Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Freakin' South Dakota.Follow

#27 Feb 24 2006 at 10:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Ambrya wrote:
It's not a slippery slope, you pompous dolt. It's historical fact.


Really? So, it's a historical fact that a challenge to an abortion law based on one aspect of the law is guaranteed to result in a complete reversal of a previous SCOTUS decision?

And it's a historical fact that a reversal of that decision will automatically result in a change in the legistlation of every state in the country? Remember. Roe v. Wade sets requirements for state legistlation on abortion. Removing it, does *not* remove those existing state laws. It just allows them to be changed if the state legistlatures choose to.


Is it that you don't trust your federal government to "do the right thing"? Or that you don't believe that the majority of people in the state you live in will? I guess I'm confused as to what you think our laws should be based on other then "whatever Ambrya thinks is right"? So everyone who disagrees with you has no right to change the law? Isn't that contrary to the very concept of democracy?


As I've stated multiple times. I'm pro choice. However, I think that choice and the laws that outline that choice should derive from another choice made by the people. Not handed down to them by federal fiat. For me, worst case here is that Roe v. Wade gets reversed. And I don't see that as a bad thing, since that will allow "the people" to decide what abortion laws to have in their states. Some states might pass more stringent laws, some might pass more lenient ones. But that's their choice. Isn't it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Feb 24 2006 at 10:36 PM Rating: Decent
South Dakota wrote:
The Legislature finds that, based upon the evidence derived from thirty years of legalized abortions in this country, the interests of pregnant mothers protected under the South Dakota Bill of Rights have been adversely affected as abortions terminate the constitutionally protected fundamental interest of the pregnant mother in her relationship with her child and abortions are performed without a truly informed or voluntary consent or knowing waiver of the woman's rights and interests. The Legislature finds that the state has a duty to protect the pregnant mother's fundamental interest in her relationship with her unborn child.



Is this for real? Or is SD just trolling?

Look, Toots, you may not believe me now, but you really want to meet this kid.

That is so incendiary it feels like something meant to set up concessions. Like when a hooker opens with twenty bucks for a half and half, fully knowing she can expect no better than fifteen. If I were a woman in South Dakota I'd be applying for disability on the grounds I cannot possibly continue to think for myself.

And no exceptions for incest or rape? Now that's a nuclear family waiting to happen, alrighty. I'd think even if one was vehmently pro-life they might see the folley in that.

South Dakota, I'm talking to you: If you're going to force a woman to have something unwantd inside of her, why not breast implants? Or me, for bob's sake.
#29 Feb 24 2006 at 10:39 PM Rating: Decent
Gbaji wrote:
Is it that you don't trust your federal government to "do the right thing"? Or that you don't believe that the majority of people in the state you live in will?



As someone who has been watching for the last term and a half and lives in Colorado Springs, just down the road from Focus on the Family and the new life circus tent of the world church?

Yes and yes.
#30 Feb 24 2006 at 11:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Is it that you don't trust your federal government to "do the right thing"? Or that you don't believe that the majority of people in the state you live in will?



As someone who has been watching for the last term and a half and lives in Colorado Springs, just down the road from Focus on the Family and the new life circus tent of the world church?

Yes and yes.


So, what's your "solution" to this problem? If the masses don't agree with what you think should be done, you believe that the government should step in and overrule them?


I'm just curious if that's *really* what you think should be going on? I don't agree with much of the pro-life position, but I do respect their right to hold that position. IMHO, the only "correct" counter in a free and democratic society is to convince "the people" that a pro-choice solution is better. You can't do that if you don't engage the debate, and you can't have real debate and decision if the people aren't empowed to affect the outcome.


That's why I'm both pro-choice *and* opposed to Roe v. Wade. I don't think it's right for the government to overrule the people by fiat, even when it's for something I agree with.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Feb 24 2006 at 11:33 PM Rating: Decent
My solution? Well things as they stand don't irritate me the way a proposal like this does. I mean, requlation as opposed to prohibition, I think that's reasonable. I was commenting more on the atmosphere where I live; the voices I hear on tv aren't you're liberal media, they're frighteningly exclusive and frankly fanatical to the point where they claim the ability to change people's sexuality with a pinch of god dust. I dig democracy, and I accept the fact that not one representative or measure I have voted for has ever been approved, but that doesn't invalidate my opinions or weaken my resolve even a little bit.

