Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Path_Finder]

Like President GW Bush, Senator McCain did not support a ‘litmus test’ for Supreme Court Justices. Here’s what he said during a debate with then Senator Obama.

McCAIN: I would never, and have never in all the years I’ve been there, imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the Court. That’s not appropriate to do.
Q: But you don’t want Roe v. Wade to be overturned?
McCAIN: I thought it was a bad decision. I think that decision should rest in the hands of the states. I’m a federalist. And I believe strongly that we should have nominees to the Supreme Court based on their qualifications rather than any litmus test. They should be judged on their qualifications. I will find the best people in America who have a history of strict adherence to the Constitution. And not legislating from the bench.
Q: Even if it was someone who had a history of being for abortion rights?
McCAIN: I would consider anyone on their qualifications. Someone who has supported Roe v. Wade, that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test

Actually there is nothing wrong with the States legislating because that’s the way the Constitution was created. The Federal Government only should be involved in collecting taxes and providing national defense and issues like that.

It is something that someone is judged on the negative on the above quotes by John McCain. It seems like we are trying to make square pegs fit into round holes.

I don’t think “qualifications” above means McCain is looking for someone specifically that supported Roe v. Wade, only that that it is among their views, qualifications. He says he would not impose a litmus test. It’s not totally clear as to his intent.

 

[Al_Moritz]

I find that Democrat Catholics tend to focus on the peripheral issues, the exceptions, etc. to divert attention away from the issues they clearly do not want to discuss. If I was a Catholic Democrat, I wouldn’t want to discuss abortion either. If I was a Democrat catholic I’d be trying to bring up bogus charges against the Mormon church too - in an effort to avoid looking at my own party.

Ishii

I find that Republican Catholics tend to focus on the alleged principles, the platform of their party etc, to divert attention away from the actual dismal reality regarding Republicans and abortion (at least on the federal level, state level is a different matter) they clearly do not want to discuss. If I was a Catholic Republican, I wouldn’t want to discuss the mere lip service to the issue, the fact that Planned Parenthood vs. Casey affirmed Roe v. Wade under 8 out of 9 Republican appointed Supreme Court judges 1), the fact that Chief Justice Roberts affirms Roe v. Wade as ‘settled law’ 2) etc., either. If I was a Republican Catholic I’d be trying to divert from all these problems too – in an effort to avoid looking at my own party.

As we have seen in this thread.

---

1. From:
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

The case was a seminal one in the history of abortion decisions in the United States. It was the first case that provided an opportunity to overturn Roe since the two liberal Justices, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, were replaced with the Bush-appointed Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Both were viewed as ostensible conservatives compared to their predecessors. This left the Court with eight Republican-appointed justices—six of whom had been appointed by Presidents Reagan or Bush, both of whom were well known for their opposition to Roe. Finally, the only remaining Democratic appointee—Justice Byron White—had been one of the two dissenters from the original Roe decision.

At this point, only two of the Justices were obvious supporters of Roe v. Wade: Blackmun, the author of Roe, and Stevens, who had joined opinions specifically reaffirming Roe in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Given these circumstances, some pro-choice advocates expected Roe to be overruled.

1. Republican-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing:

Link:
gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm

Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
**Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land. **It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Actually there is nothing wrong with the States legislating because that’s the way the Constitution was created. The Federal Government only should be involved in collecting taxes and providing national defense and issues like that.

It is something that someone is judged on the negative on the above quotes by John McCain. It seems like we are trying to make square pegs fit into round holes.

I don’t think “qualifications” above means McCain is looking for someone specifically that supported Roe v. Wade, only that that it is among their views, qualifications. He says he would not impose a litmus test. It’s not totally clear as to his intent.

To my point:
Excuses, excuses, excuses . . .

 

[Path_Finder]

To my point:
Excuses, excuses, excuses . . .

No excuses here, that is your projection.

It’s the Constitution, that’s no excuse.

Speaking of excuses, some people bend words all over to support evil.

Was that your only contribution?? Tsk, Tsk, Tsk.

 

[saintjohnxxiii]

I find that Republican Catholics tend to focus on the alleged principles, the platform of their party etc, to divert attention away from the actual dismal reality regarding Republicans and abortion (at least on the federal level, state level is a different matter) they clearly do not want to discuss. If I was a Catholic Republican, I wouldn’t want to discuss the mere lip service to the issue, the fact that Planned Parenthood vs. Casey affirmed Roe v. Wade under 8 out of 9 Republican appointed Supreme Court judges 1), the fact that Chief Justice Roberts affirms Roe v. Wade as ‘settled law’ 2) etc., either. If I was a Republican Catholic I’d be trying to divert from all these problems too – in an effort to avoid looking at my own party.

