Can Catholics Vote Democrat?

[Crossbones]

On the issue of trustworthiness of Republicans on the issue of abortion:

I fail to understand why not trusting that someone will change things for the better justifies voting for someone promising to change things for the worse.

As for litmus tests:

The issue of only appointing justices to the Supreme Court who promise to overturn Roe v. Wade is a political trap often used in confirmation hearings. One of the requirements of a Supreme Court Justice is to be fair and impartial in interpreting law. However, if a Supreme Court Justice Nominee promises to overturn Roe v. Wade, they are essentially making a judgement about a future case and demonstrating bias and a lack of impartiality.

A justice who does not promise to overturn Roe v. Wade might do so. A justice who promises to overturn Roe v. Wade will absolutely not do so, as they will not be confirmed.

Also, Roe v. Wade, legally speaking, is settled law. It’s nonsense law based on the ridiculous and unscientific Magic Vagina Hypothesis, but it’s still settled law. The Supreme Court is and always will be hesitant to reverse a past decision, even a bad one, because doing so reduces an individual’s ability to accurately predict the consequences of her or his actions.

The only realistic way for abortion to become illegal is via constitutional amendment, which is admittedly a long shot. However, there are still a number of things that can be done at the federal level to reduce the occurrence of abortion. You could reduce federal funding for abortion. You could ban abortion on military bases. You could repeal laws that require private citizens to unwillingly fund abortion. You could even prohibit institutions receiving federal funding from publicly endorsing abortion, thereby preventing shameful displays like PBS’s partial-birth abortion propaganda documentary “After Tiller” (breitbart.com/Big-Government/2014/08/27/Taxpayer-Funded-PBS-To-Air-After-Tiller-Late-Term-Abortion-Propaganda-Film-on-Labor-Day).

I think that if the only issue you cared about was abortion, then you would vote Republican and take the chance that they would do something. Most people care about many issues, so if you feel one party is going to be against you on that issue and the other party is going to do nothing on that issue, then there is no sense in using that as a criteria to base your voting. For example, if you were for single payer healthcare, some Democrats may say they support, Republicans certainly don’t, but there is no chance a Democrat can actually implement it, so why base your vote on it and maybe you move onto to think tax cuts would be a good idea and you know the Republicans would do that and hence, you would vote for Republicans despite their opposition to single payer health care. While some here will argue that the only issue to vote on is abortion, that is only a small percentage of the total electorate.

If your argument about litmus tests were correct, then you wouldn’t see a Senator Kerry make this statement “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.”

 

[Crossbones]

Calling people “Democrats” a slur??

By the way, Judge Bork, pro-life Supreme Court Nominee, struck down by the Democrats, Ted Kennedy famously spoke out against him in Robert Bork’s America.

Democrat: It’s meant as a slur. Most of the people questioning the Republicans past support or rather lack of support want to see the Republican party changed into something positive, but instead they are all Democrats.

Bork: Yes,he didn’t get approved and frankly, I have no problem with that. He was a poor choice, with an arrogant and unusual view on the law. Being right on abortion doesn’t take that away. That said, it didn’t mean that President Reagan needed to nominate Justice O’Conner and Kennedy and President Bush didn’t need to nominate Justice Souter. Bork was an overreach on the part of Reagan in my opinion.

 

[estesbob]

I think that if the only issue you cared about was abortion, then you would vote Republican and take the chance that they would do something. Most people care about many issues, so if you feel one party is going to be against you on that issue and the other party is going to do nothing on that issue, then there is no sense in using that as a criteria to base your voting. For example, if you were for single payer healthcare, some Democrats may say they support, Republicans certainly don’t, but there is no chance a Democrat can actually implement it, so why base your vote on it and maybe you move onto to think tax cuts would be a good idea and you know the Republicans would do that and hence, you would vote for Republicans despite their opposition to single payer health care. While some here will argue that the only issue to vote on is abortion, that is only a small percentage of the total electorate.

If your argument about litmus tests were correct, then you wouldn’t see a Senator Kerry make this statement “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.”

So what issues are more important than the right to life?

 

[Path_Finder]

Democrat: It’s meant as a slur. Most of the people questioning the Republicans past support or rather lack of support want to see the Republican party changed into something positive, but instead they are all Democrats.