As for convincing my fellow citizens? Well I'm a hedonistic agnostic, and that right there makes what I say void in the ears of those who stand on the other side of the signs outside Planned Parenthood. It's just scary to me, to think that so many people who claim to promote smaller government and individual's rights can be so ready to add legislation when it suits their agenda; legislating morality.


I hate to use the word morality that close to the end of my post, it's so very Shadowrelmesque.
#32 Feb 25 2006 at 12:56 AM Rating: Good
***
3,829 posts
gbaji wrote:
Ambrya wrote:
It's not a slippery slope, you pompous dolt. It's historical fact.


Really? So, it's a historical fact that a challenge to an abortion law based on one aspect of the law is guaranteed to result in a complete reversal of a previous SCOTUS decision?


That's not what I am talking about, and you damned well know it, you arrogant windbag. It is historical fact that making abortion illegal results in women dying from botched backalley abortions. We proved that in the 80-ish years between the time abortion was made illegal in the US until the passage of Roe v. Wade. It is still, in fact, being proven in other countries where abortion is illegal, something we in the US tend to forget. Women DO still die from illegal abortions in other countries. Many thousands of them. That is FACT, and it is irrefutable.

You are being deliberately obtuse, as is so often the case, to attempt to support your untenable claim that the argument is a slippery slope. I predicted the SCOTUS would uphold the law. I never in any way hinted that the law would somehow be the CAUSE of that decision. Without a claim of a causal connection, there can be no "slippery slope" as a "slippery slope" is by definition an argument where one claims one circumstance CAUSES another.

The "causal connection" you seem to be looking for is the appointment of Scalito and to a lesser extent, Roberts. In these appointments, the bench has been heavily overbalanced on the right, and so yes, the SD law WILL be upheld. That's not a "slippery slope" it's a prediction of what is to come based upon what has already transpired.

The SCOTUS has already backpedalled on Roe v. Wade in the 80s when they passed the "undue burden" ruling and the fact that they have already upheld laws which clearly DO create an "undue burden" on a woman's ability to choose an abortion. It is in no way a "slippery slope" to predict that with a precedent that already chipped away at the the latitude afforded by Roe v. Wade AND with a right-leaning bench, that the SCOTUS will continue to backpedal on Roe v. Wade. A "slippery slope" makes an untenable assumption based on only a tenuous logical connection between two disparate events (eg. "talk to kids about safe sex and kids will start having sex.") In this case, the argument I am making takes into consideration historical precendent and the current day trend and makes a prediction. Again, no slippery slope.

Quote:

And it's a historical fact that a reversal of that decision will automatically result in a change in the legistlation of every state in the country?


Do point out to me where I made any such claim that "every" state would jump on the bandwagon. You can't, because I never did. This is you pretending to refute a claim which was never made in order to somehow bolster your belief that you are correct. It's old, give it up.

I never said "every" state would do it. Some states won't. California, Oregon, most other blue states will keep their present abortion laws in state. But MANY states will. Many states have been edging in that direction since the "undue burden" ruling of the 80s gave them much greater latitude to restrict abortions.

Example: Mississippi, which presently has exactly ONE abortion clinic for the entire state which is going to be out of business within the year because the state keeps passing laws requiring it to provide facilities it doesn't actually need to perform its services (hallways the same width as with other surgical centers, etc.) Sure, requiring the clinic to provide these things doesn't place an "undue burden" upon women seeking abortions...until it drives the clinic out of business because the "burden" of operating the clinic becomes so great that it can't keep its doors open.

So, again, no slippery slope. Just a prediction based upon the entirely relevent facts at hand.

And back to the point I was making. It doesn't matter if it's one state or fifteen or forty, wherever such law exists, women are going to be injured, going to be rendered infertile, and going to die.


Quote:

Remember. Roe v. Wade sets requirements for state legistlation on abortion. Removing it, does *not* remove those existing state laws. It just allows them to be changed if the state legistlatures choose to.


