In my dreams. Lieberman would be good too.

santorum would be a very good choice. or michael steele.

I totally agree with you Nanc, no one I'd rather see McBush choose. Please from your lips to God's ears (or McBush's ears).

Yes, Santorum. Or Lex Luthor.

Oorah, I would bet the McCain camp thinks you guys (the religious right) are going to vote for McCain no matter what, and they could care less what you think. They are going after the middle-of-the-road voter. They think of you, the religious right not you personally, as sheep.

Rick "man on dog" Santorum?

"If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything."

"In every society, the definition of marriage has not ever to my knowledge included homosexuality. That's not to pick on homosexuality. It's not, you know, man on child, man on dog, or whatever the case may be." (At this point, Jordan commented, "I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States senator, it's sort of freaking me out," coining a phrase widely used in connection with this incident.)

McCain IS a pro-life conservative. At least, that's what he claims to be.

But if Limbaugh wants to choose a VP who lost Pennsylvania 59% to 41%, I won't argue with him.

They are going after the middle-of-the-road voter.

Posted by taxman at 2008-08-21 09:14 AM | Reply | Flag:

The veep choice does not matter one bit. It's entirely a media-manufactured event during a slow time in the election cycle.

Look at edwards, etc. -- the Veep did not matter one bit.

Sorry to piss on your silly parade, but living in NOLA, your whole life is about swimming in the piss of North America

"McCain should select a pro-life conservative to help shore up cons who may otherwise sit this one out."

OOH...I think you are right.Many just will not vote if a pro choice vp is selected.Even if it means a pro choice/pro infanticide Potus will surely get elected. Even if it means SCROTUS gets even more liberal.
I can't understand such rigid thinking...but it is there.

Or, how about no... you crazy bastard. The point is to win the election... Santorum doesn't deliver Pennsylvania... he probably takes votes away across the board.

They think of you, the religious right not you personally, as sheep.

Actually, both sides have their camp of supporters who care more about abortion rights than anything. Many on the left are the same sheep in that they would never vote for a pro-life candidate.

what none of them realize is that all of it is bullshit. No candidate has no intention whatsoever of changing the laws as they currently are.

Abortion rights are not being threatened.

Actually, both sides have their camp of supporters who care more about abortion rights than anything. Many on the left are the same sheep in that they would never vote for a pro-life candidate.

I agree, but my point is that the McCain camp thinks the pro-lifers are going to vote for him anyway so he doesn't mind ruffling feathers.

Abortion rights are not being threatened.

Maybe not be the President directly, but they are threatened by possible nominations to the Supreme Court. If I were a woman, I would be worried about who McCain would nominate to the Supreme Court.

Abortion rights are not being threatened.

Which is why Obama's answer at Saddleback was the right one. Let's work to reduce the pre-requisite of abortion, the unplanned pregnancy, and then it won't matter if it's legal or not.

Sometimes I wonder how Rush can keep a straight face when he says shit like this. He can't mean that.

"Abortion rights are not being threatened."

How can you possibly say that? One more Thomas, and the intellectual thrust of law for the next generation will be Scalia.

Read Scalia's dissent on Habeas Corpus. If that doesn't frighten you, nothing will.

Joe,

Rush would suck Santorum's dick, if he could.

I am so glad that Santorum was defeated in '06.

"Even if it means a pro choice/pro infanticide Potus will surely get elected."

Oh gee, let's have a civil discussion with a right winger....riiiight. It's impossible.
Pro-infanticide my ass!
Disgusting.

Which is why Obama's answer at Saddleback was the right one.

The above my paygrade one? That was fucking wierd...

"worried about who McCain would nominate to the Supreme Court."

According to McCain, more Scalias and Alitos.

Maybe not be the President directly, but they are threatened by possible nominations to the Supreme Court. If I were a woman, I would be worried about who McCain would nominate to the Supreme Court.

Posted by taxman

The Right leaning judges on the Supreme court are all young and pretty much newly appointed. The Left leaning judges are all very, very old... Hell I'm pretty sure Ginsberg actually passed away 4 years ago and they just haven't told anyone.

The odds of getting 5 conservative justices on the court are very high, even if Obama wins in November.

Danni,

The pro-infanticide comment didn't materialize in a vacuum.

For perhaps the only time in his political career, Obama showed a bit of backbone and opposed a piece of legislation that called for the preservation of aborted fetuses who survived forced-birth-abortion.

Obama was VERY lonely on this issue, even among his liberal peers.

I give him credit for actually sticking his neck out on a controversial issue, as much as I disagree with him on this.

Norm--
"At what point does a BABY receive human rights?"

Obama is so much to the left of everyone he couldn't answer the question.

He doesn't even know if his daughters have human rights.

He voted down the --voted NO for Born Alive Infant Act in Illinois and the law was the same as the federal law.

He is a monster --I am at a loss how anyone can think it's ok to kill a baby--let it die after surviving a botched abortion.

But there you have --the Dem pick for POTUS.

As for VP--nix on Santorum, nix on Lieberman.

It's going to be Romney or Pawlenty.

Let's work to reduce the pre-requisite of abortion, the unplanned pregnancy, and then it won't matter if it's legal or not.

100% agreed.

How can you possibly say that?

Because it is true. no court will change it.

You sound like a sheep Danforth. Habeas Corpus is not abortion btw.

The odds of getting 5 conservative justices on the court are very high, even if Obama wins in November.

How is that? If Obama wins in November and the Senate turns out the way the press is saying, then those old-timey liberal on the bench could all leave together and Obama could replace them with young liberals as well. Then if someone rubs garlic on Scalia or throws him out into sunlight, Obama will get another pick.

but they are threatened by possible nominations to the Supreme Court.

no they aren't....stop being as sheep.

If I were a woman, I would be worried about who McCain would nominate to the Supreme Court.

how many abortions would you plan on having? (if you were a woman)

more Scalias and Alitos.

