Hillary Clinton Thread

[_Abyssinia]

If the Supreme Court justices who decided Roe v Wade in 1973 didn’t know what was coming, they were stupid, and we both know not one justice on the court was stupid. Quite the contrary. Abortion became legal in the state of New York in 1970, and women from all over the US were flocking to clinics there for abortions. My own mother had a friend who went there for an abortion; the friend was young and unmarried and not religious. The man who drove her said it made him sick just to be in the waiting room because of the lack of respect the would-be mothers, and fathers, had for their unborn children.

I don’t think this election will decide how long Roe v Wade stands. I think it’s going to stand for a long time. The 1973 court defined “person” constitutionally, and any court is going to be loathe to overturn what a previous court has upheld. It isn’t like they are overturning a lower court. The Supreme Court does not often overturn what an earlier court has upheld, though it has happened rarely. They would have to redefine the constitutional meaning of “person,” and I can’t see them doing that, especially Republicans because, as I said, they tend to be strict constructionists. However, I’m just one person, and that’s just my opinion.

Roe v Wade is settled law for as long as the court has a majority in favour of keeping the law as it is, but if the balance of the court changes, and it can with the choices the next President makes, it is up in the air and could be overturned.

What is quite clear is in the last two years, there have been at least three major religious liberty and abortion cases before the Supreme Court, the Hobby case, the Texas abortion regulation case and the case of Little Sisters of the Poor. It seems like there are more and more cases, an upcline of cases, going before the Supreme Court that either involve abortion or religious liberty cases.

Why would Justices who are constitutionalists, textualists, originalists, who do not believe that there is a right to privacy in the Constituon, not vote to overturn Roe v Wade, because isn’t the right to privacy at the core of Roe v Wade. Roe v Wade can be overturned, but if can’t be done if the right justices aren’t at least a majority on the Supreme Court, and this election could decide whether those type of justices are going to be nominated to the court, or not.

Care Net, a network of pregnancy centres, says on their website:

When the next President is sworn in on January 20, 2017, three Supreme Court justices will be over the age of 80: Justices Ginsburg (83), Scalia (80), and Kennedy (80). Justice Breyer will be 78. With four of the last five Presidents serving for eight years, there is a strong possibility that the next President will replace all four of these justices. Replacing almost half the justices on the Supreme Court gives the next President an opportunity to put a mark on the nation’s legal future. If three or maybe two of these justices are committed to protecting the unborn, the next President could be responsible for the overturning of Roe v. Wade.

care-net.org/abundant-life-blog/how-the-next-president-can-overturn-roe-v.-wade

 

[Theo520]

Lily, please provide an actual source showing he refused offers of security from allowed Dept of State resources.
Your link is just a sentence in a blog without a source.

Link?

Why then did he refuse extra security when it was offered?

“Ambassador Stevens repeatedly asked that security not be increased at the Benghazi consulate. I know US diplomatic personnel posted to places like Beirut where the US embassy is a fortress and they just can’t very easily get out and mingle with Lebanese. They deeply regret the imposed isolation and feel it interferes with them doing their jobs as diplomats. But, well, security in Beirut for embassies isn’t always very good. I was in Libya in May-June 2012 and walked around without incident, and it just was not the case that the situation was Beirut-like at that time. Stevens had supported the Libyan revolution and valued his ability to move among Libyans, who loved him, and did not want to be isolated by security. The Secretary of State doesn’t micromanage these matters, an Stevens was rightly given control over this issue.”

readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/21554-five-reasons-benghazi-wasnt-hilary-clintons-fault

 

[lynnvinc]

It sort of occurred to me that the corporate media may have picked Hillary Clinton as the next president. After all, she is their person, the face of Wall Street, banking, corporations, the rich, etc. The corporate world/corporate media will back the person on their side – like they backed both Bill Clinton AND G.H. Bush back in 1992 was kept open.

What led to my epiphany? They haven’t been covering Sanders at all – it is exceedingly obvious and pathetic. Look at all the media attention they give to Trump, contrasting with the mostly positive coverage of Hillary.

I’m thinking they KNOW Trump and Cruz don’t stand a chance of winning in the general election – plus the food fights are good for their ratings. And they don’t have as much control over Trump, loose canon as he is, so they don’t really want him, but they wouldn’t be unhappy with Cruz – who would gladly keep the door open to them. They just realize he wouldn’t stand a chance.

