quote:

I would, but I fear the chance that I might have to look him directly in the eyes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

I would, but I fear the chance that I might have to look him directly in the eyes.

Oh no, I have been Obamaneyezed!

quote:

Is that worse than being Bush-whacked?

quote:

However, I am responding to the Republican supporters here. Most do not even want to address a point that I think needs addressing - the issue of abortion. I responded to you in another Obama thread with it - you did not repsond - perhaps you did not see it. I will repost here:

quote:

quote:

Can you confirm that there will be a need to appoint a SC justice in the next term?

We have an 88 year old judge and a 75 year old judge; I can say the chances are pretty high.

quote:

Can you confirm that Obama will use a pro-abortion litmus test on SC justice nominees?

Well, Obama is a strong Roe v Wade supporter, and he opposed both Roberts and Alito, so he almost certainly will not appoint justices that will be a threat to Roe v Wade.

quote:

Can you confirm that McCain will use a pro-life litmus test on SC justice nominees?

McCain has consistently been outspoken against Roe v Wade, and consistently supportive of conservative justices, though I think he fumbled it by not strongly opposing the filibuster machinations of the Democrats.

quote:

BTW, McCain does not have the strongest record on being pro-life (66% by the NRLC), and he has publicly stated that he believe abortions be legal only in cases of rape, incest or when the mothers life is endangered - I can of course provide links.

quote:

Actually, McCain has voted for every restriction on abortion and for every conservative justice in his tenure as a Senator; his pro-life record in this regard is superb. NRLC’s main problem with McCain is McCain-Feingold – and I agree with NRLC on this, but it doesn’t have anything to do with abortion directly.

quote:

There are pro-choice Republican politicians just like there are pro-life Democrat politicians. I honestly do not think that much will change with the SC on the issue of RVW. 7/9 current SC justices were appointed by Republican presidents, some with a Republican-controlled congress - and STILL RVW has not been overturned. I think it's wrong that 9 black-robed justices have jurisdiction over sanctitiy of life - I do believe this jurisdiction should be returned to the states.

quote:

I think that it’s a long haul battle, won trench by trench – and the SC is a key part of it. There are four justices currently on the court (all nominated by Republicans) that are in favor of revising Roe – one more is needed to make that happen. There is little reason to give up on this issue now by voting in a liberal pro-abortion Democratic who will certainly over turn every advance made so far. I think it very likely McCain would nominate that fifth justice, and certainly would nominate conservative lower court justices, which are key to the long term strategy.

quote:

Going through the judicial arm of the government does not seem to be working - wouldn't you agree?

quote:

At this point there is no other option – and it certainly won’t get closer under an Obama administration.

quote:

Why, if Republican politicians are truly pro-life, why don't the Republican politicians support Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life bill, HR 2597? Why, if Republican politicians are truly pro-life, why didn't the Republican politicians support a bill like Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life bill, HR 2597, when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government from 2000-2006? There is a clause in the Constituion that allows the leglislative branch to check the judicial branch - rightly so - if the 9 robed people are not speaking for us, then Congress has to. Overturning RVW through the SC is not working - why, if Republican politicans are truly pro-life, why don't Republican politicians go through Congress to return jurisdiction to states (like it would if RVW would be overturned) on the matter of sanctity of life?

quote:

I think this was introduced in June ’07. It was referred to committee in July ’07. The Dems took control of the House in the fall of ‘07– I am not sure what time there could have been to take action on it, though if it could actually work (it was an unprecedented move) it would have been wonderful. It won’t of course happen under Democratic leadership.

quote:

As I said, there are a number of issues that I think the Democrats, and Obama are wrong on, though for me most of them revolve around the court – and I don’t see any evidence whatsoever that Obama wants to restrict the Court to it’s Constitutional parameters.

quote:

Well, this is not good enough for me - I need to see a link with the respective candidates quoted, as to whether or not they would use a litmus test on this issue. The ONLY issue I agree with Republicans on is the abortion issue. I am not about to waste my vote on McCain if he will not use a litmus test - and on that matter if Obama says he will NOT use a litmus test either. I cannot find any information where either said they would use a litmus test on-line. In the past, McCain has said that he does not believe RVW should be overturned, now he is saying he does think it should be overturned. AND, he publicly stated in '07, that abortions be legal ONLY in cases of rape, incest, mothers life endangered. I imagine they will eventually be asked the litmus test questions. I'm even planning on attending any 'town hall' hall meetings in Wisconsin if they have them here so that I can ask the candidates these questions directly.