Here, here!! (I hope I got that one correctly)

I'd prefer more Roberts-s, but will gladly settle for more Scalias and Alitos.

I favor a more constrainted view of the Constitution. Our legislative branch supposedly serves a genuine purpose - to enact law that reflects the views of a majority if its constituents.

Now, I am the first to admit and acknowledge the drawbacks to tyranny of the majority. However, I think that tyranny of the minority is worse, in a Democratic society. Many leftists disagree with me on this.

Tax I meant over time not just the next 4 years... I don't see all 4 left leaning judges leaving in the next 4 years, and Democrats will not win every presidential election from now until eternity...

Hell it only took one Carter administration to get the GOP back in after Nixon...

"At what point does a BABY receive human rights?"

Another question might also be asked, at what point does a woman lose her rights over her own body??

The most aggravating thing about the abortion debate is that it really is not even about the right of a woman to choose, it is really about the right of a poor woman to choose a legal, safe abortion over an illegal, unsafe abortion.
Before Roe v Wade many women with resources obtained the abortion they desired by going to other states or countries while poor women suffered the consequences of back alley butchers.
The hypocrisy is gargantuan because many of the women who proclaim their opposition to abortion know fully well that they or their daughters have had abortions themselves. I've even read the accounts of abortion providers recognizing former patients among some of the protesters outside their clinics. Like so much of what the right professes, it is "do as I say not as I do."

how many abortions would you plan on having? (if you were a woman)

Isn't the possibility of one enough?

"I favor a more constrainted view of the Constitution."

Scalia's Habeas Corpus rant had nothing to do with the Constitution. No law, just fear-mongering.

"Now, I am the first to admit and acknowledge the drawbacks to tyranny of the majority."

No duh.

"I think that tyranny of the minority is worse"

How does that manifest itself? In what way is the minority forcing its will upon you?

I don't see all 4 left leaning judges leaving in the next 4 years

Rob, as you pointed out they are all very old, and I wouldn't put it past them to leave if they feel the timing is right and they would be replaced by other liberal judges who share their views. Like you said Carter was only around for four years, and I would bet the liberal Justices recognize that.

Danni you can post common sense here until you are blue in the face - these people will still insist that any fertilization from any sexual intercourse represents a human being with rights that are superior to those of its parents.

In what way is the minority forcing its will upon you?

Through judicial attrocities such as Roe (although I am pro-choice, barely) and Miranda.

Any more questions?

....Not to mention the fact that, lawsuits against fast-food on the basis that such a business is responsible for obesity, has gained traction among our legislators...

I am just getting started.

I don't know Tax... Stevens at 88 will probably go in the next 4 years, but who knows... Rehnquist held on for quite a while.

The rest are mid to early 70s... I can't imagine them all going.

But Thomas, Alito and Roberts are all 60 or less... Only Scalia is in his 70s...

My point is that barring some type of tragedy more Liberal judges are going to be replaced over the next few decades then Conservative... so if my only hope for abortion was the Supreme Court i'd be a little worried in the long run. But then again, if that were my only hope I'd also have to be stupid enough to think that abortion would be outlawed if the SC overturns Roe so there is that too...

Roe v. Wade is the biggest nonissue in America today... Gay marriage is making a run at it though...

The obsession over abortion is really stupid, which is why politicians love it.

Can you imagine an environment where abortion on demand is a criminal act?

I don't know about how many "back alley" abortions would actually occur where it is unsafe/unsanitary etc... but there is no way to enforce the law without medical records being obtained. no friggin way that is going to happen.

Jeff, how is Miranda or Roe an instance of the minority forcing its will upon you?

"Any more questions?"

Yeah...how do Roe and Miranda effect you?

"lawsuits against fast-food on the basis that such a business is responsible for obesity, has gained traction among our legislators..."

Wake me when the first one succeeds.

"In what way is the minority forcing its will upon you?"

Through judicial attrocities such as Roe (although I am pro-choice, barely) and Miranda.

Posted by JeffJ

Yeah, you're right Jeff, a person doesn't need to have their rights read to them on arrest.

"You know, I will challenge your patriotism. When you actively seek the defeat of the US military in Iraq, what the hell are you doing?"

Limbaugh chickenhawk said the above, what nerve!!!! This fat coward got out of nam because of a pimple on his fat no-account ass. This piece of bigoted shit opposes every bill that would help vets after they return, this piece of crap can say bring it on, while our soilders in Iraq and Afghanistan have to actually fight our enemies. When will people wake up and shame this COWARD and LIAR once and for all

"there is no way to enforce the law without medical records being obtained. no friggin way that is going to happen."

Eb, I thought you used to live in Kansas. That's exactly what that Neanderthal Phill Kline wants. I have no doubt the guy would investigate every menstrual period if he had the chance.

Rick "chickenhawk" Santorum who feels that the govt has right to tell one who they can fall in love with. Just what this country needs, another right wing coward

Guess we know what AngelofTruth's buzzword of the day is...

Tax,

how is Miranda or Roe an instance of the minority forcing its will upon you?

For the sake of argument, let's limit your question to Miranda:

First and foremost, it's link to the constitution from an originalist sense and even a linguistic sense is at best, tenuous.

Furthermore, it inhibits the ability of law enforcement to successfully prosecute violent criminals.

Many of these criminals roam free as a result of 'technicalities' invented by the minority.

My safety and that of my family is jeopardized by such absurdity.

I hope I've been clear enough. That said, I am willing to expound further.

Furthermore, it inhibits the ability of law enforcement to successfully prosecute violent criminals.
Posted by JeffJ

Don't you think that the police owe it to us to do their jobs correctly? Instead of railing against the law, you should be pissed at cops who are unable to follow it. It's just a couple of sentences, Jeff. If you can manage to remember the alphabet song or the pledge of allegience, you should be able to remember Miranda.

