Vice Presidential Debate

[EmperorNapoleon]

Legal standing? What do you mean?

The Supreme Court can’t just randomly decide to overturn a decision. You need a lawsuit and all lawsuits require the plaintiff to have the legal standing to sue. Even if Romney manages to get more conservatives on the court it doesn’t necessarily mean that they could even hear the case or that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem for those on the Romney side is that this decision and its related laws don’t actually compel anyone to do anything so no individual would have the standing to sue because whatever personal negative impact that occurred relating to abortion would have been the result of their own personal choices or some form of medical malpractice not the result of the law itself; in other words its mostly self-inflicted. The only other route would be to effectively gut the right to privacy and I doubt Romney would support that and it would be very difficult to find even credible conservative judges that would support such a move. The decision was crafted very carefully, even in such a way as to negate any 10th Amendment arguments, so it would be extraordinarily difficult to undo without a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Thanks for this link. I have had a lot of difficulty deciding if my conscience will allow me to vote for someone (Romney) who has taken so many pro-abortion actions in the past. But I suppose Romney who I consider to be personally pro-abotion yet publicly (now) pro-life, is better than the reverse position that Biden tells us he holds.

I say that I assume Romney is personally pro-abortion, because anyone who doesn’t understand that you can’t make exceptions and slaughter only certain babies, is not truly a pro-life person. But if indeed he would take these actions outlined in the link, more babies would live than they would under Obama. I do believe that the guidelines for Catholic voting allow us to take into consideration quantity of suffering in such a way?

It is the lesser of 2 evils

Here is Bishop Gracida’s voting guide whose guidelines can be applied to any election

 

[Margaret22]

Margaret, knock it off with the straw man arguments: “Romney won’t end abortion.” Who said he would? He will work to overturn Roe V Wade. Or do you not like that? Do you want to keep abortion on demand the law of the land? If so, then vote for Obama, not Romney.

Ishii

I was responding to the post I quoted " Originally Posted by Lapey View Post
If the goal is endingh abortion I disagree. Romney can win. Your vote may be principled and honest, but it would be better spent in the corner of the ticket that can start doing something.

That’s my opinion, you can hold to yours."

I was truly not trying to create a straw man. I do understand that the goal stated by many people is ending abortion…eventually. As to your other points, I suppose I could answer them; but they seem rhetorical.

 

[Margaret22]

The Supreme Court can’t just randomly decide to overturn a decision. You need a lawsuit and all lawsuits require the plaintiff to have the legal standing to sue. Even if Romney manages to get more conservative on the court it doesn’t necessarily mean that they could even hear the case or that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem for those on the Romney side is that this law doesn’t actually compel anyone to do anything so no individual would have the standing to sue because whatever personal negative impact related to abortion would have been the result of their own personal choice; in other words its self-inflicted. The only other route would be to effectively gut the right to privacy and I doubt Romney would support that and it would be very difficult to find even credible conservative judges that would support such a move.

Also, one of his “conservative” judges could end up being like Roberts. I agree that a Romney presidency guarantees nothing in terms of the Supreme Court and abortion.

 

[ishii]

I was responding to the post I quoted " Originally Posted by Lapey View Post
If the goal is endingh abortion I disagree. Romney can win. Your vote may be principled and honest, but it would be better spent in the corner of the ticket that can start doing something.

That’s my opinion, you can hold to yours."

I was truly not trying to create a straw man. I do understand that the goal stated by many people is ending abortion…eventually. As to your other points, I suppose I could answer them; but they seem rhetorical.

Ok, then. I hear the strawmen all the time so that I assumed you were doing the same. If the goal is ending ***legal ***abortion, it starts with overturning Roe V Wade so that the states can pass restrictive laws, wouldn’t you agree? And some states would make exceptions that we Catholics don’t agree with, but its a start. Should we not support parental notification laws because they don’t “end abortion”? I don’t think so. We need to do what we can. Romney would help us get there.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

The Supreme Court can’t just randomly decide to overturn a decision. You need a lawsuit and all lawsuits require the plaintiff to have the legal standing to sue. Even if Romney manages to get more conservatives on the court it doesn’t necessarily mean that they could even hear the case or that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem for those on the Romney side is that this law doesn’t actually compel anyone to do anything so no individual would have the standing to sue because whatever personal negative impact that occurred relating to abortion would have been the result of their own personal choices or some form of medical malpractice not the result of the law itself; in other words its mostly self-inflicted. The only other route would be to effectively gut the right to privacy and I doubt Romney would support that and it would be very difficult to find even credible conservative judges that would support such a move. The decision was crafted very carefully, even in such a way as to negate any 10th Amendment arguments, so it would be extraordinarily difficult to undo without a Constitutional Amendment.