I never claimed it would change state laws. In fact, here, since your memory is so sketchy, I'll quote what I DID say:

Other states will take that as their cue to pass similar laws

I claimed that a ruling upholding the SD law would open the doors for other states to pass similar laws. Not even close to being a slippery slope, considering the climate on this issue. Stop putting words in my mouth.


Quote:

Is it that you don't trust your federal government to "do the right thing"?


Fu[/black]ck no, I don't trust the government to do the right thing on this issue. They're too busy making political book off a hot-button issue to care whether or not women are going to end up dying. Bush very deliberately loaded the bench with right-leaning justices specifically for issues such as this, and South Dakota very deliberately waited until Scalito's appointment was in the bag before passing this legislation. Hell, the article said as much--

Many opponents and supporters of abortion rights believe the U.S. Supreme Court is more likely to overturn its 1973 Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion now that conservatives John Roberts and Samuel Alito are on the bench. Lawmakers said growing support among South Dakotans for abortion restrictions added momentum to the bill.

"I think the stars are aligned," said House Speaker Matthew Michels, a Republican. "Simply put, now is the time."


Can you honestly argue that the currect balance of the SCOTUS has NOTHING to do with this sudden surge of opportunism?


Quote:

Or that you don't believe that the majority of people in the state you live in will?


MY state will keep its abortion laws, I am fairly sure of that. For now. But many states won't, because people are too horrified over the idea of "babies" being killed. Until they start to see images of women lying in pools of their own blood as they hemorrhage to death, women who are dying of infections, until they start looking in the faces of 15 year old girls whose hope of EVER having a family is completely gone, they're going to put the lives of those "babies" above the lives of the women who carry them. Women WILL end up dying. It's historical and present-day fact, that where abortion is illegal, abortion is performed in unsafe, unregulated facilities and women end up dead as a result.

My argument in favor of abortion has NEVER deviated from this point: legalized abortion saves the lives of women. And the logic backing up that point is irrefutable. In making abortion illegal, you remove possibility of the safe, professional, regulated oversight of the procedure and secure, healthy facilities in which the procedure is performed.

Quote:

I guess I'm confused as to what you think our laws should be based on other then "whatever Ambrya thinks is right"? So everyone who disagrees with you has no right to change the law? Isn't that contrary to the very concept of democracy?


Rhetoric. You don't address the point which was made, that women are going to die from illegal abortions in any state where laws such as the SD law are passed. You're more concerned with running your yap and attempting to demonstrate your intellectual superiority by arguing against arguments I never made, than with actually addressing the point I was making.

Quote:

As I've stated multiple times. I'm pro choice. However, I think that choice and the laws that outline that choice should derive from another choice made by the people. Not handed down to them by federal fiat.


The choice here isn't being made by "the people." It's being made by a bunch of opportunistic politicians going into an election cycle. This law wasn't passed by a public referendum; it's being handed down by the state legislature in the hopes that having passed it will score brownie points for the members of that legislature in the elections.


Quote:
For me, worst case here is that Roe v. Wade gets reversed. And I don't see that as a bad thing, since that will allow "the people" to decide what abortion laws to have in their states.


No, it will allow the politicians to presume to know what "the people" want in order to make political book. It will allow the radical minority to drown out the voice of the moderate majority. States ALREADY have the right to pass their own abortion laws. That is the point of the "undue burden" ruling.

Quote:
Some states might pass more stringent laws, some might pass more lenient ones. But that's their choice. Isn't it?


When your 13 year old is pregant by her uncle and can't have a legal abortion, you tell me how allowing "states" to make this right for "individuals" can possibly be a good thing.


I'm done. I let your pompous, know-it-all attitude suck me into another of these posts and I just don't have time for this sh[black]
it. I'll say again, I am sickened by the law, and I am sickened by you, Gbaji, who can pretend to be pro-choice and yet clearly advocate the idea that institutions can make this choice for individuals, regardless of the real people who are going to die as a result.

The most important element of Roe v. Wade is that it said the government, whether state or federal, couldn't tell us what to do with our bodies. You are advocating a shift that will result in EXACTLY such a thing. Your claims to wanting to limit government over-reaching are complete bullsh[black][/black]it if you can possibly support a ruling that would allow state governments back into the body of a person.



