman's husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, wound for wound, bruise for bruise."

All of the latter deals with unintentional hurt that comes to a pregnant woman; how much more will divine penalty come upon those who intentionally discard the fetus? The Gospel of Luke ascribes personality to the fetus within Elizabeth:

"When Elizabeth heard Mary's greeting, the baby leaped in her womb, and Elizabeth was filled with the Holy Spirit... As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy" (1:41, 44).

Mere tissue does not leap for joy; only personhood leaps for joy. The Bible regards the fetus as having personality. In Galatians, Paul speaks of himself as a person while still in his mother's womb, but more a person consecrated by God for a holy mission (compare Jeremiah 1:5 for the same accent):

"But when God, who set me apart from birth, and called me by his grace, was pleased to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles..." (Gal. 1: 15-16).

Since the Bible regards the fetus as personality, then the aborting of the fetus is murdering personality.

Some verses from Scripture dealing with murder are then appropriate for study, such as Genesis 9:6: "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God has God made man." Also, read Exodus 23:7: "Have nothing to do with a false charge, and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty." Note I Peter 4:15: "If you suffer, it should not be as a murderer..."

"For all the talk of freedom and self-determination, the abortion movement is at its heart a movement denying rights to a silent segment of humanity and soliciting public sanction, support and subsidy to its own cause" (Donald P. Shoemaker, ABORTION, THE BIBLE AND THE CHRISTIAN, Hayes Publishing Co., 1976, p. iv).

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/articles/article.html?id=6992

traderumor
07-19-2005, 05:44 PM
The tension was palpable in the West Wing of the White House; after a day of intense speculation, McClellan walked into the press briefing room and said bluntly: "The president has made a decision and will be announcing his nominee to the Supreme Court at 9 o'clock."No white smoke? No "habeus judicium" (something like that) ;)? We need better traditions.

jmcclain19
07-19-2005, 05:48 PM
No white smoke? No "habeus judicium" (something like that) ;)? We need better traditions.

Can you imagine Congress and the President forced into a room, locked in and not allowed to leave until they solved some of our country's ills?

:laugh:

Oh to be a fly on that wall - with the amount of egos that would be present in one room.

registerthis
07-19-2005, 05:59 PM
Has anyone bothered to point out to THECONSERVATIVEVOICE that The Bible is not the foundation for the rule of law in this country? WOuld they even care if anyone did?

Chip R
07-19-2005, 06:03 PM
At 6PM Pacific Time tonight, the President will make a prime time address announcing the new nominee to the Supreme Court

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the Bush administration was asking television outlets to broadcast the speech live. Bush's spokesman would not identify the president's choice. But there was intense speculation that it would be Judge Edith Clement of the U.S. Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Interest groups say another female candidate thought to be under consideration was Edith Hollan Jones, who also serves on the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New Orleans.

Looks like the President wants his cake and Edith too. :redface:

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 06:09 PM
"Bush to announce new Supreme Court nominee tonight"

translated: "Good lord, I need some good press."

RBA
07-19-2005, 06:10 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/


http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/printlogo.jpg


Source: Clement Not Bush's Choice for High Court

Source Tells ABC News Much-Discussed Potential Candidate Isn't the White House's Choice for Supreme Court







Jul. 19, 2005 - Judge Edith Clement -- perceived by many observers as a potential frontrunner for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- is not President Bush's choice for the high court.

An informed source told ABC News they had spoken with Clement and said she received a phone call from the White House this afternoon. According to the source, Clement was thanked for meeting with the president and sharing her views on the Supreme Court, but that the administration has decided to go in a "different direction."

The White House said Bush will announce his selection tonight at 9 p.m. ET.

A U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the 5th Circuit, Clement was nominated to her current position by Bush and was confirmed by the Senate in November 2001.


Copyright 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures



http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/_t.gifBreaking News

SOURCE TELLS ABC NEWS JUDGE EDITH CLEMENT IS NOT PRESIDENT BUSH'S CHOICE FOR SUPREME COURT (http://abcnews.go.com/)

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 06:20 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/


http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/printlogo.jpg


Source: Clement Not Bush's Choice for High Court

Source Tells ABC News Much-Discussed Potential Candidate Isn't the White House's Choice for Supreme Court







Jul. 19, 2005 - Judge Edith Clement -- perceived by many observers as a potential frontrunner for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- is not President Bush's choice for the high court.

An informed source told ABC News they had spoken with Clement and said she received a phone call from the White House this afternoon. According to the source, Clement was thanked for meeting with the president and sharing her views on the Supreme Court, but that the administration has decided to go in a "different direction."

The White House said Bush will announce his selection tonight at 9 p.m. ET.

A U.S. Court of Appeals judge for the 5th Circuit, Clement was nominated to her current position by Bush and was confirmed by the Senate in November 2001.


Copyright 2005 ABC News Internet Ventures



http://abcnews.go.com/images/site/_t.gifBreaking News

SOURCE TELLS ABC NEWS JUDGE EDITH CLEMENT IS NOT PRESIDENT BUSH'S CHOICE FOR SUPREME COURT (http://abcnews.go.com/)

You gotta believe Bush is fuming over this Rove stuff and plans to go "full-suplex" on his SC pick--my pick: Garza. Bush has got to pitch some red meat to the bible-thumpers.

Reds4Life
07-19-2005, 06:52 PM
I think it will be Edith Jones. We all know how reliable "sources" are sometimes, it wouldn't suprise me if Clement is the nominee.

creek14
07-19-2005, 06:54 PM
I'm going with Jim Coombs.

Unassisted
07-19-2005, 06:58 PM
Maybe he will just nominate Karl Rove and solve two problems at once? ;)

RBA
07-19-2005, 08:26 PM
My prediction: The Hollywood Republican, Fred Thompson from Law and Order. ;)

RedsBaron
07-19-2005, 08:29 PM
My guess is Edith Jones. If not her, I'll go with Garza.

KronoRed
07-19-2005, 08:31 PM
I'm going with Jim Coombs.

Too left.

Besides, Coombs is gonna run in 08. :cool:

Dom Heffner
07-19-2005, 08:32 PM
My prediction: The Hollywood Republican, Fred Thompson from Law and Order.

I swear he writes his own dialogue on that show, just to get his personal opinions across. There was one episode where he instructs another attorney about how if it isn't written in the Constitution, it doesn't exist.

So federalism isn't in the Constitution, Fred, so I guess it doesn't exist?

pedro
07-19-2005, 08:49 PM
CNN is reporting it will be John G. Roberts

pedro
07-19-2005, 08:53 PM
wow... wikipedia is quick.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_G._Roberts_Jr.

John G. Roberts Jr. (born in Buffalo, New York, 1955) is a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, having been nominated by President George W. Bush on May 9, 2001, and confirmed by the United States Senate on May 8, 2003. Roberts has been named a nominee to the Supreme Court of the United States to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court of the United States.

Roberts graduated from Harvard College in 1976. Roberts receivied his Juris Doctorate from the Harvard Law School in 1979.

He was a law clerk for Henry Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1979-1980, and for Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981. He then took a job as special assistant to William French Smith, the attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1982, before being appointed associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-1986.

He entered private practice in 1986 as an associate at the Washington D.C. law firm of Hogan & Hartson, but left to serve from 1989-1993 as Principal Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice. He returned to Hogan and Harston in 1993 as a partner where he remained until he was appointed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. In private practice and as Principal Deputy Solicitor General he has argued more than 30 cases in front of the United States Supreme Court.

On July 19, 2005, Roberts was nominated to the Supreme Court of the United States.

pedro
07-19-2005, 08:56 PM
I'm honestly surprised Bush isn't nominating a woman.

LvJ
07-19-2005, 09:01 PM
:dancingco Roberts.

RedsBaron
07-19-2005, 09:15 PM
I'm honestly surprised Bush isn't nominating a woman.
I am too. I really expected the nominee to be either a woman or an Hispanic. If Rehnquist does step down as Chief Justice in the near future, I'll be really shocked if Bush's next nominee isn't female or Hispanic.

alex trevino
07-19-2005, 09:16 PM
Roberts has argued that Roe v. Wade should be overturned...here we go...

westofyou
07-19-2005, 09:16 PM
I'll be really shocked if Bush's next nominee isn't female or Hispanic.

http://www.eonline.com/Features/Live/Ryan/Gallery/Images/gal.perez.jpg

jmcclain19
07-19-2005, 09:17 PM
I've heard nothing but good things about Roberts.

FWIW - I've also heard that he has no opinions in public that have been published anywhere about abortion - so that'll be the game for both sides - to try and peel that out of him.

EDIT - Heh, I write that, and then I see the blasting headling on Drudge - nice.

alex trevino
07-19-2005, 09:18 PM
I was hoping for Selma Heyek myself huba huba

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 09:22 PM
I wonder if people will start taking elections seriously again when girls start turning up in dumpsters and in the woods with coat hangers in their hands.

It's all about the cowboy hat.

RBA
07-19-2005, 09:24 PM
To be fair, it really was a brief on behalf of his client the Bush I administation.




That includes a brief he wrote for President George H.W. Bush's administration in a 1991 abortion case, in which he observed that "we continue to believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and should be overruled."

But, he probably shares the same sentiment.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 09:24 PM
Throw the red meat to the Christians.

RBA
07-19-2005, 09:35 PM
Looks like this "mainstream" conservative is just another political hack.....



John Roberts, DC Circuit
In the short time since he was confirmed by the Senate in May 2003, Judge Roberts has issued troubling dissents from decisions by the full D.C. Circuit not to reconsider two important rulings. These included a decision upholding the constitutionality of the Endangered Species Act as applied in a California case and a ruling against Bush Administration efforts to keep secret the records concerning Vice President Cheney's energy task force.


Rancho Viejo, LLC v. Norton, 334 F.3d 1158 (D.C. Cir. 2003): constitutionality of Endangered Species Act

traderumor
07-19-2005, 09:39 PM
I wonder if people will start taking elections seriously again when girls start turning up in dumpsters and in the woods with coat hangers in their hands.

It's all about the cowboy hat.FCB, you're smarter than that.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 09:42 PM
FCB, you're smarter than that.

So making abortion illegal won't result in draconian measures to acquire one?

No, I guess I'm not smart enough--I see a causal relationship there.

Reds4Life
07-19-2005, 09:44 PM
So making abortion illegal won't result in draconian measures to acquire one?

No, I guess I'm not smart enough--I see a causal relationship there.

If Roe v. Wade is over turned it doesn't make abortion illegal.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 09:45 PM
If Roe v. Wade is over turned it doesn't make abortion illegal.

What does it do?

Reds4Life
07-19-2005, 09:49 PM
What does it do?

It means it will revert to a state issue where the elected legislature of each state can decide its own law regarding abortion.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 09:53 PM
It means it will revert to a state issue where the elected legislature of each state can decide its own law regarding abortion.

Right. So it will be illegal state by state. And poor urban and rural girls can't afford to go out of state, much less get parental approval, which I'm sure is right around the corner. Dominoes fall; in short, it makes it illegal for many girls.

Reds4Life
07-19-2005, 09:58 PM
Right. So it will be illegal state by state. And poor urban and rural girls can't afford to go out of state, much less get parental approval, which I'm sure is right around the corner. Dominoes fall; in short, it makes it illegal for many girls.

If Roe was over turned right now you know how many states abortion would be illegal in? Zero.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 10:01 PM
If Roe was over turned right now you know how many states abortion would be illegal in? Zero.

I guarantee it's made illegal in the deep South, and much of the West: Wyoming, Utah, Colorado, Arizona, Idaho, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska.

Heath
07-19-2005, 10:03 PM
h

Heath
07-19-2005, 10:04 PM
If Roe was over turned right now you know how many states abortion would be illegal in? Zero.

Actually, there would probably be one - that would be South Carolina. When I lived there - they sent a case to the US Supreme Court and it never got to docket. There was a lady state senator that wanted get states' right to overturn abortion. There was enough people in that state that would have voted against abortion. (unscientific poll showed 70-30)

My mom was 18 when she had me - six months after Roe vs. Wade - she did marry my dad when it was all said and done - but there was a choice. I'm glad she chose the way she did.

(Except when watching Reds games ;) :thumbup: )

traderumor
07-19-2005, 10:11 PM
So making abortion illegal won't result in draconian measures to acquire one?

No, I guess I'm not smart enough--I see a causal relationship there.

People go to draconian measures to acquire methadone, cocaine (crack and powder), heroine, etc. Men pay prostitutes to feed their sex drive. People steal to acquire money and goods they want but do not have and cannot buy. CEOs cook their books to hide poor performance and steal millioins from investors and employees. There are endless examples of how people will break laws to satisfy their own selfish desires. Furthermore, certain people will always take drastic measures, legal or not, to rid themselves of whatever problem they may have. Some are even law abiding in so many ways. Get somebody desparate enough, they'll commit almost any crime if it gives them temporary relief from their dilemma. Are you suggesting that because people will take a certain action in a certain situation, even if its illegal to do so, that we should make that action legally available?

The back alley abortion argument is a myth that people will often accept but do not do the research to find out if the argument has any substance. The research I've seen really doesn't support your conclusion. Here's an example: (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/illeg.htm) A quick google will certainly give folks ample opportuntity to make up their minds about that themselves.