Bork: Yes,he didn’t get approved and frankly, I have no problem with that. He was a poor choice, with an arrogant and unusual view on the law. Being right on abortion doesn’t take that away. That said, it didn’t mean that President Reagan needed to nominate Justice O’Conner and Kennedy and President Bush didn’t need to nominate Justice Souter. Bork was an overreach on the part of Reagan in my opinion.

Please point to a source that says “Democrat” is a slur, I doubt if you can come up with one thus proving your point is absurd.

And again, control of the House, likely control of the Senate coming up, control of about 30 governorships, control of multiple legislatures. Sounds like a lot of support and I didn’t realize bankers ran Oklahoma and Tennessee.

 

[Crossbones]

verbal gymnastics

Would ‘litmus tests’ count as verbal gymnastics?

Would direct quotes from Republican Presidential candidates count as verbal gymnastics?

Would a 12 year run of Republican Presidents nominating five Supreme Court justices and 3 of them voting to uphold Roe v. Wave count as gymnastics?

If the Republicans want the support of the pro-life community, they need to show a strong conviction to supporting it. They have failed to do so nationally for 35 years and only recently have done so at the state level. Maybe the fellows at the state level are waking up to the fact that they are losing these pro-life voters and are actually now acting on this issue because of it. So, I’ll tell you what: you vote Republican no matter what and I’ll hold their feet to the fire by telling them I haven’t decided and a strong commitment to pro-life issues will be the key factor in gaining my vote. Good cop, bad cop.

 

[CrossofChrist]

Really? What other choices have been proposed except abortion? Do you think men should have the right to choose and rape women? Should adults have the right to sexually molest children if they choose? Should the South have been able to stay pro-choice on the issue of slavery? Exactly what other choice besides abortion are we talking about?

The three things I say may seem extreme, yet there is no “pro-choice” argument that can be made for abortion that cannot be made for them as well, at least without avoiding when a human has human rights. Does 3/5ths a person have his own rights or can he be owned?

No, I think pro-choice is the most illogical of all positions.

:clapping::clapping::clapping:

 

[Brandall]

Would ‘litmus tests’ count as verbal gymnastics?

Would direct quotes from Republican Presidential candidates count as verbal gymnastics?

Would a 12 year run of Republican Presidents nominating five Supreme Court justices and 3 of them voting to uphold Roe v. Wave count as gymnastics?

If the Republicans want the support of the pro-life community, they need to show a strong conviction to supporting it. They have failed to do so nationally for 35 years and only recently have done so at the state level. Maybe the fellows at the state level are waking up to the fact that they are losing these pro-life voters and are actually now acting on this issue because of it. So, I’ll tell you what: you vote Republican no matter what and I’ll hold their feet to the fire by telling them I haven’t decided and a strong commitment to pro-life issues will be the key factor in gaining my vote. Good cop, bad cop.

There is certainly no reason for the democrat party to change. They support abortion and you gladly line up to give them your vote. If you truly believe that abortion is wrong, then it is on you to hold your candidates accountable. In many states, Catholics could carry the vote. Yet you vote for ones that support literally the most evil policy in the history of the world. Enough of what you think about what republican candidates are or are not. What are you?

 

[estesbob]

Would ‘litmus tests’ count as verbal gymnastics?

Would direct quotes from Republican Presidential candidates count as verbal gymnastics?

Would a 12 year run of Republican Presidents nominating five Supreme Court justices and 3 of them voting to uphold Roe v. Wave count as gymnastics?

If the Republicans want the support of the pro-life community, they need to show a strong conviction to supporting it. They have failed to do so nationally for 35 years and only recently have done so at the state level. Maybe the fellows at the state level are waking up to the fact that they are losing these pro-life voters and are actually now acting on this issue because of it. So, I’ll tell you what: you vote Republican no matter what and I’ll hold their feet to the fire by telling them I haven’t decided and a strong commitment to pro-life issues will be the key factor in gaining my vote. Good cop, bad cop.

The Democrat Party has stood in almost unanimous opposition to every attempt to limit abortion for the lost 35 years and you blame the Republicans . Mental gymnastics indeed.

