roberts confirmed

Guest of the Boards wrote:

Bush replaced a conservative with a conservative. The next nomination is really key.

Although one hopes Roberts doesn't go on to develop a pernicious tranquilizer habit, as did Rehnquist.

I am not sure why people would even care about his viewson abortion. Regardless, he is sharp as a whip, and if there were any questions following the hearings, they would be how Kenedy and Pelosi are still considered sane.

Frijoles y arroz.

Luv2Run wrote:

However, the US Constitution provides specifically for such "public use". .....it is wrong now....

But as you note, there is a movement in many states to restrict the ability of local government to do this.

If the "US Constitution provides specifically for such "public use", then why are you against it!?! Aren't you a true-blue "originalist", interpreting the Constitution as it was originally written and intended? Well? Why should local gov't be allowed to write unconstitutional laws? Is that what you want? Should some states be allowed to have slavery if they want to? It seems like you are suggesting that the states should be able to do what they want. And actually, that is what the Supreme Court said: they should states/loca gov't would be better able to decide if such land take-overs is "public use" or not. Maybe what you really mean is: the constitution should be changed, or......the case can be overturned someday by a new Supreme Court line-up (ignoring this recent precedent.)

And if states should all be able to interpret the constitution and the federal laws as they please (like you desire with abortion, ie, you think STATES should decide whether a "right to privacy" is inferred in the constitution and whether abortion is murder or not), then why is the Bush administration (or Republicans in general) constantly challenging States decisions in cases they don't like? Didn't they challenge California on its medical marijuana law? Aren't they going to challenge Oregon on its assisted suicide law? Didn't they want to pass a federal ban on gay marriage overturning MA's decision to allow it? Didn't they even step in and tell the Florida courts they screwed up on Terri Schiavo case twice!? And of course they don't want states to decide if "Partial Birth Abortion" can be used when a women's health/life is in danger. No, in THAT case they want to outright ban it period, for the whole country, without any exception for a women's health being in danger.

So in short, this nonsense about Bush and Republicans being for State's rights and constitutional integrity is just that: NONSENSE. They are for pushing their SOCIAL AGENDA and for remaining in power, period. And it 's a good thing too, because if they really stood up for States' rights, they would not have challeneged the Florida recount, and it is quite possible they would never have gotten the presidency in the first place. So from day one, they've spit on States' rights when it suited their social ideology or their will to power.

Funny how people do not see the same possibility if Roe were overturned. What would happen? Each state legislature would take up the issue, debate it and vote on laws regarding abortion. Laws would change over time but be changed through a much more democratic process. But then so few people understand that. They think that overturning Roe would make abortions illegal. It might open the door for it, but do you really think any states would ban completely abortion? Nah. Different states would have different rules--and just what is wrong with that?[/quote]

BallsHarry wrote:

if there were any questions following the hearings, they would be how Kenedy and Pelosi are still considered sane.

Ha!

Luv2Run wrote:

... do you really think any states would ban completely abortion? Nah. Different states would have different rules--and just what is wrong with that?

That makes no sense. First you say no state would overturn abortion outright, THEN you say that "Different states would have different rules." Wouldn't a "different rule" possibly entail banning abortion? Of course it would. And North Dakota has already passed a law stating that the day Roe v Wade gets overturned, abortion will be illegal in their state. So you are wrong, and not making a lot of sense.

And as I pointed out earlier, if you feel that there is nothing wrong with "Different states... hav(ing) different rules", then again, what is wrong with California's medical marijuana law? What is wrong with Oregon's assisted suicide law? What is wrong with MA's gay marriage law? What is wrong with some state's allowing partial birth abortions? Based on your beliefs, I would think the answer should be "nothing." But the Bush administration seems to have PLENTY of a problem with all those issues, not supporting states' rights on any of those issues.

Sir laugh-alot,

Has there ever been a post that you haven't had a problem with? You make the best case yet why abortion should be legal.

Locknload wrote:

Sir laugh-alot,

Has there ever been a post that you haven't had a problem with? You make the best case yet why abortion should be legal.

He makes an excellent point, mainly that Republicans are f***ing HYPOCRITES about what should be "left up to the states." The minute those great centers of federalism decide they want to do something differently from Bush and co., it's all of a sudden a national issue. Yeah, real principled there...

