Meeko wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Are you trying to imply that it's wrong for people who believe differently then you to have an agenda that matches their beliefs instead of yours?
Since when has the idea of restricting abortion ever been a valid one?
Hahah! That's funny as hell. I hope you intended that bit of humor. If not, I'm scared...
Quote:
Two conservative judges were nominated to fulfill a legacy of objectivity offered by the Supreme Court. One has already taken its spot and the other is just waiting for his turn.
Wow! You are naive...
A "legacy of objectivity"? Are you serious? The fact is that over the 40 year period of time during which the US senate was almost completely controlled by Democrats, the idea of approving justices based on their ideology has become the norm. So much so that Sen Kennedy made a big speach about how horrible Alito would be because he wasn't Liberal. Not because he was an alchoholic, or a gambling addict, or a closet homosexual, or just plain showed up to work late consistently or any other reason that might legitimately make him a poor candidate. Kennedy (and others) opposed his nomination purely on the basis of how he might rule on various cases.
So... Isn't this really a case of "they're wrong because they might do what I'd do if I could"? It's wrong for Republicans to put a judge on the bench who'll rule in a way they agree with, but it's totally ok for Democrats to do so? In fact, isn't this what Democrats have been doing all along?
The fact is that those two conservative justices are replacing one conservative and one moderate-swing justice (Rhenquist and O'Connor). It's not like Roberts factors into the Roe v. Wade decision at all, since he's replacing Rhenquist (who wrote the opposing view in that decision, so you can't possibly get someone "more opposed" to it).
What would you have wanted differently? That Rhenquist be replaced with a Liberal who'd uphold Roe v. Wade? Wouldn't *that* be changing the balance of the court? And the vote is still out on Alito. Heck. The vote is still out on both justices. You're simply assuming that they're going to be raving Conservatives (and assuming that that's a bad thing...).
Quote:
Although I'm well aware nominating judges exemplifies the "To the victor goes the spoils of war" (or something like that) cliché, it's quite easy to construct a conjecture here. If you're turning a blind eye to the bigger picture and rather not believe these two obscure gentlemen, who both carry with them a very secretive track record and opinions about Roe v. Wade, then we have not much to talk about.
As opposed to a nominee where we'd know exactly what his stance is? But that'd only be ok if he was for Roe v. Wade, right?
Haven't you just conveniently defined "right" as only those things you agree with? It sure sounds like it too me... And just in case you haven't figured it out yet, while ever single appointment by a Democrat president in the last 50 years has been Liberal, only about half the Republican nominees have been Conservative. So... If the game is about "to the victor go the spoils", it seems like that's the game the Dems have been playing far more.
Of course, they controlled the Sentate for 40 of the last 50 years, so...
Quote:
Quote:
It's about the legal process involved in deciding to what degree abortion should be legal that we care the most about.
F'uck you. You know very well you're pulling the political card by not bringing matters of faith into the picture. Are you as obtuse to believe this ban was not influenced by the evangelical ties this government so batlanty projects?
No. Holy crap no! Has it occured to you yet that not everyone who disagrees with you must do it because they're religious or something? What an amazing strawman. Even when I state absolutely nothing remotely resembling religion in my arguement, instead of actually answering or even addressing my argument, you fly off into left field yammering on about religion!
I oppose it because it's bad law. Period. Why is it that the issue of religion in the Roe v. Wade decision gets brought up far more by Liberals then Conservatives? How many times do we have to keep saying "it's not about religious belief" before you accept that it really isn't about religious belief?
What's next? You're going to claim that even though you cant refute the logic of my argument, since you believe that it's secretly based on religion, you don't have to? Do you realize how dumb this makes your position seem? It doesn't matter *why* I say what I say. If my arguments are valid legal, ethical, and logical arguments, then you really ought to answer them with something approaching logic and reason. If they aren't, then try to say why they aren't. So far, you haven't actually refuted a single thing I've said.
And just for the record, I'm well aware that the Religious Right does want to ban abortion. The difference is that I think we should be fighting them by actually fighting them! Not playing legal tricks with stacked Supreme Courts allowing us to avoid the legal issues. Get it? Because, as you've so brilliantly pointed out, if you use the court to push for your ideology, eventually the court will shift and that will change. Establishing the idea of legistlating from the bench is dangerous for exactly that reason. It's great when it's your guys in the majority in the court (as it's been for Liberals for quite some time). Not so great when that majority is lost and the balance shifts.
That's why I think we should be legistlating in our legistlatures instead. It may not be as easy. It may not be as quick. But if allowing abortion is the better choice, then it should be made by the people, not decided by fiat in a court somewhere. Get it? As long as the people don't get to determine their own laws, they'll fight to remove the thing preventing them from making that decision. Allow them to make their own laws, and they may not be happy about the result, and they certainly may continue to try to change things, but at least they'll accept to some degree that they were overruled by "the people", and didn't just have their view arbitrarily overruled.
Quote:
You are a f'ucking hopeless case. I'm all for supporting conservatives when it comes to fiscal responsibility, but concerning social reform and advancement for the greater good, are you as obvlious than to put your hopes and desires behind the corporate elite who, ultimately, have always ran the United States?
Hehe. Just felt like bolding that part. Isn't that exactly the argument I said that Liberals use to justify their actions? Not saying it's always wrong (or always right for that matter). Just pointing out that I certainly seem to have a good grasp not only on my argument, but on yours as well. You, however, are just kinda all over the map...