55-7 Gop Lose

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sirach14
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
rlg,

Yeah, and we know just how many babies the gop has saved in this country (zip, nadda, zero). And, of course we know how much a man of peace George Bush is…

Sorry, but I do not see why people remain tied to the GOP or the dems, when neither party has done a thing for life (in the case of the GOP, one can sucessfully argue that with the support of the death penalty, some legal support of embryonic stem cell research, and the war in Iraq, no babies saved from abortion, that the GOP can hardly claim to be prolife).
 
I strongly reject the notion that a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the dems–
Click to expand...
Unless your vote is going to a communist, then it would hurt the Dems. But if you are voting for a pro-lifer, it will ONLY HELP the Dems. History is not on your side of the argument TPJ.
 
40.png
aimee:
Thanks katherine2…didn’t know you cared 😃 😛
Click to expand...
k2 got suspended again???
 
jlw,

Sorry, I do not agree about history. If people of this nation worried about such things, then slavery would still be legal. I am not wasting my vote if I come to the conclusion that neither party is prolife. No matter the result, all Catholics are bound to vote for true prolife candidates, unless none of the candidates are prolife. We cannot advance the prolife agenda unless we decide not to be duped anymore. The GOP are experts and talking, they have proved to be far less resolved with their actions…they are mrely democrat lites.
 
I do wonder how many more election cycles the GOP will under the false premise that they are prolife. Sooner or later the truth will be out and people will flock away from the GOP in large numbers. They still have time to do something real, but their time is incredibly short.
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
** They still have time to do something real**, but their time is incredibly short.
Click to expand...
We agree here. The SCOTUS showdown will answer it all. Will they fight?? Will they cave?? Or will they punt?? They have only one option in my book.
 
40.png
jlw:
We agree here. The SCOTUS showdown will answer it all. Will they fight?? Will they cave?? Or will they punt?? They have only one option in my book.
Click to expand...
Don’t forget the embryonic stem cell issue. If the President sticks to his guns, he will exercise an important veto.

Robert.
 
40.png
rlg94086:
Don’t forget the embryonic stem cell issue. If the President sticks to his guns, he will exercise an important veto.

Robert.
Click to expand...
True. It is a short term “keeping the dogs at bay” way for Bush to do what is right. It is the JUDGESHIPS that will define his pro-life cred in my book. Hopefully, senate republicans will have the spine too.
 
40.png
jlw:
True. It is a short term “keeping the dogs at bay” way for Bush to do what is right. It is the JUDGESHIPS that will define his pro-life cred in my book. Hopefully, senate republicans will have the spine too.
Click to expand...
Well, Bush has at least one candidate (Judge Owen) and maybe two more (Brown, Pryor) for the SCOTUS. It would be very hard for the 14 moderates to claim “extraordinary circumstances” on appellate court justices they’ve already put to the floor for a vote. Wouldn’t it?

Robert.
 
According to records compiled by Fr Peter West of Priest for Life during Bush’s 1st term, he did a phenominal job in taking actions that promote life in terms of abortion, euthansia, and human cloning. As soon as I find that list, I’ll try to add it to this thread. The only problem is that it will probably take at least 4 posts to complete.
 
How can you all be so confident about the link between judges and abortion? The court that decided Roe v. Wade was majority Republican, after all. True, it was a different party, but that just goes to another point - how do you know that a judge sympathetic to overturning Roe v. Wade will be a good judge? We have no way of knowing what other issues the court will have to decide in the future, and thus no certainty that future decisions will be good ones. The SCOTUS could overturn Roe v. Wade but then make an even worse decision on, say, something related to genetics.

How do we even know how a given judge will rule, on anything including abortion? This whole linkage of judicial nominations to abortions has always seemed very weak to me, too many variables.
 
Philip P:
How can you all be so confident about the link between judges and abortion? The court that decided Roe v. Wade was majority Republican, after all. True, it was a different party, but that just goes to another point - how do you know that a judge sympathetic to overturning Roe v. Wade will be a good judge? We have no way of knowing what other issues the court will have to decide in the future, and thus no certainty that future decisions will be good ones. The SCOTUS could overturn Roe v. Wade but then make an even worse decision on, say, something related to genetics.