Wake me when the first one succeeds.

How many millions have they wasted defending themselves over an issue of personal responsibility?

Going further - the use of trans fats has been banned in certain cities and provinces.

Banned!

I'd say they've succeeded quite well and will only continue this absurdity.

" 'technicalities' invented by the minority. "

Who is "the minority" in that case?

"Going further - the use of trans fats has been banned in certain cities and provinces. Banned!"

Again, how is that "the minority", when a majority must vote it up?

Danforth stole my question.

Sure the police owe it to us to do their jobs correctly, but why should a murderer or kid toucher walk because someone forgot to read a couple sentences. That doesn't make them any less guilty...

Punish the cops if you want to for not following procedure, but whoever came up with the notion that criminals could walk away because of technicalities should rot in hell...

Who is "the minority" in that case?

The fucking morons who tortured the constitution to a point where criminals were 'entitled' to be instrcucted of their rights.

That's exactly what that Neanderthal Phill Kline wants. I have no doubt the guy would investigate every menstrual period if he had the chance.

That is the best illustration of why abortion rights will never go away.

Kline was charging abortion providers with crimes related to late term abortions and failure to notify the state when a minor comes in requesting an abortion saying they had been raped. the law requires abortions providers to notify the state. Basically he got nowhere with it.

Abortion rights aren't going away.

Furthermore, it inhibits the ability of law enforcement to successfully prosecute violent criminals.

How is that? You are saying that the requirement that someone simply be informed of their constitutional right is a somehow a detriment to law enforcement?

I think most people who are really interested think Romney will be McCain's choice. His flip flop on gay rights places him politically within the narrow confines of the right wing but it remains to be seen if the Evangelicals will forgive him for his Mormonism.

" when a minor comes in requesting an abortion saying they had been raped."

No, it was just when a minor (underage) came in, regardless.

Danforth, you are correct....but it only proves my point.

"That doesn't make them any less guilty... "

Regardless, the law is quite clear: the burden of proof, and the burden to do it correctly, are on the state.

I hope I've been clear enough. That said, I am willing to expound further.

Posted by JeffJ

Please don't Adolph, I think every has plumbed the depths of your thinking on this.

Instead of getting rid of Miranda maybe you should campaign to get a situation where the only cops that we have are not complete fucking morons, not able to follow the one constitutional rule placed on them.

but why should a murderer or kid toucher walk because someone forgot to read a couple sentences.

In my experience this hardly ever happens, if at all. Judges tend to look the other way. I have friends who are assitant district attorneys with both Orleans Parish and Jefferson Parish, and while they have seen these challenges, they hardly ever succeed. The real issue is when cops interrogate suspects, and these generally aren't your typical interrogations, after the suspect has already asked for an attorney.

whoever came up with the notion that criminals could walk away because of technicalities should rot in hell...

Precisely.

The fact that many of those very criminals go on to prey upon innocent citizens is irrelevant.

Ideology trumps common f-ing sense on this issue.

I don't wish bad things on anyone. That said, I almost wish that a 'Miranda' syncophant would have his daughter raped by a criminal who was released on a bullshit, non-constitutional technicality.

but it remains to be seen if the Evangelicals will forgive him for his Mormonism.

Posted by danni

if they really believe the things they say about their faith, then I don't know how its possible for them to overlook his Mormonism.... a faith that is heretical in that is elevates post revelation stories in its dogma.

I remember my evangelical friends talking about how they thought that bush was selected by god. now I just hear them complain about the economy without blame to the almighty.

"Ideology trumps common f-ing sense on this issue. "

And that's what "the majority" chose.

"Danforth, you are correct....but it only proves my point."

It proves nothing, other than there are crazies out there like Phill Kline. Seriously, one more Scalia, and Roe is toast.

Seriously, one more Scalia, and Roe is toast.

no chance.

"no chance."

Of Roe, or another Scalia?

Seriously, one more Scalia, and Roe is toast.

Despite the fact that Roe was horribly adjudicated, Scalia has too much respect for Starre Decisis to overturn it. If the Consitutionality of Roe came before the current court, it would stand by an 8 - 1 ruling with Thomas being the only dissenter.

"It proves nothing, other than there are crazies out there like Phill Kline. Seriously, one more Scalia, and Roe is toast."

You may be right, Dan, but it is bad law and needs to be repealed strictly on the basis that the federal government has no business getting involved. That's not to say that legal abortions will ever disappear because the repeal of Roe would open it up for each individual state to pass its own laws regarding abortion. I don't think any state will ban abortion entirely but some will obviously be more restrictive than others.

In my experience this hardly ever happens, if at all. Judges tend to look the other way.

But the potential is there, and maybe going to the murderer level or kid toucher level is extreme in this example because surely criminals who are guilty have walked before because of miranda or other technicalities... hell isn't it called Miranda because that's the name of the guy who wasn't read his rights and did walk even though he was guilty...

That's insane... punish the cops for not following procedure, but don't tell the criminal he's free to go...

"Seriously, one more Scalia, and Roe is toast."

What makes you think there are 4 currently sitting justices that would overturn Roe v. Wade? Any proof of their position on that?

" the associate justice who filled Burger's place on the Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, has been a vigorous opponent of Roe."

"In concurring opinions, O'Connor refused to reconsider Roe, and Justice Antonin Scalia criticized the Court and O'Connor for not overruling Roe."

"According to NPR, in deliberations for Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), an initial majority of five Justices that would have overturned Roe foundered when Justice Kennedy switched sides.["

"Thomas filed a concurring opinion, joined by Scalia, contending that the Court's prior decisions in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey should be reversed"

My issue with Miranda isn't whether or not it's a good idea (it isn't, but that's a seperate issue).

My issue with it is that a tyrannical minority tortured the English language to a point where it became an enumerated right within the Constitution.