 

[Crossbones]

The Democrat Party has stood in almost unanimous opposition to every attempt to limit abortion for the lost 35 years and you blame the Republicans . Mental gymnastics indeed.

Well, I pointed out how the Republicans have failed miserably on this issue, how the support from their candidates for the highest offices in the land have been lukewarm at best, how they failed to select Supreme Court justices who don’t take the same view as their ‘platform’, how they failed to pass meaningful legislation when they had the opportunity. It’s funny how President GW Bush can get his war with Iraq and tax cuts, but can’t pass meaningful pro-life legislation. It shows where the priorities have been, and it hasn’t been on pro-life issues.

Kind of like being the Washington Generals playing the Harlem Globetrotters. It’s like the Republicans agree to lose on the issue. But I guess the Democrats are just really, really good politicians then.

 

[ishii]

Democrat: It’s meant as a slur. Most of the people questioning the Republicans past support or rather lack of support want to see the Republican party changed into something positive, but instead they are all Democrats.

Bork: Yes,he didn’t get approved and frankly, I have no problem with that. He was a poor choice, with an arrogant and unusual view on the law. Being right on abortion doesn’t take that away. That said, it didn’t mean that President Reagan needed to nominate Justice O’Conner and Kennedy and President Bush didn’t need to nominate Justice Souter. Bork was an overreach on the part of Reagan in my opinion.

There is a bit more to the discussion of supreme court justice nominations of Reagan and Bush than would be helpful. Its important to recall the political situation when Reagan nominated Bork and Kennedy. And when Bush nominated Souter. All three came at a time when Democrats were really “out to get” the supreme court nominees and the environment was hyper partisan. I think that in balance for many was indeed the Roe V Wade decision itself. Democrats have always fought to protect that decision.

Recall also that Souter was not the first choice - and also that he was highly recommended by the chief of staff for Bush - John Sununu. There really is no way to guarantee a good supreme court justice. Kennedy was the replacement for Bork, right? In any event, its not an exact science - like a simple matter of if the GOP was serious they’d simply nominate justices committed to overturning Roe V Wade. It doesn’t work like that.

Ishii

 

[ishii]

Would a 12 year run of Republican Presidents nominating five Supreme Court justices and 3 of them voting to uphold Roe v. Wave count as gymnastics?
.

Unfair, Crossbones. I’ll grant you Sandra Day O’Connor, but Souter and Kennedy were probably unavoidable considering the nature of the Senate - with Teddy Kennedy in charge. I think the word “Bork” became a verb then: meaning, “we’re going to “Bork” the next nominee” (i.e. smear him/her unfairly). GOP perfect? No. Political mistakes? Yes. Lack of courage? Yes. Not good at playing cutthroat politics? Yes.

But they are not 100% responsible for the survival of Roe V Wade. You can blame that on the Democrats, who, incidentally, do not deserve one vote of Catholics.

Ishii

 

[Crossbones]

There is a bit more to the discussion of supreme court justice nominations of Reagan and Bush than would be helpful. Its important to recall the political situation when Reagan nominated Bork and Kennedy. And when Bush nominated Souter. All three came at a time when Democrats were really “out to get” the supreme court nominees and the environment was hyper partisan. I think that in balance for many was indeed the Roe V Wade decision itself. Democrats have always fought to protect that decision.

Recall also that Souter was not the first choice - and also that he was highly recommended by the chief of staff for Bush - John Sununu. There really is no way to guarantee a good supreme court justice. Kennedy was the replacement for Bork, right? In any event, its not an exact science - like a simple matter of if the GOP was serious they’d simply nominate justices committed to overturning Roe V Wade. It doesn’t work like that.

Ishii

Hi Ishii,

Of course, we’ve discussed this before and I appreciate your point of view on it. You are very forgiving of the failures of President Reagan and Bush on this and I am much less so. I think President Reagan badly miscalculated on Judge Bork; he never should have nominated him. He added to the mistake by nominated Douglas Ginsburg and then Kennedy. Remember Ginsburg was the fellow that dropped out because of marijuana use. It was a pretty bad flub in my opinion when choosing a nominee that was incredibly important to the pro-life movement. President Bush did manage to get Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court and that was quite a fight, so you have to wonder why he just didn’t take on the fight sooner with the replacement to Justice Brennan.