So the only real threat to their person is Sanders. So they have blacked out coverage of him to a large extent.

Luckily we get Free Speech TV (non-corporate media) so we get lots of news blacked out by regular media.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Lily, please provide an actual source showing he refused offers of security from allowed Dept of State resources.
Your link is just a sentence in a blog without a source.

I provided one pages back, but can’t find it now because I’m using a different computer, but I’ll offer this:

realclearpolitics.com/video/2014/01/18/david_brooks_have_we_ever_met_a_voter_who_is_going_to_vote_on_benghazi_no.html

When I get to the other computer, I can find the better link.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

It sort of occurred to me that the corporate media may have picked Hillary Clinton as the next president. After all, she is their person, the face of Wall Street, banking, corporations, the rich, etc. The corporate world/corporate media will back the person on their side – like they backed both Bill Clinton AND G.H. Bush back in 1992 was kept open.

What led to my epiphany? They haven’t been covering Sanders at all – it is exceedingly obvious and pathetic. Look at all the media attention they give to Trump, contrasting with the mostly positive coverage of Hillary.

I’m thinking they KNOW Trump and Cruz don’t stand a chance of winning in the general election – plus the food fights are good for their ratings. And they don’t have as much control over Trump, loose canon as he is, so they don’t really want him, but they wouldn’t be unhappy with Cruz – who would gladly keep the door open to them. They just realize he wouldn’t stand a chance.

So the only real threat to their person is Sanders. So they have blacked out coverage of him to a large extent.

Luckily we get Free Speech TV (non-corporate media) so we get lots of news blacked out by regular media.

CNN covers all the candidates about equally.

 

[Exiled_Child]

After the terror attack in Brussels, Hillary Clinton says that the government needs to take a harder look at encryption.

reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-idUSKCN0WP2LI

147 FBI agents involved in Clinton email probe

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274441-147-fbi-agents-involved-in-clinton-email-probe

 

[Lily_Bernans]

147 FBI agents involved in Clinton email probe

thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/274441-147-fbi-agents-involved-in-clinton-email-probe

Tens of thousands of emails are a lot to go through. When I sued my ex-business partner for the money he owed me, I only provided about 2,000 emails, and it took my lawyer months to go through them and decide what was relevant and what was not. I can’t imagine going through tens of thousands.

If they didn’t have hundreds of agents on it, it would take years.

 

[rmartensjr]

time.com/4274475/hillary-clinton-supreme-court-gop/

The Democratic front runner also went further than she has before in laying out a vision for an active and liberal Supreme Court that will expand the rights of unions, overturn Citizens United and stand for women’s access to abortions.

“In a single term, the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement,” Clinton said Monday afternoon at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. “As someone who has worked on every single one of these issues for decades, I see this as a make or break moment.”

 

[Little_Sheep]

I don’t think a Right majority did give America Obergefell. Roberts and Kennedy are known to be swing voters, moderates, but they are not known to be conservatives generally. Compare both of them to Scalia for example. Scalia was clearly of the Right, neither Kennedy and Roberts are.

Imagine a Supreme Court with three or four more justices in the mold of Scalia, or three or four of four more in the mold of Ginsburg? Roe v Wade could be overturned if the makeup of the court was with the former, if it’s the latter, if Hillary Clinton gets to make the nominations and has Roe v Wade being settled law as a litmus test, abortion could be legal a lot longer in America, and a lot more unborn babies die, than if one of the candidates who have said they want pro-life justices, were elected.

By the way, the Washington Post had an opinion article out a while back that I can not access right now because I would have to subscribe, titled,‘Democrats could destroy the GOP – if only they would welcome antiabortion liberals’. It is a shame for the pro-life movement that the Democratic Party is so hostile to sensible abortion restrictions, even if they wouldn’t support a total ban, and the Democratic Party is in turn probably paying in some way for that hostility because they could probably achieve more electorally etc. if they were more welcoming.

Fair points about Roberts and Kennedy - I meant that those two were both appointed by a Republican President.

At the risk of sounding completely obnoxious, Dems don’t really need to destroy the GOP. They are doing a pretty effective job of that without us.