I'd still disagree with it if it was legislated law, but if it were, at least it would be adherent to the strictures of our democratic Republic from of governance.

"Any proof of their position on that?"

Lots. Check the Wiki link in my prior post.

"At what point does a BABY receive human rights?"

I'm going with birth on that one. Anything else is "above my paygrade" as Obama said. And it's not a weird answer Rob, it's a humble one.

At what point does a fetus get a soul? Does anyone but God have an answer to that question?
So I say birth, but I'll also accept the point where a fetus is viable outside of the womb.

He is a monster --I am at a loss how anyone can think it's ok to kill a baby--let it die after surviving a botched abortion.

I don't agree with his position on this, but it's one issue. If you want to be a single issue voter, fine, I'm not.

The total number of born alive is 66/yr.
66 seems like a big number, but lets compare it to the number of babies that died in Iraq due to Bush's war. Let's compare it to the number of abortions that occured because a CEO sent jobs to China and a woman chose an abortion over a baby she could no longer afford.

Lets compare that to the number of babies that are stillborn because their mothers couldn't afford pre-natal care and government healthcare is "socailist".

My position stands, that banning a thing has never, in all of human history, made it go away.
The GOP doesn't work to reduce unplanned pregnancies and abortions even a tenth as hard as they could. I hold the GOP far more responsible for those 66 babies than I do Obama.
Universal health care, keeping jobs in the US, support for the poor and middle class will all reduce abortions. All of that evil socialism you rant against will reduce abortions. There will be fewer abortions under Obama than under McCain, just like there were fewer under Clinton than under Bush.

"a tyrannical minority tortured the English language "

I get it now...your definition of "the minority" is anyone with whom you disagree.

Of Roe, or another Scalia?

Roe, I don't care who we put on the court.

I'm going with birth on that one. Anything else is "above my paygrade" as Obama said. And it's not a weird answer Rob, it's a humble one.

No, it was wierd... wierd in that it was such a horrendous dodge of the question for someone who wants to be President.

He answered that way so he wouldn't have to tell the audience how he really feels and probably get booed.

Danforth,

Roe was a constitutional abomination.

The fact that some judges with a pulse oppose it should not surprise anybody.

That said, Scalia is ALSO a huge proponent of Starre Decisis.

I am not a perfect predictor of human behavior, but I'd be surprised if Scalia overturned Roe, given the chance.

The only existing justice who I could see overturning Roe is Thomas.

All of that said, I find it a bit ironic that liberals will, on the one hand, so vehemently defend 'settled constitutional law' based upon an earth-shattering and poorly argued opinion that occurred 35 years ago, but will in the very same breath applaud the banning of a Nativity scene, which is a judicial opinion that is contrary to 150 years+ of adjudicated law and opinion. But, I digress.

Two comments for Danforth-

(1) Your quotes show, at most, that Scalia and Thomas would overturn Roe. You have provided no evidence that Roberts or Alito would do so. So your assertion that "one more Scalia" is all that is needed is simply wrong until you can show that Roberts and Alito would overturn it as well.

(2) Scalia's position is that regulation of abortion should be returned to the states, and that it is not the job of 9 federal judges to listen to weeks worth of expert testimony regarding the necessity of medical procedures and build the "compromise" based on viability of the fetus that was Roe v. Wade. Even if Roe were overturned, is it your opinion that the majority of states would not enact their own laws that substantially mirror the current system?

"That's not to say that legal abortions will ever disappear because the repeal of Roe would open it up for each individual state to pass its own laws regarding abortion."

Jest, you and I are old enough to remember when that was the case. And all it did was force rich women to go "somewhere else". The restrictions only applied to the poor back then, and it would be the same this time as well. I view it much more like this:

"O'Connor, Kennedy, and Souter joined Blackmun and Stevens to reaffirm the central holding of Roe, saying, "At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life.""

Scalia on stare decisis:

Criterion for following stare decisis should not be whether you think the decision is mistaken or not. The criteria should be how wrong it was.

Scalia uses three criteria in determining whether to overturn precedents:

1) Was the decision wilfully wrong?

2) Has the wrong ruling been generally accepted? (For example, Scalia thinks the incorporation doctrine, which uses the 14th Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights against state governments, is mistaken. That said, it is now so widely accepted that Scalia wouldnt think about reversing it).

3) Does the existing precedent put me in the role of a legislator rather than a judge? On the abortion question, for example, Roe v. Wade establishes that laws placing undue burdens-- on womens reproductive choices are unconstitutional. Scalia has no idea on how a judge can figure out whether something is an undue burden-- or not. Such questions should be left to legislative determination.

" until you can show that Roberts and Alito would overturn it as well."

Translation: Lets pretend we don't know where they stand. If you want to play dumb, go right ahead.

"Even if Roe were overturned, is it your opinion that the majority of states would not enact their own laws that substantially mirror the current system?"

I don't know. All I know is a woman living in the center of Oklahoma is going to have to travel a long, long way. And we both know this won't restrict the rich.

"Oh gee, let's have a civil discussion with a right winger....riiiight. It's impossible."

Not really..you are the one that consistently resorts to profanity and insults .

overcome with getting nausea.=
overcome with nausea.

"I'd be surprised if Scalia overturned Roe, given the chance."

WTF?!? Read the Wiki link I provided. He's tried, for God's sake.

I get it now...your definition of "the minority" is anyone with whom you disagree.

No, asshole.

"The minority" constitutes the collective piece-of-shit that comprised SCOTUS in 1973.

53 pages of opinion and 1 sentence of the Constitution contained within.

To define a controversial issue as abortion as simply a 'medical procedure' defies logic. Under said adjudication, the fact that Jack Kevorkian spent a day in prison for assisting suicide defies constitutional comprehension.

My beef isn't with the outcome, but the procdrure.

This is an issue that belongs in the legislative process as it isn't even remoteley addressed in the constitutional process.