But the bigger picture here is that I am asked to vote on this issue and I have watched the Republicans fail on this issue for many years. We must agree that comments about litmus tests don’t give strong support. We must agree that President GW Bush put forth an agenda where pro-life issues were placed behind the Iraq War and Social Security Reform. The Republicans MUST deliver on these issues or risk losing more pro-life voters who will then base their votes on other issues. We are seeing positive progress at the state level. And, as I said earlier, the people who point out these failures are attempting to correct what’s gone wrong, but are repeated derided on this forum. I’m reminded of President Theodore Roosevelt who often went up against his own party machine realizing that if the issues weren’t addressed (and the machine did not want them addressed), the Republicans would lose the support of the general populace. We’re facing the same thing here.

 

[Path_Finder]

bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-26020222

The highest abortion rates were in New York, Maryland, Washington DC, Delaware and New Jersey.

Blue, Blue, Blue, Blue and Blue.

The lowest were in Wyoming, Mississippi, South Dakota, Kentucky and Missouri.

Red, Red, Red, Red and Red.

Any questions?

 

[ishii]

Hi Ishii,

Of course, we’ve discussed this before and I appreciate your point of view on it. You are very forgiving of the failures of President Reagan and Bush on this and I am much less so. I think President Reagan badly miscalculated on Judge Bork; he never should have nominated him. He added to the mistake by nominated Douglas Ginsburg and then Kennedy. Remember Ginsburg was the fellow that dropped out because of marijuana use. It was a pretty bad flub in my opinion when choosing a nominee that was incredibly important to the pro-life movement. President Bush did manage to get Justice Thomas on the Supreme Court and that was quite a fight, so you have to wonder why he just didn’t take on the fight sooner with the replacement to Justice Brennan.

But the bigger picture here is that I am asked to vote on this issue and I have watched the Republicans fail on this issue for many years. We must agree that comments about litmus tests don’t give strong support. We must agree that President GW Bush put forth an agenda where pro-life issues were placed behind the Iraq War and Social Security Reform. The Republicans MUST deliver on these issues or risk losing more pro-life voters who will then base their votes on other issues. We are seeing positive progress at the state level. And, as I said earlier, the people who point out these failures are attempting to correct what’s gone wrong, but are repeated derided on this forum. I’m reminded of President Theodore Roosevelt who often went up against his own party machine realizing that if the issues weren’t addressed (and the machine did not want them addressed), the Republicans would lose the support of the general populace. We’re facing the same thing here.

I appreciate your comments. I think the Republicans haven’t been perfect. I don’t know the inner workings of the decisions on who to nominate. But let’s focus on what the GOP has gotten right: Antonin Scalia. Clarence Thomas. Thomas Alito. Roberts - he did admit that Roe V Wade was “settle law” or law of the land? - but what if he had said, “I believe in overturning Roe V Wade.” Would he have survived? Maybe, maybe not. Would the Democrats have filibustered his nomination? Who knows. The point is, there is much more to the discussion than a simplistic analysis: “the GOP had power for 12 yeas and didn’t overturn Roe V Wade, therefore they’re not serious.” Politics is unpredictable and dirty. And complicated. That said, I would trust the GOP much, much more on supreme court nominees than leaving it up to the Democrats. (as I’m sure you’d agree). Hold the GOP’s feet to the fire. Isn’t that what we did with the Harriet Myers pick?

Did Bush make a greater effort and expend more political capital on the Iraq war and war on terrorism? Yes. Did he view that as more urgent than pursuing pro-life legislation in congress? Yes. Can you provide a realistic scenario that serious pro-life legislation would have passed if Bush has made a greater effort? I’m all ears.

Ishii

 

[Crossbones]

I appreciate your comments. I think the Republicans haven’t been perfect. I don’t know the inner workings of the decisions on who to nominate. But let’s focus on what the GOP has gotten right: Antonin Scalia. Clarence Thomas. Thomas Alito. Roberts - he did admit that Roe V Wade was “settle law” or law of the land? - but what if he had said, “I believe in overturning Roe V Wade.” Would he have survived? Maybe, maybe not. Would the Democrats have filibustered his nomination? Who knows. The point is, there is much more to the discussion than a simplistic analysis: “the GOP had power for 12 yeas and didn’t overturn Roe V Wade, therefore they’re not serious.” Politics is unpredictable and dirty. And complicated. That said, I would trust the GOP much, much more on supreme court nominees than leaving it up to the Democrats. (as I’m sure you’d agree). Hold the GOP’s feet to the fire. Isn’t that what we did with the Harriet Myers pick?

