Democratic Senate may help prolife cause

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ron_Conte
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
R

Ron_Conte

Guest
The Democrats taking control of the Senate might be good for the prolife cause. There are some very elderly and very liberal Supreme Court Justices who probably would have retired by now, except that they don’t want to be replaced by conservatives. With the Democrats in control of the Senate, they might now retire, thinking that a Democratic Senate will prevent them from being replaced by conservatives. But with Bush still President, their replacements will likely be significantly more conservative and more open to the prolife point of view than they are.

Ron
 
Abotion is a litmus test for being approved for the Supreme Court. With the Democrats in control of the Senate, it is unlikely a pro-life judge will be approved. They will be Borked.
 
Nice dream, but think further.

A nominee to the SC can’t be voted on by the Senate unless he makes it through the judicial committee first. If the Dems now have the Senate, they will be the majority on the committee. The leadership of the Democatic party, in spite of a few pro-lifers recently being elected, is not going to let those few new guys be on the judicial committee.

So if Bush names a winner to the SC like Robert Bork, the same old obstruction will happen from the party that LOVES killing babies. The only hope is stealth nominees and that seems to backfire more than half the time. Sigh. So close we were: ONE vote. Probably all lost now.

The only way this fantasy comes true is if one of the pro-life Dems recently elected tells the D leadership that he’s not voting for their guy unless they promise to put HIM on the judicial committee. Pray, but don’t hold your breath. That would take GUTS and be political suicide. Dunno if any of those guys have that much conviction.
 
I wouldn’t put to much worry into it, not much anyone can do right now to change the profile of the Senate, for a couple of years. But what you can do, is to keep putting pressure to put up good judcial nomenies up, and keep on trying to move the moderate position more and more prolife. The more the people are in favor of pro-life issues, the more likelihood they law and the actions of the people will favor a pro-life position.
 
manualman said:
Nice dream, but think further.

A nominee to the SC can’t be voted on by the Senate unless he makes it through the judicial committee first. If the Dems now have the Senate, they will be the majority on the committee. The leadership of the Democatic party, in spite of a few pro-lifers recently being elected, is not going to let those few new guys be on the judicial committee.

I think Sen. Leahy has already told Bush not to bother sending a pro-life candidate to the committee. It will be DOA.

So if Bush names a winner to the SC like Robert Bork, the same old obstruction will happen from the party that LOVES killing babies. The only hope is stealth nominees and that seems to backfire more than half the time. Sigh. So close we were: ONE vote. Probably all lost now.

The only way this fantasy comes true is if one of the pro-life Dems recently elected tells the D leadership that he’s not voting for their guy unless they promise to put HIM on the judicial committee. Pray, but don’t hold your breath. That would take GUTS and be political suicide. Dunno if any of those guys have that much conviction.
Click to expand...
 
Yes, it will be difficult to get any nominee out of the Judiciary Committee under Democratic leadership, unless the nominee passes the ‘pro-abortion’ litmus test. (No one will call it a pro-abortion litmus test, but the nominee will have to repeatedly assure the senators of his or her great devotion to the “right of privacy.”
 
JimG said:
Yes, it will be difficult to get any nominee out of the Judiciary Committee under Democratic leadership, unless the nominee passes the ‘pro-abortion’ litmus test. (No one will call it a pro-abortion litmus test, but the nominee will have to repeatedly assure the senators of his or her great devotion to the “right of privacy.”
Click to expand...
You are right. But for the life of me, I can’t find that in the Constitution anywhere. As I recall, even Ruth Bader Ginsberg said that the RvW decision was poorly thought out.
 
The “right of privacy,” whatever its meaning, was discovered lying dormant in the constitution and brought to life in the Griswold vs Conncticut decision, which occurred before Roe v Wade. That decision in Griswold was used to support the right to abortion in Roe v Wade.

Griswold was originally used to support the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons.
 
we do have hope in the next presidential election though. As long as a pro-life candidate is elected, that should be ok, right? Or am I dreaming, knowing that Hillary is lying through her teeth about not running and will run and shoot down pretty much any chance we got in repealing the dealing RvW ruling? :mad:
 
Tamccrackine:

This could change, but right now the only person on the horizon with any chance of beating Hillary is…Nancy Pelosi. For the next two years, Pelosi will be the “keeper of the pork barrel” and will be owed a lot of favors by powerful Democrats, and it’s hard for me to believe she won’t think herself a contender for the presidency. I don’t think Hillary would have a prayer in a televised debate with Pelosi. Pelosi is slick, and she’s a lot more photogenic than Hillary, and Hillary’s attempts to appeal to the center here and there, will do her no good in a party contest. Pelosi will be the automatic choice of Democrat Cafeteria Catholics, the gays and the hard left, so she already has a ready-made, probably unchangeable constituency that Hillary does not have. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a “Draft Pelosi” movement getting started right now, and all Pelosi has to do it reach out and take it. For that reason, I am sure the Clintons will do everything in their power to undercut Pelosi in the next two years. If they do, it will enrage the Democrat far left, which actually runs the Democrat party. Should be an interesting bloodletting, but it will all have to be under cover. So, if Pelosi wants to run for the nomination, Hillary is finished already.

And there is just the possibility that if some Republican distinguishes himself/herself in the next two years and really connects with the conservative populace, Pelosi will be deemed too far left, and rejected, not by her party, but by the electorate. A tall order, but not impossible.
 