If it came before me, I would vote in favor of legalized abortions, albeit with a couple of more restrictions than the 1973 court 'found' in the Constitution.

All I know is a woman living in the center of Oklahoma is going to have to travel a long, long way.

again, no chance. I'll bet that the option for abortion would increase in that scenario as 12 or so OB/GYNs would start performing them, documenting them as DNCs.

Now we are back to the medical record thing again and how impossible it would be to prove an abortion even occured.

"Jest, you and I are old enough to remember when that was the case."

Different times, Dan. I remember "white only" drinking fountains too but that's gone forever, don't you think? Since Roe came into existence, I don't think we can ever go back even if it is repealed. I can see where a resident of Utah might have to go to NV or maybe CA to get an abortion for a reason Utah won't recognize, but no state would ban abortion entirely.

"applaud the banning of a Nativity scene..."

...on public ground using public money.

You left out the salient point.

""The minority" constitutes the collective piece-of-shit that comprised SCOTUS in 1973."

Using that logic, every decision made by SCOTUS is from "the minority". Makes it easy to pick and choose what you don't like and then blame "the tyranny of the minority", doesn't it?

"again, no chance."

You didn't even read the quotes I provided from the Wiki link, did you?

"no state would ban abortion entirely."

I wish I could believe you.

I can see where a resident of Utah might have to go to NV or maybe CA to get an abortion for a reason Utah won't recognize, but no state would ban abortion entirely.

that would be the absolutely worse case scenario and doubtful at that.

"but no state would ban abortion entirely"

I think you are wrong about that. Quite a few states would probably pass Constitutional Amendments to their state constitutions prohibiting it. Many who oppose abortion do not recognize a woman's right to control her own body.

"again, no chance."

"According to NPR, in deliberations for Planned Parenthood v. Casey (1992), an initial majority of five Justices that would have overturned Roe foundered when Justice Kennedy switched sides."

Chance.

Using that logic, every decision made by SCOTUS is from "the minority". Makes it easy to pick and choose what you don't like and then blame "the tyranny of the minority", doesn't it?

No.

What is stupid is torturing the English lanuage to a point AND ignoring originalism to a point whereby absurdities such as Mirand become enumerated within our constitution.

PS - did you favor FDR's court-packing scheme?

JeffJ -

Just wondering on the majority versus minority issue you mentioned upthread. Correct me if I'm wrong and hell I'll even admit if I am, but when Lincoln freed the slaves didn't the majority think it was ok to have slaves at that point.

Now, I know Congress passed the resolution and not the SCOTUS, but the parallel is there.

What are your thoughts on this?

danforth,

to me it boils down to reality in the last 3 feet. this country simply won't ban abortion regardless of roe v wade's fate. It just won't happen. all the paranoia over this issue is a waste of time.

that would be the absolutely worse case scenario and doubtful at that.

Lets pretend we don't know where they stand. If you want to play dumb, go right ahead.

Translation: I have no evidence that Roberts and Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade, and have no compelling argument as to why they would do so. Thus, I will pretend that anyone who asks for this evidence to support my own assertion is "playing dumb."

"What is stupid is torturing the English lanuage to a point"

You bitched about "the minority", and when pressed, said it was SCOTUS. That allows you to pick ANY SC decision you don't like and claim it's "the tyranny of the minority." Sorry, that doesn't wash.

Many who oppose abortion do not recognize a woman's right to control her own body.

including many women. some of them haven't even had an abortion either.

LOL

I'm not for criminalizing abortion but if you are going to continue to rail on about "control over her own body" then please be fair and ask these women (who feel something as horrific as an abortion is necessary to fix their problem) to control their bodies before the significant event occurs creating this unwanted pregnancy.

1.2 million abortions is an appalling number and it is an illustration of a lot of irresponsible behavior.

I simply want the number of abortions to go down. the best way for that to happen is to reduce the number of unwanted conceptions.

MLD,

Excellent question and I thorougly appreciate your civility.

In the spirit of your question, I can answer....

when Lincoln freed the slaves didn't the majority think it was ok to have slaves at that point.

It took a Constitutional ammendment to free the slaves..

Furthermore, it took a civil war to free the slaves.

Our founders created a Constitutiona for a reason - among other things, they had a general distrust of the state - even federalistss like Adams would be horrified by what our government has become.

In regards to Miranda, my opposition isn't outcome-based. My opposition is the process.

If Miranda was legislated, I wouldn't be barking.

If the constution was ammended to incorporte the notion of Miranda I REALLY wouldn't be barking.

It's not a waste of time.

And to look for some "overturn case" of Roe won't happen.

The courts don't work that way.

It will come state by state for laws that protect the baby and limits on when the abortion can't be done (except in case for the physical health of the mother).

These types of cases will be challenged and appealled and then get to the SCOTUS for their decision.

Each state that wants to have parental notifcation and stop partial birth abortion will inact laws to deal with the issue.

Eventually abortion could be done away with in a particular state if worded correctly.

And SCOTUS judges are not just important for abortion--there are thousands of issues that depend on their decisions to be right for the country.

Kelo was horrible with the liberal justices forking over the proprty rights of citizens to the gov't--that was against the Constitution--pure and simple.

The gun ban in DC was another example--we nearly lost the right to bear arms and allow the gov't to ban people the right to bear arms.

"Translation: I have no evidence that Roberts and Alito would overturn Roe v. Wade...

...except the fact they've voted lock-step with Scalia time and again. Pretend you don't know their bent all you want, just be sure to clean all the sand out of your ears when you're done.

Each state that wants to have parental notifcation and stop partial birth abortion will inact laws to deal with the issue.

now there is a possibility.

"this country simply won't ban abortion regardless of roe v wade's fate. "

But if Roe is overturned, states will.

That's a distinction without a difference to a lonely teen in Wyoming.

JeffJ or anyone else - gotcha, 13th amendment part versus the congressional act.