Did Bush make a greater effort and expend more political capital on the Iraq war and war on terrorism? Yes. Did he view that as more urgent than pursuing pro-life legislation in congress? Yes. Can you provide a realistic scenario that serious pro-life legislation would have passed if Bush has made a greater effort? I’m all ears.

Ishii

With regards to Justice Alito and Justice Roberts, I am prepared to take a wait and see attitude. Both haven’t had the chance (a la Justice Kennedy) to prove themselves yet, so even though Roberts said some things that might be unsettling, I will wait and hope for the best.

On the legislative front, perhaps President Bush and the Congressional leaders could have pushed forward an agenda that we are seeing at the state level now. I don’t know what the current secret of success is as the state I follow most closely (Ohio) totally butchered their attempt where a promising bill that passed the House did not even get taking up in the Republican controlled Senate for reasons I fail to understand. Maybe you can tell me how the politics are working in these other states that this is happening now.

 

[Jerurussia]

Phones are tapped at an unprecedented rate after Obama promised to rescind this program yet the government fails to pick up on the Boston bombers after being alerted by Russia to their violent threats. Democrat “Arab Spring” stage mothers eradicate Libya’s non-threatening leader who was secretly cooperating with the USA and emplace the Muslim Brotherhood, literally allies of NAZI Germany. Too little too late and WHOOPS! The khaki-clad president assures us we have ten million new jobs, a non-policy when dozens of Christians are beheaded daily, and sanctions for Russia-somehow-when Obama’s didn’t-know-the-mike-was-live comment to Putin essentially invited this predation because, as Obama overtly-covertly explained, he wasn’t up for election anymore. Putin replies with the threat of nukes. And he’s probably the nice guy in today’s Russia.

The rich are richer, the poor are so poor the Congressional Black Caucus noted that if this administration were headed by a white leader (and that presumes Soros & Sons aren’t in control of the decline) there’d be hell to pay. The seven-billion for “Hardest Hit” mortgage relief was never administered, thousands of teen pre-voters were slipped across the border in plain sight and next the beheadings are promised for America as ISIS awaits the cue to finish the job the Democrats started. No social justice anywhere in the world death-kissed by Democrats, and no peace. America is aborted. Which part of this is “Catholic?”

The **only **means to a period of peace is the collegial consecration of Russia to the Immaculate Heart, led by Peter, by all bishops in their respective cathedrals, at one time, in a solemn, public ceremony for the conversion of that nation. THIS is “Catholic.”

 

[Al_Moritz]

I don’t know the inner workings of the decisions on who to nominate. But let’s focus on what the GOP has gotten right: Antonin Scalia. Clarence Thomas. Thomas Alito. Roberts - he did admit that Roe V Wade was “settle law” or law of the land? - but what if he had said, “I believe in overturning Roe V Wade.” Would he have survived? Maybe, maybe not. Would the Democrats have filibustered his nomination? Who knows.

Here is the text from the 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.

---

If Roberts just wanted to evade he might have said, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.”, and left it at that. Yet he goes on about Casey, mentioning it twice (!) and about precedent set by both decisions. Only a man with conviction speaks like that.

See also:
John Roberts in Alito Confirmation Hearings

where he doubles down.

 

[Crossbones]

Here is the text from the 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.

---

If Roberts just wanted to evade he might have said, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.”, and left it at that. Yet he goes on about Casey, mentioning it twice (!) and about precedent set by both decisions. Only a man with conviction speaks like that.

See also:
John Roberts in Alito Confirmation Hearings

where he doubles down.

Oof. That’s a kick in the gut. Much worse than what I remember. I had forgotten he brought up Casey as some sort of confirmation of Roe.