Edited, Sat Feb 25 01:19:44 2006 by Ambrya
#33 Feb 25 2006 at 7:47 AM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's why I'm both pro-choice *and* opposed to Roe v. Wade. I don't think it's right for the government to overrule the people by fiat, even when it's for something I agree with.


You're against a ruling saying people should have control over their bodies, and yet support the notion that others should be able to gain an amount of control over their bodies?
#34 Feb 25 2006 at 7:56 AM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:
It's just scary to me, to think that so many people who claim to promote smaller government and individual's rights can be so ready to add legislation when it suits their agenda; legislating morality.



QFT
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#35 Feb 25 2006 at 12:46 PM Rating: Decent
Anyone else get kind of turned on when Ambrya says SCOTUS that many times? Just me? Fine.
#36 Feb 25 2006 at 12:59 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,674 posts
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:
Anyone else get kind of turned on when Ambrya says SCOTUS that many times? Just me? Fine.


Off my Kool aid
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#37 Feb 27 2006 at 5:34 AM Rating: Decent
***
3,829 posts
One last thing:

Lest you think the only people being affected by this law are those having abortions of "convenience" I challenge you to read some of these accounts and try to rationalize just where the "state" fits into the decision these women and their mates have to make.

http://www.aheartbreakingchoice.com/personal.html

#38 Feb 27 2006 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Vensuvio wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's why I'm both pro-choice *and* opposed to Roe v. Wade. I don't think it's right for the government to overrule the people by fiat, even when it's for something I agree with.


You're against a ruling saying people should have control over their bodies, and yet support the notion that others should be able to gain an amount of control over their bodies?


If you're going to be that vague, yes. Isn't that what every single law we have is about? There's a law that say's it's wrong for me to use "my body" to pick up a gun, load it, use my legs to walk into a public place, and use my finger to pull the trigger.

And yeah. I expect that the legistlature has the power to state what actions I can and can't do. On an inherent level, that's what laws are all about.


The issue is whether a woman, in the case of pregnancy, has a constitutional right to control her own body which superscedes the state's right to pass laws regulating such things within their own elected legistlatures. In order to do this, one must show that the constitution absolutely grants the right of the woman in all cases and decisions regarding abortion (the specific issue at hand). You must also show that there is absolutely zero merit to the idea that the unborn child has rights, or should be aforded some degree of protection by the state.

And it's that second bit that I have a *huge* problem with in regards to Roe v. Wade. That is a decision that is still today in question scientifically. It's in question legally. It's in question morally. In my opinion, in the absense of absolute moral clarity, the decision on such a questionable issue should *always* fall to the legistlature and the people to decide. It should not be made by one small group of 9 people for every single person and state and city in the US.

The Roe v. Wade decision never adequately determined that it was a constitutional issue. Remember, it's not about whether a woman might or should have the primary control over this issue. The question is whether there is a constitutional need for the court to make a ruling over the legistlatures. There is no constitutional crisis if the court does not overrule the legistlatures. "The people" are still free to affect their own legistlation. And if they live in a state without legistlation they agree with, they are free to move to one that does. By making the decision they did in Roe v. Wade, the court effectively removed that power from the people and from the legistlature and did so for no reason other then a belief that it was the "right thing".

Contrary to popular belief, the Supreme Court does not exist to enforce their personal ideas opon the people. They are there to rule on the constitutionality of the law. And I'm of the opinion that the states most definately have the constitutional right to pass laws regulating abortion. Heck. The Roe v. Wade decision didn't remove that power. What it did was create it's own legal standard which all states had to mirror within their own legal code. If the belief was that the states had no power to legistlate the issue, then why did the Roe v. Wade decision set standards which state legistlation on abortion must meet?


It was and is a glaring example of doing the wrong thing for the right reasons. The issue of abortion should be determined in the state legistlatures. In my personal opinion the Roe v. Wade decision hurt the pro-choice position far more then it helped. Back in the 70s, pro-choice had a lot of support. Most states either had already passed laws allowing abortion, were in the process of doing so, or were coming under pressure to do so. There was a momentum to make those legal changes and "the people" were behind them. Had Roe v. Wade not come down the way it did, then this would have been hashed out back then, when popular support was in favor of pro-choice. Roe v. Wade basically robbed the people of that debate, so now that the popularity of the pro-choice position has waned, it's being attacked.

