Supreme Court Vacancy

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
George Bush is not a "lame duck" president. A lame duck president is one who was not re-elected and has to serve the remaining two months of his term after the election but before being inagurated.
 
Irvine511 said:
when it gets down to it, i think that many Republicans might mouth an anti-choice/pro-life line, but deep down no one wants to see that law overturned. especially Republican women.

No one? I'd say there are more than you believe who would either (i) want to the law overturned (male and female), or (ii) be ambivilent if the law were overturned.

Pushing a candidate who would clearly overturn Roe v. Wade would require A LOT of political capital - with little return on the investment.

Abortion divides the country, but not in a way that give either party a clear victory.

Bush will likely make other issues the centerpiece of the confirmation fight (and no matter who he appoints, there will be a fight). If he nominates some one like Gonzalez, he gets "credit" for the first Hispanic on the Court.
 
80sU2isBest said:
George Bush is not a "lame duck" president. A lame duck president is one who was not re-elected and has to serve the remaining two months of his term after the election but before being inagurated.

I believe the definition has been expanded to include any incumbant who cannot run for re-election.
 
Irvine511 said:




when it gets down to it, i think that many Republicans might mouth an anti-choice/pro-life line, but deep down no one wants to see that law overturned. especially Republican women.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

2 of my best friends are Republican women. They both hate abortion and want Roe v. Wade overturned. My brother's wife wants Roe v. Wade overturned. 2 of my close friend's wives want Roe v. Wade overturned. Every single Republican woman I have ever talked to about Roe v. Wade wanted it overturned.

All my Republican friends, male or female, want Roe v. Wade overturned. Heck, I even used to know a liberal Democrat who, though we never talked specifically about Roe v. Wade, considered abortion murder.
 
nbcrusader said:


I believe the definition has been expanded to include any incumbant who cannot run for re-election.

Expanded by definition or just by usage?
 
nbcrusader said:


No one? I'd say there are more than you believe who would either (i) want to the law overturned (male and female), or (ii) be ambivilent if the law were overturned.

Pushing a candidate who would clearly overturn Roe v. Wade would require A LOT of political capital - with little return on the investment.

Well, like they said in Spiderman 2, sometimes doing the right thing requires sacrifice. If Bush really believes that abortion is murder, he needs to do everything possible to give that particular type of murder the same status as other murders in the USA - illegal. I doubt it would drastically hurt the Republican party; there's a lot of pro-lifers out there, and most are Republican, I'd say. But even if it does destroy the Republican Party, isn't doing the right thing worth it?

Concerning "investment": From a pro-life view, I'd say that saving the lives of pre-born babies would be a good return on the investment.
 
Here's an interesting article on abortion stats during the Bush years that I stumbled across. Looks like every anti-abortion person who voted for Bush voted for the wrong guy.

from the Houston Chronicle, October 2004

Why abortion rate is up in Bush years
By GLEN HAROLD STASSEN and GARY KRANE

I, Glen, am a Christian ethicist, and trained in statistical analysis. I am consistently pro-life. My son David is one witness. For my family, "pro-life" is personal. My wife caught rubella in the eighth week of her pregnancy. We decided not to terminate, to love and raise our baby. David is legally blind and severely handicapped; he also is a blessing to us and to the world. Gary Krane is an investigative journalist.

We look at the fruits of political policies more than words. We analyzed the data on abortion during the Bush presidency. There is no single source for this information -- federal reports go only to the year 2000, and many states do not report -- but we found enough data to identify trends. Our findings are disturbing.

Abortion was decreasing. When President Bush took office, the nation's abortion rates were at a 24-year low, after a 17.4 percent decline during the 1990s. This was a steady decrease averaging 1.7 percent per year. (The data come from Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life using the Guttmacher Institute's studies.)

Enter George W. Bush in 2001. One would expect the abortion rate to continue its consistent course downward, if not plunge. Instead, the opposite happened.


