Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh, here we go. The usual campaign season scare tactic about Roe V. Wade and the Supreme Court, designed to frighten women into voting for a Dem. You'd think that after decades of Roe v. Wade NOT being overturned no matter who was in office or seated at the Court, it wouldn't work or even be shamelessly trotted out by men. But, here it is! Don't be swayed, ladies.
I don't think the right to control their body is a big mans issue.
teatime - You do have some fair points. Obama is not without his faults and flaws, every candidate running for office has them, and plenty of them. But my question remains, do you feel Obama's faults are so grievous that you are willing to concede the presidency to the Republicans over them?
Oh, here we go. The usual campaign season scare tactic about Roe V. Wade and the Supreme Court, designed to frighten women into voting for a Dem. You'd think that after decades of Roe v. Wade NOT being overturned no matter who was in office or seated at the Court, it wouldn't work or even be shamelessly trotted out by men. But, here it is! Don't be swayed, ladies.
But, it's not the president who puts people on the SCOTUS ... uh ... hello ... Congress???
j33,
Yes, in this case. As far as the philosophy of government and its purpose, Hillary, McCain, and even Romney have more in common philosophically than she does with Obama. Obama has aligned himself with the traditional, far left, tax-and-spenders. This is VERY unfortunate.
Oh, here we go. The usual campaign season scare tactic about Roe V. Wade and the Supreme Court, designed to frighten women into voting for a Dem. You'd think that after decades of Roe v. Wade NOT being overturned no matter who was in office or seated at the Court, it wouldn't work or even be shamelessly trotted out by men. But, here it is! Don't be swayed, ladies.
You have absolutely nothing to base that on. Starting in Jan 2009 there will be a four-year period where 6 of the Supreme Court members will be in their 70s, 80s and 90s, 4 of those 6 are considered dependable guardians of Roe v Wade and the fifth is a swing voter.
Now if you don't think that the next president won't have the opportunity to appoint justices that can either confirm or overturn Roe V Wade, you are both badly misinformed and sadly mistaken.
You have absolutely nothing to base that on. Starting in Jan 2009 there will be a four-year period where 6 of the Supreme Court members will be in their 70s, 80s and 90s, 4 of those 6 are considered dependable guardians of Roe v Wade and the fifth is a swing voter.
Now if you don't think that the next president won't have the opportunity to appoint justices that can either confirm or overturn Roe V Wade, you are both badly misinformed and sadly mistaken.
Thank you for using the term "opportunity". Congress holds the power on Justices. And Congress is looking more Blue come November.
But, it's not the president who puts people on the SCOTUS ... uh ... hello ... Congress???
Yep. And justices can be quite unpredictable. The Warren court is the best example of that!
For anyone unfamiliar:
Quote:
The Warren Court
Main article: The Warren Court
To the surprise of many, Warren was a much more liberal justice than had been anticipated. As a result, President Eisenhower is perhaps apocryphally said to have remarked that nominating Warren for the Chief Justice seat was "the biggest damned-fool mistake I ever made."[11] Warren was able to craft a long series of landmark decisions including:
Brown v. Board of Education 347 U.S. 483 (1954), which banned the segregation of public schools;
the "one man, one vote" cases of 1962–1964, which dramatically altered the relative power of rural regions in many states;
Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335 (1963), which held that the Sixth Amendment required that indigent non-capital criminal defendants receive publicly-funded counsel (the law to that point requiring the assignment of free counsel only to indigent capital defendants);
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), which required that certain rights of a person being interrogated while in police custody be clearly explained, including the right to an attorney (often called the "Miranda warning").
j33,
Yes, in this case. As far as the philosophy of government and its purpose, Hillary, McCain, and even Romney have more in common philosophically than she does with Obama. Obama has aligned himself with the traditional, far left, tax-and-spenders. This is VERY unfortunate.
Fair enough. You've answered my question. I've never considered myself a moderate, I'm pretty far too the left myself (which I know isn't popular to say these days), so I guess I never really considered him that far to the left, but from what I gathered from your response is that you felt Hillary was more of a moderate candidate than Obama, and as such you'd rather concede to the right than to the left. Am I correct?
Last edited by j33; 05-22-2008 at 02:47 PM..
Reason: grammar
You have absolutely nothing to base that on. Starting in Jan 2009 there will be a four-year period where 6 of the Supreme Court members will be in their 70s, 80s and 90s, 4 of those 6 are considered dependable guardians of Roe v Wade and the fifth is a swing voter.
Now if you don't think that the next president won't have the opportunity to appoint justices that can either confirm or overturn Roe V Wade, you are both badly misinformed and sadly mistaken.
I am 43 years old and was in law school before the unexpected but happy pregnancy with my son cut short my law career and sent me back to journalism. As a young woman always fascinated by the law and, later, a law student, I remember all too well HOW MANY TIMES this same old, tired warning has been issued every time several justices become elderly.
Now, mark that I am on the other side of this issue and, at first, eagerly awaited restrictions that would cripple Roe v. Wade. It was promised time and time again! It hasn't happened, sadly, from my point of view.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