While I personally believe that many states will retain some form of legalized abortion if Roe v. Wade is overturned, it likely will not be the same as we'd have today if Roe v. Wade had never been in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Feb 27 2006 at 8:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
bodhisattva wrote:
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:
It's just scary to me, to think that so many people who claim to promote smaller government and individual's rights can be so ready to add legislation when it suits their agenda; legislating morality.



QFT


Just want to add something here.

First off. "Small government" as a concept applies to the federal level. We want a small federal government. Specifically, we believe that states should decide most issues and make most laws, with the federal government limiting itself to issues that apply between and among states, not directly to the people themselves.

Additionally, "small government" is typically not used in reference to the number of laws at all. It's about the "size" of government programs. It's far more of an economic measure then a legal one. It's about two things. The amount of our economy that is consumed by the federal government, and the accompanying amount of unlegistlated control that those federal programs have over "the people". The thinking is that if you want to enforce something on the people, but don't want to (or can't!) pass laws for one reason or another, you simply create a government program that gives money to people who do what you want and witholds it from those who don't. Over time, it's the same effect, but you didn't have to actually bother with passing laws or anything...


Finally. Please find me a law in any criminal code that *isn't* about legistlating morality. Isn't that what laws are supposed to do? People are not numbers. They are not statistics. They are not supposed to be treated as a group over the individual. Our laws should reflect that. They should most certainly be about what is "right" or "wrong". You don't legistlate something "bad" to individuals because it might statistically be better for the group as a whole. Or at least you shouldn't. At the risk of evoking Godwin's, that's exactly the kind of thought process that ends with unwanted people being shipped to camps "for the good of the people".

In any sane society there must be a recognition of moral right and wrong, and the laws must reflect that. Otherwise, you can justify *any* action based on the statistical benefit to society as a whole. This is doubly significant in the case of abortion since it's exactly a statistical analysis of the issue that leads one to a pro-choice position. If I had my druthers, no one would ever need or perform an abortion. But a recognition of the reality is that a significant number of people *do*, and will whether it's legal or not. So, we must make a moral choice by weighing the "wrongness" of allowing abortion versus the harm caused by not having it. Don't for a moment think that's not about morals. You can stick your head in the sand and color your arguments in terms of the "rights of the woman", but that's a cop-out.

I suspect people like Roe v. Wade because it allows them to *not* have to face that moral choice. It allows for a convenient definition of the issue in terms of cold rights that we the people don't have to make a decision on. I also think that's a cop-out. In an issue as volitile as this and as morally questionable as this, as a civilized society we *should* have the balls to actually make the choice ourselves and take the responsiblity of that choice upon ourselves. And yeah, even give other states/cities the right and the power to make a different choice if they want. Because to me it seems incredibly "wrong" for us as a society to sidestep the decision itself.


After all, if it came to a public vote, then *you* would have to choose. You would come face to face with not only the power of that choice, but the responsibility of it. I suspect that a lot of people would rather avoid that if they could, and allow some other entity to make it instead. But to me, it's absolutely necessary that we the people make those choices for ourselves, otherwise maybe we don't deserve the democracy/republic we live in...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Feb 27 2006 at 8:56 PM Rating: Default
Why did you have to ruin the thread, gbaji? Samira and a few other people were making valid points, but of course, you had to come here and spew nonsense to **** everyone off.

God damnit, you're such a party pooper.

Who didn't see this coming anyways? It was in this adminstration's agenda to restrict/ban abortion as they saw fit.





Edited, Mon Feb 27 21:01:48 2006 by Meeko
#41 Feb 27 2006 at 10:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Meeko wrote:
Who didn't see this coming anyways? It was in this adminstration's agenda to restrict/ban abortion as they saw fit.


So...? If it had been Kerry's administration, it would have had the agenda of not restricting or banning abortion. Not really sure what your point is. Are you trying to imply that it's wrong for people who believe differently then you to have an agenda that matches their beliefs instead of yours?

And really, more correctly, they have an "agenda" to attack the federal judicial ruling that prevents states from writing their own laws regarding abortion within those states. That's not exactly the same thing.