As for Repub and Dem and the abortion issue, I think BOTH parties can fairly be called out for extremist positions - the Republicans want Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion outlawed and the Democrats want that choice to be left to women and their doctors. Actually, maybe the Republican Party could save itself and attract more Democrats if it weren’t so rabidly anti-choice.

I agree that most people in this country are fine with reasonable abortion restrictions. That said, in the real world where I live, people’s opinions regarding abortion don’t always match up with their chosen political parties - I know plenty of Republicans who are pro-choice and plenty of Democrats who are anti-choice. For many people, it’s not even an issue that hits their radar. For instance, I know quite a few men on both sides of the aisle that just don’t think it’s their business and so it’s not an issue that moves them politically.

It’s only the political chatter, constantly stirred up by both parties, that makes it seem like people are diametrically opposed to each other along ideological lines when it comes to the subject of abortion. Most people hang out somewhere in the middle regardless of where the parties tell us we should hang out.

 

[Tomdstone]

Quote from article:"The Democratic front runner also went further than she has before in laying out a vision for an active and liberal Supreme Court that will expand the rights of unions, overturn Citizens United and stand for women’s access to abortions.

“In a single term, the Supreme Court could demolish pillars of the progressive movement,” Clinton said Monday afternoon at the University of Wisconsin in Madison. “As someone who has worked on every single one of these issues for decades, I see this as a make or break moment.”"

So it is a make or break moment for women’s access to abortions? Shall we make the moment and vote for Hillary and stand for women’s access to abortions, or should a Catholic refuse and instead break the pro-abortion momentum by voting against Hillary?

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Fair points about Roberts and Kennedy - I meant that those two were both appointed by a Republican President.

At the risk of sounding completely obnoxious, Dems don’t really need to destroy the GOP. They are doing a pretty effective job of that without us.

As for Repub and Dem and the abortion issue, I think BOTH parties can fairly be called out for extremist positions - the Republicans want Roe v. Wade overturned and abortion outlawed and the Democrats want that choice to be left to women and their doctors. Actually, maybe the Republican Party could save itself and attract more Democrats if it weren’t so rabidly anti-choice.

I agree that most people in this country are fine with reasonable abortion restrictions. That said, in the real world where I live, people’s opinions regarding abortion don’t always match up with their chosen political parties - I know plenty of Republicans who are pro-choice and plenty of Democrats who are anti-choice. For many people, it’s not even an issue that hits their radar. For instance, I know quite a few men on both sides of the aisle that just don’t think it’s their business and so it’s not an issue that moves them politically.

It’s only the political chatter, constantly stirred up by both parties, that makes it seem like people are diametrically opposed to each other along ideological lines when it comes to the subject of abortion. Most people hang out somewhere in the middle regardless of where the parties tell us we should hang out.

Great post, LS!

 

[SuperLuigi]

lynnvinc;13785851]It sort of occurred to me that the corporate media may have picked Hillary Clinton as the next president. After all, she is their person, the face of Wall Street, banking, corporations, the rich, etc. The corporate world/corporate media will back the person on their side – like they backed both Bill Clinton AND G.H. Bush back in 1992 was kept open.

Well, welcome to our world! We watched as the mainstream media gave Barack Obama a free pass on all of his radical associations and academic record and did everything possible short of scrolling “yes we can/forward” across the bottom screen on 5 PM and 10 PM newcasts to see that he would win.

What led to my epiphany? They haven’t been covering Sanders at all – it is exceedingly obvious and pathetic. Look at all the media attention they give to Trump, contrasting with the mostly positive coverage of Hillary.

A good observation.

I’m thinking they KNOW Trump and Cruz don’t stand a chance of winning in the general election – plus the food fights are good for their ratings. And they don’t have as much control over Trump, loose canon as he is, so they don’t really want him, but they wouldn’t be unhappy with Cruz – who would gladly keep the door open to them. They just realize he wouldn’t stand a chance.

Past and current polling suggest otherwise, especially for Cruz who is a headache for the Democrats in every single swing except New Mexico, but even there he could swing the pendulum if he picked Rubio or Gov. Martinez as a running mate.

So the only real threat to their person is Sanders. So they have blacked out coverage of him to a large extent.