As we have seen in this thread.

---

1. From:
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

The case was a seminal one in the history of abortion decisions in the United States. It was the first case that provided an opportunity to overturn Roe since the two liberal Justices, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, were replaced with the Bush-appointed Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Both were viewed as ostensible conservatives compared to their predecessors. This left the Court with eight Republican-appointed justices—six of whom had been appointed by Presidents Reagan or Bush, both of whom were well known for their opposition to Roe. Finally, the only remaining Democratic appointee—Justice Byron White—had been one of the two dissenters from the original Roe decision.

At this point, only two of the Justices were obvious supporters of Roe v. Wade: Blackmun, the author of Roe, and Stevens, who had joined opinions specifically reaffirming Roe in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Given these circumstances, some pro-choice advocates expected Roe to be overruled.

1. Republican-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing:

Link:
gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm

Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
**Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land. **It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.

So if I understand you correctly you justify a vote for Pres. Obama because you distrust Federal Republicans commitment to ending abortion.

If you are in favor of abortion, that is one thing, but if you are against it, I don’t see the logic in voting for a person who has the strongest voting record in favor it?

Explain to me that not believing Federal Republicans on the abortion issue means voting for a Democratic President who nobody can dispute is strongly in favor of abortion?

 

[Path_Finder]

So you are saying you will vote for Republicans at the State Level??

Closed down numerous abortion clinics and defunded a favorite of the Democratic Party, Planned Parenthood.

" If I was a Catholic Republican, I wouldn’t want to discuss the mere lip service to the issue,"

But it is NOT mere lip service since things have been accomplished at the State Level and Nationally, Pro Life TO THE POINT, has grown more popular nationally.

If I were a Catholic Democrat, I would be trying to hide the shame of supporting such horrors inflicted on the unborn by always cherry picking criticisms of the Republican Party.

GOP Succeeds in Shutting Down Abortion Clinics
huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/26/abortion-clinic-closures_n_3804529.html?utm_hp_ref=tw

I find that Republican Catholics tend to focus on the alleged principles, the platform of their party etc, to divert attention away from the actual dismal reality regarding Republicans and abortion (at least on the federal level, state level is a different matter) they clearly do not want to discuss. If I was a Catholic Republican, I wouldn’t want to discuss the mere lip service to the issue, the fact that Planned Parenthood vs. Casey affirmed Roe v. Wade under 8 out of 9 Republican appointed Supreme Court judges 1), the fact that Chief Justice Roberts affirms Roe v. Wade as ‘settled law’ 2) etc., either. If I was a Republican Catholic I’d be trying to divert from all these problems too – in an effort to avoid looking at my own party.

As we have seen in this thread.

---

1. From:
   en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

The case was a seminal one in the history of abortion decisions in the United States. It was the first case that provided an opportunity to overturn Roe since the two liberal Justices, William Brennan and Thurgood Marshall, were replaced with the Bush-appointed Justices David Souter and Clarence Thomas. Both were viewed as ostensible conservatives compared to their predecessors. This left the Court with eight Republican-appointed justices—six of whom had been appointed by Presidents Reagan or Bush, both of whom were well known for their opposition to Roe. Finally, the only remaining Democratic appointee—Justice Byron White—had been one of the two dissenters from the original Roe decision.

At this point, only two of the Justices were obvious supporters of Roe v. Wade: Blackmun, the author of Roe, and Stevens, who had joined opinions specifically reaffirming Roe in City of Akron v. Akron Center for Reproductive Health and Thornburgh v. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Given these circumstances, some pro-choice advocates expected Roe to be overruled.

1. Republican-appointed Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts confirmation hearing:

Link:
gpo.gov:80/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-108shrg92548/html/CHRG-108shrg92548.htm

Senator Durbin. Understood. I have been an attorney,
represented a client, sometimes argued a position that I did
not necessarily buy, personally. And so I am asking you today
what is your position on Roe v. Wade?
**Mr. Roberts. I don’t–Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the
land. **It is not–it’s a little more than settled. It was
reaffirmed in the face of a challenge that it should be
overruled in the Casey decision. Accordingly, it’s the settled
law of the land. There’s nothing in my personal views that
would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that
precedent, as well as Casey.

 

[Al_Moritz]

So you are saying you will vote for Republicans at the State Level??