Lots of us conservatives (myself included), agree that Roe v. Wade was a bad rulling, but do *not* have an agenda to ban abortion. We simply don't agree that it should be unbanned everywhere in the country without the people getting to decide.

What's funny is that I've stated this repeatedly in every post I've made on this topic, but so many people continue to pretend there's no difference between what you think the law should be and *how* you go about making those laws. To conservatives, the process is very very important. It seems like most liberals adopt an "ends justifies the means" approach. If judicial fiat enforces their view on abortion across the entire country, then that's how they'll do it even if that's not how it *should* be done.


I've said this before and I'll say it again, the biggest difference between Liberal and Conservative arguments is not the positions on the issues, but the methods of resolving them. A Liberal who wants to fight poverty by creating a government program to provide assistance to the poor is opposed by Conservatives, not because Conservatives don't equally want to fight poverty, but because Conservatives don't believe that's the right way to do it. Same deal with pretty much everything. Just because someone doesn't agree with *how* you want to do something doesn't mean that he disagrees that something needs to be done. I really think that's the number one misconception in our political culture today. Everyone seems to think that anyone who doesn't agree with their solution to a problem doesn't care about the problem. That's just not true...


I think you'd be surprised just how many pro-choice republicans are out there who are opposed to Roe v. Wade. It's not about our personal position on abortion. It's about the legal process involved in deciding to what degree abortion should be legal that we care the most about. Ultimately, how we make and enforce our rules is just as important (and arguably *more* important) as the rules themselves.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#42 Feb 27 2006 at 10:27 PM Rating: Default
gbaji wrote:
So...? If it had been Kerry's administration, it would have had the agenda of not restricting or banning abortion. Not really sure what your point is. Are you trying to imply that it's wrong for people who believe differently then you to have an agenda that matches their beliefs instead of yours?


Since when has the idea of restricting abortion ever been a valid one? Who the hell do those pre-dominant white males think they are for imposing a law based on opinion rather than on equality and morality?

Quote:
Lots of us conservatives (myself included), agree that Roe v. Wade was a bad rulling, but do *not* have an agenda to ban abortion. We simply don't agree that it should be unbanned everywhere in the country without the people getting to decide.


Two conservative judges were nominated to fulfill a legacy of objectivity offered by the Supreme Court. One has already taken its spot and the other is just waiting for his turn.

Although I'm well aware nominating judges exemplifies the "To the victor goes the spoils of war" (or something like that) cliché, it's quite easy to construct a conjecture here. If you're turning a blind eye to the bigger picture and rather not believe these two obscure gentlemen, who both carry with them a very secretive track record and opinions about Roe v. Wade, then we have not much to talk about.

Quote:
It's about the legal process involved in deciding to what degree abortion should be legal that we care the most about.


F'uck you. You know very well you're pulling the political card by not bringing matters of faith into the picture. Are you as obtuse to believe this ban was not influenced by the evangelical ties this government so batlanty projects?

You are a f'ucking hopeless case. I'm all for supporting conservatives when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but concerning social reform and advancement for the greater good, are you as obvlious than to put your hopes and desires behind the corporate elite who, ultimately, have always ran the United States?
#43 Feb 27 2006 at 11:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Meeko wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Are you trying to imply that it's wrong for people who believe differently then you to have an agenda that matches their beliefs instead of yours?


Since when has the idea of restricting abortion ever been a valid one?


Hahah! That's funny as hell. I hope you intended that bit of humor. If not, I'm scared...

Quote:
Two conservative judges were nominated to fulfill a legacy of objectivity offered by the Supreme Court. One has already taken its spot and the other is just waiting for his turn.


Wow! You are naive...

A "legacy of objectivity"? Are you serious? The fact is that over the 40 year period of time during which the US senate was almost completely controlled by Democrats, the idea of approving justices based on their ideology has become the norm. So much so that Sen Kennedy made a big speach about how horrible Alito would be because he wasn't Liberal. Not because he was an alchoholic, or a gambling addict, or a closet homosexual, or just plain showed up to work late consistently or any other reason that might legitimately make him a poor candidate. Kennedy (and others) opposed his nomination purely on the basis of how he might rule on various cases.