My take on this is when the SCOTUS goes against what someone's personal beliefs are people then say they are legislating from the bench. When it is something that goes for their personal beliefs it was a great decision.

I guess I'm a minority here. Since everyone is talking Roe V. Wade. My personal belief is that each woman gets to make that decision on her own, but I certainly wouldn't want anyone in my family to make the decision to go ahead with that.

What's your take? BTW - civility is what allows reasonable discourse to take place which also allows for a greater overall learning experience.

""The minority" constitutes the collective piece-of-shit that comprised SCOTUS in 1973."

Using that logic, every decision made by SCOTUS is from "the minority". Makes it easy to pick and choose what you don't like and then blame "the tyranny of the minority", doesn't it?

Posted by Danforth

Screw your semantics.

You know exactly what I am talking about.

What I decry is judicial activism, regardless of outcome. It sets an ugly precedence.

My opposition to the likes of Miranda is very specific. I welcome your arguing it on its merit.

That said, your attempts at semantical 'gotcha' are, at best, worthy of scorn.

"...except the fact they've voted lock-step with Scalia time and again."

Another lie. There are plenty of cases where Scalia disagrees with Roberts and Alito. Further, unless you can prove they've voted "lock step" with him on the abortion issue, you have proven nothing.

Exactly Eb--

That's why there is such a brouhaha over Obama and his crazy paygrade answer on the rights of the baby.

CA has another propostion on parental notification this Nov--along with the Marriage amendment on the Constitution.

It's insane for the gov't with Planned Parenthood to get in the middle of parents and their minor daughters. The present situation allows the public shool to help the girl get the abortion without the knowledge of the parents. This is BS, dangerous and outrageous really.

They have no business in the family unit and the decisions made.

Now if there is a family relative that raped the daughter--the Proposition has a remedy for the daughter. She still has to have an adult of the family notified before the abortion came be performed.

So after many laws and many years--abortions will be decreased.

Too many women use abortion for birth control--and the women's movement encourages it.

"There are plenty of cases where Scalia disagrees with Roberts and Alito. "

But in the vast majority, they vote the same. Again, pretend you don't know their bent all you want.

Better yet, ask five of your law school mates which way Alito & Roberts would vote if Roe came up again, and see if they're as obtuse as you.

Mdl,

No problem with your persona belief.

It belongs in the public realm of debate along with every other notion that isn' pretected by our Constitution.

"That's a distinction without a difference to a lonely teen in Wyoming."

In that case, the teen in Wyoming would quickly develop some responsibility in her sexual behavior if abortion wasn't so readily available. Remember YOUR days in high school before "free love," welfare, and widespread legal abortion? Wouldn't some personal responsibility go a long way in the country today?

All you have to show, Danforth, is a quote from Roberts or Alito on the abortion issue that would tend to prove your point. You don't have one.

Whether you think they vote with Scalia on the "vast majority" of cases is irrelevant, as I find it hard to believe that you are doing much reading of the Supreme Court Docket. My guess is that you read about cases that come up in the news, and nothing more. Your idea of "vast majority" is therefore flawed.

Danforth,

It's one thing to disagree with Roe on the basis that it was horribly adjudicated.

It's quite another to shrug off the impact of Starre Decis when ruling upon it.

That being said, Starre Decicis is a very temperamental term among the Left - fuck 150 years of precedence when enacting "The New Deal". Fuck over 150 years of precedence when adjudicating that a public nativitiy scene is somenow unconstitutional.

"In that case, the teen in Wyoming would quickly develop some responsibility in her sexual behavior if abortion wasn't so readily available."

Ah, I get it...your answer is well, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place!

So...what do you say to her next, in her stunned silence? Or is that all you've got?

"All you have to show, Danforth, is a quote from Roberts or Alito on the abortion issue"

You know they're not supposed to do that.

"Whether you think they vote with Scalia on the "vast majority" of cases is irrelevant"

Of course it's relevant. It gives insight to their views, and whose views theirs align with.

"Of course it's relevant. It gives insight to their views, and whose views theirs align with."

I said that YOUR definition of "vast majority" is irrelevant unless you'd like to contend that you actually pay attention to how they vote on ALL of their cases, and not just those that come up in the news.

"unless you'd like to contend that you actually pay attention to how they vote on ALL of their cases, and not just those that come up in the news."

No, I'll merely leave you with your seeming contention that every decision not in the news is a wild, who-knows-how-they'll-vote occasion.

Bwahahahahahaha!

Joe,

This is an interesting read:

"Ah, I get it...your answer is well, you shouldn't have gotten pregnant in the first place!"

You DON'T get it, Dan. If she KNEW there was no "easy" fix to becoming pregnant and that she was going to face some hard options such as adoption, raising the child, illegal abortion etc., she would be LESS likely to be pregnant...no? Perhaps she might abstain? Practice birth control? You know, exercise PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? The way it is now she's told to not worry about it, the government or Planned Parenthood or someone other than herself will take care of it all.
As I said yesterday, I'm not opposed to abortion in all cases, but I am opposed to abortion for convenience or as a method of birth control. It is just another example of how our country is completely removing individual personal responsibility for our own decisions and actions. I can name many more instances such as mortgage bail out and......well you know

The hypocrisy is gargantuan because many of the women who proclaim their opposition to abortion know fully well that they or their daughters have had abortions themselves. I've even read the accounts of abortion providers recognizing former patients among some of the protesters outside their clinics. per danni

Maybe you should google "regret abortion" and read all about the hypocrisy Danni.

Did it occur to you that clinics are in this for the money and lie to women?

Did it ever occur to you that a woman could get an abortion and later regret it and that is why they are protecting so it doen't happen to another woman?

Obama is for infantcide--doesn't care if a baby survives an abortion--why not?

It's not hurting the woman any longer. But Obama says they don't have rights.