Very possibly, yes. See the last paragraph of my post way back in this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12242681&postcount=548

The post also expands a bit on the powerplay and baiting of gullible voters by Republicans when it comes to the federal level.

 

[Crossbones]

I stand behind my comments, Crossbones. What has the Mormon church done to advance the cause of abortion compared to the Democrat party? There is no comparison. It has since been shown that the Mormon church is NOT pro-abortion.

I find that Democrat Catholics tend to focus on the peripheral issues, the exceptions, etc. to divert attention away from the issues they clearly do not want to discuss. If I was a Catholic Democrat, I wouldn’t want to discuss abortion either. If I was a Democrat catholic I’d be trying to bring up bogus charges against the Mormon church too - in an effort to avoid looking at my own party.

Ishii

You asked how many Mormons elected to public office supported abortion, with the implication that Governor Romney would be reliable on this issue because of his faith tradition. But I pointed out two prominent Mormons that supported abortion, including Governor Romney.

This isn’t arguing on the peripheral. It is essential for pro-life supporters to make correct points and this particular argument wasn’t strong. Often times, I see people in this forum making arguments that are well thought out and very compelling and others are less so. The less so arguments really weaken the strong arguments. It is reasonable that a voter would a) have doubts about Governor Romney’s pro-life record, b) have doubts about the Republican sincerity to address the issue, c) see restrictions of abortion as a violation of the woman’s right to control her own body.

Now, my take is that in a) or b), the view is valid. Governor Romney certainly seemed to change his views on abortion based on political expediency and the Republican track record on abortion from ~1980 to ~2010 was not very strong. To me, the issue should be addressed in pointing out the progress made at the state level the last few years and by nominating someone with a very strong pro-life track record for the Presidency in 2016. Point c) is also a valid concern, but it can be pointed out that, by balancing rights, the child’s right to life outweighs the woman’s right to control her own body and the Republican party will work to pass legislation to support the pregnant woman.

However, there is a lack of tolerance for this level of disagreement to the point where there is a general slinging of “argument on the periphery”, calling people “Democrats” with the implication of that being a slur, an enhanced view of their ability to interpret Church teaching of voting. None of this is going to convince a voter to change their minds. On the other hand, I’ve seen posters (including yourself) make very compelling arguments that will change people’s minds. I’d like to see more of the latter.

 

[Crossbones]

No, I judge them on their words.

Personally, I think many organizations, including Planned Parenthood, use the fear of the Republican candidate to raise funds from supporters.

“Look, the boogeyman…give me money to protect me from the Boogeyman!”

 

[Crossbones]

No reason to go back 200 posts and somehow your judging what is in people’s hearts and your opinion trumps facts.

President of the Massachusetts Citizens for Life:

I think this dispels the myth now.

Direct quotes aren’t opinions; they are direct quotes.

In 2004 and 2008, both Republican presidential candidates spoke on how they won’t have litmus tests for Supreme Court justices. On the other hand, this is what Senator Kerry said at the same debate that President Bush talked on litmus tests:

“I’ll answer it straight to America. I’m not going to appoint a judge to the Court who’s going to undo a constitutional right, whether it’s the 1st Amendment, or the 5th Amendment, or some other right that’s given under our Constitution. And I believe that the right of choice is a constitutional right.”

Is it unreasonable that I expect the Republican candidate to have a strong pro-life record and make statements with that level of conviction? If not, why not?

And, furthermore, how many pro-life voters decide that the Republicans won’t act on abortion and base their votes on other issues? I suggest (and now, this is my opinion) a great many do. But the Republicans have treated their pro-life constituency almost as an embarrassment for the last 30 years. Only recently have we seen changes in that regards, but maybe losing the popular vote in the last 5 of 6 presidential elections makes you realize there aren’t enough bankers to get you elected.

 

[Al_Moritz]

Personally, I think many organizations, including Planned Parenthood, use the fear of the Republican candidate to raise funds from supporters.

“Look, the boogeyman…give me money to protect me from the Boogeyman!”

Precisely.

 

[ishii]

You asked how many Mormons elected to public office supported abortion, with the implication that Governor Romney would be reliable on this issue because of his faith tradition. But I pointed out two prominent Mormons that supported abortion, including Governor Romney.
.

Well, just to clarify - I was comparing/contrasting the effect Mormons have on abortion rights with that of Democrats. And there is no comparison. I never alleged in any of my posts that there were no pro-abortion Mormons.