I don’t think it’s that so much as many of the elites feel that Hillary Clinton is owed this election for sticking with her husband all those years in “boring” Arkansas when she could have been a partner at prestigious firm in Boston, NYC or DC. I think Rush first made that observation, and it also seemed very clear to me when was campaigning in Iowa that she did not want to be there but just wanted this handed to her on a silver platter.

Also, despite good numbers, most reliable DNC insiders seem to feel that Sanders numbers would plummet in a general election because at the end of all things he’s an old rich white male elitist from the northeast, isn’t really a political outsider by any means (he gets the label from the left cause they wanted to be and have an outsider, too) and has been in government longer than I’ve been alive.

Plus, no Congress would touch his plans with a 10 foot pole.

Bernie Sanders’ campaign is just a culmination of northeast white idealism (one reason why he is overwhelmingly rejected by minorities) and college students who think socialism means more free stuff for them.

Luckily we get Free Speech TV (non-corporate media) so we get lots of news blacked out by regular media.

Yes, we do! That’s why we need to oppose net neutrality and the fairness doctrine.

 

[SuperLuigi]

At the risk of sounding completely obnoxious, Dems don’t really need to destroy the GOP. They are doing a pretty effective job of that without us.

Really? What give it away?

 

[Crossbones]

Really? What give it away?

The argument over the wives late last week. Then the #2 candidate being accused of 5 affairs. Then another 3 affairs. Then the #1 candidate’s campaign manager being charged with battery.

 

[Little_Sheep]

Really? What give it away?

I hate it. I love a lot of heartbroken Republicans these days. Sigh…!

 

[Ridgerunner]

at the end of all things he’s an old rich white male elitist from the northeast, isn’t really a political outsider by any means (he gets the label from the left cause they wanted to be and have an outsider, too) and has been in government longer than I’ve been alive.

.

Without rich white elitists from both coasts, there wouldn’t be a Dem party. You can’t win elections as a Democrat with black and Hispanic votes alone. You absolutely have to have the limousine liberals as well.

 

[SuperLuigi]

In Context: What Kevin McCarthy said about Hillary Clinton and Benghazi

politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/oct/07/context-what-kevin-mccarthy-said-about-hillary-cli/

Sean Hannity has been warning the GOPe over and over and over, but all they did was cut him out of their schedule.

All he can do now is get a beleaguered Reince Preibus on TV who can’t get involved in primary elections and can only prepare for what will be an open convention.

I really don’t some of these republicans----how on earth do they expect to keep winning anything in presidential year without the support of their base?Wis

2012 wasn’t just an embarrassment for Romney. What happened in North Dakota, Missouri, Indiana and Wisconsin was simply inexcusable.

 

[Lily_Bernans]

Without rich white elitists from both coasts, there wouldn’t be a Dem party. You can’t win elections as a Democrat with black and Hispanic votes alone. You absolutely have to have the limousine liberals as well.

Wealthy white males usually support Republicans.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Catholic supporters of Hillary Clinton - what do you think is going to happen to issues such as abortion, to religious liberty, if Hillary Clinton becomes President? This election could decide how long Roe v Wade stands. The stakes are absolutely massive!

Clinton: Election ‘make or break’ for Supreme Court

washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-election-make-or-break-for-supreme-court/article/2587023?custom_click=rss

m.lacrossetribune.com/news/state-and-regional/at-uw-madison-hillary-clinton-urges-voters-to-think-of/article_601a4be2-d903-5522-8542-5de2b50c0fed.html

I think religious liberty remains intact. With Catholic women being able to choose not to have abortions and women of other faiths or beliefs that have a different view and allow choice or some degree of choice, having their legal right as well.

 

[Sy_Noe]

Without rich white elitists from both coasts, there wouldn’t be a Dem party. You can’t win elections as a Democrat with black and Hispanic votes alone. You absolutely have to have the limousine liberals as well.

Just for the record, I am white and male. But not rich or an elitist. Have lived most of my life in a small midwestern town, though now I am near a coast. But not NY or the NE, nor the west coast. And have never been in a limousine. My car is actually 11 yrs old. I did just need the radiator replaced yesterday but my car has less than 45,000 mi on it so I’m not in the market right now for an upgrade. And I support Bernie and I support Hillary.