Also, even with safe house laws in Ohio whereby a mom can drop off her baby, we still see instances of baby's left in dumpsters, sometimes alive, sometimes dead. There is no evidence that women who have abortions are any better off financially and improve their standard of living for doing so that I am aware of. Is their life better? Does it keep them out of poverty? And that's with abortion available to all. I'm not seeing where it is solving any of society's problems. In fact, I would submit that it is creating more problems than it solves from a woman's physical and mental health, to the damage it does in the families of women who make that choice, to the millions of gifted human beings whose lives were snuffed out without ever having the chance to contribute to this world.

RBA
07-19-2005, 10:16 PM
In response to direct questioning about Roe v. Wade, Roberts refused to characterize his opinion on the case - he instead told the committee that he would uphold settled law. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land, it was even reaffirmed," Roberts said. "There is nothing in my personal views that would keep me from upholding it." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told Roberts that his answers in regard to Roe v. Wade were evasive. "I need more," Durbin said.


I guess this rules him out for a lot of people here. Afterall he's a FLIP FLOPPER apparently.

WVRed
07-19-2005, 10:19 PM
I wonder if the Ginsberg rule will be in effect for Roberts during his confirmation hearing.

WVRed
07-19-2005, 10:20 PM
Throw the red meat to the Christians.

:thumbdown

paintmered
07-19-2005, 10:20 PM
I wonder if the Ginsberg rule will be in effect for Roberts during his confirmation hearing.


For those of use not in the know ( :wave: ), could you please elaborate?

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 10:21 PM
People go to draconian measures to acquire methadone, cocaine (crack and powder), heroine, etc. Men pay prostitutes to feed their sex drive. People steal to acquire money and goods they want but do not have and cannot buy. CEOs cook their books to hide poor performance and steal millioins from investors and employees. There are endless examples of how people will break laws to satisfy their own selfish desires. Furthermore, certain people will always take drastic measures, legal or not, to rid themselves of whatever problem they may have. Some are even law abiding in so many ways. Get somebody desparate enough, they'll commit almost any crime if it gives them temporary relief from their dilemma. Are you suggesting that because people will take a certain action in a certain situation, even if its illegal to do so, that we should make that action legally available?

The back alley abortion argument is a myth that people will often accept but do not do the research to find out if the argument has any substance. The research I've seen really doesn't support your conclusion. Here's an example: (http://www.vanderbilt.edu/SFL/illeg.htm) A quick google will certainly give folks ample opportuntity to make up their minds about that themselves.

Also, even with safe house laws in Ohio whereby a mom can drop off her baby, we still see instances of baby's left in dumpsters, sometimes alive, sometimes dead. There is no evidence that women who have abortions are any better off financially and improve their standard of living for doing so that I am aware of. Is their life better? Does it keep them out of poverty? And that's with abortion available to all. I'm not seeing where it is solving any of society's problems. In fact, I would submit that it is creating more problems than it solves from a woman's physical and mental health, to the damage it does in the families of women who make that choice, to the millions of gifted human beings whose lives were snuffed out without ever having the chance to contribute to this world.

Wow. Terrible argument. The back alley abortion is, of course, not a myth, and neither are the very things you point out--leaving children in dumpsters (on that point I see no BETTER argument FOR legal abortion).

So, let me get it straight, rape and incest pregnancies are "just a problem to that a person wants to rid herself of"? Okay. Just checking.

And that last paragraph? Where to begin with the logical fallacies? Abortion doesn't solve poverty; therefore, abortion should be made illegal. You're smarter than that.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 10:26 PM
:thumbdown

Relax, pal. My point is to say this appointment is to appease evangelicals. And I'm right. If you find it offensive, I can't help you. Neg me.

Or I'm sure I'll be kicked off for a week or something.

Reds4Life
07-19-2005, 10:28 PM
My point is to say this appointment is to appease evangelicals.

You could have just said that way, instead of putting into a derogatory form.

RBA
07-19-2005, 10:29 PM
You could have just said that way, instead of putting into a derogatory form.

How?

Reds4Life
07-19-2005, 10:29 PM
How?

He already did, I quoted it in my previous post.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 10:31 PM
You could have just said that way, instead of putting into a derogatory form.

Tomato, tomahto.

They all slice the same, taste the same.

You know, it's okay for someone to come on here and say offensive things like comparing abortion to a "sex" habit or a "drug" habit, but I point out that this pick is red meat (an age-old metaphor for "appeasement") for the Christian bloc and I'm the bad guy. I don't get it.

Redsfaithful
07-19-2005, 10:33 PM
If Roe was over turned right now you know how many states abortion would be illegal in? Zero.

Right now, sure. It'd take time to draft the bills to make it illegal.

creek14
07-19-2005, 10:35 PM
This statement isn't really about abortion. Really.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out how people get pregnant if they don't want to be pregnant. (Not counting rape and incest, of course)

There are zillions of ways not to get pregnant. And I'm not even counting abstinence as one of the zillions. I didn't get pregnant in the 70's, 80's and early 90's cause I didn't want to be pregnant. Pills. Patches. Shots. IUDs. Diaphragms. Sponges. Condoms. Spermicidals. And more.

Okay, that's all. Back to your arguing.

WVRed
07-19-2005, 10:39 PM
You know, it's okay for someone to come on here and say offensive things like comparing abortion to a "sex" habit or a "drug" habit, but I point out that this pick is red meat (an age-old metaphor for "appeasement") for the Christian bloc and I'm the bad guy. I don't get it.

I didnt find traderumors post offensive at all. In fact, I agree with it 100%.

KYRedsFan
07-19-2005, 10:41 PM
I wonder if people will start taking elections seriously again when girls start turning up in dumpsters and in the woods with coat hangers in their hands.

It's all about the cowboy hat.

Right, we should allow behavior that is reprehensible in most situations simply because we want to, what? Make it safer. Bull. I can hook any addict up to an IV under sterile conditions, give em their heroin without the risk of HIV or Hep C. Should we get the drug abusers out of the streets and into the clinic because their behavior, which many feel to be wrong in a morally heavyhanded way I guess, is unsafe. No. Just as someone doesn't need to turn to drug abuse to solve their ills, resorting to the coat hanger and back alley when pregnant isn't the option either if abortion is illegal. But the coat hanger schocker, sure does make good prose. Thanks

WVRed
07-19-2005, 10:41 PM
For those of use not in the know ( :wave: ), could you please elaborate?

Meaning that will Judge Roberts be able to refuse to answer questions about how he would rule in upcoming cases?

westofyou
07-19-2005, 10:43 PM
The back alley abortion argument is a myth that people will often accept but do not do the research to find out if the argument has any substance.

What a load of crap.

I worked with this woman once who could teach you a thing or two.

http://www.concentric.org/outreach/note.html

http://www.concentric.org/projects/when.html

RBA
07-19-2005, 10:44 PM
I like to say you all seen a perfect example today on how this administration plays politics with the leaking of a somewhat moderate judge earlier, only to throw the gaunlet down on a wild card no one was expecting. And I'm pretty sure they timed the leak of the chosen one and THEIR TALKING POINT at exactly the right moment to not allow time for any talking head Democrat or Reporter to form an objective analysis of Judge Roberts. I wish the Republicans could run the country as well as they play power politics.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 10:47 PM
Right, we should allow behavior that is reprehensible in most situations simply because we want to, what? Make it safer. Bull. I can hook any addict up to an IV under sterile conditions, give em their heroin without the risk of HIV or Hep C. Should we get the drug abusers out of the streets and into the clinic because their behavior, which many feel to be wrong in a morally heavyhanded way I guess, is unsafe. No. Just as someone doesn't need to turn to drug abuse to solve their ills, resorting to the coat hanger and back alley when pregnant isn't the option either if abortion is illegal. But the coat hanger schocker, sure does make good prose. Thanks

So a 13 year old girl with no sex education, no regular parents, in and out of foster care, gets pregnant because she either doesn't know about it or can't afford it should be forced to give up her life and her future? Good. Got it.

Boy, I wish the back alley abortion and dumped post-birth babies were a myth, I really do.

RedsBaron
07-19-2005, 10:47 PM
In response to direct questioning about Roe v. Wade, Roberts refused to characterize his opinion on the case - he instead told the committee that he would uphold settled law. "Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land, it was even reaffirmed," Roberts said. "There is nothing in my personal views that would keep me from upholding it." Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL) told Roberts that his answers in regard to Roe v. Wade were evasive. "I need more," Durbin said.



I have no idea how Justice-to-be Roberts would rule on a case regarding reconsideration of Roe v. Wade. I will say that Roberts may have carefully worded his answer when asked that question during confirmation hearings for his nomination for a lower federal judgeship. A U.S. District Court judge or a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals must be willing to uphold precedent handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court; if a lower federal court judge cannot follow U.S. Supreme Court rulings, he or she should find other work. A justice on the U.S. Supreme Court, while properly mindful of prior precedent, is not really bound by it the way lower court judges are.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 10:48 PM
I didnt find traderumors post offensive at all. In fact, I agree with it 100%.

Great.

KYRedsFan
07-19-2005, 10:49 PM
I like to say you all seen a perfect example today on how this administration plays politics with the leaking of a somewhat moderate judge earlier, only to throw the gaunlet down on a wild card no one was expecting. And I'm pretty sure they timed the leak of the chosen one and THEIR TALKING POINT at exactly the right moment to not allow time for any talking head Democrat or Reporter to form an objective analysis of Judge Roberts. I wish the Republicans could run the country as well as they play power politics.

Huh. You think this thing is going to be over tonight. talking heads and the like will have plenty of time to get their point across. And I guess you didn't see Schumer and Leahy within 30 seconds of the nomination. Looked quite prepared to me. Cmon, the need to just take this to an extreme so fast is sad.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 10:51 PM
Cmon, the need to just take this to an extreme so fast is sad.

Good thing you're not a woman or a minority, then. I'm glad you're relaxed. That improves things.

KYRedsFan
07-19-2005, 10:53 PM
So a 13 year old girl with no sex education, no regular parents, in and out of foster care, gets pregnant because she either doesn't know about it or can't afford it should be forced to give up her life and her future? Good. Got it.

Boy, I wish the back alley abortion and dumped post-birth babies were a myth, I really do.

Who is saying she dies here FCB? It's easy going to the extreme to laud your arguement's merits, but that's not where the truth lies. It is not a myth that mothers resorted to extreme measures to end their pregnancies, but it's not the picture that is painted by you and others of an endless factory of death in the nation's streets because abortion was illegal. Uneducated people make mistakes all the time, and saying their lack of education should be covered by a statute that allows them to kill a growing baby. No, not right.

paintmered
07-19-2005, 10:55 PM
Due to the very sensitive and emotional nature of this subject, please be respectful of others' opinions and responses.

Please don't play a part in setting a new redszone record for getting a political thread locked in the shortest time.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 10:56 PM
This statement isn't really about abortion. Really.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out how people get pregnant if they don't want to be pregnant. (Not counting rape and incest, of course)

There are zillions of ways not to get pregnant. And I'm not even counting abstinence as one of the zillions. I didn't get pregnant in the 70's, 80's and early 90's cause I didn't want to be pregnant. Pills. Patches. Shots. IUDs. Diaphragms. Sponges. Condoms. Spermicidals. And more.

Okay, that's all. Back to your arguing.

Yeah, and all those methods cost money. And their use isn't effectively taught in schools. And girls as young as 11-12 get pregnant...all the time. I see it all...the...time.

I don't know 'bout you, but I don't see an 11 year old having the presence of mind to stop mid-stride and break out the diaphragm from the dresser. Maybe that's just me.

WVRed
07-19-2005, 10:58 PM
Due to the very sensitive and emotional nature of this subject, please be respectful of others' opinions and responses.

Please don't play a part in setting a new redszone record for getting a political thread locked in the shortest time.

I think this one has the record.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37928

Just sayin'.;)

RBA
07-19-2005, 11:03 PM
Huh. You think this thing is going to be over tonight. talking heads and the like will have plenty of time to get their point across. And I guess you didn't see Schumer and Leahy within 30 seconds of the nomination. Looked quite prepared to me. Cmon, the need to just take this to an extreme so fast is sad.

No, I didn't see Scumer and Leahy. They weren't on "liberal" MSNBC.

You aren't aware of how first impression on how news events are reported impact the viewing audience?

creek14
07-19-2005, 11:03 PM
Yeah, and all those methods cost money. And their use isn't effectively taught in schools. And girls as young as 11-12 get pregnant...all the time. I see it all...the...time.

I don't know 'bout you, but I don't see an 11 year old having the presence of mind to stop mid-stride and break out the diaphragm from the dresser. Maybe that's just me.
Then take a pill or get a shot (that lasts 3 months).

There are plently of places that supply free birth contol to anyone who walks in the door. I spent 8 years working in psych and social services, I sent lots of girls and women to PP and clinics for birth control.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 11:06 PM
Then take a pill or get a shot (that lasts 3 months).

There are plently of places that supply free birth contol to anyone who walks in the door. I spent 8 years working in psych and social services, I sent lots of girls and women to PP and clinics for birth control.