They're only trying to clean up the mess the liberals created.

Sir Lance-alot wrote:

And of course they don't want states to decide if "Partial Birth Abortion" can be used when a women's health/life is in danger. No, in THAT case they want to outright ban it period, for the whole country, without any exception for a women's health being in danger.

So you communist piece of radicalized human feces, is the following cool with you when a woman's health is endangered in pregnancy (which only happens, oh, say, in ONE HUNDRED PERCENT OF PREGANCIES):

You idiots are vile and sadistic beyond any ability to convey as much in written language.

Locknload wrote:

They're only trying to clean up the mess the liberals created.

Then at least they could admit that's what they're doing and stop spewing this bulls*** about "state's rights" that conservatives love so much. Then they'd still be huge f***ing a******s, but at least consistent and vaguely principled (in a f***ed up way) a******s.

It might not be right...but who the hell gives you the power to tell a women what she can do with HER BODY....it is her body not yours

Grow up and stop trying to force your morals on other people

In this argument men should just stay the f..k out because men have all the fun and take none of the risks....

hoodoo wrote:

I agree with you. Having Roe v. Wade on the books is much better for the Republican party politically than overturning it. If it actually is overturned, moderate women will leave the party in droves and there will be a huge backlash, while the base turns to a different issue or tries to impose bans in the states, both of which will take away from their activism towards the national party.

Oh s*** you are right. If we give fetus' rights now, they might start demanding repairations in the future from those who had nothing to do with the discrimination and in many cases murder of their kind.

I think if they admit it then they feel it would be politically damaging. So what they do is try to find a tone that is more agreeable to the main stream american while correcting the wrongs of liberal past.

For example: Of course they want RvW overturned as they should but they can't say that because of scaring certain suppoters away. So they chip away and take it a step at a time like they're doing.

Same with affirmative action. Another liberal wrong that is slowly being corrected as it should.

You see they've learned from those lying liberals that distorting the truth is part of the political game and they fighting fire with fire is only way to right past wrongs.

The liberals shouldn't be crying foul. They created the rule of lies. And now they're reaping what they've sown.

How does it feel?

Yeah how does it feel? How does it feel to be a supporter of the "party of morals" that has a president with approval ratings around 40% and both major congressional leaders under investigation/indictment? Keep up that good work. Restore dignity and morality to the country. You're the ones!

swofford11 wrote:

It might not be right...but who the hell gives you the power to tell a women what she can do with HER BODY....it is her body not yours

Grow up and stop trying to force your morals on other people

In this argument men should just stay the f..k out because men have all the fun and take none of the risks....

Damn straight.

And for that matter, who the hell gives the US Congress the right to tell those nice white-hooded folk down south what to do with their PROPERTY?

I think Abe Lincoln should have grown up and listened to you swofford so he wouldn't have gone around forcing his morals on others.

Damn true.

Same with the BTK killer. I mean, sure I think his serial rapings and brutal murders were wrong, but who the heck am I to force my morals on society?

Thanks for clearing that one up for me swofford, you pathetically, execrably stupid waste of diatomic oxygen molecules.

Great!

pol wrote:

He makes an excellent point, mainly that Republicans are f***ing HYPOCRITES about what should be "left up to the states."

I think that this is a fair point. With solid control in the legislative and executive branches, the Republicans have gone out of their way to use federal law to override or pre-empt state law. The Schiavo case is perhaps the most prominent and notorious example.

The conservative members of the Supreme Court have, I think, been slightly more principled. Most of them, for example, dissented in the California medical marijuana case. But in the biggest case of all -- Bush v. Gore -- they were shameless. When I read the opinions in that case, I lost a tremendous amount of respect for the five justices in the majority.

Good way to twist my words.....

If you notice what i said was that no one should tell anyone what they can do with their own body....

Slavery has to do with other peoples bodies....

BTK attacked other people

So once again no one has a right to tell anyone what they can DO WITH THEIR BODY....

Thanks for being an idiot though....

Swofford11 wrote:

Slavery has to do with other peoples bodies....

So does abortion, idiot:

BTK attacked other people

So does abortion, idiot:

Thanks for being an idiot though....

The pleasure is all yours.