Hell his daughters don't have rights either.

That is all over his pay grade and core values as a human being.

Joe,

I looked at the first dozen cases of the Roberts court. Roberts disagreed with Scalia once.

Vast majority.

"Did it occur to you that clinics are in this for the money..."

It's official: Murphy will barf up anything.

Okay Danforth, maybe you're right. You still haven't talked about how he would vote on abortion.

Regarding Alito...

I still prefer my original title for this story before Rcade promoted it. It was:

"Fat Guy Goes Nuts: Wants Santorum as VP."

which combined both ends of what I think of as the lunatic fringe of the Republicans quite well, I thought.

Oh well.

Santorum, apart from musing on man on dog sex and comparing Iraq to LOTR also has this in his history.

"In his Senate office, on a shelf next to an autographed baseball, Sen. Rick Santorum keeps a framed photo of his son Gabriel Michael, the fourth of his seven children. Named for two archangels, Gabriel Michael was born prematurely, at 20 weeks, on Oct. 11, 1996, and lived two hours outside the womb.

Upon their son's death, Rick and Karen Santorum opted not to bring his body to a funeral home. Instead, they bundled him in a blanket and drove him to Karen's parents' home in Pittsburgh. There, they spent several hours kissing and cuddling Gabriel with his three siblings, ages 6, 4 and 1 1/2. They took photos, sang lullabies in his ear and held a private Mass."

PLEASE, OH PLEASE pick Rick Santorum.

A man whose own base didn't even want him will make for excellent material to bash with.

I think McBush should pick Nancy, or Murphy, or Kerrin, because NObody can be as anti-woman as another woman who wants to end women's rights to their own wombs. Indeed, if a President McBush then sought a female Scalia or Clarence Thomas to complete judicial destruction of the nation, he'd surely find one somewhere. Isn't Phyllis Schlafly a lawyer? Coulter or Malkin? herm

"I simply want the number of abortions to go down. the best way for that to happen is to reduce the number of unwanted conceptions."

If this is really the case, Eberly and I have little conflict. At least on THIS issue. I too see abortion as a last choice. But surely a choice which cannot be removed.

I do hope Eb works for meaningful sex education, including condoms, in his area's schools. herm

Herm,

I too see abortion as a last choice.

I really wish the rest of your side were that human about this issue.

I do hope Eb works for meaningful sex education, including condoms, in his area's schools. herm

Posted by herm

My oldest is in 3rd grade.

do hope Eb works for meaningful sex education, including condoms, in his area's schools. herm

I agree with sex ed.

That said, teen and out-of-wedlock pregnancy rates have soared since the introduction of these notions.

Perhaps more of a societal judgement AGAINST non-marital sex would help.

I know, I know....

Crazy talk...

I know, I know....

Crazy talk...

no shit Jeff, you can't suggest that here.

get over yourselves, eb and jj.

just because people won't agree with you...

i'm all for a woman's right to do what she pleases with her body. unless of course she decides to have more kids than what i deem necessary. herm

posted by herm, directed by herm, screenplay by herm, i'm a hermaphrodite, by herm herm

Hag,

You are mostly reasonable.

Please expound on your last comment.

Please expound on your last comment.

Posted by JeffJ

Firstly, I'll thank you for your compliment.

But just because your suggestions get criticized here doesn't mean that posters consider them verboten or anything. But I guess that comment is more directed toward eberly.

That said, your suggestion that societal pressure would help to decrease pre-marital sex ... do you really think that's the way to go to decrease the abortion rate?

"Did it occur to you that clinics are in this for the money and lie to women?"

Murphy...look at this

Kerrin, because NObody can be as anti-woman as another woman who wants to end women's rights to their own wombs.

No Hermie..I have said before it is not my place to dictate what other women do with their bodies.

Late term abortions are the exception.
They amount to flat out murder/infanticide. Abortions preformed so late that there is a viable child and partial birth abortion are unconscionable behavior for human beings.

So feel free to have all your family offspring aborted...do it early and do it often.

"How about some conservative who could be counted on across the board to help lead the country in the right direction and rebuild the Republican Party? Lieberman can't do that."

How about we don't elect someone who's been a cheerleader for the bus driver who drove the bus in the ditch?

What doesn't make sense about Limbaugh's suggestion as well is that Santorum was defeated and kicked out of office in 2006.

Late term abortions are the exception.
They amount to flat out murder/infanticide...Posted by kerrin57

I may need to be educated on this with some credible hard information. Is anybody, anybody credible at all, advocating for late-term abortions except to save the life of the mother? If they are, then they are wrong. If they're a Democratic politician and they are not denounced by other Democrats as an immoral and disgraceful idiot, then I would abstain from voting for any Democrat.

Until I see such credible information involving a Democratic politician at the national level then I'm treating this as business as usual by the say-whatever-it-takes-to-win Republicans.

Oh, how I WISH McLaim would pick Santorum!

BlueInBushLand: (post at 4:07)

Shhhhhh...! Don't try to knock down the Republic Party's straw man argument!

The other area Limbaugh is confused in is that the GOP has been taking the country in the 'right direction'.

Polls say 85% of Americans disagree with him.

Of course when you live in an ego filled hot air bubble as Limbaugh does you're not in touch.

One could only wish that Rick the dick were added to McSame's ticket!!! Oh, please!

"Is anybody ... advocating for late-term abortions except to save the life of the mother?"

Bluey, of course not. Late term or any other term. indeed, NO one I know is "for" abortion at all, except if other forms of contraception have failed. As for rigid righties suggesting teen abstinence - as in "abstinence makes the heart grow fonder" - well, rotsa ruck. If you can sell that to the kids, I'm sure you'll have an easy time with the Golden Gate Bridge. herm

"i'm all for a woman's right to do what she pleases with her body. unless of course she decides to have more kids than what i deem necessary. herm"

Herm tries to avoid the great chairborne cop-out of simply calling each logical argument that's advanced here as "stoopid." But now the bogus paratrooper is DUmb with as capital DU. In a losing attempt at cuteness, Old Highway 101 seems unable to differentiate between reproductive choice and the need to limit world population,. He surely shows no glimmer of understanding a difference between what *I* want and what's best for the world. herm

Isn't Santorum the religious lunatic who took his dead baby home?

