Sanders Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter SuperLuigi
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Peter_J said:
I support people’s right to vote for someone who isn’t the frontrunner. Does that count? :cool:
Click to expand...
Certainly, I just can’t stand the Republican party’s candidates and I am having some trouble finding a candidate to vote for. At least in the primaries I’ll probably support Sanders.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
What did Rehnquist do subsequent to Roe v. Wade?
Click to expand...
Well, since you mentioned Byron White and his dissent in PP vs Casey, you should already know the answer to your question.

Which of the current Democrat appointed justices are - let’s use the left’s vernacular - opponents of women’s reproductive rights?
 
Lily_Bernans said:
vox-nova.com/2008/05/21/are-liberal-judges-to-blame-for-roe-v-wade/

"When Planned Parenthood v. Casey reached the Supreme Court, there were eight Republican-appointed Justices on the Bench: Renquist (Nixon), Blackmun (Nixon), John Paul Stevens (Gerald Ford), Sandra Day O’Connor (Ronald Reagan), Antonin Scalia (Reagan), Anthony Kennedy (Reagan), David Souter (George H. W. Bush), and Clarence Thomas (Bush). The sole Democrat was White, who had been in the Minority for Roe v. Wade. (White did not want to uphold Roe v Wade).

In theory, what greater opportunity to overturn Roe v. Wade could be conceived? Eight Republican-appointed Justices, five of whom were appointed by Reagan and Bush, and a ninth, Democrat-appointed Justice who voted against legalized abortion in the United States! Well, things don’t often go as they are theorized. Reagan-Bush Justices Kennedy, Souter and O’Connor formed a plurality that upheld Roe v. Wade under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, claiming the precedent of Eisenstadt v. Baird. They did decide in favor of the 24-hour waiting period, informed consent, and parental consent under the Pennsylvania Abortion Control Act."

No one can count on the Republicans to overturn Roe v. Wade.

The “they can appoint SC justices” is a hollow argument. I mean no disrespect to Republicans. Catholics can’t count on either party to strike down Roe v Wade. They said an unborn child does not “constitute a ‘person’ as define by the 14th Amendment.” So I guess the blame lies with those who wrote and amended the Constitution.
Click to expand...
Well, part of the reason why Cruz has so much support is because social conservatives are tired of republican justices caving on abortion and on so-called gay “marriage”.

So I suspect much of this discontent is shared with republican base voters.

But a lot of this thread also seems to refer to cases that are 20 years or more ago. We now have the most pro-life house since Roe V Wade was ruled on and a lot of governors and legislatures are passing restrictions on abortion.

So I think there may be republicans out there who may have the courage to really defeat Roe v. Wade.

While I would like to say the same for the Democrats, I cannot in most cases, because they wouldn’t even survive a primary. It would be nice if pro-life Democrats would introduce party platform changes supporting Catholic teaching on abortion, the other four non-negotiables and religious liberty.
 
SuperLuigi said:
Well, part of the reason why Cruz has so much support is because social conservatives are tired of republican justices caving on abortion and on so-called gay “marriage”.

So I suspect much of this discontent is shared with republican base voters.

But a lot of this thread also seems to refer to cases that are 20 years or more ago. We now have the most pro-life house since Roe V Wade was ruled on and a lot of governors and legislatures are passing restrictions on abortion.

So I think there may be republicans out there who may have the courage to really defeat Roe v. Wade.

While I would like to say the same for the Democrats, I cannot in most cases, because they wouldn’t even survive a primary. It would be nice if pro-life Democrats would introduce party platform changes supporting Catholic teaching on abortion, the other four non-negotiables and religious liberty.
Click to expand...
It would be nice if the Republican presidential candidates stopped talking about torture and turning a desert into glass via a nuclear holocaust, but I guess we’re stuck with the two party system.
 
