Dems struggle on Kavanaugh

  • Thread starter Thread starter robertmidwest
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dvdjs said:
The key word here being “merely” - a nuance not present in the post of @Boatswain2PA.
Click to expand...
The “nuance” is present in the meaning of the term. To overturn means to reverse, nullify, abolish, invalidate, or rescind.
It is not clear at all that Roe would be overturned as having taken 14th amendment rights too far. It may be overturned because it does not take them far enough - that is for not extending fundamental rights to the unborn. That perspective is, after all, part of the pro-life position.
Click to expand...
It is surely true that the court could include other findings in a reexamination of abortion than just the reversal of Roe, and that might be an interesting discussion, but it is separate from the “overturning” of Roe.
 
Ridgerunner said:
don’t think there is any likelihood McCaskill will vote for Kavanaugh.
Click to expand...
I can not imagine she will either. But it definitely has her campaign in a tizzy. Note this editorial from the KC Star (an extension of her campaign staff):

https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/editorials/article215459250.html

That’s an awful lot of energy to spend making it look like she is undecided still.

On a more personal level when I contacted her office locally her staffer was very quick to volunteer the fact that she has voted for 3/5 of DT 's court appointments. Her staff know that this is important to voters here. His voice and his language indicated to me this office was not getting the feed back they wanted. Later I read that the polling data does show that the voters in states important to vulnerable democrats are expecting a yes on Kavanuagh. I am sure she is aware of that.

Personally I still think she will vote no and take the hit thinking it won’t sink her election. Hopefully she is wrong.
 
Last edited:
mwah said:
That’s just inconsistency of people who are against legal gay marriage. If you want to ban gay marriage, you have to say it’s “unnatural.” Any marriage closed to children is unnatural. As it is now it’s just a religious gripe against gay marriage, and first amendment blocks that.
Click to expand...
Just for accuracy’s sake, same gender “marriage “ was not banned prior to the SCOTUS ruling.
The Universal Unitarians performed these ceremonies long before the ruling.
 
ProVobis said:
Smearing your political opponent is the American way RR. Actually it’s done in other countries too. Your point not taken.
Click to expand...
I do find it amusing that some people seem to think political nastiness and dirty tricks are somehow only done by democrats. I don’t think that anyone can argue that the republicans are somehow more virtuous in political matters.
 
Ender said:
The “nuance” is present in the meaning of the term. To overturn means to reverse, nullify, abolish, invalidate, or rescind.
Click to expand...
The Supreme Court does not repeal its decisions; it overrules them, when adjudicating a related case, on the basis of a change in their understanding of facts or law. I suspect that all of the people on the court know the approach that they would take on a case related to Roe. But they scrupulously avoid telling telling us. Whatever they do, I think that a return to the status quo ante is very unlikely.
 
Straw men.

Women were never punished for having abortions, and wouldn’t be if it was banned in some state or other. Those who perform them would be the ones punished.

Nobody in history has ever proposed banning adoption, and nobody does now. Nobody proposes banning childlessness.

If abortion is none of the government’s business, why does government protect and pay for it?
 
Ridgerunner said:
Women were never punished for having abortions, and wouldn’t be if it was banned in some state or other. Those who perform them would be the ones punished.
Click to expand...
Can you explain why women shouldn’t be punished? If a woman hires a hitman to have someone killed then both her and the hitman would go to jail. Why should things be different for abortion?
 
Boatswain2PA said:
Why would you want to punish the woman?
Click to expand...
Should not people who are accessory to murder be punished? Are you saying abortion is forced on women, that they have no moral culpability? What other murders should not be punished?
 
stinkcat_14 said:
Can you explain why women shouldn’t be punished? If a woman hires a hitman to have someone killed then both her and the hitman would go to jail. Why should things be different for abortion?
Click to expand...
The fact is that they’re not. The whole “punish the woman” argument is bogus.
 
That’s like demanding an argument why we shouldn’t kill Martians. It won’t happen.
 
dvdjs said:
It will. There is no reason that it shouldn’t.
Click to expand...
Notice how silent they get when they are asked why they shouldn’t be punished. They cannot give a coherent answer to that question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top