getting real conservatives on the court like Bork is easier than amending the constitution
toldailytopic: Election 2010: What candidates or issues to you feel passionately abou
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
getting real conservatives on the court like Bork is easier than amending the constitution
You don't understand the law or its process then. And you obviously haven't bothered to read much about it or Casey.
Won't matter. Had conservatives on Casey sitting with the votes. They followed that model and precedent I mentioned. You're waiting for something that won't happen while promoting candidates who may or may not give you a chance at that thing that won't happen.
You're better off climbing a mountain than attempting to climb the sky.
do you consider Kennedy a conservative?
I consider him a conservative appointment, which was rather the point. But I don't think conservative plays into it, past the point of precedent. You really have to understand how the Court rules and why.
but he was approved by the same democrats who blocked Bork
why do you think he was confirmed and not Bork?
Lets assume for the moment that we get a conservative majority on the court. That does not mean that they will automatically overturn abortion. First, the court must agree to hear a NEW case regarding abortion "rights". They might agree to hear a new case or they may reject it as settled law. Now, assuming that they do overturn Roe V Wade, at some point in the future the court WILL swing back to a liberal majority and it becomes entirely possible that they will reinstate Roe v Wade.
The ONLY way to PERMANENTLY end abortion is by a constitutional amendment. It may be more difficult than voting for a candidate but it is the only method that will produce permanent results.
The ONLY way to PERMANENTLY end abortion is by a constitutional amendment. It may be more difficult than voting for a candidate but it is the only method that will produce permanent results.
Is that how abortion became legal?
The majority of Americans are pro-life. It's always been that way. In most polls more folks are pro-life than pro-choice.
So... no offense but there isn't much accuracy in your post.
Last edited:
Nope, but its the only way you'll beat it if, again, you take the time to get into how the Court rules and why.
Well, no. The data is against you on that. Relatively recently there has been a steady growth in pro life support. The most recent Gallup poll I'm aware of has it nearly evenly split, with 46% Pro Life identifiers and 45% Pro Choice.
Did a Google to look for it. Wiki has a bit of it. In 2008 Gallup had it 43% Pro Life and 51% Pro Choice. In 2009 they had it 45% Pro Life and 48% Pro Choice. So it appears to be trending in the right direction, but we'll need more than that to push Congress into an amendment.
None taken, but you're wrong. :e4e:
I guess I'm the kinda guy who thinks we should do everything possible to save little babies from being murdered by sadistic adults.
- Change the hearts and minds of individuals? YES!
- Vote for pro-life candidates? YES!
- Vote for pro-life amendments? YES!
- Counsel young women considering abortion? YES!
- Protest outside of abortion mills? YES! (our church saves about 120 babies per year with that method)
- Debate the issues online and elsewhere? YES!
YES! YES! YES!
A Gallup poll???? :chuckle:
I'm surprised Gallup admits that currently more folks are more pro-life 47% than pro-choice 45%.
:mock: Gallup
WizardofOz
New member
Thank you Knight for exposing chrysostom as the ingenuous, hypocritical, partisan hack he is......
Where I'm the kind of guy who is just too humble to say that.
I win. Let's look over your list...
:thumb: I'd say this is one of the most important things you can do, coupled with the next one.
:thumb: Unquestionably, though it won't change a thing without the first one.
:thumb: I'm not opposing them when I say they won't decide a thing. They still raise the issue and keep the discussion active and that's a real good.
:thumb: I think the more informed people are the more apt they are to make the right choices in life.
:thumb: If it's having that impact (or one, for that matter) I'd say it's worthwhile.
:thumb: A bit like the first one, but sure. It's been one of my concentrations, as you know, since I arrived.
I don't know of any scientific invalidation of the plus/minus or methodology, so yeah, a Gallop poll.
I'm not, but I don't have your conservative bias with regard to nearly any media (there's a Gallop poll on that too
). If it's testable and verifiable it's data that should be considered.
You support pro-life candidates?