Ishii

 

[Crossbones]

Well, just to clarify - I was comparing/contrasting the effect Mormons have on abortion rights with that of Democrats. And there is no comparison. I never alleged in any of my posts that there were no pro-abortion Mormons.

Ishii

Ok, thank you for clarifying. Have a good day, Ishii.

 

[Al_Moritz]

And, furthermore, how many pro-life voters decide that the Republicans won’t act on abortion and base their votes on other issues? I suggest (and now, this is my opinion) a great many do.

Including me.

But the Republicans have treated their pro-life constituency almost as an embarrassment for the last 30 years.

Or as politically important voting block that can be conveniently fooled because they are so gullible:

‘Or they feared the political backlash it would generate’: that hits the nail on the head. Republicans are about power first, morals second. They know full well that they would lose power were they to tackle the abortion issue nationally. They would keep the ‘social conservative’ votes, but lose a lot of others. They only tackle abortion on the state level in states where they have nothing to fear power-wise.

To vote for Republicans nationally just because of abortion is gullible. But that is precisely the vote that Republicans cynically count on. They desperately need the ‘social conservative’ vote, that’s why they always talk about wanting to do something about abortion on the national level. But they will never actually do anything about it for the reason stated above, because they don’t want to lose the other votes.

 

[Al_Moritz]

But the Republicans have treated their pro-life constituency almost as an embarrassment for the last 30 years. Only recently have we seen changes in that regards,

Changes on the state level, yes. And that’s where, in some states, voting Republican on that issue actually may make sense or perhaps even be imperative. On the national level, no.

 

[estesbob]

We have now entered the bizzarro world of Catholic Democrats,

Those of us involved in the pro-life ministry are dupes

Republicans lie about being pro-life

We can ignore the Democrat Party Platform

Members of the Magisterium are merely expressing their non-binding opinion BUT my personal interpretation of one line from Faithful Citizenship and a one line footnote from a letter by Benedict XVI should be accepted by all.

Archbishop Chaput nailed it:

Obviously, we have other important issues facing us this fall: the economy, the war in Iraq, immigration justice. But we can’t build a healthy society while ignoring the routine and very profitable legalized homicide that goes on every day against America’s unborn children. The right to life is foundational. Every other right depends on it. Efforts to reduce abortions, or to create alternatives to abortion, or to foster an environment where more women will choose to keep their unborn child, can have great merit–but not if they serve to cover over or distract from the brutality and fundamental injustice of abortion itself. We should remember that one of the crucial things that set early Christians apart from the pagan culture around them was their rejection of abortion and infanticide.* Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.***

Read more: beliefnet.com/columnists/pontifications/2008/08/while-cardinal-george-the-pres.html#ixzz3BnBuU2Vp

 

[Al_Moritz]

Archbishop Chaput nailed it:

…]Yet for thirty-five years I’ve watched prominent “pro-choice” Catholics justify themselves with the kind of moral and verbal gymnastics that should qualify as an Olympic event. All they’ve really done is capitulate to Roe v. Wade.

False. Republicans, including conservative Supreme Court justices, have capitulated to Roe v. Wade, see my posts above for evidence.

And no, not all Catholics who vote Democrat are “pro-choice” Catholics, but we have discussed that before.

 

[Al_Moritz]

False. Republicans, including conservative Supreme Court justices, have capitulated to Roe v. Wade, see my posts above for evidence.

And no, not all Catholics who vote Democrat are “pro-choice” Catholics, but we have discussed that before.

 

[estesbob]

False. Republicans, including conservative Supreme Court justices, have capitulated to Roe v. Wade, see my posts above for evidence.

And no, not all Catholics who vote Democrat are “pro-choice” Catholics, but we have discussed that before.

We have now entered the bizzarro world of Catholic Democrats,

Those of us involved in the pro-life ministry are dupes

Republicans lie about being pro-life

We can ignore the Democrat Party Platform

Members of the Magisterium are merely expressing their non-binding opinion BUT my personal interpretation of one line from Faithful Citizenship and a one line footnote from a letter by Benedict XVI should be accepted by all.

 

[Path_Finder]

Including me.

Or as politically important voting block that can be conveniently fooled because they are so gullible:

It was the Balanced Budget amendment a few years ago that was held up so Planned Parenthood could be funded. That was not the Republicans doing that.

It is the same for Rand Paul’s personhood legislation in the US Senate, voted down, didn’t have the support.

---

Again, the Constitution delegates powers to the State.

It’s the US Dept. of Justice that has come out against so many actions by individual states to limit abortion.