one of the funniest things i have ever heard was in an interview with sean hannity, a conservative female legal pundit(forgot name) who was OUTRAGED at this nomination said that the only good thing to come of this selection was that “joe biden will at last get to look like a constiutional scholar in comparison when questioning her at the confirmation hearings” hahahahaha!
Had to be Ann Coulter – she is very conservative and has an acid-tongue.
[quote]No, when vroom is getting his ass whooped by everyone that shows up to the fight, he usually turns into something on the order of a premenstral woman.
This is just par for the course. He’ll get all pissed off soon enough and quit posting for a while, and then the cycle will start all over again. He’s on something like a 26 day cycle.[/quote]
Hahahaha. Is that all you’ve got?
I’ll take a break when I take a vacation or otherwise get too busy to be online…
When I do, you can claim another “victory” for yourself. Woohoo! You the man!
[quote]rainjack wrote:
deanosumo wrote:
Those 10 were pretty much all senators or governors, not personal friends of the president.
So you’d trust a politician on the bench over a career lawyer?
She may be friends with Bush but she has to earn the job on her own merit. The judiciary committee should see to that. You can call it cronyism all you want, but if she is confirmed it will be because of her qualifications, not her friends.
There are always more qualified people that get overlooked for this job. I’m guessing ‘qualified’ is a pretty subjective term, no?
[/quote]
There are a least 25 people I can name off the top of my head who are members of the Federalist Society that would be perfect for the job.
You are getting exactly what you voted for and I am looking at this from a practical view point.
Either way I benefit.
It is very ‘elitist’ of you to be against Miers.
Flip flopping hypocrites.
I thought everyone was suppose to ‘just trust the President’?
Why are you questioning the President in a time of war?
(just kidding in the last 4 sentences)
You are finally seeing what I have been observing since Bush took office.
I have no conrol of the situation and neither do you. Meirs nomination will either splinter the GOP or give the incompetent Demcrats great talking points for 2006 and 2008. I can not believe this was allowed to happen.
Oh well…
[quote]nephorm wrote:
vroom wrote:
There may not be a shitstorm, but there will be back alley abortions with coat hangers and the resultant issues that derive from it.
The argument that something shouldn’t be illegal because some people will still do it anyway is, on its face, absurd.[/quote]
Missing the point.
Reversing Roe vs. Wade will cause the death of pregnant women.
Abortion is wrong but the only vote I have is with my wife and at the end of the day she can do what she wants with her body.
If men carried the child till birth abortions would be sold at Wal-Mart.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Hahahaha. Is that all you’ve got?
I’ll take a break when I take a vacation or otherwise get too busy to be online…
When I do, you can claim another “victory” for yourself. Woohoo! You the man![/quote]
No - why would I use all I’ve got on an elitist intellectual invalid such as yourself? Hell, my 11 year old daughter is reading this stuff and laughing her ass off at just how obviously over your head you are in this thread.
It’s not another victory, vroom. It’s the same ass whoopin, you’re just too goddamned dumb to know it. That’s why I’m done with you - you are getting thrashed and it’s like the guy from Monty Pyhthon, “tis but merely a flesh wound”.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Missing the point.
Reversing Roe vs. Wade will cause the death of pregnant women.
[/quote]
Geez, you sound like vroom. I’m tellin ya - if R. v. Wade is reversed I’m investing heavily in coat hangers. If it goes the way you and vroom say, I could retire a very rich man.
What you fail to understand is that reversing Roe v. Wade will not outlaw abortion. A reversal would put abortion back in the hands of the states.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
Missing the point.
Reversing Roe vs. Wade will cause the death of pregnant women.
Geez, you sound like vroom. I’m tellin ya - if R. v. Wade is reversed I’m investing heavily in coat hangers. If it goes the way you and vroom say, I could retire a very rich man.
What you fail to understand is that reversing Roe v. Wade will not outlaw abortion. A reversal would put abortion back in the hands of the states.[/quote]
Is this a ‘states rights’ issue or a morality issue?
Can you clarify for me?
If you are for ‘states rights’ then you disagree with Shiavo’s case going to the Supreme Court and you also disagree with the Supreme Court getting involved in the 2000 election.
