Posted on 04/16/2007 3:19:27 PM PDT by madprof98
Jim, it saddens me to think that any true conservative would ever vote to put this man in our White HOuse.
I pray we have an alternative.
Can we discuss the actual post rather than me Jim?
Last year South Dakota voters rejected a ban on abortions authored by a Republican legislature and signed by a Republican governor.
Six out of the nine SCOTUS justices were appointed by Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II...and Roe v. Wade is still on the books.
I don’t think it’s going away anytime soon.
As far as who I support...when the rubber hits the road, I will always vote Republican.
There are tens of thousand of laws that differ from state to state. Driving age, sentencing guidelines, professional licensing requirements, the list is endless. Why would abortion be any different than any other state regulated practice?
Because no one has ever tried to get elected to Congress or the Presidency based on the issue of professional business licensing.
I would imagine it would be simpler to campaign on a platform of "I'm going pass legislation to get the ban overturned" rather than "I'm going to work to achieve an unprecedented and unworkable Supreme Court decision to overturn the ban".
The Court is far easier.
Ask Texas about a guy named Lawrence.
Sean likes Rudy because he saw him “up close” in NYC.
Rush and Levin do not like Rudy.
The right to bear arms is an enumerated constitutional right that has been found to be applicable to individuals yet every state in the union has seperate and distinct laws regarding the ownership of firearms. If the Supreme Court has found that to be constitutionally sound on what grounds would abortion receive higher standing?
We better get an alternative.
Right now the way it looks, Hillary will win.
If Rudy wins the "R" nomination, there will be some Johnny-come-lately, so-called "conservative" candidate who will run third party.
Never-mind to some that such a candidate didn't have the courage of his convictions to run in the Republican primary.
Just enough conservatives including more than a few here at FR will be duped by such a demagogue.
Hillary would win. The country would be lost for generations.
After, we'll get to talk in hushed tones, far underground about what great conservative principals we have.
I can’t discuss this with you any longer, as I’ve been warned that I can be banned from this site as a result of it.
Let it just rest with this...
Anything that the government tries to “fix” results in a bigger problem being created.
Each and every one of us is the head of the government in our homes...end abortion at that level, and it effectively ends at every level.
how can that happen, abortion isn’t in the constitution - either pro or con. a SCOTUS that tosses Roe, sure as hell isn’t going to invent some new right on the heels of that. Hell, they might as well just leave the one invented in 1973 in place if they are going to do that.
the “right to life” may well apply federally to ban 20+ week abortions, because viability can be demonstrated scientifically. but first trimester would return to the states. which states decide to ban it, and whether they can sustain that decision in their legislatures/governerships - its in their hands.
Each and every one of us is the head of the government in our homes...end murder at that level, and it effectively ends at every level.
Each and every one of us is the head of the government in our homes...end slavery at that level, and it effectively ends at every level.
Each and every one of us is the head of the government in our homes...end terrorism at that level, and it effectively ends at every level.
We're not talking about a simple "personal" issue. We're talking about killing a human being who deserves the protection of his or her God-given right to live.
,,,,ooooops,,,,never mind.
Yes, the court is easier. Which is why, if you really want to protect life because it’s sacred, you have to change tactics.
The current tactic focuses on a “strict constructionist” approach, which strikes down Roe and thereby throws abortion back to the states. South Dakota shows that even red states, when given the choice, will vote to maintain abortion rights. So, a constitutional point is made by striking down Roe, but no babies are saved, because the majority of Americans WANT the convenience of being able to kill babies, when the rubber meets the road.
The Court is the anti-majoritarian branch. Strict constructionism may restore constitutional purity, but it won’t save babies’ lives. I am interested in saving babies’ lives. And I understand that the only way to do that, in America, is to find a way to override the will of the majority of the American people, from sea to sea. The only way to do THAT is to get a Supreme Court decision that doesn’t strike down abortion rights on federal grounds, throwing the issue back to the states, but strikes down abortion period, on human rights and due process grounds. Aborting a child kills a human being without due process of law. A court needs to be empanelled that will find, in a judicial opinion, that an unborn child is a legal person, and thereby protected by the Constitution, thereby removing abortion completely from the political process just like Roe did, but in the other direction. The answer to abortion is NOT democracy or federalism. Americans WANT THE CONVENIENCE of killing babies.