quote:

The NRLC measure, Jack, is what people here measure Democrats against on this issue - so, I'm sticking with this measure to be consistent. You cannot apply it to Democrats, then not apply it to Republicans - it's hypocritcal and it does not logically make sense.

quote:

Well, only two of the nine SC justices were nominated by Democrat president (Clinton). That leaves 4 SC justices that were nominated by Republican presidents, that do NOT vote in favor of overturning RVW. On top of this, it was SC Kennedy - nominated by the most conservative of all conservatives, Ronald Reagan - who, in 1992, had the deciding vote to overturn RVW in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey that year & did NOT. SC justice Roberts has called RVW the settled law of the land.

quote:

And you are ignoring the fact that not a single Democratic currently appointed justice voted against abortion, and the majority of the Republican ones are against it.

quote:

And, I think you are making excuses for the Republican politicians, Jack. The champions of the pro-life movement, the Republican politicians should be doing BOTH - attacking the Sanctity of Life (returning the Sanctity of Life issue to the states) issue in the judicial and the legislative arms of government and they certainly NOT with the legislative branch; and, I don't think they really are with the judicial appointees they have made either. I really cannot fathom why you are excusing the Republican representatives out of suporting fellow Republican Ron Paul and his 4 co-sponsors! Especially, especially, when this could have been passed in 2000-2006 when the Republicans controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government.

quote:

If the Republican party is truly the champion of the pro-life issue, then they sure as heck at least better try returning this issue to the states via the Judicial branch and via Congress like Ron Paul & his 4 co-sponsors are trying to do right now, and he does not even have the ideal conditions of 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled both Congress and the executive branch. To say otherwise (that the Republicans should not try to pass Sanctitiy of Life via Congress), is just making excuses for their inactivity in this matter.

quote:

Why didn't the Republicans , who champion the pro-life issue, try from 2000-2006, then Jack? I asked this question. Why aren't there more Republicans signing on to this right now?

quote:

Well, as an independent voter who only sides with one issue of the Republicans, that being the abortion issue - for the aforementioned reasons, I am leaning towards Obama. Especially when people use scare tactics as they so often do on these forums. It really is silly and transparent.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Congratulations on missing the point entirely. Let me repeat with emphasis: It's what happens when lots of people get in tight spaces.

That's why people fainting at Obama rallies is a media manipulated non-story designed to make Obama supporters look like fanatics. You put a lot of people in a confined space, especially if it's the least bit warm and they don't have anything to drink, and odds are, someone's going to faint. It has nothing to do with the person speaking.

Oh, I got the point - but you seem to have missed the humor.

quote:

No, you ignored the point because it doesn't fit with your idea that people are so in awe of Obama that they're fainting.

quote:

Well, this is not good enough for me - I need to see a link with the respective candidates quoted, as to whether or not they would use a litmus test on this issue. The ONLY issue I agree with Republicans on is the abortion issue. I am not about to waste my vote on McCain if he will not use a litmus test - and on that matter if Obama says he will NOT use a litmus test either. I cannot find any information where either said they would use a litmus test on-line. In the past, McCain has said that he does not believe RVW should be overturned, now he is saying he does think it should be overturned. AND, he publicly stated in '07, that abortions be legal ONLY in cases of rape, incest, mothers life endangered. I imagine they will eventually be asked the litmus test questions. I'm even planning on attending any 'town hall' hall meetings in Wisconsin if they have them here so that I can ask the candidates these questions directly.

quote:

I haven’t heard a candidate in twenty years say they would use abortion as a litmus test for appointing a justice to the court – you won’t find one either.

quote:

And McCain is commonly misunderstood on abortion – from an NPR story on the issue:

Many Republican voters, however, seem to believe, incorrectly, that the current Republican front-runner, Arizona Sen. John McCain, supports abortion rights, too.