I believe if there was an opportunity a lawsuit would be enacted; with a supreme court that could reverse roe v wade with Romney nominated judges

 

[Angel7]

As long as faithful Catholics have that attitude, we will constantly and consistently be forced into voting for one candidate. That robs faithful Catholics of a voice on every issue but one. Social justice, poverty, international peace… we have no voice in any of those things as long as we continue to be forced into voting Republican because we want to stop the murder of innocents.

A third party vote OR persistent badgering of the Democratic party to change their platform (likely by victory of a pro-life democrat in a primary election) is the only way to change anything.

but the genocide of innocents in abortion, and embryonic stem cell research. The attack on the dignity of human beings because of human cloning and the support for euthanasia. As well as the attacks on Marriage and the Family. These issues greatly override the importance of any other issue (econom/foriegn policy). These are the 5 non-negotiables.

there are instances, I have read, where by voting for the lesser of 2 evils it may be okay to vote for a candidate who supports a stance on one of these. But I can’t clarify b/c of time, and I hope some one else can.

 

[_Abyssinia]

Also, one of his “conservative” judges could end up being like Roberts. I agree that a Romney presidency guarantees nothing in terms of the Supreme Court and abortion.

I believe if there was an opportunity with the right judges who have a pro life record, a lawsuit would be enacted

 

[Dawnia]

The Supreme Court can’t just randomly decide to overturn a decision. You need a lawsuit and all lawsuits require the plaintiff to have the legal standing to sue. Even if Romney manages to get more conservatives on the court it doesn’t necessarily mean that they could even hear the case or that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem for those on the Romney side is that this law doesn’t actually compel anyone to do anything so no individual would have the standing to sue because whatever personal negative impact that occurred relating to abortion would have been the result of their own personal choices or some form of medical malpractice not the result of the law itself; in other words its mostly self-inflicted. The only other route would be to effectively gut the right to privacy and I doubt Romney would support that and it would be very difficult to find even credible conservative judges that would support such a move.

There is one way…although they would need a majority Repubs in both House & Senate to do it. Signing a law limiting or outright banning abortion at the Federal level would most certainly trigger a considerable number of lawsuits before the pen made it’s final stroke. They could simply let the otherside bring it before the courts.

 

[kimmielittle]

Also, one of his “conservative” judges could end up being like Roberts. I agree that a Romney presidency guarantees nothing in terms of the Supreme Court and abortion.

AND an Obama win guarantees?

 

[austenbosten]

Overall debate was boring and Biden was just annooooying. It would be

Biden: |Split Screen| Ryan: Numbers…blah blah blah

Biden: Interupt! |Split Screen| Ryan: Numbers…blah blah blah

Biden: |Split Screen| Ryan: Numbers…blah blah blah

Biden: Interupt! |Split Screen| Ryan: Numbers…blah blah blah

Biden: :shrug: |Split Screen| Ryan: Numbers…blah blah blah

I give the debate to Ryan just on the plain fact Biden’s constant eyerolling and sheepish grinning along with his countless interruption and Gary Johnson-ish "Hey Hey! you’re not giving me enough time :crying: was just a major turn off

 

[Margaret22]

It is the lesser of 2 evils

Here is Bishop Gracida’s voting guide whose guidelines can be applied to any election

Thanks for the link. So even though Romney has acted totally differently in the past, when he says he will take these pro-life actions, we can take him at his word? I am asking this in total sincerity, even though others here seem to think I have some other goal in mind. When I see what Romney did to the Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, it’s just really hard for me to get on the bandwagon.

When these guidelines say " Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? "

Is the answer to that question: Now the candidate claims to be pro-life. ???