I bet you didn't work in neighborhoods like the ones I work in. Girls that don't know what cable television is or the name of the city's sports teams, girls with severe mental and emotional handicaps. Conjure the worst possible circumstances in your mind, then heap pregnancy on top. That's what I'm talking about.

RBA
07-19-2005, 11:07 PM
Then take a pill or get a shot (that lasts 3 months).

There are plently of places that supply free birth contol to anyone who walks in the door. I spent 8 years working in psych and social services, I sent lots of girls and women to PP and clinics for birth control.

And birth control pills and shots are just as bad as abortion in some people's minds. They believe that is murder also.

KittyDuran
07-19-2005, 11:27 PM
And birth control pills and shots are just as bad as abortion in some people's minds. They believe that is murder also.and that is the next step to ban those as well... :(

KittyDuran
07-19-2005, 11:29 PM
Then take a pill or get a shot (that lasts 3 months).

There are plently of places that supply free birth contol to anyone who walks in the door. I spent 8 years working in psych and social services, I sent lots of girls and women to PP and clinics for birth control.Sigh, I wonder if I'll ever see the day when men take some responsibility - it's always seem to be up to the female :( . Hasn't there been any progress on birth control for men?

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 11:31 PM
and that is the next step to ban those as well... :(

Yep. They want TOTAL control of a woman's right to choose and her access to contraception.

The culture of life. Women need not apply. But what's messed up is the number of women betraying other women by supporting these laws that control the biological and economic destinies of women.

KittyDuran
07-19-2005, 11:32 PM
I didnt find traderumors post offensive at all. In fact, I agree with it 100%.What I find offensive is that this thread has gone off from talking about a Supreme Court nominee to abortion, and that most of the talking on this subject [except for me and Creek] is done by a bunch of men... :angry:

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 11:35 PM
What I find offensive is that this thread has gone off from talking about a Supreme Court nominee to abortion, and that most of the talking on this subject [except for me and Creek] is done by a bunch of men... :angry:

I think I have a right to speak out against something that affects the women and girls in my life that I love.

And I think the issue of abortion is germane to a discussion of the next possible Supreme Court nominee.

Reds4Life
07-19-2005, 11:37 PM
What I find offensive is that this thread has gone off from talking about a Supreme Court nominee to abortion, and that most of the talking on this subject [except for me and Creek] is done by a bunch of men... :angry:

So men aren't entitled to an opinion?

traderumor
07-19-2005, 11:44 PM
Wow. Terrible argument. The back alley abortion is, of course, not a myth, and neither are the very things you point out--leaving children in dumpsters (on that point I see no BETTER argument FOR legal abortion).

So, let me get it straight, rape and incest pregnancies are "just a problem to that a person wants to rid herself of"? Okay. Just checking.

And that last paragraph? Where to begin with the logical fallacies? Abortion doesn't solve poverty; therefore, abortion should be made illegal. You're smarter than that.

FCB,

With all due respect, creating strawmen out of my arguments will not benefit anyone who might be reading this and trying to think about both sides of your assertion. Your assertion regarding "back alley abortions" is predicated on the fact that if abortion is not legal, that many more women will still seek abortions and not have safe means to do so. That was the point I was arguing, not that "back alley abortions" would not take place ever. I doubt if it is news to you that abortion is not entirely safe when its legal, that many women do not receive proper care both physically and emotionally before, during and after the killing takes place. There are problems with sterility, infertility, and hosts of other female problems associated with just one abortion. Many women have multiple abortions because it is so readily available.

Next, you decide to introduce incest and rape to the equation. I have been on record with respect to this argument, which anyone who cares could discover in a search I'm sure. Simply put, killing is killing, regardless of the excuse. Anyhow, you insinuated from the beginning the generic term abortion, which the current law is for any reason. You did not qualify it, that is the context that I responded to.

As far as my final argument, you need to do better than say there are logical fallacies, you need to explain why you consider that to be so. The point is that many of the arguments for legalizing abortion were advanced such as I presented. It hasn't happened. Women have that choice. Great. What has it done to improve the quality of life for them and our nation? Or is it just that if a woman wants to kill her unborn child for any reason she should be allowed to, regardless of who and how many different people (most of all the unborn child) it hurts?

RBA
07-19-2005, 11:50 PM
Many women have multiple abortions because it is so readily available.

That's because with every 5 abortions, you get one free.

Damn that gimmick advertising.

Falls City Beer
07-19-2005, 11:51 PM
Simply put, killing is killing, regardless of the excuse.

We have nothing else to discuss, then. Agree to disagree. You think it's a baby; I think it's cells that don't think. Murder (or killing) can only be committed against a human, not a collection of cells. Again, we have nothing else to discuss; agree to disagree.

But a logical fallacy is what it is. My pointing it out doesn't negate the fact of it, no matter your opinion on something. That's the thing about a fallacy, it knows no ideology.

Redsfaithful
07-19-2005, 11:55 PM
I wish Republicans cared as much for children who are born as they do for the unborn. We'd live in a much better country.

traderumor
07-19-2005, 11:56 PM
What I find offensive is that this thread has gone off from talking about a Supreme Court nominee to abortion, and that most of the talking on this subject [except for me and Creek] is done by a bunch of men... :angry:Women are more than welcome to respond. In fact, recruit some and please do have them respond, some on both sides of the issue, the more perspectives the better. I will be glad to let Mrs. tr respond if you like. She's even more passionate about the subject than I am. She tries to use that pain to let girls know the truth so that they might use any other option than the one she took. I guess having gone through it herself, struggled through the aftermath of that decision, still today, and hearing what people who give their reasons why its ok does something to someone that I cannot share, since it happened before her and I met.

WVRed
07-19-2005, 11:57 PM
That's because with every 5 abortions, you get one free.

Damn that gimmick advertising.

Would you agree that for those that are found "with coat hangers in a dumpster in an alley", that there would probably be a lot more women who would consider other alternatives like giving babies up for adoption or actually raising the baby?

RBA
07-20-2005, 12:01 AM
Would you agree that for those that are found "with coat hangers in a dumpster in an alley", that there would probably be a lot more women who would consider other alternatives like giving babies up for adoption or actually raising the baby?

I don't know what women think. I wish I could.

Heath
07-20-2005, 12:04 AM
I wish Republicans cared as much for children who are born as they do for the unborn. We'd live in a much better country.

I wish Democrats/Republicans/Christians/Jews/Buddists/Atheists/Libertarians/Parents/Teachers/Average American Citizens/Etc/ - cared as much for children who are born as they do for the unborn. We'd live in a much better country.

Heath
07-20-2005, 12:05 AM
I don't know what women think. I wish I could.

Ask Mel Gibson ;)

WVRed
07-20-2005, 12:05 AM
I wish Democrats/Republicans/Christians/Jews/Buddists/Atheists/Libertarians/Parents/Teachers/Average American Citizens/Etc/ - cared as much for children who are born as they do for the unborn. We'd live in a much better country.

:thumbup:

Man, im starting to feel like CBus tonight...

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 12:07 AM
I wish Democrats/Republicans/Christians/Jews/Buddists/Atheists/Libertarians/Parents/Teachers/Average American Citizens/Etc/ - cared as much for children who are born as they do for the unborn. We'd live in a much better country.

Hmmm. Alright. The difference is *still* that a liberal would agree with this statement.

Heath
07-20-2005, 12:10 AM
Hmmm. Alright. The difference is *still* that a liberal would agree with this statement.

And a conservative would probably agree with that statement as well.....

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 12:13 AM
And a conservative would probably agree with that statement as well.....

Come on get happy(?)

Heath
07-20-2005, 12:19 AM
Come on get happy(?)

No, that's only after I drink the "Kool-Aid" ;)

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 12:28 AM
Who is saying she dies here FCB? It's easy going to the extreme to laud your arguement's merits, but that's not where the truth lies. It is not a myth that mothers resorted to extreme measures to end their pregnancies, but it's not the picture that is painted by you and others of an endless factory of death in the nation's streets because abortion was illegal. Uneducated people make mistakes all the time, and saying their lack of education should be covered by a statute that allows them to kill a growing baby. No, not right.

That's the thing about a law: it covers the commonplace AND the extreme. That's the good and bad of it.

You can try to shove the "extreme" from your mind all you want, but it doesn't go away. And the law must provide for it somehow.

Redsfaithful
07-20-2005, 12:49 AM
Weird how abortions went up when Reagan and Bush were in office, and again now that Bush Jr. is president. And yet they were down while Clinton was in office. Strange that.

When Republicans care about things such as the quality of our environment, equal funding for education, the eradication of poverty, affordable housing, health care for everyone, etc. etc. then they can claim to care just as much for the children who are born as they do for the unborn.

And then you can try to be clever by calling my earlier statement glib. But first try to have an idea of what you're talking about.

BUTLER REDSFAN
07-20-2005, 01:14 AM
the eradication of poverty....................bill clinton went kickin and screaming signing the welfare reform bills in the 90's--its the republicans that made him sign it--republicans don't want people living off the government nipple all their lives--they want people to be successful and productive

Mutaman
07-20-2005, 02:21 AM
I'm not seeing where it is solving any of society's problems. In fact, I would submit that it is creating more problems than it solves from a woman's physical and mental health, to the damage it does in the families of women who make that choice, to the millions of gifted human beings whose lives were snuffed out without ever having the chance to contribute to this world.

Actually there have been many studies which indicate that there has been a significant reduction in crime in urban areas since Roe v Wade. The idea is that when there is a greater freedom for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnacy, there are less unwanted, neglected children who grow up to be criminals.

CrackerJack
07-20-2005, 03:11 AM
There are too many people in the world, all of our major societal problems are related to it. Abortion is no different than the justification for war and it's "acceptable amount of civilian/friendly casualties," if you are looking at it from a religious perspective and valuing "innocent life as sacred."

I am opposed to abortions after the early egg/embryo stage, if done for normal reasons (simply don't want to or can't afford the cost of raising the child). At the same time women were given the ability to give the world a child needless of her own physical dependence if she chooses - otherwise abortion wouldn't be possible without killing it's mother. It's free will and people just have to deal with it.

Just like we deal with the innocents who are killed accidentally in our military's line of fire and our acceptance of things like driving in cars despite the fact they kill hundreds of people each and every day.

If life really meant that much to some people you'd give up your cars before a missed light kills an infant in the back seat - it's all relative to me.

pedro
07-20-2005, 03:39 AM
So men aren't entitled to an opinion?

nope. sorry we're not.

TeamCasey
07-20-2005, 07:27 AM
Edit: Replied with boxing gloves on, then I had coffee. :laugh:

Those without uteruses may proceed with caution.

RedsBaron
07-20-2005, 07:49 AM
No, I didn't see Scumer and Leahy. They weren't on "liberal" MSNBC.


They were on Fox.

cincinnati chili
07-20-2005, 07:51 AM
This statement isn't really about abortion. Really.

But for the life of me, I can't figure out how people get pregnant if they don't want to be pregnant. (Not counting rape and incest, of course)

There are zillions of ways not to get pregnant. And I'm not even counting abstinence as one of the zillions. I didn't get pregnant in the 70's, 80's and early 90's cause I didn't want to be pregnant. Pills. Patches. Shots. IUDs. Diaphragms. Sponges. Condoms. Spermicidals. And more.

Okay, that's all. Back to your arguing.

As I ponder our sociobiological drives, I can understand how unwanted pregnancies occur. Our genes are not logical. They are programmed to multiply. It is in the selfish best-interest of our genes that we multiply exponentially. But it is in the best interest of our society that we do not. Our society comes up with all these cool devices to keep us from getting pregnant, but our drives just get stronger and more creative.

See, Richard Dawkins' work (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0192860925/ref=pd_sxp_f/002-4194460-8764021?v=glance&s=books) for more.

And getting back to the matter at hand, there's no question in my mind that this guy is going to be evasive about abortion through the entire confirmation process. He clearly has been politicing for this gig throughout his career by shilling for the Bush administrations in his kooky dissents, etc. Hopefully, those of us who care about reproductive rights will get lucky and he'll turn out to be a David Souter - once he got his Supreme Court lifetime gig, he gave all that up and showed his true, enlightened colors.

KittyDuran
07-20-2005, 08:56 AM
Edit: Replied with boxing gloves on, then I had coffee. :laugh:

Those without uteruses may proceed with caution. :beerme: To answer all that replied after I went to bed - of course, you're entitled to an opinion... :) I didn't say that you weren't - but I just find it condescending, sort of like women talking about erectile dysfunction... we can read up on it and know how important it is in our lives, but not really having any control over it since it's not our bodies.

WVRed
07-20-2005, 09:59 AM
The idea is that when there is a greater freedom for a woman to terminate an unwanted pregnacy, there are less unwanted, neglected children who grow up to be criminals.

Sorry, but there is no such thing as an "unwanted" child.

For every one that is considering an abortion, there are a lot more who want so bad to have children that cant that would love to adopt them.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 10:12 AM
Sorry, but there is no such thing as an "unwanted" child.

For every one that is considering an abortion, there are a lot more who want so bad to have children that cant that would love to adopt them.
Interesting.

