OK, so these kids don’t have parents, at least not parents who care enough for their children to make their welfare a high priority. So why do you think these same uncaring parents are going to make good choices when you say…
Your arguments are usually much better than this. It is surely true that there are a number of parents who are insufficiently involved in their children’s education, just as it is true that there are others who would jump at the chance to improve it if that chance were provided them. What is the argument for denying the opportunity to those who would seize it?
There are some parents who simply don’t care; they may be druggies or absent. Other parents find themselves locked into a school system that is destructive to their children with no way out. At least give parents the option to take their children out of a failing school. That was the case in Washington DC. Parents loved vouchers. There were not enough for everybody, but everyone wanted the chance to opt out of the failing schools. The politicians took that option away from them.
It’s true, whenever the government gets involved, prices rise, whether it’s schools or housing. I would rather see government not involved in schools at all. It just makes things worse. The problem of course, is funding schools in low income areas, and for that there may be no other option than use of tax money. But if tax money is to be used, it should be directed to the end users—parents or students, to be used for the schools of their choice.
Ender;1192all the possible arguments said:
And on what you mention here, I have an actual question which is something I have never been able to understood from Republicans. Why republicans insist on fighting the abortion war with a waepon that everybody know it does not work? Passing bills that are clearly unconstitutional does not do absolutely anything to win the abortion war. Why in the world if we know that passing bills that restrict abortion on the first trimester are clearly unconstitutional and that each and every one of those bills will get challenged, the republicans inisist on using that as the pro life way to fight abortion?
Prolife people ought to look at all possibilities. Sometimes abortion restrictions do work out.
I did not intend my comment to be an argument against vouchers in general. I was just struck by the juxtaposition of those two paragraphs of JimG, one of which blames lack of good parenting, and the other of which trusts parents to make good decisions. Of course if parents are being good parents, they will be the ones who will make the best decisions regarding schools for their children. But that does not address the problem of children whose parent or parents do not bother to research the choices.
Abortion restructions work on the second trimester. In the first trimester not really. Undue burden. I didnt say that nothing should be done i am saying that republicans are doing it the wrong way and knowing is the wrong way.
Repubs, as a party, do not have standing to bring such a suit. I think if you look at recent decisions, you will find that four of the justices are totally protective of the RESULT in Roe, even though Ginsberg thinks it should have been legalized under a different rationale. The last abortion case before the Court was about partial-birth abortion. It was a prolife decision but only because Kennedy joined the four truly prolife justices in that one. But Kennedy has voted pro-abortion in other cases not involving partial birth abortion. So, it’s pretty clear Kennedy is abortion-on-demand excepting only for partial birth abortion. Thus, the pro-abortion on demand group (all Democrats except Kennedy) is a 5-4 majority.
Well, his initial election, yes. The 2012 election really had no bearing on abortion, as no Supreme Court Justices were/are expected to retire from 2013-2016 and it was unlikely anyway that Romney would really care to put a pro-life Justice on the Supreme Court as he was pro-choice himself and would likely care far more about getting a pro-big-corporation Justice confirmed through a Democratic Senate by making sure they were ambivalent on the life issue.
I won’t mention what I think about this question. What? I’d say that there are probably more Catholics that are Democratic than are Republicans. The dems are more in line with Catholic teaching.
I’ll differ with you. In 2012, most “white” Catholics voted Repub. The “Catholic vote” went Dem (barely) because of Hispanics. Look it up. You’ll see. There are those who say the Dems have even lost that edge. Maybe so, maybe not.
Yes. The official Democratic Party seems to have deliberately given Catholics the heave-ho by formally adopting abortion on demand in its party platform, and now it is the party of both abortion and gay marriage. Nothing Catholic there.
That is a rather interesting opinion. I know of nothing in the Republican platform that is mortally sinful, or that is objectively sinful.
You are very wrong.
You have invented this “fact.” First of all, except for Bork (and possibly Ginsburg) no justice had a well known position on abortion, and since Bork they have all been absolutely resolute in not intimating what their position may be.
Actually Reagan nominated Bork first, then Douglas Ginsburg, and finally Kennedy. All of this is available on Wikipedia.
You don’t seem to understand how the process works. Any person known to be “pro-life” (by which I assume you mean who opposed Roe) would be anathema to the Democrats, and since the Democrats controlled the Senate there was no possibility whatever that they would ever confirm such a nominee.
At this point I think facts are useless. Reagan nominated the fifth vote against Roe and the Democrats not only defeated the nomination but were brutal in the process. The Senate, controlled by Democrats, had made it clear what fate awaited another such nominee … and all of this is Reagan’s fault.
A justice’s position on abortion did not become significant until after Roe, before then it simply was not an issue.
Yep, pretty much how it happened.
True, what you said was that Rehnquist was nominated by a Democrat, which pretty much set the tone for the rest of your assertions.
The presence of the justices appointed by Democrat presidents is apparently an irrelevant factoid. Nothing to see here, folks, move along …