I see you in a whole new light.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
Is this a ‘states rights’ issue or a morality issue?[/quote]
wrt to R. v. Wade it is a states rights issue that the court had no business deciding. But the issue of abortion is a moral issue that should be decided by the people - not fucking judges.
[quote]If you are for ‘states rights’ then you disagree with Shiavo’s case going to the Supreme Court and you also disagree with the Supreme Court getting involved in the 2000 election.
[/quote]
I think the whole Shiavo thing was wrong from the get go, and the scumbag husband should be brought up on murder charges. But I don’t think the USSC had any business hearing it - and if I remember correctly the USSC refused to hear the case. But I may be wrong. Point is - Shiavo is dead now so her husband can have the insurance money and lavish is non-vegetative wife.
The 2000 election was a different story. it had immediate national implications. And because of the overwheling incompetence of the Floridian voter, and probably the election commission as well - We found ourselves in uncharted territory. I think that the USSC was correct in going in and setting a precedent that can be looked as a guide whenever a goat screw like this occurs again. So I think that the USSC was absolutely correct to step in and help the republicans defeat the nasty, ugly, mean democrats.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
The 2000 election was a different story. it had immediate national implications. And because of the overwheling incompetence of the Floridian voter, and probably the election commission as well - We found ourselves in uncharted territory. I think that the USSC was correct in going in and setting a precedent that can be looked as a guide whenever a goat screw like this occurs again. So I think that the USSC was absolutely correct to step in and help the republicans defeat the nasty, ugly, mean democrats.[/quote]
I appreciate your opinion but that has nothing to do with ‘states rights’. How Florida votes is a ‘states rights’ issues period.
Partisanship has no value in the discussion of ‘states right’.
FYI - The SCOTUS said they were not setting a precident and made it clear this was a one time decision. You should read their decision…I did.
You only believe in ‘states rights’ when you agree with what the states are doing.
I figured as much. I guess I can’t say I see you in a whole new light.
I believe in ‘states rights’ as long as someones civil liberties are not being violated.
The overturning of Roe vs. Wade will allow the violation of the right to privacy. That and the cost of jailing ‘law breakers’ pits me against changing anything.
I would like to see federal money pulled out of anything and everything dealing with abortion. i.e. paying for abortions, paying for right to life stuff, etc.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
I appreciate your opinion but that has nothing to do with ‘states rights’. How Florida votes is a ‘states rights’ issues period.
Partisanship has no value in the discussion of ‘states right’.
FYI - The SCOTUS said they were not setting a precident and made it clear this was a one time decision. You should read their decision…I did.[/quote]
I didn’t read the decision. I’ll defer to you wrt what it said.
No - I was against the Shaivo case going to the USSC, and was vehemently opposed to what the position of the the State of Florida had taken.
I think the Presidential elelction of 2000 was a uniqu situation where in a single state was hold the other 49 hostage. FLorida was a goat screw, and I don’t the USSC stepping in and making a judgement call was a bad thing, mainly because it was a federal election. Had the same thing happened in a gubernatorial race - then the USSC is not an option.
[quote]I figured as much. I guess I can’t say I see you in a whole new light.
I believe in ‘states rights’ as long as someones civil liberties are not being violated.[/quote]
Well - I can’t say that I’ve ever seen you in any light other than the one I’ve always seen you.
I think civil liberties are extremely important. But not to the extent that one’s civil liberties are held in higher regard than an unborn child’s right to life.
Ordinarily, I would agree with you. But one’s right to privacy cannot trump an unborn child’s right to live. In this case deference should go to the more defensless of parties involved. Reversing R. v. Wade will put the power to protect life back in the hands of the people not the judiciary.
How is it that I can write that time and time again, and yet have the pro-death crowd ignore it everytime?
[quote]I would like to see federal money pulled out of anything and everything dealing with abortion. i.e. paying for abortions, paying for right to life stuff, etc.
[/quote]
I certainly won’t disagree with this. I don’t think that the fed should be subsidizing either side of this argument.
I can’t believe you would claim validation because you have an 11 yr old that believes what you believe. How stupid is that?
Hell, you act like an 11 yr old yourself, claiming I’m too stupid to use a dictionary and so forth… and then getting it wrong regardless.
My point never was that she was not qualified, and I haven’t been trying to argue that with respect to cronyism, so I don’t know what you think you’ve won?