We found four states that have posted three-year statistics: Kentucky's increased by 3.2 percent from 2000 to 2003. Michigan's increased by 11.3 percent from 2000 to 2003. Pennsylvania's increased by 1.9 percent from 1999 to 2002. Colorado's rates skyrocketed 111 percent. We found 12 additional states that reported statistics for 2001 and 2002. Eight states saw an increase in abortion rates (14.6 percent average increase), and four saw a decrease (4.3 percent average).

Under Bush, the decade-long trend of declining abortion rates appears to have reversed. Given the trends of the 1990s, 52,000 more abortions occurred in the United States in 2002 than would have been expected before this change of direction.

For anyone familiar with why most women have abortions, this is no surprise:

Two-thirds of women who have abortions cite "inability to afford a child" as their primary reason (Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life). In the Bush presidency, unemployment rates increased half again. Not since Herbert Hoover had there been a net loss of jobs during a presidency until the current administration. Average real incomes decreased, and for seven years the minimum wage has not been raised to match inflation. With less income, many prospective mothers fear another mouth to feed.

Half of all women who abort say they do not have a reliable mate. And men who are jobless usually do not marry. In the 16 states, there were 16,392 fewer marriages than the year before, and 7,869 more abortions. As male unemployment increases, marriages fall and abortion rises.

Women worry about health care for themselves and their children. Since 5.2 million more people have no health insurance now than before this presidency -- with women of childbearing age overrepresented in those 5.2 million -- abortion increases.

My wife and I know -- as does my son David -- that doctors, nurses, hospitals, medical insurance, special schooling and parental employment are crucial for a special child. David attended the Kentucky School for the Blind, as well as schools for children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities. He was mainstreamed in public schools as well. We have two other sons and five grandchildren, and we know that every mother, every father and every child needs public and family support.

What does this tell us? Economic policy and abortion are not separate issues; they form one moral imperative. Rhetoric is hollow, mere tinkling brass, without health care, insurance, jobs, child care and a living wage. Pro-life in deed, not merely in word, means we need a president who will do something about jobs, health insurance and support for mothers.

Glen Stassen is the Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics at Fuller Theological Seminary, in Pasadena, Calif. He can be e-mailed at gstassen@fuller.edu.

Krane is an independent investigative journalist in Philadelphia.Readers can write to him at 151 Tulpehocken, Philadelphia, PA 19144 or Coordinator@FairElections.us.
 
It's all ass backwards, isn't it...
Bush is elected by the Anti-Choice and more abortions occur...
Clinton is elected by the Pro-Choice, and he passes more laws restricting abortions than any other president.

:huh:
 
80sU2isBest said:


Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong.

2 of my best friends are Republican women. They both hate abortion and want Roe v. Wade overturned. My brother's wife wants Roe v. Wade overturned. 2 of my close friend's wives want Roe v. Wade overturned. Every single Republican woman I have ever talked to about Roe v. Wade wanted it overturned.

All my Republican friends, male or female, want Roe v. Wade overturned. Heck, I even used to know a liberal Democrat who, though we never talked specifically about Roe v. Wade, considered abortion murder.



i am talking about elected officials. the women who walk the halls of Congress. they owe their careers to the very feminists they must now deride.

and while "no one" was probably a bit of a stretch, i bet you'd be surprised at how many people, even if they are personall opposed to abortion, don't want it to be illegal.
 
nbcrusader said:


No one? I'd say there are more than you believe who would either (i) want to the law overturned (male and female), or (ii) be ambivilent if the law were overturned.

Pushing a candidate who would clearly overturn Roe v. Wade would require A LOT of political capital - with little return on the investment.

Abortion divides the country, but not in a way that give either party a clear victory.

Bush will likely make other issues the centerpiece of the confirmation fight (and no matter who he appoints, there will be a fight). If he nominates some one like Gonzalez, he gets "credit" for the first Hispanic on the Court.



i agree with pretty much all of your post, which is why i don't think we're going to see Roe v Wade overturned any time soon.

also, the current joke in DC is that, amongst Republicans, "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter."
 