I wasn't aware of that. Don't you support Obama? Aren't you are Democrat? The Democrat party is overwhelmingly pro-choice.
What candidates are you voting for this year?
Against unreasoned attacks and on certain issues, without question--but I differ rather strongly on others. By way of example, I'm pro healthcare reform, but against him on cap and trade, abortion, his general position on guns. It varies.
No. I was a representative for the Young Democrats years ago and was trained by the DNC...but back then there were a number of conservative Dems and no one ran in Alabama without a fairly similar profile. It's still that way, mostly, especially in the judiciary, only the party name has shifted.
No doubt about that and it's a Greek tragedy, given their position as advocate for the disenfranchised and marginalized. But I hope that shifts significantly over time. It has to if we're going to get an amendment. We need most of the country in our corner, not only Republicans.
I'm voting almost entirely Republican in our elections, with a few state wide exceptions, like Lt. Governor--which is more often than not the case with me...though if the Democrats for Life fielded a candidate for the Senate I'd have to consider them more ideologically in tune with my slightly left lean. My arguments with Chrys are mostly over principle and assumption.BabyChristian
New member
I'm glad you are not blinded by party.
Do you suppose you lean left because of your profession?
With me it's more that I'm less enamored with Republicans than in love with either.
I can't say... Most of the attorneys I know are fairly conservative people. Of course, most of the people I know are too. And they're frequently decent, good, thoughtful people. I suspect my time as a poverty lawyer influenced my thinking, as did the conservative politics of the South of my youth, both in its form and function (for good or ill).
These days there are a few issues, like health care, that would keep me out of the rank and file of current conservative thinking. But I'm equally adamant about gun rights and other issues I've raised here. All of which is to say that lean isn't as pronounced as is probably generally thought. A good deal of the impression has to do with my defense of the President and others when I perceive a particular...willingness to advance or believe any absurd proposition so long as it ends with the opposition being seen in as low a light as can be found. That sort of willfully ignorant ideological blinker offends me. If this was a mostly liberal forum and I ran, routinely, into an opposing practice, I'd doubtless be labeled the closet conservative. :chuckle:
I also don't care to be told my mind on a thing and conservatives (lately) are so self consuming in that regard (RINO comes to mind) that one minute's darling becomes the next bit of bath water tossed violently to the sidewalk and spat upon. No thanks.
:think: Maybe there's an answer in there somewhere.
Lawyers seem to go either way, it all depends on their practice and personal opinion. With academics, the more they lean towards social science, the more they tend to be liberal. In criminal justice there is an interesting dilemma, as those who do the research, many with a sociology background, do lean left, while the administration leans right, at least in Texas. So, you have research mainly ignored and policy come from the approval of the directors and the lieutenant governor.
No within hard science, mathematics, most of all, it can be a toss of the coin guess.
No within hard science, mathematics, most of all, it can be a toss of the coin guess.
The Graphite
New member
Yeah, slightly more than even Republicans do.
Right. And the Republican candidate for Senate here in Colorado, Ken Buck, calls himself pro-life, and yet he openly opposes the personhood of the unborn, advocates keeping some kinds of abortion legal, and specifically regarding your point above -- he has promised even recently that if elected to the Senate, he will approve pro-abortion judges.
So, how on earth do you expect to get pro-life judges on the bench if even most Republicans are openly saying that they intend to approve of pro-choice judges in Congress?
(By the way, Buck previously promised us he would be a leader in the Personhood amendment initiative and that he would never approve of pro-choice judges in the Senate. However, Nat'l Right to Life got to him. As soon as he flipped on both of those issues, NRTL endorsed him and started distributing flyers here in Colorado supporting him. After all, NRTL only endorses candidates who advocate keeping abortion legal in some ways, who oppose recognizing the personhood of the unborn, and who will agree to approve of pro-choice judges. Buck sold out on those principles to get NRTL's endorsement. And that's why he will NOT get my vote! Because I DO want pro-life judges on the bench.)
- Status