There are plenty of black/latino/asian/mentally handicapped children in foster care and orphanages everywhere who may be inclined to disagree with that statement.

Jaycint
07-20-2005, 10:20 AM
Interesting.

There are plenty of black/latino/asian/mentally handicapped children in foster care and orphanages everywhere who may be inclined to disagree with that statement.

Angelina Jolie is working on singlehandedly curing that. ;)

WVRed
07-20-2005, 10:21 AM
Interesting.

There are plenty of black/latino/asian/mentally handicapped children in foster care and orphanages everywhere who may be inclined to disagree with that statement.

Unwanted by their birth parents maybe, but somebody who loves the children is taking care of them.

Do you honestly believe somebody who is a foster parent or works at an orphanage dislikes children? I dont think that is what George Muller had in mind when he opened up his own home as an orphanage.

Yes, those children are "wanted".

registerthis
07-20-2005, 10:23 AM
Unwanted by their birth parents maybe, but somebody who loves the children is taking care of them.

Do you honestly believe somebody who is a foster parent or works at an orphanage dislikes children? I dont think that is what George Muller had in mind when he opened up his own home as an orphanage.

Yes, those children are "wanted".
I think you know what I was referring to. Not that the people in the orphanage or foster home don't care for them, or "want" them, but very few families eligible for permanent placement do.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 10:23 AM
1) Dems will filibuster
2) Nominee should not have to answer how they will "rule" on cases because that is entirely speculative. The Dems will ask, I doubt Roberts will answer.
3)By the end of this process we will all remember why we dislike politics and politicians.
4) Roe vs Wade should be overturned because it is bad law. Abortion is a political issue(the constitiution is silent on it and the invented right to privacy that it stands on). If Roe is overturned the issue will go back to each of the 50 states(or Congress) to determine their own laws on abortion, which is the way it should be. Issues like abortion should have a political solution, not one by judicial fiat.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 10:29 AM
Sigh, I wonder if I'll ever see the day when men take some responsibility - it's always seem to be up to the female :( . Hasn't there been any progress on birth control for men?the honus is placed on the woman because she is the one who has to live with impact. It does take two to tango but our society views basically absolve men of the responisbility for having them and providing for them.

Of course our societal views have quite a double standard
- a man that sleeps around is a stud
- a woman that sleeps around is a ****

GIK
07-20-2005, 10:45 AM
I'm not really sure how wise it is to debate abortion on this forum (or anywhere in cyberspace for that matter) as no one's opinion is likely to change.

I will, however, say that I think it's possible for a woman to become pregnant who doesn't want to be. Safe sex is "safe", but it isn't perfect. Condoms, birth control, etc, are not 100% effective. I can see how a woman does become pregnant without wanting to be.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 10:49 AM
I can see how a woman does become pregnant without wanting to be.Short of a woman having her female baby making parts removed that is true. There is a pro-creative component to sex that cannot be divorced from the act itself.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 11:03 AM
What irks me is the way that abortion rights supporters get labeled as "pro abortion" from the right. It's not as if people who are pro-choice are out there knocking on doors and hustling people on the street to have an abortion. Quite honestly, in a perfect world abortions wouldn't exist because they wouldn't be necessary. Children would be taught proper sex education, the use of birth control and the responsibilities with being sexually active. Contraceptives and birth control would be openly available, and always 100% effective. Parents, teachers and religious leaders would be available and open to discuss sex honestly with their children, and would stop treating it as a taboo subject.

Yes, it would be nice to inhabit that world, which would make abortion unnecessary and archaic. Unfortunately, we don't inhabit that world--the world we inhabit is substantively different from the one described above. And while I frown upon and disagree with abortion as a form of birth control, and vehemently disagree with late-term abortions (except under the most unique of circumstances), I also recognize that the ability to choose a safe and legal abortion is a choice that is necessary, and should be allowed to remain. And it is disturbing to see a Supreme Court nominee who is so openly against this right to choose.

GIK
07-20-2005, 11:19 AM
That was written a lot better than my words, rt, and I'm right on board with your post. I also agree with FCB that if this right is taken away from women, we will see a significant increase in unsafe and "backdoor" abortions. I also can't comprehend how religion (which this issue is often tied to) gets to play such a significant role in government.

traderumor
07-20-2005, 11:20 AM
Interesting.

There are plenty of black/latino/asian/mentally handicapped children in foster care and orphanages everywhere who may be inclined to disagree with that statement.What is even more interesting is that you would likely think it is wrong to slaughter them, unless of course it could be done in utero. Since I would take an educated guess that at least 90% of all abortions are done as a matter of birth control and expedience, the theories using all of the extreme examples of when it is a good thing to have abortion available for any reason rings hollow with me.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 11:48 AM
What is even more interesting is that you would likely think it is wrong to slaughter them, unless of course it could be done in utero. Since I would take an educated guess that at least 90% of all abortions are done as a matter of birth control and expedience, the theories using all of the extreme examples of when it is a good thing to have abortion available for any reason rings hollow with me.
But, you see, that's just my point, TR. I may (or I may not) personally agree or disagree with abortion as a form of expediance or birth control, but in the end I'm not the one who is pregnant. In much the same way that I may disagree with a number of choices that people make. But you are making the distinction that I wrote about above--that pro-choice = pro-abortion. You can be against the procedure, but support someone else's right to choose it if they so elect. People don't get abortions for fun, or with wanton disgregard for the consequences--it's why organizations such as Planned Parenthood provide mandatory counseling to all women electing to get an abortion. But, in the end, who are YOU to make the ultimate decision for somebody else? I've decided that isn't my role, nor should it be the government's.

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 11:59 AM
4) Roe vs Wade should be overturned because it is bad law. Abortion is a political issue(the constitiution is silent on it and the invented right to privacy that it stands on). If Roe is overturned the issue will go back to each of the 50 states(or Congress) to determine their own laws on abortion, which is the way it should be. Issues like abortion should have a political solution, not one by judicial fiat.

Elaborate. "Invented right to privacy?" Huh? Come on, you can do better than that.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 12:17 PM
Elaborate. "Invented right to privacy?" Huh? Come on, you can do better than that.There is nothing in the constitution and Federalist Papers about it. It was interesting that it took almost 200 hundred years to discover a) a constitutional right of privacy; and b) a corollary right of the mother to destroy the unborn child.

Since the constitution is silent on the abortion and privacy issues they then fall into the realm of the legislative process of our republic to find a satisfactory political solution. That is why after over 30 years the problem still festers, judicial fiat removed them from the political process.

traderumor
07-20-2005, 12:22 PM
But, you see, that's just my point, TR. I may (or I may not) personally agree or disagree with abortion as a form of expediance or birth control, but in the end I'm not the one who is pregnant. In much the same way that I may disagree with a number of choices that people make. But you are making the distinction that I wrote about above--that pro-choice = pro-abortion. You can be against the procedure, but support someone else's right to choose it if they so elect. People don't get abortions for fun, or with wanton disgregard for the consequences--it's why organizations such as Planned Parenthood provide mandatory counseling to all women electing to get an abortion. But, in the end, who are YOU to make the ultimate decision for somebody else? I've decided that isn't my role, nor should it be the government's.So you are asking who am I to suggest that killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong and that there should not be law on the books saying its ok as long as some can classify a baby as subhuman at some stage of its development? The gall I have.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 12:27 PM
So you are asking who am I to suggest that killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong and that there should not be law on the books saying its ok as long as some can classify a baby as subhuman at some stage of its development? The gall I have.
No, I'm not asking you to approve of the killing of a human being, because I don't view a first or second trimester fetus as a "human being". And now we're arguing subjectives, which is where I bow out on abortion arguments, because they never come to any resolution.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 12:30 PM
So you are asking who am I to suggest that killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong and that there should not be law on the books saying its ok as long as some can classify a baby as subhuman at some stage of its development? The gall I have.
BTW--I honestly don't know, so I'm asking: Do you support the death penalty? Because the President you are so quick to defend certainly does. And if you do support the death penalty, how do you reconcile that with your position that "killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong"?

WVRed
07-20-2005, 12:38 PM
BTW--I honestly don't know, so I'm asking: Do you support the death penalty? Because the President you are so quick to defend certainly does. And if you do support the death penalty, how do you reconcile that with your position that "killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong"?

Im not traderumor, but I'll answer anyways.

Yes, I do believe in the death penalty.

Genesis 9:6-Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Its easy to reconcile as well. One is an unborn baby who has done nothing wrong, while the other is most likely somebody who has taken the life of another and should receive the punishment for it.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 12:50 PM
Im not traderumor, but I'll answer anyways.

Yes, I do believe in the death penalty.

Genesis 9:6-Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.

Its easy to reconcile as well. One is an unborn baby who has done nothing wrong, while the other is most likely somebody who has taken the life of another and should receive the punishment for it.
Well thank you for answering, but my question was specifically for TR, since he stated ""killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong"? Perhaps you would disagree with him there.

And since you brought up the religious aspect, how do you reconcile the death penalty with Jesus's "turn the other cheek" philosophy? I've heard Christian preachers say that anything you do, you should be able to picture jesus doing it with you. So can you see Jesus pulling the trigger as part of the firing squad? Can you see him pulling the switch to electrocute the prisoner? Can you see him dropping the lever to hang a man? Injecting the prisoner with lethal chemicals? In short, can you see Jesus dispensing Earthly justice by killing people? Because it's not the image of Jesus that I have.

GIK
07-20-2005, 12:57 PM
I feel the same.

My religious background is, most likely, completely different from most on here. I was raised that violence, of any kind, is wrong, guns are bad, wars are bad (and should not be fought in), the death penalty is wrong, etc, etc. I also have the philosophy and was taught that Jesus believed similar things. But that's religion and, IMO, it has no place in government.

traderumor
07-20-2005, 12:58 PM
WV Red explained the position satisfactorily. I would accept his explanation as a reasonable Biblical position.

traderumor
07-20-2005, 01:05 PM
I feel the same.

My religious background is, most likely, completely different from most on here. I was raised that violence, of any kind, is wrong, guns are bad, wars are bad (and should not be fought in), the death penalty is wrong, etc, etc. I also have the philosophy and was taught that Jesus believed similar things. But that's religion and, IMO, it has no place in government.Don't confuse preferring a religion with moral codes. Just because a concept can be traced back to a Biblical ethic does not make it an invalid argument.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 01:06 PM
WV Red explained the position satisfactorily. I would accept his explanation as a reasonable Biblical position.
So you do not, in fact, stand by your earlier statement:

"Killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong"?

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 01:12 PM
There is nothing in the constitution and Federalist Papers about it. It was interesting that it took almost 200 hundred years to discover a) a constitutional right of privacy; and b) a corollary right of the mother to destroy the unborn child.

Since the constitution is silent on the abortion and privacy issues they then fall into the realm of the legislative process of our republic to find a satisfactory political solution. That is why after over 30 years the problem still festers, judicial fiat removed them from the political process.

The Constitution doesn't mention A LOT of things. But what's the most important thing to keep in mind about the Constitution is that it's not about what people can do, it's about what GOVERNMENT can/can't do. It is a set of limits on governmental interference and preservations of human freedoms.

GIK
07-20-2005, 01:13 PM
Correct, but just because the book of Genesis states something, does not make the argument valid either.

I could be wrong, so please someone correct me if that's the case (it's been awhile since I've regularly gone to church), but wasn't the point of Jesus being born, dying for "our" sins, etc to set the New Testament as "our" new code.

Also, this is the problem, in my view with religion being so twisted to government. Why does, and why should, Christianity play such a prevalent role in policy? The United States, at least I thought, was supposed to be all-inclusive to all religions and one of the points is that we do not have a national religion. So, again, why do Christians (of which I am one) get to push their religion into government policy?

GIK
07-20-2005, 01:14 PM
So you do not, in fact, stand by your earlier statement:

"Killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong"?

I'll agree with that quote, but I see life starting at a later point than a lot of others do here.

Mutaman
07-20-2005, 01:16 PM
This thread has reminded me once again that the religious right in the United States is dangerous and present an extreme threat to my freedom. It is clear that you do not believe in the seperation of church and state and simply want to impose your ideas on everybody else. As if quoting your bible has any place in a political discussion. (Is that the King James versaion, or the other one?)

As a result I will once again get out my checkbook and write out a check to Howard Dean and the Democratic party. Not that they're all that great, or that I enjoy sending them money, but the alternative is so much worse. Thanks for the reminder.

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 01:17 PM
I'll agree with that quote, but I see life starting at a later point than a lot of others do here.

My position too. I really don't want the government to tell people what they can do with their thinking, autonomous body (and that INCLUDES--not excludes-- women).

Heath
07-20-2005, 01:20 PM
so, are there other arguments that are in place that would lead to believe that Mr. Roberts is not a suitable Supreme Justice Candidate. Or, is this a thread that is severely way off topic with the same rhetoric that we all know anyway regarding one issue of many that will be investigated as Mr. Roberts begins the process?

Help me out, what were we discussing?

GIK
07-20-2005, 01:22 PM
I believe, Heath, that this discussion has evolved into a debate on many of the issues the Senate will be asking Mr. Roberts. I see these topics as extremely valid.

