Posted on 10/28/2007 7:17:48 AM PDT by shrinkermd
Almost 35 years have passed since the Supreme Court decided to end America's argument about abortion. Because of the court's supposedly therapeutic intervention in the nation's supposedly inadequate democratic debate about that subject, the issue still generates an irritable irrationality that was largely absent before 1973.
...Nevertheless, it is said that if the Republican Party wants to be competitive in California in presidential politics, it must nominate a pro-choice candidate, of which there is only one -- Rudy Giuliani. This is almost certainly true. It certainly is irrational because pro-choice Californians have next to nothing to fear -- just as pro-life Californians have next to nothing to hope for -- from a right-to-life president. The practical consequences of such a president concerning abortion would not differ significantly from Giuliani's consequences. Here is why.
...Again, so what? Many, perhaps most, Americans, foggy about the workings of their government, think that overturning Roe would make abortion, one of the nation's most common surgical procedures, illegal everywhere. All it actually would do is restore abortion as a practice subject to state regulation. But because Californians are content with current abortion law, their legislature probably would adopt it in state law.
...It is not irrational for voters to care deeply about a candidate's stance regarding abortion because that stance is accurately considered an important signifier of the candidate's sensibilities and sympathies, and of his or her notion of sound constitutional reasoning. But regarding abortion itself, what a candidate thinks about abortion rights is not especially important.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
A president makes a big difference in national policies and funding.
Aside from that, George Will is clueless, because the whole point is to return the issue to the states. I would be perfectly happy to see it outlawed nationally, as any form of murder of the innocent should be outlawed, but even murder is actually outlawed at the state level.
Most anti-abortion workers feel they could convince on a state level (even in California!), but the Court has effectively prevented them from doing so. Since the President appoints the Justices, then he also has an impact on abortion from that side. So the President really does matter, and we need to know his opinion on this issue.
“Do We Barf George Will?”
Only if he deserves it.
This says more about American society than it does about Giuliani or any other one politician.
There is a HUGE surreality factor. The right to kill a pre-born child is based on "the right to privacy" -- a right which at this point in history apparently ONLY applies to the right to kill a pre-born child.
The "right to privacy" is sacrosanct -- in the context of abortion -- and utterly nonexistent in any other context. In fact, it's gone so far 'round the bend that even an expressed desire for "privacy" is openly construed as being tantamount to "having something to hide."
What a sad, sick state of affairs we've descended into.
It seems George Will, a tool of the establishment, is in the tank for Rudy.
Expect to see more and more of this kind of thing over the course of the primary season. Did you notice the Fox "News" blatantly pro-abortion special yesterday (played repeatedly during the overnight cycle)?
The fix IS in. The Party Elite have decided for us -- they have decided that St. Julie-Annie is to be THE Annointed One, so that we'll have a "choice" between two identical sides of the coin: A leftist, pro-abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-high-taxes candidate in a dress, or, a leftist, pro-abortion, pro-gun-control, pro-high-taxes candidate in pants.
And, even if St. Hillary should really confuse things by showing up in a dress, it won't really matter at all, because this coin has two heads -- Hers on one side, and His on the other.
In the old Soviet Union, people had a "choice" of one candidate. We, on the other hand, have a "choice" between two candidates. How convenient that they're both cut from the same cloth, eh?
You, and a gajillion other ex-voters, who will find Election Day to be the perfect time to spend at home, pulling several decades worth of broken glass out of their knees.
This is patent nonsense. Presidents wield the veto, the bully pulpit and foreign policy. All three of which can have profound effects on the direction of the abortion debate.
So yeah, a barf alert may well have been in order.
And increasingly, they've outsourced the basis for their decisions to foreign "precedent."
It's a mad, mad, mad, mad world.
This says more about American society than it does about Giuliani or any other one politician.
It's generally considered gauche to make comparisons with "the old German regime" -- but it's increasingly difficult to avoid in rational discourse.
Yep. Very strange place. Somehow those who are in favor of allowing courts to make our most important decisions for us never seem to realize that courts can equally well rule against their pet ideas.
For instance, it is not entirely possible that a terrorist attack could take out the entire Supreme Court. Would a completely new court uphold all the precedents? Who knows? What idiot came up with the idea of giving total power to the single person who happens to be the swing voter on the court?
Any person who can't see the incredible evil of the American holocaust (50 million innocent humans killed) has even less moral character than a person who can't see the incredible evil of the Nazi holocaust (6 million innocent Jews killed). If comparison of the number of human beings murdered with government approval in both nations is used as the measure of respective guilt, the US is 8 times more guilty than Nazi Germany, and those in authority who legalize the killing in America will suffer divine retribution 8 times worse than the Nazis. (Luke 17:2 It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend (harm) one of these little ones.)
But in a moral sense -- and leadership is a moral proposition -- it just might be the most important factor.
A president without a conscience is a scourge to the world.
Exactly my point, but better said.
"In selecting men for office, let principle be your guide. Regard not the particular sect or denomination of the candidate, look to his character. The scriptures teach that rulers should be men who rule in the fear of God,..........When a citizen gives his vote to a man of known immorality, he abuses his civic responsibility, he sacrifices not only his interest, but that of his neighbor; he betrays the interest of his country."
Noah Webster, 1823
excellent.
Core Conservative Beliefs
American Thinker | October 27, 2007 | Bookworm
Posted on 10/28/2007 3:02:02 PM EDT by neverdem
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1917605/posts
Rudy, the Values Slayer
(A Barf But He Has A Point And A Question For Social Conservatives)
New York Times | 28 October 2007 | Frank Rich
Posted on 10/28/2007 8:57:38 AM EDT by shrinkermd
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917511/posts
For the GOP, a New Breed of Governor (Bobby Jindal, A Conservative Who Can Win)
Washington Post | 28 October 2007 | David S. Broder
Posted on 10/28/2007 10:25:18 AM EDT by shrinkermd
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1917539/posts
vote for rudy, vote for rudy...
relax your principles, vote for rudy...
Principles matter.
Wrong! Dred Scott was a terrible decision and was eventually overturned. There is much a president can do regading abortion such as : back keeping preborn babies in the CHIPs program; sign the child custody protection act and appoint conservative FEDERAL JUDGES. Will has gone dopey in his old age - this is his way of backing Giuliani.
I guess old George thinks it is up there with root canal! Shame on him. George should think of one of his better lines: “Bill Clinton may not be the worst president but he is the worst person to have becom president.”
The importance about Roe v Wade being overturned, is that a lot of states have tried to put in place some restrictions over the years that kept getting shot down by the Supreme Court under the auspices of ‘Roe’. If that were not in place, and each state’s citizens were able to decide for themselves, there would be many states with restrictions that would go a long way toward lowering the total number of abortions in the country. Yes, there would be states in which abortion would still be legal, but I daresay that even in those states, there would be restrictions put in place. These would be easier to pass if citizens couldn’t be scared into thinking that any restrictions would be causing abortion to be outlawed.
You are very correct. It has become “Roe uber alles” - Roe above all and it should be overturned. I think somebody spiked George Will’s prune juice because he has been cranky lately.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.