 

[ishii]

The Supreme Court can’t just randomly decide to overturn a decision. You need a lawsuit and all lawsuits require the plaintiff to have the legal standing to sue. Even if Romney manages to get more conservatives on the court it doesn’t necessarily mean that they could even hear the case or that they would overturn Roe v. Wade. The problem for those on the Romney side is that this decision and its related laws don’t actually compel anyone to do anything so no individual would have the standing to sue because whatever personal negative impact that occurred relating to abortion would have been the result of their own personal choices or some form of medical malpractice not the result of the law itself; in other words its mostly self-inflicted. The only other route would be to effectively gut the right to privacy and I doubt Romney would support that and it would be very difficult to find even credible conservative judges that would support such a move. The decision was crafted very carefully, even in such a way as to negate any 10th Amendment arguments, so it would be extraordinarily difficult to undo without a Constitutional Amendment.

I think they came within one vote in Planned Parenthood vs Casey. One vote. That’s one less justice Ginsburg, and one more Scalia. It can be done. In any event, from the pro-life perspective we have to try to overturn the decision.

Ishii

 

[_Abyssinia]

Thanks for the link. So even though Romney has acted totally differently in the past, when he says he will take these pro-life actions, we can take him at his word? I am asking this in total sincerity, even though others here seem to think I have some other goal in mind. When I see what Romney did to the Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, it’s just really hard for me to get on the bandwagon.

When these guidelines say " Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? "

Is the answer to that question: Now the candidate claims to be pro-life. ???

Romney had pro life conversion

I believe you can trust Romney because he stood up for Catholic Charities Boston for their right preferential choice about not fostering children to homosexual couples; Romney has a pro life record as governor; Romney stood up for Catholic hospitals not to be forced to provide morning after pill and Paul Ryan has pledged that Romney will protect religious freedom

 

[kimmielittle]

Thanks for the link. So even though Romney has acted totally differently in the past, when he says he will take these pro-life actions, we can take him at his word? I am asking this in total sincerity, even though others here seem to think I have some other goal in mind. When I see what Romney did to the Catholic hospitals in Massachusetts, it’s just really hard for me to get on the bandwagon.

When these guidelines say " Since abortion and euthanasia have been defined by the Church as the most serious sins prevalent in our society, what kind of reasons could possibly be considered proportionate enough to justify a Catholic voting for a candidate who is known to be pro-abortion? "

Is the answer to that question: Now the candidate claims to be pro-life. ???

Hmmmmm…you are trying to equate an unknown What Mr Romney can do } To a known What Mr Obama has done ]

 

[_Abyssinia]

According to CNN Biden tanked 8 times with the audience dials – Ryan only once

 

[LittleFlower378]

Paul Ryan showed why he is pro-life tonight. He gave policies that will try to promote a culture of life, like letting the states vote and giving a sweet explanation of his own child in the womb. Biden on the other hand looked in the the camera and basically said, “be carefulll they may take away your abortion on demand.” Not pro-life and not a good Catholic response.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

I think they came within one vote in Planned Parenthood vs Casey. One vote. That’s one less justice Ginsburg, and one more Scalia. It can be done. In any event, from the pro-life perspective we have to try to overturn the decision.

It would have been a tie and a tie does not overturn the decision. In the event of a tie; the lower court decision is upheld until such time as another case reaches the Court or they choose to hear arguments all over again. I think people place far too much faith in the office of the President on this issue. All Romney could do would be to sit around waiting for a Justice to either die or resign and cross his fingers that someday someone will have the standing to sue and the Supreme Court will ultimately agree to hear the case and overturn Roe v. Wade. In other words; next to nothing. Its a very roundabout way to get to the heart of the issue. Scalia won’t be around too much longer (maybe 10? 15 years?) and then where will you be?

 

[katcecelia]

It would have been a tie and a tie does not overturn the decision. In the event of a tie; the lower court decision is upheld until such time as another case reaches the Court or they choose to hear arguments all over again. I think people place far too much faith in the office of the President on this issue. All Romney could do would be to sit around waiting for a Justice to either die or resign and cross his fingers that someday someone will have the standing to sue and the Supreme Court will ultimately agree to hear the case and overturn Roe v. Wade. In other words; next to nothing.

If Romney is as willing to sign executive orders as Obama has (932) than Romney can do anything, maybe even outlaw murdering innocents

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

If Romney is as willing to sign executive orders as Obama has (932) than Romney can do anything, maybe even outlaw murdering innocents

An executive order, used since 1789, can’t undo a Supreme Court decision.