80sU2isBest said:


Well, like they said in Spiderman 2, sometimes doing the right thing requires sacrifice. If Bush really believes that abortion is murder, he needs to do everything possible to give that particular type of murder the same status as other murders in the USA - illegal. I doubt it would drastically hurt the Republican party; there's a lot of pro-lifers out there, and most are Republican, I'd say. But even if it does destroy the Republican Party, isn't doing the right thing worth it?

Concerning "investment": From a pro-life view, I'd say that saving the lives of pre-born babies would be a good return on the investment.



they republicans know this.

and this is what they've been exploiting for the past 30 years, and you've got nothing to show for it.
 
Irvine511 said:




they republicans know this.

and this is what they've been exploiting for the past 30 years, and you've got nothing to show for it.

They're not exploiting that.

In fact, it's the opposite. Most of the Republicans in office now are chicken. They're afraid of the Ted Kennedys; they're afraid they'll be "Tom Delayed". Their fear of the opposition is stronger than their loyalty to the people who actually voted for them in the first place.
 
Irvine511 said:

and while "no one" was probably a bit of a stretch, i bet you'd be surprised at how many people, even if they are personall opposed to abortion, don't want it to be illegal.

I think you'd be surprised how many people do want ti to be made illegal.
 
80's it may seem that way in your circle but everyone I know believes it should be legal. I can also point to people who have chosen not to abort but would still not make it illegal. The reason is, it is up to that couple to make their own decision and every decision is different. Another thing you might consider, there are statistics in the book Freakonomics stating that abortion rates do not change according to abortion being illegal or not. Apparently they change according to (as previously stated) the parents being able to support them.
 
MissMoo said:
80's it may seem that way in your circle but everyone I know believes it should be legal. I can also point to people who have chosen not to abort but would still not make it illegal.

Irvine and I were specifically talking about Republicans who call themselves prolifers. Are your friends prolife Republicans?

MissMoo said:
Another thing you might consider, there are statistics in the book Freakonomics stating that abortion rates do not change according to abortion being illegal or not. Apparently they change according to (as previously stated) the parents being able to support them.

So, there were as many abortions annually before Roe V. Wade as there are after Roe V. Wade? I doubt that highly, and would take any statistic that stated as such with a grain of salt. People who otherwise might do something within the law often won't, for fear of being prosecuted. Is the author of Freakonomics trying to tell us that the fear of prosecution wouldn't cause any women to choose adoption instead of abortion?
 
Polls show a majority disapprove of abortion and a majority approve of keeping it legal. But the numbers on either point are not so overwhelming that the issue is beyond dispute.
 
80sU2isBest said:

So, there were as many abortions annually before Roe V. Wade as there are after Roe V. Wade? I doubt that highly, and would take any statistic that stated as such with a grain of salt. People who otherwise might do something within the law often won't, for fear of being prosecuted. Is the author of Freakonomics trying to tell us that the fear of prosecution wouldn't cause any women to choose adoption instead of abortion?



i think any woman who really wants an abortion is going to find a way to have an abortion. much of the pro-choice movement is centered around the health of the woman, so that she's not butchered by a "doctor" in the much talked about phenomenon of back-alley abortions.

legality is beside the point when a woman believes she cannot have a baby.
 
Irvine511 said:
i think any woman who really wants an abortion is going to find a way to have an abortion. much of the pro-choice movement is centered around the health of the woman, so that she's not butchered by a "doctor" in the much talked about phenomenon of back-alley abortions.

If the abortion rate before Roe v. Wade was as high as it is today, then either the so called "back-alley" abortions were relatively safe or there was a fatality rate among women that dropped considerably.
 
nbcrusader said:


If the abortion rate before Roe v. Wade was as high as it is today, then either the so called "back-alley" abortions were relatively safe or there was a fatality rate among women that dropped considerably.

