Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Lots to say on this, but its a bit loose and fuzzy.
1. You don't have to be Pro-Life to be anti-Roe. This ain't a ticket to heaven or a popularity contest on Earth. This is making government what it was intended to be and what people want it to be. Namely, local or non-existent in lots of ways it is not now.
|
I never said you did. But again, for Roe to be overturned there has to be at least five judges that want to overturn it. You still need three.
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
2. I assume you are talking Thomas and Scalia. My understanding from some fuzzy and distant writings is that there are two others who are believed to have held off on presenting their views on Roe, and will only set them forth to directly address the issue of Roe. Both are supposedly thought to be generally in favor of overturning Roe on the basis that the opinion had no basis (queue the gray mist and "permutations" quote... who's got it again").
|
Why so cryptic? Just the fact that you won't name names means to me that they won't overturn Roe. Overturning that decision would be monumental change to this nation. It would take a very confident justice to vote and overturn it. If they were that confident we would know who they are. You definitely could not be referring to: Souter, O’Conner, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Stevens
And I can't believe Kennedy would overturn. I am even doubtful about Rehnquist. So who is going to side with Thomas and
Scalia?
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
3. Pro-choice head of the Judiciary committee? That asshole almost lost that position in November, but promised to put out whatever the White House put in. I was paying attention at the time, and it was after he made a silly public comment. Anyhoo, if he doesn't play ball, I'm sure Rove can find someone who will
|
Bush probably won't be able to appoint anyone, but if he does it will just be one bite at the apple. Specter won't get replaced in the middle of the process.
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
4. There is no way an Appeals court can overturn Roe, and it would be fairly pointless for anyone on one of these courts to even make such noises.
|
If they did it would separate the wheat from the Chaff. It would give everyone an idea of what side of the coin people were on.
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Bit I end where I began. You don't have to be pro-Life and/or Catholic. You don't have to believe in God. You don't have to be a strict constructionist. You just have to believe that courts have no business legislating from a bench in a democracy. If the majority of the country wants a national law either way, let em pass a law. Better yet, pass an amendment.
|
Again you are making a policy argument, when the real issue is who is on the court and which way will they vote. Unless the Supreme Court overturns none of those arguments will mean anything.
Quote:
Originally posted by Say_hello_for_me
Still, full disclaimer. pro-Life, basically Catholic, believer, text and background matter (i.e., not a strict constructionist), and a firm believer that the federal government shouldn't intrude into community morality and what-have-you. So one could legitimately claim that I started with the answer, and then tried to justify it.
|
You are trying to justify your position, when that is not the issue. The issue is whether or not the court will overturn. It won't overturn for long time to come, if ever.