 

[Jerurussia]

Hearings? We don’t need no stinkin’ hearings! Here’s how to get on the Supreme Court. You shove around the American Medical Association/AMA and get them to reverse their pronouncement that so-called Partial Birth Abortion is NOT a therapeutic abortion procedure but is actually only a tissue harvesting technique that always endangers the life of the mother. Make the AMA say Partial Birth Abortion can sometimes be a valid medical procedure. Then skate through confirmation hearings, the Elena Kagan saga.

Hearings? We don’t need no stinkin’ hearings! Here’s how you get your promotion, cater to the banksters, and bypass congressional oversight to boot. First you get the National Treasury Employees Union/NTEU president, Colleen Kelley, to confer with Obama in the White House, then the next day have Lois Lerner initiate the anti-constitutional Tea Party blockade on non-profit determination, then get Lois a HUGE promotion, then let her take the Fifth, then let her say the dog ate my Blackberry/hard drive/emails to protect the sole target of the Tea Party, the Federal Reserve Bank, from getting audited and disclosing member banks.

By their fruits you will know them. This is the atheist-humanist-socialist agenda writ large, crash the entire American system, especially gutting the Catholic Church with prison for abortion tax evaders, all to rebuild a control freak’s paradise, a gerbil cage nominally called “America.”

 

[ishii]

Here is the text from the 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.

---

If Roberts just wanted to evade he might have said, “Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.”, and left it at that. Yet he goes on about Casey, mentioning it twice (!) and about precedent set by both decisions. Only a man with conviction speaks like that.

See also:
John Roberts in Alito Confirmation Hearings

where he doubles down.

Oof. That’s a kick in the gut. Much worse than what I remember. I had forgotten he brought up Casey as some sort of confirmation of Roe.

Al & Crossbonest: the fact that we are even discussing this is my point! Notice we don’t discuss Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sotomayer, or Kagan and how they might rule in a challenge to Roe V Wade. We know they would vote to uphold. Thomas, Scalia, Alito would vote to overturn (its likely) and Roberts… who knows? You can look at the article below and the analysis. You can consider his comments in the confirmation hearings. But ultimately we won’t know until there is a challenge. I for one would like to find out how he would rule on Roe V Wade. I would be deeply disappointed if he voted to uphold. I say let’s find out! It seems to me quite a stretch to say that since there are no guarantees on how a GOP nominee will decide on a potential challenge to Roe V Wade that we should assume that the GOP is not serious about overturning the decision or not seriously pro-life, and therefore we ought to remove judicial appts as a consideration when deciding who to vote for, for president. While I have to remind myself on these forums to not assume the worst about my fellow Catholic posters (!), I have to say that the analysis of Roberts could easily be considered just another excuse to justify voting for a pro-abortion Democrat. I hope that is not the case with you.

So who knows - a Romney or Ryan presidency (or Jindal or Rubio) and another supreme court justice. A challenge to Roe V Wade - overturned ! I think it is worth trying in order to overturn this terrible decision that even some on the left agree was a bad decision.

Here are some excerpts from an article on Roberts and stare decisis:

In last Thursday’s 5-to-4 Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission ruling dismantling the McCain-Feingold campaign law, Roberts joined with fellow Bush appointee Justice Samuel Alito to issue a separate concurrence “to address the important principles of judicial restraint and stare decisis implicated in this case.”

While Roberts conceded that “departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a ‘special justification,’” he quickly added that “At the same time, stare decisis is neither an ‘inexorable command’… nor ‘a mechanical formula of adherence to the latest decision’ … especially in constitutional cases,” noting that “If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional, and the Government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”

Instead, under the “stare decisis” judicial doctrine of respecting past rulings, “When considering whether to re-examine a prior erroneous holding, we must balance the importance of having constitutional questions decided against the importance of having them decided right.” The chief justice declared: “stare decisis is not an end in itself.”

He also said a precedent could be targeted for destruction if its “rationale threatens to upend our settled jurisprudence in related areas of law, and when the precedent’s underlying reasoning has become so discredited that the Court cannot keep the precedent alive without jury-rigging new and different justifications to shore up the original mistake.” That uncannily describes Justice Antonin Scalia’s long-held objections to Roe v. Wade, and the unusual joint opinion that shored it up in 1992 in the Casey decision.

newsmax.com/InsideCover/johnroberts-supremecourt-abortion-roev-wade/2010/01/24/id/347808/

Ishii