So just because they didn't die, even though it may create permanant damage, means they're "safe"???
 
nbcrusader said:
Polls show a majority disapprove of abortion and a majority approve of keeping it legal. But the numbers on either point are not so overwhelming that the issue is beyond dispute.

a. divorce

b. adultery

c. gluttony

d. tongue piercing

e. flag burning

f. Klan march

e. boy bands




Common sense says when a majority disapproves of something
And approves of keeping it legal

They are right
It should be legal
Disapproval and all.

This should be beyond dispute for rational people.
 
Sparkysgrrrl said:
Clinton is elected by the Pro-Choice, and he passes more laws restricting abortions than any other president.
:huh:

I'd like to see your source for that stat.

Clinton reversed Bush Sr.'s executive order ban of abortions on military bases. Dubya has since reversed the reversal.

Clinton refused to sign the ban on partial birth abortion. Bush signed it first chance he had.
 
I just realized I worded my post all wrong...
More laws restricting abortion were passed while Bubba was in office, all that parental notification state by state bullshit.
(It was too early to post in here, and now it's too late.
Sparkys needs sleep. *hides)
 
President Bush, during his stop in Denmark before heading to the G-8 summit, said Wednesday he will not select a Supreme Court nominee based on his or her views on abortion or other hot-button political issues.

He urged senators to act "in a dignified way" in what is expected to be a contentious battle over confirming his first nominee to the nation's highest court....

....Bush made his fourth trip to Europe this year just days after Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement. The president said that as he reviews candidates to replace her, "I'll try to assess their character, their interests."

Bush said he would have no "litmus test" that disqualifies candidates because of their opinions on abortion and gay marriage.

"I'll pick people who, one, can do the job, and people who are honest, people who are bright and people who will strictly interpret the Constitution and not use the bench to legislate from," Bush said.

Bush spent a few hours reviewing material on more than a half dozen potential replacements for O'Connor on his flight to Denmark. He has said that he will spend a few weeks narrowing a list of candidates and then interviewing some, and his goal is to see a new justice in place by the time the court begins its new term in October.

"I will take my time," Bush said. "I will be thorough in my investigation."

Bush bristled at criticism of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, a longtime friend who is often mentioned as a potential nominee for the high court. Conservatives said they aren't convinced Gonzales' beliefs on affirmative action and abortion are far enough to the right for their liking.

"I don't like it when a friend gets criticized," Bush said. "I'm loyal to my friends.

"And all the sudden this fella, who is a good public servant and a really fine person, is under fire," Bush said. "And so do I like it? No, I don't like it. At all."
 
So it's not the prochoicers who actually have anything to fear form Bush. It's the pro-lifers who stood by him and voted him into office that will receive the knife in the back.
 
80sU2isBest said:
So it's not the prochoicers who actually have anything to fear form Bush. It's the pro-lifers who stood by him and voted him into office that will receive the knife in the back.


i'm hardly surprised.

here's my solution: stop voting Republican!

they're never going to give you what you really want, but they'll slash your services and safety nets and make universal health care (something that might actually drastically reduce the need for abortions) forever a fantasy.
 
80sU2isBest said:
It's the pro-lifers who stood by him and voted him into office that will receive the knife in the back.

Personally I don't believe Bush when he says he has no lithmus test, but if he proves me wrong then at least he's putting his personal opinions aside and is doing what's best for the country. I don't think anyone is getting stabbed in the back.
 
deep said:
Common sense says when a majority disapproves of something
And approves of keeping it legal

They are right
It should be legal
Disapproval and all.

This should be beyond dispute for rational people.

Or that the masses are willing to abdicate on tough moral decisions.
 
Sorry 80's I missed the part about it being Republican Christians you were debating and since I know zero Christians and only two Republicans (both atheists and pro choice) my statement does not qualify.
About the statistic I quoted, unfortunately I was remembering what I read and have since given the book to a friend, so I'll have to get back to you on that.
 
Back
Top Bottom