Heath
07-20-2005, 01:41 PM
I believe, Heath, that this discussion has evolved into a debate on many of the issues the Senate will be asking Mr. Roberts. I see these topics as extremely valid.

In my opinion, it has been a discussion of the same debate of conservative vs. liberal that can be found in 95% of the political threads started in the non-baseball chatter. After reading the entire thread a majority of the threads talk about one central topic - abortion. Again, this my opinion.

It doesn't take a whole lot of reading in this topic or other threads started that shows who is passionate on which side of the political football field. Again, this is MY opinion.

I'm just stating that Mr. Roberts' process as a Supreme Court Justice Candidate is going to be more diverse than this thread is becoming. Its the same rhetoric that is tossed every time we get into a 'political' "discussion". Again - my opinion.

Also, I'm sure I will be asked the question - 'If you don't like it, just leave". That is a valid response. I will probably be reading this thread, but will probably leave my political view points at the door.

GIK - obviously you have the ability to moderate and I respect you opinion and your abilities to decide to stop a thread or delete portions of a thread if you deem it necessary. I am just expressing my opinion in what I am reading.

Thanks!

westofyou
07-20-2005, 01:46 PM
Help me out, what were we discussing?

You're right.

They're are plenty of other issues that he's going to have to face, many that concern me.

I've heard that Roberts is not a strong "enviromentalist" But I also have not researched it much as of yet. It troubles me in a state known for it's land abuse in the name of the all mighty dollar.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 01:46 PM
The Constitution doesn't mention A LOT of things. and those things that it doesn't mention are intended to be handled in the legislative process by building a politcal consensus, not by being decided by a group of individuals imposing their own political view by judicial fiat.

Redsfaithful
07-20-2005, 01:50 PM
And if you do support the death penalty, how do you reconcile that with your position that "killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong"?

I've always wondered why people who are pro-life seem to almost always be pro-Iraq as well. Doesn't really square up, until you realize that they really and truly only care about fetuses. Once a person is actually born then all bets are off.

I actually have respect for people who are pro-life through and through, against the death penalty, against war, etc. At least they're consistent.

traderumor
07-20-2005, 01:53 PM
Correct, but just because the book of Genesis states something, does not make the argument valid either.

I could be wrong, so please someone correct me if that's the case (it's been awhile since I've regularly gone to church), but wasn't the point of Jesus being born, dying for "our" sins, etc to set the New Testament as "our" new code.

Also, this is the problem, in my view with religion being so twisted to government. Why does, and why should, Christianity play such a prevalent role in policy? The United States, at least I thought, was supposed to be all-inclusive to all religions and one of the points is that we do not have a national religion. So, again, why do Christians (of which I am one) get to push their religion into government policy?

I would differ on your first point, but in the context of civil government, I am not in favor of attempting to create a theocracy. That was for one nation that no longer has a covenant relationship with God.

I don't think our government is influenced by Christianity as things being shoved down people's throat, but that the democratic process has found the Judeo-Christian ethic to be a legitimate basis for many of our laws. Some of the ideals die, some are revived after other directions proved to be a mistake.

traderumor
07-20-2005, 01:56 PM
So you do not, in fact, stand by your earlier statement:

"Killing a human being at any stage of its life is wrong"?No, I stand by it. We were speaking in the context of abortion, I left the door open for you unintentionally. My thanks to WV Red for shutting it behind me.

Actually, I would say "killing an innocent human being at any stage of his/her life is wrong." That should close your loophole.

traderumor
07-20-2005, 02:02 PM
I've always wondered why people who are pro-life seem to almost always be pro-Iraq as well. Doesn't really square up, until you realize that they really and truly only care about fetuses. Once a person is actually born then all bets are off.

I actually have respect for people who are pro-life through and through, against the death penalty, against war, etc. At least they're consistent.

Anabaptists aren't. Hung out with some over the last two years, they believe in the non-retaliation. However, most understand that war and conflicts are upheld biblically with the authority of civil government in the same way that civil government must sometimes use force to re-establish peace and exact justice. Romans 16 is the most common Biblical passage dealing with the role of civil government in the world.

Of course, people in favor of abortion/anti-war have a problem reconciling being against the killing associated with war yet justify ending the life of human being in utero.

M2
07-20-2005, 02:03 PM
Since the Bible makes no mention of North America I always sort of assumed that was a tacit approval of the separation of church and state in this hemisphere.

As for the nominee, Charlie Rose did a real good show last night where some legal types were arguing that what makes for a good Supreme is an active mind and humility. It's the ones who walk in with a fully-developed ethos that never gets reconsidered (a rarity, but Scalia certainly fits that description and Bork surely would have as well) that turn into lousy justices. What the Senate really should be angling for is a sense of whether Roberts is a curious soul with the capacity for growth. If he is, he'll probably make a good justice (and probably peeve the hell out of archconservatives along the way).

What they really want to be asking is what he views as the challenges facing the court in the coming decades - not how he'd decide on those issues, but whether he's well-attuned to what the issues are likely to be and whether he can articulate both sides of those issues. They also ought to be asking what the right and left misunderstand about the Supreme Court and its charge, or at least what Roberts thinks the politics of each side misses about the role of jurisprudence. I'd like to know about his membership in the Federalist Society. For some inside of it, it's a movement with a turn-back-the-clock-to-the-1920s agenda (as foolish a goal as has ever been set, but I digress) and I'd like to hear what he had to say about the movement mindset (which I don't think he shares). What case does he feel best about having won? What case does he feel best about having lost? What does he view as the weaker spots on his legal resume and how does he intend to compensate for or strength those areas should his nomination be approved?

Show me an agile mind, candor and an appreciation for complexity and I won't worry overly much about him being a right wing boogeyman. Historically-speaking, justices tend to become more expansive in their thinking once they reach the Supreme Court. They rise to the challenge and eschew whatever dogma might have been present earlier in their careers. In short, if Roberts is a mix of intelligence and good humor aspiring to wisdom, he won't be a right wing boogeyman.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 02:06 PM
Of course, the constitution makes no mention of "seperation of church and state". It is a phrase found nowhere in the document.

GIK
07-20-2005, 02:09 PM
Heath, definitely stay and read (and post if you'd like).

I definitely did not mean that Roberts, if approved, will only be deciding Roe v. Wade. Nor that his hearing in the Senate will only encompass that topic. Woy is right in that there are going to be MANY important issues that the bench will be deciding in their next term (an so on).

I too find it very difficult to argue politically on here and, until today, never did. I most likely will go back "into hiding". :) Like I said earlier, no one is going to change anyone's mind on a web forum, so often (I guess) most use this as a tool to vent. From my standpoint this forum (RedsZone) leans to the right. I typically lean to the left. I guess it just took 5 years for me to finally break.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 02:14 PM
Of course, people in favor of abortion/anti-war have a problem reconciling being against the killing associated with war yet justify ending the life of human being in utero.
Nice attempt at a strawman, but I'm going to steer you back on course here. For the upteenth time, pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. I would never encourage anyone I know to have an abortion, and I certainly hope my girlfriend/wife/sister/cousin/friend would never choose to have one. So there is not conflict between being generally anti-war and pro-choice.

As a matter of fact, I don't know a single person who is "pro abortion."

With that out of the way, I would like to revisit your religion argument for a second. I see you've amended your statement to say that the killing of an *innocent* person at any time in their life is wrong. OK, you're being more consistent there. However, I'm going to re-ask a question I posed earlier: since you believe the death penalty can be supported biblically, can you picture in your mind Jesus pulling the trigger on the assault rifle that executes the criminal? And using "he can condemn them to hell" is not an answer, because I am talking specifically about exacting EARTHLY justice. Can you, in fact, picture Jesus killing another man?

Redsfaithful
07-20-2005, 02:21 PM
Of course, people in favor of abortion/anti-war have a problem reconciling being against the killing associated with war yet justify ending the life of human being in utero.

You keep trying to frame the people you disagree with as being "in favor of abortion" when you've been told again and again that's not the case. I want to reduce the number of abortions in this country as much as possible. I'm pro-choice. Step back and think about that phrase for a moment, as it's an intentional one, just as your pro-killing remarks are intentional. I'm pro a woman's right to choose what she should do with her body. Not for abortion. If I was pro-abortion I'd want to make them more common, possibly even mandatory in certain cases. I don't. I just want women to be able to choose.

And yes, I fully admit to caring much more about people who are actually living. An 18 year old hitting a roadside bomb in Iraq is infinitely more tragic than a two months along fetus being aborted.

traderumor
07-20-2005, 02:27 PM
Nice attempt at a strawman, but I'm going to steer you back on course here. For the upteenth time, pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion. I would never encourage anyone I know to have an abortion, and I certainly hope my girlfriend/wife/sister/cousin/friend would never choose to have one. So there is not conflict between being generally anti-war and pro-choice.

As a matter of fact, I don't know a single person who is "pro abortion."

With that out of the way, I would like to revisit your religion argument for a second. I see you've amended your statement to say that the killing of an *innocent* person at any time in their life is wrong. OK, you're being more consistent there. However, I'm going to re-ask a question I posed earlier: since you believe the death penalty can be supported biblically, can you picture in your mind Jesus pulling the trigger on the assault rifle that executes the criminal? And using "he can condemn them to hell" is not an answer, because I am talking specifically about exacting EARTHLY justice. Can you, in fact, picture Jesus killing another man?

It wasn't a matter of consistency, reg, it was a matter that the context of the discussion didn't require the qualification until you brought it up, but whatever.

As for your questions, read Romans 16 for an answer to your question. Also, all civil government is ultimately under God's authority. One day, Jesus Christ will be the Judge of all mankind, separating the "sheeps from the goats." That is relevant, since Christ is an eternal being, a unique being that is not limited to his actions during the 33 or so odd years that he was the God-man. Read Revelation, which is also known as the Revelation of Jesus Christ for an idea of how the King of Kings and Lord of Lords exacts justice. You cannot just refer to the acts recorded concerning Jesus in the gospels and come up with a "What Would Jesus Do?" argument. In the gospels, He was the Savior of the World, to seek and save that which was lost. However, he is also the final Judge on that day.

BTW, there was no straw man created anymore than your question about abortion/death penalty. You have an explanation, I have an explanation, but those are legitimate questions that require explanation.

RedFanAlways1966
07-20-2005, 02:29 PM
And yes, I fully admit to caring much more about people who are actually living. An 18 year old hitting a roadside bomb in Iraq is infinitely more tragic than a two months along fetus being aborted.

One HUGE difference... the 18-year-old signed up for his job and duty. He/she knew that they would get paid for this job that they AGREED to take on. He/she knew that they might have to fight in a war. He/she agreed to all conditions before signing up. Now about that fetus that is being killed... what choice does it have? Oh...

zombie-a-go-go
07-20-2005, 02:30 PM
However, I'm going to re-ask a question I posed earlier: since you believe the death penalty can be supported biblically, can you picture in your mind Jesus pulling the trigger on the assault rifle that executes the criminal? And using "he can condemn them to hell" is not an answer, because I am talking specifically about exacting EARTHLY justice. Can you, in fact, picture Jesus killing another man?

Wow... I've seen off-topic posts in threads before, but this one takes the cake. :lol:

Jesus-as-Rambo aside, register, you know what TR's beliefs are. You already know. We all do. And from where I'm sitting, statements like the one you just made look like baiting to me, because we also both know that nothing constructive or useful is going to come from this line of debate, though personal attacks on certain belief systems very well might.

Whether or not tr thinks Jesus would pop a few caps in a murderer's :mooner: is as irrelevant to the discussion of a Supreme Court Justice appointee as asparagus is to... like... uh... running shoes. Yeah.

pedro
07-20-2005, 02:33 PM
One HUGE difference... the 18-year-old signed up for his job and duty. He/she knew that they would get paid for this job that they AGREED to take on. He/she knew that they might have to fight in a war. He/she agrred to all conditions before signing up. Now about that fetus that is being killed... what choice does it have? Oh...

I'm not sure that the members of the National Guard signed up for extended duty in oversea wars. It is my opinion that the government has taken advantage of the National Guard in prosecuting the Iraq war. But that really is a topic for another thread........

traderumor
07-20-2005, 02:34 PM
You keep trying to frame the people you disagree with as being "in favor of abortion" when you've been told again and again that's not the case. I want to reduce the number of abortions in this country as much as possible. I'm pro-choice. Step back and think about that phrase for a moment, as it's an intentional one, just as your pro-killing remarks are intentional. I'm pro a woman's right to choose what she should do with her body. Not for abortion. If I was pro-abortion I'd want to make them more common, possibly even mandatory in certain cases. I don't. I just want women to be able to choose.

And yes, I fully admit to caring much more about people who are actually living. An 18 year old hitting a roadside bomb in Iraq is infinitely more tragic than a two months along fetus being aborted.You're arguing semantics. You are in favor of abortion, no matter how lightly you try to tread around it. Why qualify it if its something that a rational person should be allowed to choose? This is not a personal preference issue anymore than you would support giving a man the right to choose whether or not he can kill his wife for any reason.