Running Pelosi would be political suicide for the Democrats…won’t happen IMO, but I would love to be wrong.
Ridgerunner said:
Tamccrackine:

This could change, but right now the only person on the horizon with any chance of beating Hillary is…Nancy Pelosi. For the next two years, Pelosi will be the “keeper of the pork barrel” and will be owed a lot of favors by powerful Democrats, and it’s hard for me to believe she won’t think herself a contender for the presidency. I don’t think Hillary would have a prayer in a televised debate with Pelosi. Pelosi is slick, and she’s a lot more photogenic than Hillary, and Hillary’s attempts to appeal to the center here and there, will do her no good in a party contest. Pelosi will be the automatic choice of Democrat Cafeteria Catholics, the gays and the hard left, so she already has a ready-made, probably unchangeable constituency that Hillary does not have. There is no doubt in my mind that there is a “Draft Pelosi” movement getting started right now, and all Pelosi has to do it reach out and take it. For that reason, I am sure the Clintons will do everything in their power to undercut Pelosi in the next two years. If they do, it will enrage the Democrat far left, which actually runs the Democrat party. Should be an interesting bloodletting, but it will all have to be under cover. So, if Pelosi wants to run for the nomination, Hillary is finished already.

And there is just the possibility that if some Republican distinguishes himself/herself in the next two years and really connects with the conservative populace, Pelosi will be deemed too far left, and rejected, not by her party, but by the electorate. A tall order, but not impossible.
Click to expand...
 
tamccrackine said:
we do have hope in the next presidential election though. As long as a pro-life candidate is elected, that should be ok, right? Or am I dreaming, knowing that Hillary is lying through her teeth about not running and will run and shoot down pretty much any chance we got in repealing the dealing RvW ruling? :mad:
Click to expand...
I’m guessing it will be Hilary against Mc Cain. So we’re SOL either way.
 
JimG said:
The “right of privacy,” whatever its meaning, was discovered lying dormant in the constitution and brought to life in the Griswold vs Conncticut decision, which occurred before Roe v Wade. That decision in Griswold was used to support the right to abortion in Roe v Wade.

Griswold was originally used to support the sale of contraceptives to unmarried persons.
Click to expand...
Griswold did not allow sale con contraceptives to UNMARRIED persons, as that was Eisenstadt vs Baird.

Griswold is based in the the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth Amendments, and 14th Amendments.

From the Griswold decision:
The association of people is not mentioned in the Constitution nor in the Bill of Rights. The right to educate a child in a school of the parents’ choice - whether public or private or parochial - is also not mentioned. Nor is the right to study any particular subject or any foreign language. Yet the First Amendment has been construed to include certain of those rights
Click to expand...
By Pierce v. Society of Sisters, supra, the right to educate one’s children as one chooses is made applicable to the States by the force of the First and Fourteenth Amendments
Click to expand...
Notice the “by force of”, meaning “by application of”? I take it most Catholics love th idea that they are free to send their children to Catholic schools, if they choose to? That is by force of the 1st and 14th amendments.
In presenting the proposed Amendment, Madison said:
Click to expand...
Code: 
  "It has been objected also against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against
Click to expand...
Griwold not only prevents the gov’t from banning contraception, it prevents the Gov’t from mandating it for persons, or regulating the amount of children a person can have.

Would you want to see the gov’t require licenses for couples to have each child, that could possibly be denied? or say that 3 children per couple is the limit?
 
Ridgerunner said:
This could change, but right now the only person on the horizon with any chance of beating Hillary is…Nancy Pelosi. For the next two years, Pelosi will be the “keeper of the pork barrel” and will be owed a lot of favors by powerful Democrats, and it’s hard for me to believe she won’t think herself a contender for the presidency.
Click to expand...
Pelosi would be absolutely crazy to abandon her opportunities as Speaker of the House to go chasing after the White House… and it’lll never happen. Now, if the Dems stay in control through 2012, maybe she’d take a shot at it then.

Do realize that Illinois Governor Blagojevich has his eye on the Presidency. His whol political career has been geared at moving up the ladder to do a continual amount of increased nothingness.
 
BioCatholic said:
Griswold did not allow sale con contraceptives to UNMARRIED persons, as that was Eisenstadt vs Baird.

Griswold is based in the the First, Third, Fourth, Ninth Amendments, and 14th Amendments.

**Third? **
**No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law. **
Click to expand...
This is the reason I didn’t become a lawyer. :yawn:
Click to expand...
 
BioCatholic said:
Griswold did not allow sale con contraceptives to UNMARRIED persons, as that was Eisenstadt vs Baird.
Click to expand...
Thanks for mentioning Eisenstadt v Baird , which I had to look up.

Apparently, Griswold allowed the sale of contraceptives to married persons, on privacy grounds; and E v B extended that right to non-married persons, not on privacy grounds, but rather on the ground that there was no “rational basis” to distinguish between married and single persons in this matter.

(The person Griswold, in the case so named, was the Executive Director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut.)

E v B was decided in 1972. Obviously these were not matters to which the Founders had given much thought.

The privacy right discovered in Griswold was based on the idea that, while the Constitution does not state a general right of privacy, the right to marital privacy in this case was sufficiently established by various penumbras within other amendments.

The right of privacy thus outlined by the Court is, I take it, not absolute. It does not extend, for example, to a person downloading or possessing child pornography in the privacy of his own home, or to the private use of heroin or cocaine, or even to the privacy of one’s own person in an airport, or to the privacy of one’s internet searches.
 
JimG said:
The right of privacy thus outlined by the Court is, I take it, not absolute. It does not extend, for example, to a person downloading or possessing child pornography in the privacy of his own home, or to the private use of heroin or cocaine, or even to the privacy of one’s own person in an airport, or to the privacy of one’s internet searches.
Click to expand...
They legalized abortion because they wanted to legalize abortion. There’s no “penumbra” to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top