[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Damici wrote:
Thunderbolt,
Correct, but it doesn’t change my point. The anti-abortion crowd wants to change it from being a national right allowing abortion to eliminating that “national right” and letting each state decide – i.e. overturning Roe. I know that. There’s a constitutional law debate going on about whether or not it should be a national thing or a state’s rights thing. I’m no constitutional scholar and don’t profess to be one.
Uh, ok.
If you ask me to look at it from a PRACTICAL, PRAGMATIC perspective, i.e. would I want Roe overturned so that the states could decide individually, I would say “Hell no!” because then – yes – slightly more than half the country (spread out and irregularly distributed though they might be) would be up in arms in a nationwide shitstorm of fury.
Assuming that is true, so what? By your own admission, this is as issue that people feel passionately on and should vote on it in good ole democratic fashion. Why should the Supreme Court worry about a ‘shitstorm’? They shouldn’t - not their job. To borrow a phrase from you - stay out of people’s business where a judicial body doesn’t belong.
Thunderbolt, the Supreme Court has upheld Roe vs. Wade on more than one occasion, even with courts that have been majority conservative. That’s why it’s still law – hello! We don’t have national referendums on individual laws in this country, as the State of California occasionally does on Proposition XYZ – I’m not sure if that’s what you were referring to when you said that people “should vote on it in good ole democratic fashion.” If you’re talking about voting for politicians that will try to accomplish that, fine, you have every right to do so – BUT, what’s NOT fine is that those on your side of this issue appear to use this issue as THE litmus test for whether or not they vote for a particular candidate, when there are much more pressing and urgent issues facing the nation that therefore get second shrift, and THAT’S NOT fine. The Republicans have been nominating bumblefuck after bumblefuck largely because of this issue (witness good ole’ G-Dub) when there are EMINENTLY more capable Republicans out there who have no hope of ever being nominated because they’re pro-choice. THAT’S assinine. (I just KNOW you’re lovin’ the caps, by the way). 
Oh, and YOU’RE telling ME to stay out of other people’s business?? Surely you jest, right . . . ? Because someone else having an abortion is – guess what – OTHER people’s business. Not yours!
Don’t believe me? Think about the response from the other (more than)half of the country if Roe were overturned, and what it would do to national unity, stability, AND, most importantly of all, the ability of this nation to focus on the TRULY important and life-threatening issues facing it (war, terrorism, dependency on oil, economy, etc.).
See, you are contradicting your own argument. Come hell or high water, people should get to be free to choose - let the majority decide. Now you are taking the opposite tact - that the Supreme Court is supposed to save us from ourselves because we can’t handle the issue democratically.
You’re all over the map here, and I suspect you really haven’t though through this problem much at all.
No, not “all over the map” at all; you just need to pay much closer attention and try to comprehend what you read. The idea of the Supreme Court ALLOWING something – not BANNING something, nor FORCING people to do anything, but merely ALLOWING something – is, by it’s very definition, the epitome of the Court NOT getting involved in people’s business. YOU are the one who would like to intervene in the business of others and go about outlawing abortion, state-by-state if that’s how you need. THAT’S intervening in the business of others. Your suggestion that the Court merely allowing something is somehow “intervening” in anyone’s business is in and of itself a contradiction. You, I and everyone else know damn well that you’re the one that prefers to do the “intervening” here, be it on a national level or on a state-by-state basis.
Oh, and as for letting the majority decide, (A.) on a national level you’d clearly lose that one, since more Americans are pro-choice than pro-life, and (B.) they have decided (and continue to decide) by electing to office politicians who will appoint judges of their choosing. These judges, on the Supreme Court, most of whom have even been appointed by Republican presidents, HAVE decided, on MORE THAN ONE occasion, that Roe stands. That’s the process by which things work in this country, like it or lump it.
I truly wish the far right would just fucking STOP IT with this fetish of overturning Roe! What good do you really think you’re doing…
Letting an issue get played out in the democratic arena like it supposed to - shouldn’t you be on board with this?
It HAS been played out in the democratic arena, as I stated above, and Roe is STILL upheld. Sorry.
…trying to legislate YOUR idea of morality to the ENTIRE nation, over half of which doesn’t agree with you? You’re at 49%, at best!
And here is where you have shown you are an absolute idiot on this issue. Should the court overturn Roe, the result is not some national moral legislation - the issue becomes a non-national issue. Overturning the decision is neither a prohibition nor an endorsement of the policy of abortion.
This talk to nationally legislating morality is absolute garbage - go get a basic education in civics.
Stop hurling insults because it really, REALLY weakens your argument; it doesn’t make you look any smarter. I didn’t do so to you. As I mentioned in previous posts, I am well aware that overturning Roe would not equate to a national-level ban on abortion – it would equate to it being left up to the states. (1.) Roe has been upheld by majority conservative courts on more than one occasion. That should tell you something, whether you like Roe or not. (2.) However, if the Supreme Court – any Supreme Court, now or in the future – DID overturn Roe (which they won’t, so I rest easy 
), the practical results of that would be young women, wrongheaded though you think they might be, running from one state to another to get around it or, if that’s not possible for those who are really poor/isolated/lack transportation, etc., a return to back alley abortions, which I think would be an abhorrent situation. Just my opinion. The OTHER result would be a national uproar and an inability for the nation and its legistlators and executors to focus on any of the REALLY important issues of the day. I.e., you and your ilk would have us muddled in this bullshit while the terrorists attack.
You wanna’ pull something like THAT?? You should have at least 80% (hopefully over 90%) popular agreement before even THINKING of doing so.
A Supreme Court decision is not upheld or overturned based on majoritarian attitudes and polls. You really don’t understand how it works, do you?
Oh, I understand it damn well. What YOU don’t understand, that even G.W.B. of all people DOES understand (or so he says), is that you don’t go about doing something so traumatic, so polarizing as to try to overturn a law regarding such an emotionally charged issue without having a LARGE, SOLID majority of the nation on your side (i.e. having 80 or 90% of the nation agree with doing so). No, this is not “required” by law. However, it’s COMMON SENSE and it’s what’s right, and even Bush has said (whether he’s lying or not, I don’t know) that he would not want to try to overturn Roe before convincing the majority of the populace that it’s the right thing to do. You, and he, have every right to start convincing. So far, though, you’ve failed with slightly more than half the nation.
THIS IS INTERFERING WITH THE MORE PRESSING MATTERS INVOLVED IN RUNNING THIS COUNTRY, AND THAT IS A DAMN SHAME!
Again – God can and will do the sorting. I’m confident of it.
Well, abortion is a complicated issue that can’t be solved with a ‘stay out of people’s business’ approach. Such a blanket abstraction could be applied to any sort of public morality law. In particular, abortion includes the issue of protecting another life - and that is a question, regardless of your position on abortion, that is very difficult to answer.
Interesting . . . you kept admonishing me earlier in your post to stay out of other people’s business . . . .
The underlying problem is that most of the country does not agree with YOUR definition of what constitutes “morality.” And yet you want to continue to force-feed . . . . Some people never learn. They just continue to destroy the nation by not allowing capable people to hold office.
As is - your ridiculously bad arguments don’t even reach abortion - you don’t even have the difference between a legislature and a court down. And, typing in CAPITAL LETTERS and adding EXCLAMATION POINTS do not make your arguments STRONGER, just FYI.
[/quote]
Wow, your insults REALLY DON’T MAKE YOU SOUND SMART, now do they?? (Caps fully intended).