Your last comment I find sickening. You found my breaking point, this is my last post in this thread.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 02:35 PM
Wow... I've seen off-topic posts in threads before, but this one takes the cake. :lol:

Jesus-as-Rambo aside, register, you know what TR's beliefs are. You already know. We all do. And from where I'm sitting, statements like the one you just made look like baiting to me, because we also both know that nothing constructive or useful is going to come from this line of debate, though personal attacks on certain belief systems very well might.

Whether or not tr thinks Jesus would pop a few caps in a murderer's :mooner: is as irrelevant to the discussion of a Supreme Court Justice appointee as asparagus is to... like... uh... running shoes. Yeah.
TR invoked the biblical defense for his view--which gets to the thought process behind an arch conservative and their potential views on the abortion conflict. I get the impression that a vast majority of pro-lifers are that specifically for religious reasons, and I've no reason to think that a Supreme Court Justice would be any different.

That being said, I agree this has veered off topic and I'll drop the line of questionning in this thread.

And, for the record, I don't think Jesus would ever "kill" another man--I think he prefers to "smite".

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 02:36 PM
and those things that it doesn't mention are intended to be handled in the legislative process by building a politcal consensus, not by being decided by a group of individuals imposing their own political view by judicial fiat.

The Judicial Branch must interpret the law. In Roe v. Wade they interpreted it. Yes, it is judicial fiat.

The Constitution doesn't mention the right to own an SUV, or watch NASCAR, either. Ricardo, you chose to ignore the rest of my post obviously; the Constitution is NOT about what people can do; it's about what the government may or may not do vis. liberties.

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 02:45 PM
Can I just point out, once again, that logical fallacies exist--that you don't get to say "No, that wasn't a strawman" when it IS a straw man. That logical fallacies aren't a liberal boogeyman--they are objective critiques of arguments with no bias.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 02:50 PM
logical fallacies aren't a liberal boogeyman--they are objective critiques of arguments with no bias.
Such as claiming that those who are pro-choice are, in actuality, pro-abortion.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 02:50 PM
The Constitution doesn't mention the right to own an SUV, or watch NASCAR, either. and as far as I know there is no law enacted that restricts my right to either own an SUV or watch NASCAR, thus I am free to do so. However, each one of the 50 states had statutory laws enacted through the legislative process dealing with abortion.

M2
07-20-2005, 02:52 PM
Of course, the constitution makes no mention of "seperation of church and state". It is a phrase found nowhere in the document.

True, it doesn't use that phraseology, but it does forbid religious tests as a qualification for holding public office and then there's the First Amendment which begins "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Then there's 200+ years of law built around what "establishment" entails.

Of course, just my opinion, common sense would lead you to the same conclusion. I certainly don't want to live in a theocracy catering to someone else's particular religious views and I've yet to meet anyone else who would.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 03:05 PM
I certainly don't want to live in a theocracy catering to someone else's particular religious views and I've yet to meet anyone else who would.And neither did the founding fathers. That is what they were running away from in England. Where church and state were joined together as the king(beginning with Henry VIII) was the titular head of both.


Then there's 200+ years of law built around what "establishment" entails. a little over 50 to be more exact. In McCollum in 1948 was the first time the Supreme Court upheld that using tax money(or supported property) for religious instruction violated the "establishment clause"

WVRed
07-20-2005, 03:10 PM
One HUGE difference... the 18-year-old signed up for his job and duty. He/she knew that they would get paid for this job that they AGREED to take on. He/she knew that they might have to fight in a war. He/she agreed to all conditions before signing up. Now about that fetus that is being killed... what choice does it have? Oh...

What he said...

M2
07-20-2005, 03:10 PM
a little over 50 to be more exact. In McCollum in 1948 was the first time the Supreme Court upheld that using tax money(or supported property) for religious instruction violated the "establishment clause"

And it cited lots of prior case law in doing so.


And neither did the founding fathers. That is what they were running away from in England. Where church and state were joined together as the king(beginning with Henry VIII) was the titular head of both.

My point exactly. Church + State = Bad Idea

ochre
07-20-2005, 03:19 PM
And neither did the founding fathers. That is what they were running away from in England. Where church and state were joined together as the king(beginning with Henry VIII) was the titular head of both.

a little over 50 to be more exact. In McCollum in 1948 was the first time the Supreme Court upheld that using tax money(or supported property) for religious instruction violated the "establishment clause"
Very many of the founding fathers were more concerned with seperation of bank and state... The Virginians particularly.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 03:23 PM
And it cited lots of prior case law in doing so.actually very little, there was almost none to cite.



"Nothing stands behind the Court's assertion that governmental affirmation of the society's belief in God is unconstitutional except the Court's own say-so, citing as support only the unsubstantiated say-so of earlier Courts going back no farther than the mid-20th century."

If one reads "the establishment clause", it begins with "Congress shall pass no law ... ".

flyer85
07-20-2005, 03:25 PM
Very many of the founding fathers were more concerned with seperation of bank and state... The Virginians particularly.to think it only took a 3 penny tax to get the whole ball rolling. George III was much less onerous on his new world subjects than our current overlords.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 03:36 PM
From "The Separation of Church and State (http://members.tripod.com/~candst/tnppage/tnpidx.htm)" website:


Legislative History of the Religion Clauses

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Research and writing by Tom Peters
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If, as accomodationists want to argue, the purpose of the First Amendment was simply to bar the establishment of a state church, then one would expect to see evidence of this intent in the framing of the Amendment. In fact, the framers rejected versions of the First Amendment that would have done nothing more than bar the establishment of a state church. Rather, the framers adopted what is arguably the broadest of the proposed versions. (All information in this section is taken, unless otherwise indicated, from Leonard Levy, "The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment," in James E. Wood, ed., Religion and the State, pp. 43-83. For other discussions of the framing of the Amendment, see Thomas Curry, The First Freedoms, ch. 8, and Douglas Laycock, "'Nonpreferential' Aid to Religion: A False Claim about Original Intent," William and Mary Law Review, vol. 27, pp. 875-923. Additionally, please consult our online collection of all the mentions of the religion clauses recorded in the Annals of Congress and the Senate Journal for the first Congress.)

The House debates:


James Madison introduced the first version of the Amendment in the House of Representatives in 1789. The version read as follows: "The civil rights of none shall be abridged on the account of religious belief, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience in any manner or on any pretext be infringed." A House subcommittee immediately edited out the word "national" from Madison's proposal. A variety of additional versions were proposed and debated; none of these versions contained the word "national," or can be construed to bar only the establishment of a national religion. After further debate, the House approved the following, clearly broader, amendment: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience." The first two thirds of the proposal are similar to our present version of the First Amendment; nothing in the proposal seems independently to authorize Congress to aid religion in any way.
The Senate debates


The House amendment went to the Senate in August. On September 3 the Senate took up three alternatives to the House language. The wording of these versions were as follows:

Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others.

Congress shall not make any law infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any religious sect or society.

Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another.
None of these versions passed muster. Instead, the Senate approved the following, much broader, language: "Congress shall make no law establishing religion." Six days later the Senate returned to the Amendment for the final time and approved the following: "Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion." The Senate, in other words, rejected three versions of the First Amendment that would have codified the accomodationist position (i.e., the barring of a national church, and little else) in favor of a version that, while not as broad as the House proposal, was no longer narrowly focused on the establishment of a "sect," "society," or "denomination."

The conference committe debates:


Given the approval of different versions of the Bill of Rights by the House and Senate, a conference committee was created to resolve differences. The House members of the committee (headed by Madison) flatly refused to accept the Senate version of the religion Amendment, thereby "indicating that the House would not be satisfied with merely a ban on preference of one sect or religion over others" (Levy, "The Original Meaning of the Establishment Clause," p. 60). The Senate conferees then abandoned the Senate proposal, and the current version of the Amendment was adopted.
The history of the framing of the First Amendment, in other words, gives little support to the accomodationist position. The House never considered a version of the Amendment that codified the accomodationist position. The Senate did consider such versions, but rejected them. In their place, the Senate approved a more broadly drawn Amendment that barred the establishment of articles of faith and modes of worship without reference to religious denominations. The final version of the Amendment was even more broadly drawn than the House version in that it barred not only an establishment of religion, but even laws respecting the establishment of religion (i.e., wording that further guaranteed that the federal government could not interfere with the religious affairs of the states). Clearly, Congress intended the First Amendment to do more than simply bar the establishment of a state church.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some accomodationist arguments:

In response to this evidence accomodationists sometimes argue that, since Madison's original version of the First Amendment barred the establishment of a "national" religion, and since the Senate debated language to this effect, the House and Senate debates are evidence that Congress only wanted a narrowly drawn amendment. But this gets the process of interpretation backward; it makes the defeated versions of the amendment controlling over the versions that passed! Nor do accomodationists apply this argument consistently; several of the proposed versions contained language guaranteeing the "rights of conscience," i.e., the right of people not to be taxed to support religions with which they disagree. Does this not indicate that the framers wanted to bar non-preferential taxation in favor of religion? It does if one applies accomodationist logic consistently but, for some odd reason, accomodationists rarely leap to this conclusion.

Another accomodationist response is to quote statements by anti-Federalists (i.e., those who opposed the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) to the effect that the proposed religion amendment still allowed the federal government power to act in religious affairs. In particular, when the proposed Bill of Rights came before the Virginia legislature for ratification, a group of eight anti-Federalist state senators (none of whom were framers of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights, and all of whom opposed Jefferson's bill for religious freedom) argued that, even with the religion amendment in place, the government could still tax people for the general support of religion, and otherwise interfere with state establishments. But this is to accept the deeply tainted opinions of the opponents of the Constitution in favor of the statements of the framers themselves. As Levy notes (The Establishment Clause, pp. 108-111), the anti-Federalists were desperate to scrap the Constitution in favor of a system that left state sovereignty intact; their strategy was to reinforce, by any means at their disposal, the fear that the federal government was nothing more than a monster in waiting. How better to do this than to suggest the religion amendments left the monster free to pounce? One simply cannot turn to statements like these--statements that have no counterpart in any other state ratification debate, and which vest Congress with powers that no one else at the time was able to see--as an authoritative interpretation of the establishment clause. Levy's conclusion, we think, is apt:

It is difficult to believe that those who rejected the establishment clause understood it better than its framers, that the Anti-Federalists knew better than Madison and his cohorts, and that those who supported establishment of religion in Virginia revealed the criteria for interpreting the limitation on Congress's powers.

M2
07-20-2005, 04:09 PM
actually very little, there was almost none to cite.

Everson from the prior year (1947) is where the Hugo Black Court fully enumerated its thoughts on the establisment clause and it went all the way back to 1785, getting its precedent straight from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and the "Virginia Bill for Religious Liberty." The Due Process Clause also came into play and that goes back to Dred Scott.

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/everson.html

Note the Appendix citing Madison.

McCollum cites pretty much the same set of precedents as it's only a variation on Everson (and more of a slam dunk with the court at the time). Of course McCollum's the whipping post for the right wing because Vashti McCollum was an avowed atheist, making it easy to attack the source instead of the substance.

Nice try on the state's rights swerve. Of course once the 14th Amendment established that the 1st Amendment applies to states (and not just Congress), that fish flew out the window.


No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

It's an inconvenient fact of American democracy for the right, but there it is anyway. Oddly it was conceived and written by Republicans.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 04:20 PM
Everson from the prior year (1947) is where the Hugo Black Court fully enumerated its thoughts on the establisment clause and it went all the way back to 1785... but for the first 170 years of the republic it was constitutional for the states(tax dollars) to fund religious instruction. Of course Justice Black was granted with the abilities that DanO now possesses, the ability to see and discern things that others cannot.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 04:22 PM
... but for the first 170 years of the republic it was constitutional for the states(tax dollars) to fund religious instruction.
And for the first 190 years blacks didn't have the right to vote.

There have been alot of injustices through the Constitution throughout history.

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 04:24 PM
and as far as I know there is no law enacted that restricts my right to either own an SUV or watch NASCAR, thus I am free to do so. However, each one of the 50 states had statutory laws enacted through the legislative process dealing with abortion.

Yes, you're right. And states had slavery laws on the books, too.

It is the DUTY of the Judiciary to enforce the letter and the spirit of any law.

This is how the court interpreted the law and in what ways it infringed upon Constitutional rights:

"Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights."

Here's the Ninth: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the Fourteenth is the equal protection clause.

The world changes; the Court must navigate the tension between dynamism and integrity--between the letter and the spirit.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 04:25 PM
And for the first 190 years blacks didn't have the right to vote.While that may have de facto it was not de jure. That is turning the argument completely on it's head.

flyer85
07-20-2005, 04:27 PM
And states had slavery laws on the books, too. Now that is creating a straw man and pejorative.

Falls City Beer
07-20-2005, 04:29 PM
Now that is creating a straw man and pejorative.

No, it's not. Not at all. It's completely parallel. Some laws are found unconstitutional. It's the Court's role to determine as such.

registerthis
07-20-2005, 04:33 PM
While that may have de facto it was not de jure. That is turning the argument completely on it's head.
The Constitution said nothing specifically about minorities having the right to vote, yet it consistently used phrases such as "all men", which through the years have been interpreted to mean all men and women, regardless of race.