So... Isn't this really a case of "they're wrong because they might do what I'd do if I could"? It's wrong for Republicans to put a judge on the bench who'll rule in a way they agree with, but it's totally ok for Democrats to do so? In fact, isn't this what Democrats have been doing all along?

The fact is that those two conservative justices are replacing one conservative and one moderate-swing justice (Rhenquist and O'Connor). It's not like Roberts factors into the Roe v. Wade decision at all, since he's replacing Rhenquist (who wrote the opposing view in that decision, so you can't possibly get someone "more opposed" to it).

What would you have wanted differently? That Rhenquist be replaced with a Liberal who'd uphold Roe v. Wade? Wouldn't *that* be changing the balance of the court? And the vote is still out on Alito. Heck. The vote is still out on both justices. You're simply assuming that they're going to be raving Conservatives (and assuming that that's a bad thing...).

Quote:
Although I'm well aware nominating judges exemplifies the "To the victor goes the spoils of war" (or something like that) cliché, it's quite easy to construct a conjecture here. If you're turning a blind eye to the bigger picture and rather not believe these two obscure gentlemen, who both carry with them a very secretive track record and opinions about Roe v. Wade, then we have not much to talk about.


As opposed to a nominee where we'd know exactly what his stance is? But that'd only be ok if he was for Roe v. Wade, right?

Haven't you just conveniently defined "right" as only those things you agree with? It sure sounds like it too me... And just in case you haven't figured it out yet, while ever single appointment by a Democrat president in the last 50 years has been Liberal, only about half the Republican nominees have been Conservative. So... If the game is about "to the victor go the spoils", it seems like that's the game the Dems have been playing far more.

Of course, they controlled the Sentate for 40 of the last 50 years, so...

Quote:
Quote:
It's about the legal process involved in deciding to what degree abortion should be legal that we care the most about.


F'uck you. You know very well you're pulling the political card by not bringing matters of faith into the picture. Are you as obtuse to believe this ban was not influenced by the evangelical ties this government so batlanty projects?


No. Holy crap no! Has it occured to you yet that not everyone who disagrees with you must do it because they're religious or something? What an amazing strawman. Even when I state absolutely nothing remotely resembling religion in my arguement, instead of actually answering or even addressing my argument, you fly off into left field yammering on about religion!

I oppose it because it's bad law. Period. Why is it that the issue of religion in the Roe v. Wade decision gets brought up far more by Liberals then Conservatives? How many times do we have to keep saying "it's not about religious belief" before you accept that it really isn't about religious belief?

What's next? You're going to claim that even though you cant refute the logic of my argument, since you believe that it's secretly based on religion, you don't have to? Do you realize how dumb this makes your position seem? It doesn't matter *why* I say what I say. If my arguments are valid legal, ethical, and logical arguments, then you really ought to answer them with something approaching logic and reason. If they aren't, then try to say why they aren't. So far, you haven't actually refuted a single thing I've said.


And just for the record, I'm well aware that the Religious Right does want to ban abortion. The difference is that I think we should be fighting them by actually fighting them! Not playing legal tricks with stacked Supreme Courts allowing us to avoid the legal issues. Get it? Because, as you've so brilliantly pointed out, if you use the court to push for your ideology, eventually the court will shift and that will change. Establishing the idea of legistlating from the bench is dangerous for exactly that reason. It's great when it's your guys in the majority in the court (as it's been for Liberals for quite some time). Not so great when that majority is lost and the balance shifts.

That's why I think we should be legistlating in our legistlatures instead. It may not be as easy. It may not be as quick. But if allowing abortion is the better choice, then it should be made by the people, not decided by fiat in a court somewhere. Get it? As long as the people don't get to determine their own laws, they'll fight to remove the thing preventing them from making that decision. Allow them to make their own laws, and they may not be happy about the result, and they certainly may continue to try to change things, but at least they'll accept to some degree that they were overruled by "the people", and didn't just have their view arbitrarily overruled.

Quote:
You are a f'ucking hopeless case. I'm all for supporting conservatives when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but concerning social reform and advancement for the greater good, are you as obvlious than to put your hopes and desires behind the corporate elite who, ultimately, have always ran the United States?