The answer is that babies are human beings, and human beings are protected by the Constitution, and the constitution overrides all state law and Congress too. Abortion should be unconstitutional, period. The majority of Americans do not agree with that, but not a BIG ENOUGH majority to be able to amend the Constitution and override a Supreme Court decision which strikes down Roe by protecting the unborn as a matter of Constitutional right. It takes 2/3rds of both houses of Congress and 3/4ths of the states to override the Supreme Court by amending the Constitution. The votes are not there to do that IF the Supreme Court abolishes abortion by fiat. That is the only way to protect the babies, and I think that protecting millions of innocent lives is more important than the counter-arguments.
So, that’s what we have to do if you really want to protect babies. We do not need “strict constructionists” on the high court, who will strike down Roe but then send it to the states where abortion will be protected. We need principled judges who will outlaw abortion as a matter of the federal constitution. This is conservative judicial activism, I suppose, but when I come right down to it, abstract principles of federalism are not nearly as important as the lives of 2 million children every year.
I do not want any more “strict constructionists”. I want pro-life judges who will impose a no-abortion rule on the whole country as a matter of constitutional law.
We didn't destroy Pres Bush43 EITHER TIME did we? Quite the opposite--we rallied big time!!! We didn't destroy Bush41 or President Reagan EITHER TIME did we? Again, we rallied big time!!
If we want a UNITED Party--then there is ONLY one answer,,,,nominate a conservative (Fred comes to mind),,,,and NOT a LIBERAL!!!
If you want a Party that is SPLIT WIDE OPEN--a liberal like JulieAnnie is JUST THE MAN FOR THE JOB!!
Scientifically and medically, the unborn child is a living human at every stage of development.
Which is why I will never, under any circumstances, support a presidential candidate who supports abortion. Anyone who is unable to understand an issue as fundamental as the right to life is unfit for office.
Precisely. The 14th Amendment protects human life from being taken by anybody, including the states, without due process. If the Supreme Court rules that human life exists at conception, then from that point onward it cannot be taken without due process.
Now, a court could still rule that doctors deciding to abort is “due process”, which is why it won’t do to get a subterfuge victory. We need strong pro-life judges, not strong “constitutionalists” to abolish abortion. A constitutionalist might look and say that all that is required is “due process”, and a doctor and mother agreeing to slay the child, who is admittedly human, meets that standard.
This battle is about principle, and the whole strict constructionist/penumbra’s business, or states’ rights arguments, are all subterfuges. The two issues in conflict are the sanctity of human life versus the convenience of post-conception birth control. That’s what’s at stake. Plenty of people acknowledge that a fetus is a human life, but think that the mother ought to have the right to terminate anyway.
Sadly, I don’t see a victory on this issue, ever. The lure of sex and the need for a quick exit to unwanted consequences is too great. And, absent a cholera epidemic at the Supreme Court, building an activist pro-life court would take years and years of a party winning election after election on an overtly pro-life, judicial activist stance.
I think we are fighting the long defeat here, and in a sense it’s a shame that folks like me simply will not compromise with electoral reality and stop holding Republicans’ feet to the fire on the abortion issue. But I won’t. Sorry, Rudy.
Hi Jim. I have not yet read this. Would you recall the title of the article so I can read it? I did FR thread and keyword searches and could not find it. Thanks!
“I don’t know but if you go with a gun grabbing, illegal alien pandering, gay rights supporting abortionist liberal like Rudy as your “conservative” standard bearer you’re going to have a whole lot more than OH and PA to worry about.”
Oh my, my thoughts exactly. It may SEEM good in the short-term, but in the long-run there’s so many bad things that can come-out of it. It’s a gamble.
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.