In much the same way, the Constitution doesn't specifically use the phrase 'separation of church and state', but the phrase 'Congress shall make now law establishing religion' has been intrepreted to mean that the government should neither endorse a national religion, nor endorse any religion.

I don't think the intent of the Founding fathers was to prevent the White House Christmas Tree from being put up, but I'm fairly certain they also didn't want a government or set of laws based on any religious texts or belief system.

M2
07-20-2005, 05:15 PM
... but for the first 170 years of the republic it was constitutional for the states(tax dollars) to fund religious instruction. Of course Justice Black was granted with the abilities that DanO now possesses, the ability to see and discern things that others cannot.

No, for 170 years it was handled on a state by state basis and municipalities probably varied on how well they observed the state regulations. Virginia, thanks to the guys who wrote the Constitution, established a big wall between church and state in the 1700s. In fact, the Establishment Clause is the boiled down version of what Jefferson and Madison put together in Virginia.

You're acting like the Supreme Court came up with these rulings out of whole cloth when nothing could be farther from the truth. You could read the majority decision on Everson, which I provided you a link to. You can look up the precedents on the Due Process Clause. If you were in the mood, you could look up the precedents cited by the counsels in the Everson and McCollum decisions. It's out there whether you care to know it or not.

Actually I'm a little surprised you're taking this line of argument because you tend to like your objective facts on the baseball side and you don't tend to buy into self-serving spin. I'm not saying there's no room for a less expansive interpretation of Due Process and Establishment, but claiming that the separation of church and state was created in 1948 is flat out wrong, kind of like saying Juan Castro is a clutch hitter.

The Constitution contains a prohibition on the governmental establishment of religion, states wrestled with the issue early in our nation's history (I know Connecticut and Massachusetts weeded out certain Protestant clauses/requirements in their state Constitutions and I believe Maryland did the same with Catholicism) and when the ramifications of the 14th Amendment inevitably put the issue before the Supreme Court, it rendered a decision based on the letter of the law and legal precedent every bit as much (moreso I'd argue) as the nebulous spirit of the law.

RBA
07-21-2005, 12:40 AM
Huh. You think this thing is going to be over tonight. talking heads and the like will have plenty of time to get their point across. And I guess you didn't see Schumer and Leahy within 30 seconds of the nomination. Looked quite prepared to me. Cmon, the need to just take this to an extreme so fast is sad.

Updated: 08:25 AM EDT
Bush Takes Media by the Horns After Days of Trouble
http://cdn.news.aol.com/aolnews_providers/71_article_logo
By Peter Johnson, USA TODAY
(July 20) -- President Bush had no control over when Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor would step down. But announcing her successor - and when - was his call.

In doing so in prime time Tuesday, Bush took advantage of his bully pulpit and news media cycles to argue that appeals court Judge John Roberts is the right choice for the nation's highest court.

Analysts said the timing was also designed to take media focus away from the troubles facing Bush's embattled adviser, Karl Rove.

Meet the Press host Tim Russert told anchor Brian Williams on NBC Nightly News that every Republican he had talked to on Tuesday said, "Thank God the White House is changing the subject."

And "9 o'clock at night is the perfect time if you want to control a big chunk of the news cycle," said ABC News executive Paul Slavin.

The Associated Press, quoting an unnamed White House official, first reported that Bush had picked Roberts at 7:50 p.m. ET. Broadcast and cable outlets quickly quoted the report, after scrambling all day to break the story. That gave the networks just more than an hour to second-guess Bush's choice and not too much more time for late local news and many newspapers. That left it to cable news to chew over the appointment.


The timing also ensured that many Americans would go to bed without the media having had enough time to "saturate the airwaves with profiles of the nominee and debates over his qualifications," said Ben Sherwood, producer of ABC's Good Morning America. "It sets this up as a unique morning-show story. It's a great opportunity for us to showcase all the issues and angles."

The White House dispatched former senator Fred Thompson, R-Tenn., to support Bush's choice on today's network morning shows. A savvy choice for those entertainment-oriented programs: Thompson stars on NBC's Law & Order.

The timing "certainly illustrates that one of the great powers of the presidency is the power to change the subject," Court TV News anchor Fred Graham said. "Bush was back on his heels over Karl Rove, and this announcement wipes Rove off the front pages, for a time."

Probably not for long. A Pew Research study Tuesday showed that half of Americans are paying attention to news reports that Rove may have leaked classified information about a CIA operative. And 58% of those following the reports closely say Rove should resign.

"This is not going to go away," said Harvard media analyst Alex Jones, partially because "the media are too personally involved" now that New York Times reporter Judith Miller has been jailed for refusing to testify in the case.

"Bush recognizes that this is one of the most important days of his presidency and that he will make this nominee every bit as central to his legacy as (the) war in Iraq, Social Security reform and everything else that is at the heart of what he has done," CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin said. "His message is: This matters more than anything."



07/20/2005 07:04

http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050720071309990019

BUTLER REDSFAN
07-21-2005, 03:06 AM
republicans took a lot of heat over the schiavo matter--schiavo's parents and lot of republicans doin what they could to keep her alive while the other side couldnt wait until she passed away...wlw having a field day calling the parents everything in the book ,oh sorry the parents were just trying to keep their daughter alive....many republicans believe abortion is murder but the libs just go on-on about abortion--is that all you stand for is death???? yeah you'll bring up iraq but thats a defense issue

Redsfaithful
07-21-2005, 03:34 AM
yeah you'll bring up iraq but thats a defense issue

Thank God I'm being defended from Iraq.

RedFanAlways1966
07-21-2005, 09:04 AM
Thank God I'm being defended from Iraq.

And I am sure you thank whomever that your parents decided not to abort you.

Redsfaithful
07-21-2005, 09:18 AM
And I am sure you thank whomever that your parents decided not to abort you.

RFA, thanks for the laugh.

RedFanAlways1966
07-21-2005, 09:26 AM
RFA, thanks for the laugh.

Anytime. As condescending as you are with most of your messages in these political threads, it is good to see you laugh!

:)

zombie-a-go-go
07-21-2005, 09:29 AM
Stop it, you two.

registerthis
07-21-2005, 10:01 AM
Thank God I'm being defended from Iraq.
I stopped paying attention to that post when he said that libs were all about death. The sheer ridiculousness of that statement doesn't even warrant a response.

RBA
07-21-2005, 10:04 AM
As I see it, President Bush has a right to choose who he wants to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the bench. This was decided the last election. I don't think many voters think when they cast that ballot. They mostly vote who they "feel good" with. Maybe this is a wakeup call to the Democrats/Liberals/Libertarians/Pro Choice Republicans (Condi Rice, Guillani, etc), but I doubt it.

That being said, I'm suprised like a lot of you, that Bush chose a WASP, and not a woman, not a hispanic, or not even a minority. I'm sure the hispanics who voted for Bush are not pleased. Frankly, Judge Roberts record is awfully bland and it appears to me that a lot of conservative minorities are more qualified than he is.

FCB, might of been right on the money when he said this choice was to appease Bush's white conservative christian base.

I don't think the Demorats will put up much a fight on the nominee.

RedFanAlways1966
07-21-2005, 10:26 AM
As I see it, President Bush has a right to choose who he wants to replace Sandra Day O'Conner on the bench.

That being said, I'm suprised like a lot of you, that Bush chose a WASP, and not a woman, not a hispanic, or not even a minority. I'm sure the hispanics who voted for Bush are not pleased. Frankly, Judge Roberts record is awfully bland and it appears to me that a lot of conservative minorities are more qualified than he is.

FCB, might of been right on the money when he said this choice was to appease Bush's white conservative christian base.

I don't think the Demorats will put up much a fight on the nominee.

Nicely said. The president is entitled to choose whom he desires. Of course that does not mean that person will make it to the Court.

I do not agree with the notion that certain types (race, religion, sex, etc) "should" be picked. I like to think that our leader will choose the best person, but I know that is not always the case. There may be a lot of gov't imposed quotas in our society, but thank goodness the Supreme Court is not one of them. Regardless of the color or sex, I hope the person is qualified.

Pres. Bush has no reason to appease anyone. He will not run again for office. Therefore, I hope he picked based on the person's abilities and credentials. But in today's society, I don't that his decision was based solely on that.

I think the Dems will fight it. The Rangels and Kennedys will never allow our President to do anything w/out a fight. And such is life in our political world today. And of course it works both ways.

RBA
07-21-2005, 10:40 AM
Okay, as you all know, I'm not a legal scholar. I'm just wondering about the legalities of judges made up largely of one certain segment of the population. In the case of the Suprieme Court, WASP.

How does that mesh with having a "jury of your peers" when cases get up that far?

I'm guessing it doesn't apply, because the court is just ruling on the Constitutionallity (Spell?) of how the law has been interpreted by the lower courts and if the law is legal to begin with. Am I close?

registerthis
07-21-2005, 10:45 AM
I don't think the Demorats will put up much a fight on the nominee.
And when Rehnquist retires, Bush will nominate Al Gonzalez, the Dems WILL put up a fight, and they'll be labelled racist by the Hispanic community for attacking the Latino nominee and not the WASP one.

Or maybe I'm getting too cynical? :evil:

registerthis
07-21-2005, 10:48 AM
I think the Dems will fight it. The Rangels and Kennedys will never allow our President to do anything w/out a fight. And such is life in our political world today. And of course it works both ways.
I dunno, there might be a few Democratic Senators who put up a fight, but the noise I am hearing is that unless they unearth some horrible thing in Robert's closet, he's probably going to be confirmed without much of a struggle. The Dems realize they're on shaky ground as to the devices they have available to them should Bush nominate an ultra-conservative blowhard, and they need to spend their political capital wisely.

Jaycint
07-21-2005, 10:49 AM
Okay, as you all know, I'm not a legal scholar. I'm just wondering about the legalities of judges made up largely of one certain segment of the population. In the case of the Suprieme Court, WASP.

How does that mesh with having a "jury of your peers" when cases get up that far?

I'm guessing it doesn't apply, because the court is just ruling on the Constitutionallity (Spell?) of how the law has been interpreted by the lower courts and if the law is legal to begin with. Am I close?

I've been wondering about that myself RBA. You would think it would be a more diverse panel (only 1 woman?) than what we have. Of course then we come back to the best qualified argument which I can't really say I have a problem with. Surely there are many highly qualified Black, Latino and female candidates out there as well though.

traderumor
07-21-2005, 10:54 AM
I know I said I left this thread several pages ago, but if I may interject one small correction to this discussion, which is the term WASP. The nominee is Catholic, WASP stands for "White Anglo Saxon Protestant." And there is a huge difference. So, he is either WASC, or WAS, but not WASP ;)

Ok, back to reading only :)

RBA
07-21-2005, 10:58 AM
I know I said I left this thread several pages ago, but if I may interject one small correction to this discussion, which is the term WASP. The nominee is Catholic, WASP stands for "White Anglo Saxon Protestant." And there is a huge difference. So, he is either WASC, or WAS, but not WASP ;)

Ok, back to reading only :)

I guess, I shouldn't jump to conclusions. And I had a feeling he was Catholic. WASC/WASP, tomato, tamotoe?

RedsBaron
07-21-2005, 11:18 AM
There is no Constitutional requirement that a judge, or that an entire panel of judges such as the U.S. Supreme Court for that matter, be representative of the racial composition or religious beliefs or gender or anything else of the population as a whole. The right to a trial by a jury of one's peers has no appilcation to who is the judge or justices hearing one's case.
There is not even any Constitutional right to have the jury mirror the race/gender/class etc. of society. It is unconstitutional to remove a prospective juror from the jury solely because the juror is African-American. However, it is not unusual for an African-American to have his or her case tried by an all white jury, and as long as the jury is properly chosen, there will not be a suucessful challenge to the jury's verdict because it was all-white.
I successfully defended an African-American in a medical malpractice case last year. During jury selection, opposing counsel used one of his preemptory challenges to strike the only African-American on the jury (each side had three such "strikes" from the initial panel of 12 jurors, which leaves the 6 jurors who decide the case). I immediately moved to have the African-American lady remain on the jury, arguing that she had been stricken solely because of her race. Opposing counsel tried to argue that he had striken the lady for other reasons unrelated to her race. The trial judge found his arguments to be without merit and the lady remained on the jury.

M2
07-21-2005, 12:31 PM
My hope is that Roberts turns out to be an old-school WASP. I'd be all for someone like that on the Supreme Court. The real question is whether he's more New England or more Sun Belt.

And actually I'm glad Bush didn't choose a minority/female on this one as that tends to be where the right tries to sneak the most extreme Movement Conservatives. It's the wolves in sheep's clothing principle.

traderumor
07-21-2005, 12:39 PM
My hope is that Roberts turns out to be an old-school WASP. I'd be all for someone like that on the Supreme Court. The real question is whether he's more New England or more Sun Belt.

And actually I'm glad Bush didn't choose a minority/female on this one as that tends to be where the right tries to sneak the most extreme Movement Conservatives. It's the wolves in sheep's clothing principle.M2, I know you're Catholic, are you saying the mindset of a WASP? Maybe the distinction is blurred these days, but I don't recall one person labeling Kerry a WASP, and I still see a difference between the worldview of a white protestant male and a white catholic male that shouldn't be lost as folks consider this nominee's mindset.

