Voting and Social Justice

[johnnykins]

You forget, I was there.

There was “Massive Resistance” against integration. There were governors who threatened to “stand in the schoolhouse door” to prevent integration. There were politicians who lost races because their opponents “out-segged” them. Nearly 20 years after Brown vs The Board of Education, schools were burned rather than be integrated.

yes - and the rest of the country and world pegged those folks as the racists they were. I repeat, the law followed the sea change in morality. I too was around then.

The reality of history is that the most comprehensive social change for the better in this nation was led by changing the law first, and the “hearts and minds” came later.

Clearly a large southern minority held to segregation, but the world had already changed. The law simply codified it.

That’s a good one – form a man who says we are beaten and wants to surrender.

Touchy!! The point still applies.

Killing innocent children is an “issue of sexual moralty?!?!”

to society at large - abortion is just that. I agree it’s a shame. But that’s what we’re fighting. Until that is changed, I simply don’t see us getting anywhere.

It seems obvious that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west – but it doesn’t.

Not sure what this means, but you do seem to revel in irrelevancies.

 

[johnnykins]

That isnot the reason we have laws. It is not based on the will of the majority, but the rights of the individual. Like the example above of Christians being thrown to the lions, we recognize in this country that we can not subject anyone to oppression of the majority. The reason we have abortion legal is because babies are not recognized as having any rights until they clear the birth canal. I have never heard anyone explain the difference in rights the week before birth and the week after birth. Abortion being legal makes as much sense as giving parents one year from the birth to kill their baby.

I agree with much you say. I simply don’t see that society will agree any time soon. Are you proposing capital punishment for the mother who procures and abortion? the doctor? those who aid and abet? If so, I submit you have a non-starter politically. Until the society changes I simply see it as not helpful to push criminalizing these matters.

 

[mary_bobo]

Ivan:

It is possible, even likely, that a republican president will nominate a prolife member to the Supreme court when a vacancy occurs, because he would immediately lose at least 30% of his constituency if he didn’t. There is no possibility at all that a Democrat president will do so. Absolutely none. The Democrat party long ago wrote off prolife voters except those they can confuse into believing an absolute evil (abortion) is equivalent to promises to increase “social justice”.

And let’s not forget that as long as there is a Democratic majority in the senate thus leaving the committees in Democrat hands, no pro-life judge will get out of committee. Patrick Leahy, professed Catholic, has said so.

Nothing of any consequence happened during the last democrat presidency for the poor. On the contrary, Clinton supported and signed the “welfare to work” law. One may debate its merits, but it was certainly not designed to increase aid to the poor, but to decrease it, which it did. Again, neither party has done anything that aided poor people since Reagan’s earned income credit.

Hillary’s healthcare plan was so bizarre that almost nobody supported it. Even Bill Clinton let it die. It was not so much an aid to the poor as a pervasive governmental control of health care, regardless of a person’s means.

I’m sorry, Volodymyr, but most of what we all expect from politicians is wishful thinking. However, it must be admitted that the last time any abortion issue came up, Bush’s nominees voted to limit it. Until the Supreme Court majority is prolife, nothing the Congress can do will change anything. Once the Supreme Court declares something to be a “constitutional right”, as it did with abortion, the Congress is powerless to change it. Only the Court can change it, and it would take one more prolife justice to do that.

You might not think a Republican president will shift the balance of the Court, but the abortion lobby sure does. That’s why they totally support pro-abortion candidates, all of whom are Democrats.

Good post, Ridgerunner.