Of course Rush wants him for VP.
What a family man Rush must be.

" I am opposed to abortion for convenience or as a method of birth control."

Not to be difficult, Jester, but WHY are you opposed, if in some cases you DON'T deem it murder? Is it just that it doesn't square with your reigidity in how folks OUGHT to behave?

"It is just another example of how our country is completely removing individual personal responsibility for our own decisions and actions."

No, it's not. Personal responsibility is when you're preggers and realize you ought NOT bring an unwanted new life into the world. Terminating the pregnancy IS the responsible action. herm

More "wisdom" from Rush Limbaugh:

"it is striking how unqualified [Sen. Barack] Obama is and, and how this whole thing came about with, within the Democrat Party. I think it really goes back to the fact that nobody had the guts to stand up and say no to a black guy." Limbaugh went on to say: "I think this is a classic illustration here where affirmative action has reared its ugly head against them.

affirmative action = Magna Cum Laude?

Only in dittoheadland...

Rush had a 2-S college deferment from serving. Then he dropped out. After less than a year.

enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.

Paul D. Colford. The Rush Limbaugh story: talent on loan from God: an unauthorized biography. New York. St. Martins Press, 1993. ISBN 0-312-09906-1.

LIMBAUGH: Its you know, its just its just we cant hit the girl. I dont care how far feminisms saying, you cant hit the girl, and you cant you cant criticize the little black man-child. You just cant do it, cause its just not right. Its not fair. Hes such a victim.

Limbaugh has made racist attacks on Obama his forte. In March, he declared Obama had disowned his white half-- and decided hes got to go all in on the black side.-- Last year, he called Obama Barack the Magic Negro.--

IMUS didn't deserve what happened to him, btw.

Rush does, and then some.

Limpaugh sed WOT?

Rick "by-product" Santorum Fer Veep?

Bwa hah hah! Good one!

Wotta comedian that tub of goo is!

S'rsly. G'head and do it, you whacked out Rtards.

The only thing that would stink up yer ticket worse than that would be to dig up the rotting body of Jerry Fallwell and then run his stank-ass fer Veep. Sure he'd reek but on the plus side he would make McCain look ten years younger standing beside him.

Are there any people still out there who haven't figured out that even Rush doesn't believe his own BS? That Limpo is a political shockjock with zero credibility?

Anybody?

/Asides from Nanc, of course.

Be Well.

Santorum would be a great choice since Charles Manson isn't available.

"How about some conservative who could be counted on across the board to help lead the country in the right direction and rebuild the Republican Party?

Um, isn't he one of those that helped tear it down in the first place?
That's like McCain's commercials where he's going off on how bad the Government is fucked and how we're worse off then we were 4 years ago, and only he can fix it. Wasn't his party in charge?

I hope to God McCain does pick Santorum.

Lemme see - we'll then have:

McCain, Bush's doddering, confused, warmongering clone and an admitted adulterer.

Santorum, who makes Dick Cheney look like a flaming liberal.

And Bush and Cheney speaking at the convention.

I don't think even the GOP's henchmen in Ohio and Florida could pull a win out of having all that on display at the convention.

Go Rick!

What made Limbaugh an 'expert' on anything?

Being a sportscaster? Flunking out of college?

How anyone can take this windbag seriously is beyond belief.

What made Limbaugh an 'expert' on anything?

Being a sportscaster? Flunking out of college?

How anyone can take this windbag seriously is beyond belief.

Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2008-08-22 10:45 AM

No... It was a combination of his (2) attempted suicides, (3) divorces, and his addiction to perscription Oxycontin that made Limbaugh an expert on everything.... or was it the all male Viagra Weekends to the Dominican Republic or that his highest level of education was a high school diploma that gave him his infinite wisdom....

It just gets so confusing !!!

"It was a combination of his (2) attempted suicides, (3) divorces, and his addiction to perscription Oxycontin that made Limbaugh an expert on everything..."

Let's not forget the fact that, even with two assholes (the extra one keeping him out of the service), he's so full of shit the excess has to escape through his mouth.

What made Limbaugh an 'expert' on anything?

well, nothing really but that doesn't stop you nor any other liberal here who seems to think he must be an expert that you disagree with.

Lets look at who has elevated him to "expert" level by first posting a thread on what he said for everyone to comment on and then anybody else who has posted on the thread with direct remarks as to what limbaugh said.

that would start with Blueinbushland and virtually every liberal here who has chosen to post something about limbaugh.

EBERLY

When indisputable facts are available at the touch of a keyboard there's no excuse for anyone to swallow Rush's bullshit hook, line, and sinker as so many do.

Perhaps they don't know how to turn a computer on.

For instance, the claim Obama's going to raise taxes on the middle class? Hardly. His plan calls for the middle class to get MORE tax cuts than McCain's plan.

For instance, the claim Obama's going to raise taxes on the middle class? Hardly

I didn't know he did that.

because I don't care.

because I don't view him as an expert.

apparently you and many others here do.

I do wonder if the party of truth, reason and love (Dems, of course) would do better or worse if we had our own Limbaugh (Coulter, Malkin, O'Reilly, Hannity, Savage, etc.)

The party of lies, insanity and hate seems to get such great mileage from these abysmally ugly street thugs who'd be in the welfare line if the rigid right didn't subsidize them. herm

Flush rimjob's proposing McBush smear himself with "Santorum"?
EEWWW!
Or is he volunteering to donate the santorum from his own fat ass,and spread it himself on McLame?