You’ve won the ability to claim you can use use a dictionary, but not actually the ability to understand the definitions.
Congrats. Keep on kicking ass. You the man!
As for the sanctitity of life and fertilized eggs, you haven’t even addressed the issues I was raising. Maybe, if you figure them out, you eventually will?
Until then… keep on tossing out the insults and getting some laughs at the home front, it’s really doing you a lot of good around here.
Oh, hey, I’m going to spend most of the holiday up here away from the computer, so this will be a good time to claim that you’ve driven me from the boards or something stupid like that.
[quote]Marmadogg wrote:
nephorm wrote:
The argument that something shouldn’t be illegal because some people will still do it anyway is, on its face, absurd.
Missing the point.
Reversing Roe vs. Wade will cause the death of pregnant women.
Abortion is wrong but the only vote I have is with my wife and at the end of the day she can do what she wants with her body.
If men carried the child till birth abortions would be sold at Wal-Mart.
[/quote]
Regarding “causing” the death of pregnant women: Prohibiting a woman from aborting who would face a life-threatening delivery otherwise is really the only way that the law could cause a pregnant woman to die. People do have the “right to choose” whether or not to have sex… hell, they can even take the morning after pill up to, what, 72 hours after unprotected sex?
As far as missing the point: You are arguing that people will break the law, and in so doing, harm themselves. Ergo, the law should not exist. I say that that is poor reasoning. By that logic, is the only difference between killing a newborn and killing a fetus that the former will produce death in only one individual, whereas the second will result in two?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I don’t think it is wise for Bush to base his choosing of her off the fact that she is anti-abortion. If Roe v. Wade is overturned, it will cause a shitstorm… I think there is some other reason, though I can’t figure it out yet. And I don’t think it is nepotism either, I don’t think that is ole’ W’s style, at least not for the Supreme Court. Even he isn’t that stupid. So yet I wonder…why her?
Hogwash.
-
The Roe v. Wade decision already caused a shitstorm. The Supreme Court touched off the culture wars with this decision rather than settling the issue.
-
Abortion won’t go anywhere necessarily if Roe is overturned - abortion would not be outlawed, the issue would return to the states. If 51% of the people favor a right to an abortion, the state legislatures will reflect that.
Striking Roe down is not declaring that abortion is bad policy - it is saying that there is no constitutional right to it and states are free to deal with this contentious question by way of democratic process.[/quote]
Thunderbolt is right. Say what you want about judicial activism and legislating from the bench, but no judge or court, not even the Supreme Court, can create a new criminal law. A reversal of Roe would just bring the issue back to the states. Unless all 50 states choose to pass laws prohibiting abortion, it will not go away. It is possible that the feds will try to pass a federal law on this issue. But Scalia et al., despite the fact that they are against abortion, might actually declare such a federal law unconstitutional as a violation of the Commerce Clause. They would not be wrong. Conservative judges are a double edged sword that way.
You’re right - it is indeed a moral issue that should be decided by the people. Each individual person. Not a majority of people who are too fucking stupid to pass high school biology. It’s also very much a medical decision. Last time I checked, I didn’t need the approval of the public to take pain medicine.
Having said that, I do agree that aborting healthy fetuses is wrong, but that an abortion for health reasons is up to the doctor and patient. My question is enforcement: would a law that only allowed abortions for medical necessity give the government the right to second guess a decision reached by a doctor and patient to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons? If so, then the law must stay as it is and keep the government out of all abortion decisions even if some of those decisions lead to bad results.
[quote]MikeTheBear wrote:
You’re right - it is indeed a moral issue that should be decided by the people. Each individual person. Not a majority of people who are too fucking stupid to pass high school biology. It’s also very much a medical decision. Last time I checked, I didn’t need the approval of the public to take pain medicine.
[/quote]
I would agree with that statement if the individual decision was strictly about the individual making said decision. When that decision affects the life of an unborn child, I don’t think it is an individual decision. I think it is the responsibility of society to say how they, as a people, view the rights of the unborn.
I need to disagree with your first statement, insomuch as I think it needs a whole lot of clarification.
Firstly, a reversal of Roe v. Wade wouldn’t make abortions illegal – states or the federal government would need to pass a law doing so – Roe v. Wade restricts such laws now, so no laws that would be in obvious violation of Roe v. Wade are currently on the books.