M2
07-21-2005, 12:56 PM
M2, I know you're Catholic, are you saying the mindset of a WASP? Maybe the distinction is blurred these days, but I don't recall one person labeling Kerry a WASP, and I still see a difference between the worldview of a white protestant male and a white catholic male that shouldn't be lost as folks consider this nominee's mindset.

FWIW, the P is the least important part to me ... as it would be to any old school WASP (who tend to be captains of industry far more than politicians these days). They're far more Ivy League than Protestant.

That doesn't mean they aren't religious, just that they consider religion a personal matter and they don't involve it overly much in their public lives. If someone's leading with the religious element then I'd consider them more of the nouveau Sun Belt variety which bears little resemblance to the reserved, worldly WASP Classic. It's the difference between Dubya and Daddy Bush. What I'm looking for is someone cut from the H.W. cloth.

pedro
07-21-2005, 01:32 PM
I dunno, there might be a few Democratic Senators who put up a fight, but the noise I am hearing is that unless they unearth some horrible thing in Robert's closet, he's probably going to be confirmed without much of a struggle. The Dems realize they're on shaky ground as to the devices they have available to them should Bush nominate an ultra-conservative blowhard, and they need to spend their political capital wisely.

That's what I'm hearing too and honestly from what I've read about Roberts so far he doesn't seem to be that bad a choice, considering who is doing the picking. One of the things to Roberts credit is the fact that he did pro bono work for a group of welfare recipients who lost their benefits winning them the right to have their cases heard individually (IIRC). That doesn't strike me as the action of some one who is a total right wing idealogue.

Falls City Beer
07-21-2005, 03:01 PM
FWIW, the P is the least important part to me ... as it would be to any old school WASP (who tend to be captains of industry far more than politicians these days). They're far more Ivy League than Protestant.

That doesn't mean they aren't religious, just that they consider religion a personal matter and they don't involve it overly much in their public lives. If someone's leading with the religious element then I'd consider them more of the nouveau Sun Belt variety which bears little resemblance to the reserved, worldly WASP Classic. It's the difference between Dubya and Daddy Bush. What I'm looking for is someone cut from the H.W. cloth.

Personally, I hope he turns out to be of the Yiddish persuasion. ;)

You know, we're taking over the world. :evil:

But seriously, old-school WASP as in Rehnquist/Papa Bush or WASP as in Breyer or Souter? I think it's fruitless to read the religious leaning of WASP or Catholic: go with region. Kennedy's a Catholic and much more of an old-school WASP than a WASP like Delay.

I think you're arguing for Coastal patricians, not Protestants, per se.

Rojo
07-21-2005, 04:57 PM
I think you're arguing for Coastal patricians, not Protestants, per se.

That sounds right. Technically Southern Baptists are WASPs but most people associate WASPs with the Northeast Elite. And I think that's what M2 is talking about.

M2
07-21-2005, 05:26 PM
But seriously, old-school WASP as in Rehnquist/Papa Bush or WASP as in Breyer or Souter? I think it's fruitless to read the religious leaning of WASP or Catholic: go with region. Kennedy's a Catholic and much more of an old-school WASP than a WASP like Delay.

I think you're arguing for Coastal patricians, not Protestants, per se.

WASP's are coastal patricians. That they might also be some brand of Protestant is an incidental detail, which was the point I was trying to convey to tr. Delay's a modern Jimmy Walker (the NYC mayor, not dyn-o-mite or the former Providence College basketball star).

I'd put Papa Bush in a separate category from Rehnquist who walked into the SC an ideologue and never grew much beyond that.

Falls City Beer
07-21-2005, 05:36 PM
WASP's are coastal patricians. That they might also be some brand of Protestant is an incidental detail, which was the point I was trying to convey to tr. Delay's a modern Jimmy Walker (the NYC mayor, not dyn-o-mite or the former Providence College basketball star).

I'd put Papa Bush in a separate category from Rehnquist who walked into the SC an ideologue and never grew much beyond that.

So old money Jews and Catholics aren't coastal patricians? Not sure I follow. I think the P distinction is all but unnecessary, IMO. Just because they don't talk Brahmin and their grandmothers served them dishes with garlic in them doesn't mean patrician Catholics and Jews don't have the same curiosity, magnanimity, highmindedness and noblesse oblige as the Lowells and the Winthrops. The P part is merely mythos, a lost era.

traderumor
07-21-2005, 05:45 PM
That sounds right. Technically Southern Baptists are WASPs but most people associate WASPs with the Northeast Elite. And I think that's what M2 is talking about.From what I gather, most labeled as protestants are considered so as church-going non-Catholics. I'm afraid its original identity as Christians who upheld the five Solas of the Protestant Reformation is nowhere near what is considered a "Protestant" by the masses in this culture. Most Southern Baptists do not consider themselves Protestants, but lean more toward "fundamentalists." I know when I refer to myself as a Protestant, it is a direct reference to the Reformation, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.

M2
07-21-2005, 06:55 PM
So old money Jews and Catholics aren't coastal patricians? Not sure I follow. I think the P distinction is all but unnecessary, IMO. Just because they don't talk Brahmin and their grandmothers served them dishes with garlic in them doesn't mean patrician Catholics and Jews don't have the same curiosity, magnanimity, highmindedness and noblesse oblige as the Lowells and the Winthrops. The P part is merely mythos, a lost era.

Dude, you have so swerved 180 degrees away from anything I was talking about.

You're right, the difference between old money Protestants, Jews and Catholics is ephmeral at best. They've all got underbites and go to boarding schools. You're right, WASP is a patrician archetype, not a categorization of Protestantism. We agree, completely, without caveat. The P doesn't matter. Never made the case that it did. All I'm saying is if Roberts turns out to be cut from that WASP, patrician archetype, I'm totally cool by that. If he's one of these non-patrician religilogues or right wing Tammany wannabes who try to squeeze themselves into a WASP tag that really doesn't fit them despite their being white, anglo-saxon and Protestant, then he's going to be a train wreck in the Supreme Court. That's all I'm saying, that a real WASP, the kind of WASP the tag was invented to describe, would be a good pick.

Rojo
07-21-2005, 07:07 PM
Bonfire of the Vanities explains it best.

Falls City Beer
07-21-2005, 07:09 PM
Dude, you have so swerved 180 degrees away from anything I was talking about.

You're right, the difference between old money Protestants, Jews and Catholics is ephmeral at best. They've all got underbites and go to boarding schools. You're right, WASP is a patrician archetype, not a categorization of Protestantism. We agree, completely, without caveat. The P doesn't matter. Never made the case that it did. All I'm saying is if Roberts turns out to be cut from that WASP, patrician archetype, I'm totally cool by that. If he's one of these non-patrician religilogues or right wing Tammany wannabes who try to squeeze themselves into a WASP tag that really doesn't fit them despite their being white, anglo-saxon and Protestant, then he's going to be a train wreck in the Supreme Court. That's all I'm saying, that a real WASP, the kind of WASP the tag was invented to describe, would be a good pick.

Gotcha. Makes sense. I did misconstrue, which was my fault.

M2
07-21-2005, 07:14 PM
Gotcha. Makes sense. I did misconstrue, which was my fault.

Not a problem. Now I'm going home and putting on the Upper Crust's "Old Money"

Rojo
07-21-2005, 08:19 PM
And let's not forget the Knickerbockers.

BUTLER REDSFAN
07-21-2005, 08:26 PM
ok im pretty conservative and to be fair i couldnt stand bill clinton and if he had cured cancer i probably would've ran my mouth about it--i just couldnt stand the man personally....but i dont understand the flat out hatred people have for bush--i know they disagree with his policies but im surprised he can tie his shoes right--i made it thru 8 years of bill--u guys will make it thru george

Rojo
07-21-2005, 08:40 PM
ok im pretty conservative and to be fair i couldnt stand bill clinton and if he had cured cancer i probably would've ran my mouth about it--i just couldnt stand the man personally....but i dont understand the flat out hatred people have for bush--i know they disagree with his policies but im surprised he can tie his shoes right--i made it thru 8 years of bill--u guys will make it thru george

If hated Clinton so irrationally then why can't you understand the Bush hatred?

RedsBaron
07-21-2005, 09:03 PM
If hated Clinton so irrationally then why can't you understand the Bush hatred?
Earlier this afternoon, one of my law partners, who is a liberal Democrat and who was a Bill Clinton supporter, mentioned to me how concerned that he was about the irrational hatred he sees on both political extremes. I told him that it is probably to the credit of the Secret Service, given all this hatred, that there have been no known attempts to murder either President Clinton or President Bush.

Redsfaithful
07-21-2005, 10:28 PM
that there have been no known attempts to murder either President Clinton

Didn't someone fly his plane into the White House grounds? And another guy fired a gun into the White House while Clinton was president?

I know they weren't serious attempts, because they were unlikely to succeed, but I think they still count.

paintmered
07-21-2005, 10:30 PM
Didn't someone fly his plane into the White House grounds? And another guy fired a gun into the White House while Clinton was president?

I know they weren't serious attempts, because they were unlikely to succeed, but I think they still count.


In a similar occurance, a live grenade was thrown at a Bush speech.

I heard they just nabbed the guy who did it too.

Redsfaithful
07-21-2005, 11:23 PM
In a similar occurance, a live grenade was thrown at a Bush speech.

I heard they just nabbed the guy who did it too.

Yeah, that wasn't too long ago was it?

If anything I'd almost say that attempts are up, they're just either clumsier, or the Secret Service has gotten better at their jobs.

paintmered
07-21-2005, 11:33 PM
Yeah, that wasn't too long ago was it?

If anything I'd almost say that attempts are up, they're just either clumsier, or the Secret Service has gotten better at their jobs.

Yeah, it happened while he was over in Georgia.

I'd say considering the number of threats that are made against the president, it is a remarkable credit to the Secret Service that the president hasn't had a serious challenge to his personal safety.

RedsBaron
07-22-2005, 07:54 AM
RF and Paintmered recall some attempts I'd forgotten.
The hatred, left and right, still scares me. While I was only eight years old when John F. Kennedy was murdered, I can still remember how absolutely shocked the adults around me were that anyone would dare kill the president. The next two decades saw many attempts, some successful, to kill political leaders--Robert F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King were murdered, Gerald Ford was shot at twice, George Wallace was crippled by a bullet, and Ronald Reagan was wounded--and each time there was shock, disbelief.
In contrast, if some attempt was now made upon the life of one of the political leaders in our country, I think the reaction would almost be one of "no surprise, I expected it."
Maybe I'm overreacting-I hope so.

WVRed
07-22-2005, 10:48 AM
From what I gather, most labeled as protestants are considered so as church-going non-Catholics. I'm afraid its original identity as Christians who upheld the five Solas of the Protestant Reformation is nowhere near what is considered a "Protestant" by the masses in this culture. Most Southern Baptists do not consider themselves Protestants, but lean more toward "fundamentalists." I know when I refer to myself as a Protestant, it is a direct reference to the Reformation, but I think that is the exception rather than the rule.

Its the same thing, more or less.

registerthis
07-22-2005, 11:44 AM
If hated Clinton so irrationally then why can't you understand the Bush hatred?
That's just it, though....that guy is like a number of Clinton bashers--they loathed the guy, but few of them could say why (apart from his apparent lack of moral grounding.) If they'd actually taken the time to understand what he was doing, rather than following Pied Piper Limbaugh in bashing him, they would have found CLinton to be a very moderate and centrist president--more so, even, than John Kerry would likely have been. My hatred of Bush, however, isn't irrational at all...quite the opposite, as it stems from a systemic analyzation of his policies and standards, and I find myself rejecting most of them.

Jaycint
07-22-2005, 11:54 AM
That's just it, though....that guy is like a number of Clinton bashers--they loathed the guy, but few of them could say why (apart from his apparent lack of moral grounding.) If they'd actually taken the time to understand what he was doing, rather than following Pied Piper Limbaugh in bashing him, they would have found CLinton to be a very moderate and centrist president--more so, even, than John Kerry would likely have been. My hatred of Bush, however, isn't irrational at all...quite the opposite, as it stems from a systemic analyzation of his policies and standards, and I find myself rejecting most of them.

I loved Bill Cinton. Just sayin...

registerthis
07-22-2005, 11:56 AM
I loved Bill Cinton. Just sayin...
That's another interesting topic...people seemed to love or hate Bill Clinton, there didn't seem to be much in-between. With Bush, however, I've been reading a lot of comments--particularly recently--that people voted for him on the basis of one or two issues, but overall don't have much of an opinion on him.

Jaycint
07-22-2005, 02:32 PM
That's another interesting topic...people seemed to love or hate Bill Clinton, there didn't seem to be much in-between. With Bush, however, I've been reading a lot of comments--particularly recently--that people voted for him on the basis of one or two issues, but overall don't have much of an opinion on him.

I think you touched on the primary reason I enjoyed his presidency in your previous post when you commented on him as being moderate and a centrist. That quality is a primary one that I look at when I am weighing my options on who to vote for in any election. I definitely consider myself a "shades of grey" guy on almost any issue and the stark black and white way that the more extreme elements of either party paint issues does not appeal to me at all.