Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:48 AM
 
Location: NJ/NY
10,655 posts, read 18,656,890 times
Reputation: 2829

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise View Post
yeah, bush didn't do it in 8 years, but magically mccain will do it.
Overturning Roe v Wade is a process involving appointing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. Bush already took a step towards that. It's now at 5-4. The next President has the potential to have an impact on Roe v. Wade.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:50 AM
 
Location: DFW area
1,197 posts, read 3,581,217 times
Reputation: 413
It's bad policy.. Why not let the states decide what to do?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:53 AM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,577 posts, read 7,845,782 times
Reputation: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT_Eagle View Post
It's bad policy.. Why not let the states decide what to do?
because liberals want to be able to tell everyone what to do and think. people in alabama must have the same morals as people who live in san fransisco. you know those san fran morals, dudes dressing up like chicks and creating scenes at churches.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Albemarle, NC
7,730 posts, read 14,152,607 times
Reputation: 1520
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmarquise View Post
dudes dressing up like chicks and creating scenes at churches.
I resemble those remarks.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:55 AM
 
Location: Washington state
7,211 posts, read 9,428,740 times
Reputation: 1895
Quote:
Originally Posted by UNT_Eagle View Post
It's bad policy.. Why not let the states decide what to do?
18 states had pre Roe laws banning abortion. It's been estimated that any number up to 30 would either outright ban or partially ban abortion should Roe be overturned. We're talking millions of women of child bearing age being affected, many without the means to travel to another state.

If we had allowed the states to decide the slavery issue many, in the south, would have voted to keep it. Would that have been ok with you too?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:56 AM
 
Location: Wilmington, NC
8,577 posts, read 7,845,782 times
Reputation: 835
Quote:
Originally Posted by paperhouse View Post
I resemble those remarks.
don't tell me your a peter tucker!!!!!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2008, 11:59 AM
 
Location: CA
2,464 posts, read 6,466,631 times
Reputation: 2641
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli View Post
You answered your own question.
but what has he been able to do regarding Roe v. Wade?
He's appointed one well qualified Justice that happens to be pro-life
Again, Justices are there to INTERPRET the U.S. Constitution - not to rule based upon what they want the Constitution to say. Their job is to give unbiased interpretation no matter what they PERSONALLY believe. People can do this you know... especially highly educated ones...

Take into consideration that Presidents have tried to appoint Justice's that shared their views... only to have the Justice do the exact opposite of the President's beliefs (happened during the Civil Rights movement).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2008, 12:00 PM
 
Location: Wheaton, Illinois
10,261 posts, read 21,743,416 times
Reputation: 10454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Upton View Post
If we had allowed the states to decide the slavery issue many, in the south, would have voted to keep it. Would that have been ok with you too?
No, not slavery. But abortion controlled locally, yeah, I can live with that. I think it might be a workable compromise.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2008, 12:06 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,064 posts, read 18,004,464 times
Reputation: 3729
Quote:
Originally Posted by newtoli View Post
Overturning Roe v Wade is a process involving appointing anti-abortion judges to the Supreme Court. Bush already took a step towards that. It's now at 5-4. The next President has the potential to have an impact on Roe v. Wade.
AGAIN, this is trotted out at EVERY presidential election cycle. The fact of the matter is that ANY Supreme Court, no matter who comprises it, would have to agree to hear a case representing a NEW constitutional challenge. The Supreme Court rules over constitutional law and does not decide cases. They grant writs of certiorari only if there's a new and unprecedented, compelling reason to hear a case.

The fact that Billie Jo in Arkansas wants to overturn Roe v. Wade, so she is going to bring a case locally that she hopes will work through the channels and finally land on the clerk's desk at the S.C. isn't likely. Only a tiny, tiny number of the cases sent to the S.C. receive a writ. And, again, there has to be something new to compel the judges to hear the case.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-06-2008, 12:08 PM
 
Location: Texas
8,064 posts, read 18,004,464 times
Reputation: 3729
Quote:
Originally Posted by mommabear2 View Post
Again, Justices are there to INTERPRET the U.S. Constitution - not to rule based upon what they want the Constitution to say. Their job is to give unbiased interpretation no matter what they PERSONALLY believe. People can do this you know... especially highly educated ones...

Take into consideration that Presidents have tried to appoint Justice's that shared their views... only to have the Justice do the exact opposite of the President's beliefs (happened during the Civil Rights movement).
YES!!!! THANK YOU!!!!! That was the Warren Court who stunned Eisenhower, LOL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Elections

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:37 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top