Hehe. Just felt like bolding that part. Isn't that exactly the argument I said that Liberals use to justify their actions? Not saying it's always wrong (or always right for that matter). Just pointing out that I certainly seem to have a good grasp not only on my argument, but on yours as well. You, however, are just kinda all over the map...
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Feb 28 2006 at 12:00 AM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
gbaji wrote:
Vensuvio wrote:
gbaji wrote:
That's why I'm both pro-choice *and* opposed to Roe v. Wade. I don't think it's right for the government to overrule the people by fiat, even when it's for something I agree with.


You're against a ruling saying people should have control over their bodies, and yet support the notion that others should be able to gain an amount of control over their bodies?


If you're going to be that vague, yes. Isn't that what every single law we have is about? There's a law that say's it's wrong for me to use "my body" to pick up a gun, load it, use my legs to walk into a public place, and use my finger to pull the trigger.


Describing the issue of a woman having control over wether she concieves something and bringing it to life as being akin to simply killing people doesn't quite have much relation when considering the latter is of affecting someone elses' body rather than your own.

Smoking some funky stuff?
#45 Feb 28 2006 at 12:43 AM Rating: Good
**
811 posts
Is it just me or does or does Gbaji seem a bit like some angry Don Quixote, always trying to chase down arguements like some windmill, but just throwing holy water at it and singing hymnals rather than getting any real action going.
#46 Feb 28 2006 at 12:44 AM Rating: Default
Yeah gbaji, you got me. My liberal/beatnik/leftist/radical attitude proves all my arguments to be ridden of fallacies and inconsistencies.

Ironically enough, the exact same thing can be overturned towards you.

Part that made me laugh the most was the way you denounced a straw-man then proceeded to go on twenty tengeants which had really nothing to do with your argument.

But as a personal question, I always wondered why you were always so conservative. I personally don't believe you'd have any valuable assets to protect therefore giving me little reason to understand why you are such an ideologically blinded fool in general.

Oh well, people are f'ucking weird anyways.
#47 Feb 28 2006 at 1:14 AM Rating: Good


I had lunch with Linda Greenhouse a few weeks ago, and she said she really doesn't believe Roe v. Wade will be overturned. I figure she knows better than I do *shrug*.

#48 Feb 28 2006 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Vensuvio wrote:
Describing the issue of a woman having control over wether she concieves something and bringing it to life as being akin to simply killing people doesn't quite have much relation when considering the latter is of affecting someone elses' body rather than your own.


Interesting choice of words there. Isn't this a topic about abortion? Did you use that word because you are confused about the topic, or because you know it'll make your argument seem more powerful (assuming no one catches it)?

See... Because denying a woman the choice to concieve seems pretty obviously wrong, right? But wording it as the choice to terminate a pregnancy doesn't have quite the same ring...

Doubly so since you're contrasting it to "simply killing people", which is pretty much exactly what the pro-life people see abortion as. I just find it amusing that this far into an argument you *still* can't even state the position you're defending correctly.

It's virtually identical to the state illegalizing my right to use my body to kill someone else. The only point is whether you consider an embryo to be "someone else". Are you that absolutely positive that an embryo isn't "someone else" that you're ok with even removing the right of the people to debate and legistlate on the issue? Isn't that freaking insane?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Mar 01 2006 at 12:22 AM Rating: Decent
gbaji wrote:
we should be legistlating in our legistlatures


Now you're just talking crazy.
#50 Mar 01 2006 at 12:25 AM Rating: Decent
For a mean baby, well, I like your pants
Born in South Dakota
For a mean baby, well, I like your hips
Born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
Man, I feel lucky tonight
I'm gonna get stoned and run around
Born in South Dakota
Hey, we're going to a rodeo town
I'm gonna get drunk and f[Aliceblue][/Aliceblue]uck some cows
Born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
I was born in South Dakota
#51 Mar 01 2006 at 2:06 AM Rating: Decent
@#%^ing DRK
*****
13,143 posts
On an interesting note; many states already have strict abortion laws in place that were suspended as soon as Roe was decided. Should it ever be overturned, many of these laws would immediately go back into effect. Wisconsin has one such law that is very similar to the one in S. Dakota.

Regardless, there's no point in getting all bent out of shape about it now. It probably won't end up in front of the supreme court for another three or so years (if it even does).

Stupid cun[red][/red]ts.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 282 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (282)