The misperception is interesting, considering that McCain has not attempted to keep his pro-life views a secret. Here's how he put it on an appearance last year on NBC's Meet the Press:
"I have stated time after time after time that Roe v Wade was a bad decision, that I support a woman — the rights of the unborn — that I have fought for human rights and human dignity throughout my entire political career," McCain said. "To me, it's an issue of human rights and human dignity."

And while now former candidate Fred Thompson, the former senator from Tennessee, won the coveted endorsement from the National Right to Life Committee, McCain's voting record on the issue is just fine, says David O'Steen, the group's executive director.

"He's been very consistent; he hasn't changed his position," O'Steen says. He says that his group has supported McCain in every one of his senate races. "We've always considered him pro-life," he says.
Nancy Keenan, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America, says her group has always considered McCain pro-life as well. And it's not just abortion, she says.

"He voted against family planning, he voted against the freedom of access to clinic entrances — that was about violence against women in clinics," Keenan says, adding, "He voted against funding for teen pregnancy-prevention programs, and making sure that abstinence only was medically accurate. This is very, very extreme.".

quote:

The NRLC measure, Jack, is what people here measure Democrats against on this issue - so, I'm sticking with this measure to be consistent. You cannot apply it to Democrats, then not apply it to Republicans - it's hypocritcal and it does not logically make sense.

quote:

I quoted the head of NRLC on the issue above – he supports McCain. If that’s your measure, so should you.

quote:

Well, only two of the nine SC justices were nominated by Democrat president (Clinton). That leaves 4 SC justices that were nominated by Republican presidents, that do NOT vote in favor of overturning RVW. On top of this, it was SC Kennedy - nominated by the most conservative of all conservatives, Ronald Reagan - who, in 1992, had the deciding vote to overturn RVW in the Planned Parenthood v. Casey that year & did NOT. SC justice Roberts has called RVW the settled law of the land.

quote:

RVW is the settled law of the land – until the Supreme Court changes that. In the two cases where he actually ruled on abortion as a justice, he ruled to restrict it, and he argued against it numerous times.

quote:

And you are ignoring the fact that not a single Democratic currently appointed justice voted against abortion, and the majority of the Republican ones are against it.

quote:

And, I think you are making excuses for the Republican politicians, Jack. The champions of the pro-life movement, the Republican politicians should be doing BOTH - attacking the Sanctity of Life (returning the Sanctity of Life issue to the states) issue in the judicial and the legislative arms of government and they certainly NOT with the legislative branch; and, I don't think they really are with the judicial appointees they have made either. I really cannot fathom why you are excusing the Republican representatives out of suporting fellow Republican Ron Paul and his 4 co-sponsors! Especially, especially, when this could have been passed in 2000-2006 when the Republicans controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government.

quote:

I have been involved in politics in 20 years, so I am not niave about how politics goes on the issue, nor do I excuse the amount of opportunities wasted by Republicans. However, I’m not going to base it on a rather recent, obscure, chancy political maneuver that has yet to come to a vote.

quote:

If the Republican party is truly the champion of the pro-life issue, then they sure as heck at least better try returning this issue to the states via the Judicial branch and via Congress like Ron Paul & his 4 co-sponsors are trying to do right now, and he does not even have the ideal conditions of 2000-2006, when Republicans controlled both Congress and the executive branch. To say otherwise (that the Republicans should not try to pass Sanctitiy of Life via Congress), is just making excuses for their inactivity in this matter.

quote:

I don’t think the Republican Party is a ‘champion’ of this (and neither incidentally is Paul, though I appreciate his strong stance) but I do think they are the best of only two options – on this, and other issues.

quote:

Why didn't the Republicans , who champion the pro-life issue, try from 2000-2006, then Jack? I asked this question. Why aren't there more Republicans signing on to this right now?

quote:

I am not sure how it is you don’t consider appointing conservative justices, who will be the final arbiters of the issue, ‘trying’.

quote:

Well, as an independent voter who only sides with one issue of the Republicans, that being the abortion issue - for the aforementioned reasons, I am leaning towards Obama. Especially when people use scare tactics as they so often do on these forums. It really is silly and transparent.

quote:

I am not sure how it is that someone for whom this issue is so important would vote for someone who will do nothing but advance the pro-abortion cause?

quote:

Jack, I can think of one right now - Mike Huckabee, who, btw, supports the Sanctity of Life bill that Ron Paul is trying to pass right now. Look at Huckabee's own website, "I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees." What about Ronald Reagan?! Even at that, it didn't work - SC Kennedy was lauded by conservatives, and look what he did! He had the deciding vote to overturn RVW in 1992 and instead voted to uphold RVW.

quote:

LOL! Why does their website give McCain a 66% then? If you are strongly pro-life, should'nt you get at least a low B to A, 80- 100%, rather than a D (a solid D, I'll give him that)? I mean, for goodness sake, there are Democrats that score almost as high, and Democrats that score higher than McCain on the nrlc's website. If you don't believe me - take a look yourself.

quote:

Jack, Roberts said that in response to pro-choice Republican Arlen Specter:

"During Roberts's confirmation hearings, he, too, was reluctant to disclose how he would vote if asked to overturn Roe . But during the 2003 hearing on his nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he had said he viewed the ruling as settled law.

And during Roberts's hearings to become the nation's chief justice, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) had asked, "Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge or settled beyond that?" Roberts replied: "Well, beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101120.html

quote:

And, please address the fact that 7/9 SC justices were appointed by Republican presidents, and still RVW has not been overturned. In fact, one of the most highly lauded by conservatives, SC Kennedy, had the deciding vote in 1992 to overturn RVW, and did NOT.

quote:

A recent, obscure, chancy political maneuver? So, you're saying Ron Paul, who does get 80% from the nrlc.org, as sponsoring this bill as a political move?! Unreal. Jack, Republican presidents have nominated 7/9 SC justices in the last 2+ decades, and still RVW has not been overturned; even with a highly lauded conservative SC Kennedy who had the deciding vote to overturn RVW in 1992, and did not. This tells me going thru the SC is not working. They need to and should try other avenues like going thru Congress. If they are truly the champions, pillar of the pro-life movement, Republicans should have tried to pass Sanctity of Life when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government from 2000-2006 and they did NOT. To say otherwise, again, is simply making excuses for them.

quote:

I disagree with this and agree. I disagree that they are the best of only two options when it comes to overturning RVW. Republicans have had 2+ decades of making SC appointments - appointing 7/9 current SC justices and STILL RVW has not been overturned. These appointments, including the highly lauded SC Kennedy (appointed by THE conservative of all conservatives, former President Reagan) had THE deciding vote in 1992 to overturn RVW and he did NOT. Republicans could have gone thru Congress to return Sanctity of Life to the states, from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislatvie and executive branches of government - and they did not. No, they are no better than Democrats when it comes to overturning RVW - because, I think most Republicans secretly do not want RVW overturned, IMHO. Given the history, this is not a bad assumption either.

I do agree with you that there are other important issues. For me, for these - universal healthcare, getting out of Iraq and the environment - for these other issues that are very dear to me - the Democrats definitely get my vote.

quote:

Jack, I meant that they should try thru Congress, and largely they do not. Republicans could have gone thru Congress to return Sanctity of Life to the states, from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislatvie and executive branches of government - and they did not.

quote:

VS saying you are pro-life and then not doing anything that works to overturn RVW.

And as I said - I am staunchly pro-environment, pro-getting out of Iraq and pro-universal healthcare - ALL issues that are very dear to me. The ONE issue I agree with Republicans on, that of pro-life - they have choked when it comes to actually overturning RVW. So, yes, I am leaning Obama. But, again, if McCain said he would use an anti-abortion litmus test, I would definitely consider him.

quote:

Jack, I can think of one right now - Mike Huckabee, who, btw, supports the Sanctity of Life bill that Ron Paul is trying to pass right now. Look at Huckabee's own website, "I will staff all relevant positions with pro-life appointees." What about Ronald Reagan?! Even at that, it didn't work - SC Kennedy was lauded by conservatives, and look what he did! He had the deciding vote to overturn RVW in 1992 and instead voted to uphold RVW.

quote:

While I certainly laud Huckabee’s positions and wish all candidates shared it, it is still not a statement of a judicial 'litmus test'. Indeed, this is a good example of how the system works. Huckabee appointed Lavenski Smith to the Arkansas Supreme Court and then later advocated his appoint to 8th Circuit court of appeals. What did Smith in the confirmation hearing

"Well, as I understand the current precedence of U.S. Supreme Court, Roe and those cases decided subsequent to it are the law of the land, and it would be my obligation, and I would assume that obligation fully, to apply that law and enforce it."