Crossbones said:
It would be nice if the Republican presidential candidates stopped talking about torture and turning a desert into glass via a nuclear holocaust, but I guess we’re stuck with the two party system.
Click to expand...
All get when I search are a bunch of biased left-wing blogs like kos, mediamatters and motherjones with the latest reference being last December. So how is that “wish they had stopped talking about” when the conversation, aside perhaps from a few comments on torture, really has stopped?
 
SuperLuigi said:
Well, part of the reason why Cruz has so much support is because social conservatives are tired of republican justices caving on abortion and on so-called gay “marriage”.

So I suspect much of this discontent is shared with republican base voters.

But a lot of this thread also seems to refer to cases that are 20 years or more ago. We now have the most pro-life house since Roe V Wade was ruled on and a lot of governors and legislatures are passing restrictions on abortion.

So I think there may be republicans out there who may have the courage to really defeat Roe v. Wade.

While I would like to say the same for the Democrats, I cannot in most cases, because they wouldn’t even survive a primary. It would be nice if pro-life Democrats would introduce party platform changes supporting Catholic teaching on abortion, the other four non-negotiables and religious liberty.
Click to expand...
It’s true that there are many pro-life people in Congress, both Republican and Democrat, but IIRC, Roe v Wade, having been upheld by the SC, can only be struck down by the SC, and their record is not good.

I don’t blame Republicans or Democrats. The job of SC justices isn’t to vote their conscience; it’s to follow the Constitution. They decided that an unborn child was not a human person as defined in the 14th amendment. Maybe some of them didn’t like upholding Roe v Wade, but Republicans are usually strict constructionists as opposed to liberal or fluid constructionists, so I can see why they would not define a child in utero as a “person.” It’s inconsistent with Catholic teaching, but it’s consistent with the Constitution of the United States.

It’s a sad situation all around, and because of the definition given by the 1973 court, I think abortion will be around for as long as all of us are alive. Unfortunately.
 
SuperLuigi said:
All get when I search are a bunch of biased left-wing blogs like kos, mediamatters and motherjones with the latest reference being last December. So how is that “wish they had stopped talking about” when the conversation, aside perhaps from a few comments on torture, really has stopped?
Click to expand...
What?
 
DeniseNY said:
Well, since you mentioned Byron White and his dissent in PP vs Casey, you should already know the answer to your question.

Which of the current Democrat appointed justices are - let’s use the left’s vernacular - opponents of women’s reproductive rights?
Click to expand...
I don’t think he did anything approaching White subsequent to Roe v Wade, so please tell me specifically what he did so I can give him credit. Thank you.
 
Lily_Bernans said:
I don’t think he did anything approaching White subsequent to Roe v Wade, so please tell me specifically what he did so I can give him credit. Thank you.
Click to expand...
I already referenced PP v Casey.

Please tell me specifically which current Democrat appointed justices are opponents of “women’s reproductive rights”. I don’t think you’ve commented on this yet.
 
Crossbones said:
It would be nice if the Republican presidential candidates stopped talking about torture and turning a desert into glass via a nuclear holocaust, but I guess we’re stuck with the two party system.
Click to expand...
Is torture an intrinsic evil in the Catholic faith?
 
Sy_Noe said:
Is torture an intrinsic evil in the Catholic faith?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is, Sy.

Two things guide Catholic moral teaching: the dignity of the human person and the common good.

Torture is against the dignity of the human person, though I think an argument could be made that it is sometimes for the common good, although “common good” means the entire world, not just the US.
 
DeniseNY said:
I already referenced PP v Casey.

Please tell me specifically which current Democrat appointed justices are opponents of “women’s reproductive rights”. I don’t think you’ve commented on this yet.
Click to expand...
He did nothing in the twenty years between!?
 
Sy_Noe said:
Thanks Lily. I thought so.
Click to expand...
You’re welcome, Sy.

What do you think of Sanders’ momentum? Do you think he can pull off the nomination?

He raised four million in the last 48 hours! I’d take one million in a month! LOL
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top