Secondly, to the extent such laws were passed and women in states (or the U.S. if Congress passed the law) who did indeed choose to have back-alley abortions that caused complications causing their deaths, the revsersal of Roe v. Wade would be one among many of the causes. A more obvious cause would be the passage of such a restrictive law. However, even more obvious causes would be the decision of such women to get such procedures – and if you want to go back further in the process, the decision of such women to engage in a sexual Russian Roulette with whatever odds attach to the type of protection (or lack thereof) that was used (this obviously doesn’t apply to rape victims).
Another “cause”, should we stretch the word to the extent necessary that a reversal of Roe v. Wade would “cause” such deaths, would be the woman meeting the particular man in the first instance – each of the meeting and the reversal would be a “but for” cause, as the precise incident could not have happened but for both events.
Of course, you could be arguing that there’s a certain percentage of deaths we can estimate will occur if abortions are restricted – but I still would refrain from saying it “will cause” those deaths, given the common understanding of cause. Unless of course you share the idea that the fact that some safety feature – say side airbags – aren’t required on cars causes some number of deaths because we “know” statistically the number they would save, given some assumptions and accounting for moral hazard. The reasoning is the same.
I suppose that’s a rather longwinded way of saying it might be a cause, but I defintely wouldn’t call it “the cause,” or, to put it in legal terms, the proximate cause.
I tend to agree with BB that just because someone will violate the law is not a reason to not pass the law. (Damn, that’s a double negative.) That’s like saying that drug laws cause people to die in meth lab explosions because if it wasn’t for the drug laws, there would be safer commercial meth labs.
On another note, what is everyone’s definition of “legislating from the bench?” I guess it depends on how you look at an issue. As BB mentioned alluded, Roe stands for the proposition that states do not have the power to legislate in the area of reproductive rights, specifically, abortion. This is how I interpret the decision. Viewed in this manner (the libertarian view), I don’t see it as “legislating” but rather as imposing a check or limit on governmental power. I suppose the other side of the coin is that a majority of the people have said that government should regulate in this area, and the courts saying “no you can’t” amounts to “legislating” because it overrides the will of the people. This brings up two questions:
-
If a majority of state legislators vote for a law, is this necessarily the “will of the people?”
-
What branch of government, if any, should enforce limits on governmental power? I have actually heard it argued that state governments shouldn’t be limited in what they can legislate.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Marmadogg wrote:
nephorm wrote:
The argument that something shouldn’t be illegal because some people will still do it anyway is, on its face, absurd.
Missing the point.
Reversing Roe vs. Wade will cause the death of pregnant women.
Abortion is wrong but the only vote I have is with my wife and at the end of the day she can do what she wants with her body.
If men carried the child till birth abortions would be sold at Wal-Mart.
Regarding “causing” the death of pregnant women: Prohibiting a woman from aborting who would face a life-threatening delivery otherwise is really the only way that the law could cause a pregnant woman to die. People do have the “right to choose” whether or not to have sex… hell, they can even take the morning after pill up to, what, 72 hours after unprotected sex?
As far as missing the point: You are arguing that people will break the law, and in so doing, harm themselves. Ergo, the law should not exist. I say that that is poor reasoning. By that logic, is the only difference between killing a newborn and killing a fetus that the former will produce death in only one individual, whereas the second will result in two? [/quote]
“You are arguing that people will break the law, and in so doing, harm themselves. Ergo, the law should not exist.”
Nice try at twisting my abiguity to helping your weak arguement.
Can you force people to not have sex? no
Can you force people to take morning after pill which is not availabe everywhere in America? no
Do you want to force people to not have abortions? yes
Is there anything else you want to force people to do?
Keeping expectant mother’s alive is a concern of mine and I am against any law that does not make sure the mother stays alive.
I find it interesting that you don’t care about the life of expectant mothers.
*I hope you like how I did that as that is a page out of your play book.
Has anyone else been watching the allegations of cronyism eminating from the right wing?
The letters that are being shown on the news clearly show a very close relationship between the two. Heck, Miers appears to be the president’s number one fan! No wonder this sycophant has been pulled along with the president wherever he has gone.
Anyhow, I truly suspect that Bush and Miers know exactly how she would vote, judge or react to sensitive political issues of the day.