How do we even know how a given judge will rule, on anything including abortion? This whole linkage of judicial nominations to abortions has always seemed very weak to me, too many variables.
Click to expand...
We don’t know for certain how they will decide. Bush is doing his best to pick constructionists who won’t read protections into the Constitution that don’t exist. It’s the best we can do. What’s the alternative?
 
40.png
TPJCatholic:
philip,

Exactly, we need an amendment.
Click to expand...
That would be great! 55-7=48, so we need 18 more pro-life Republican Senators + VP. I think we might need more in the House, but I’m not sure. Has anyone done the calculations? How about state-by-state?

Robert.
 
Philip P:
How can you all be so confident about the link between judges and abortion? The court that decided Roe v. Wade was majority Republican, after all. True, it was a different party, but that just goes to another point - how do you know that a judge sympathetic to overturning Roe v. Wade will be a good judge? We have no way of knowing what other issues the court will have to decide in the future, and thus no certainty that future decisions will be good ones. The SCOTUS could overturn Roe v. Wade but then make an even worse decision on, say, something related to genetics.

How do we even know how a given judge will rule, on anything including abortion? This whole linkage of judicial nominations to abortions has always seemed very weak to me, too many variables.
Click to expand...
The ONLY way modern liberalism has been able to gain national traction is in the courts. NOT legislatively, through voter feedback, to actual elected officials.
 
40.png
jlw:
The ONLY way modern liberalism has been able to gain national traction is in the courts. NOT legislatively, through voter feedback, to actual elected officials.
Click to expand...
About the only issue you could legitimately make that case on would be abortion, and I personally don’t find anything particularly liberal in the pro-choice side (liberalism is generally about expanding the franchise of citizens and those deemed to have rights, pretty much the opposite of killing the unborn and denying their personhood).

The great triumphs of liberalism, i.e. environmental laws, fair labor standards, and so forth, have tended to be initiated by the legislative and exectutive branches, and only come before the courts when challenged on constitutional grounds. If upholding the constitutionality of these initiatives is “activist” judicialism, then I guess your statement makes sense, but this smacks of rhetorical strategy rather than substantive complaint.

And this STILL doesn’t address why conservatives (or anyone, for that matter) is so confident in the link between the president and expected judicial decisions. History suggests a far more tenuous link. Too tenuous for me to feel confident enough in it to make it a major part of my decisionmaking in voting, or to get too worked up over the judicial showdowns in Congress.
 
40.png
rlg94086:
We don’t know for certain how they will decide. Bush is doing his best to pick constructionists who won’t read protections into the Constitution that don’t exist. It’s the best we can do. What’s the alternative?
Click to expand...
Despite their protests to the contrary, judges do tend to follow the mood of the country, albeit with some lag. I think the best we can do is to focus on changing the country’s attitude toward abortion and other life issues rather than pin too much hope or despair on justices.

We’ve been seeing, for instance, a growing trend against abortion on demand in the public, and a steady chipping away at its legal foundations. I expect this will continue. If and when Roe v. Wade falls, I wouldn’t be too surprised if it’s a “liberal” judge that does it, either. Tthink of how the gay-marriage debate has been playing out. The anti-marriage amendment types are happy enough to keep it a state by state issue, which seems the smart thing to do. At some point I expect people will realize the same logic ought to apply to other controversial social questions, including abortion. Deciding such divisive issues by judicial fiat is profoundly undemocratic and corrosive to national unity.
 
philip,

That trend has been growing for 10 years or more–yet judges are blind to what it right about abortion, same sex marriage, etc…many judges fall towards the liberal side.
 
40.png
jlw:
k2 got suspended again???
Click to expand...
Why on earth?!! I’m one of the more knee-jerk bleeding heart leftist Dems on this Forum and I’ve never been threatened with suspension.

I hope she’ll be back soon.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top