By all accounts, Smith is a strong anti-abortion judge, but that is how the game is played in Washington.

And incidentally, Kennedy, GW Bush’s appointment, has a mixed record on abortion rulings.

quote:

LOL! Why does their website give McCain a 66% then? If you are strongly pro-life, should'nt you get at least a low B to A, 80- 100%, rather than a D (a solid D, I'll give him that)? I mean, for goodness sake, there are Democrats that score almost as high, and Democrats that score higher than McCain on the nrlc's website. If you don't believe me - take a look yourself.

quote:

Actually, if you look year to year, McCain averages about 80% - in 2007, because he didn’t vote on some issues that NLRC had as benchmarks, he got a lower score.

This is probably a better breakdown of the candidates on the issues from NRLC. .

quote:

Jack, Roberts said that in response to pro-choice Republican Arlen Specter:

"During Roberts's confirmation hearings, he, too, was reluctant to disclose how he would vote if asked to overturn Roe . But during the 2003 hearing on his nomination to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, he had said he viewed the ruling as settled law.

And during Roberts's hearings to become the nation's chief justice, Judiciary Committee Chairman Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) had asked, "Do you mean settled for you, settled only for your capacity as a circuit judge or settled beyond that?" Roberts replied: "Well, beyond that, it's settled as a precedent of the court.""

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/11/AR2006011101120.html

quote:

Yes, and as I pointed out, Huckabee’s appointment said the same thing. They all do – it’s pretty much a requirement to get confirmed – but it has nothing to do with one’s position on abortion or the requirement that one vote that way once appointed, as even pro-choice advocates recognize.

quote:

And, please address the fact that 7/9 SC justices were appointed by Republican presidents, and still RVW has not been overturned. In fact, one of the most highly lauded by conservatives, SC Kennedy, had the deciding vote in 1992 to overturn RVW, and did NOT.

quote:

Well, Justices can’t just start overturning rulings when they acquire the bench, they have to wait for cases, and on the cases that have come before the court, the conservative justices (Scalia, Thomas, and now Alito and Roberts) all seem right on the money regarding the issue. And they were all Republican appointments. A Republican appointment is not a guarantee for an anti-abortion ruling (which is, incidentally impossible to guarantee) but a Democratic appointment is almost certainly a guaranteed ruling in support of Roe. That is just the way the process works.

quote:

A recent, obscure, chancy political maneuver? So, you're saying Ron Paul, who does get 80% from the nrlc.org, as sponsoring this bill as a political move?! Unreal. Jack, Republican presidents have nominated 7/9 SC justices in the last 2+ decades, and still RVW has not been overturned; even with a highly lauded conservative SC Kennedy who had the deciding vote to overturn RVW in 1992, and did not. This tells me going thru the SC is not working. They need to and should try other avenues like going thru Congress. If they are truly the champions, pillar of the pro-life movement, Republicans should have tried to pass Sanctity of Life when they controlled both the legislative and executive branches of government from 2000-2006 and they did NOT. To say otherwise, again, is simply making excuses for them.

quote:

I am not sure why you took that as a slam on Paul – it was just a statement of fact. The legislation is unprecedented – we have never limited the SC in that way before. Indeed, there is some question it can be done this way. I admire his guts, and I think he should go for it because there is no reason not to, and crazier things have succeeded – but it is a political maneuver. This isn’t a bad thing – some of the greatest social works have been the product of political maneuvers.

quote:

I disagree with this and agree. I disagree that they are the best of only two options when it comes to overturning RVW. Republicans have had 2+ decades of making SC appointments - appointing 7/9 current SC justices and STILL RVW has not been overturned. These appointments, including the highly lauded SC Kennedy (appointed by THE conservative of all conservatives, former President Reagan) had THE deciding vote in 1992 to overturn RVW and he did NOT. Republicans could have gone thru Congress to return Sanctity of Life to the states, from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislatvie and executive branches of government - and they did not. No, they are no better than Democrats when it comes to overturning RVW - because, I think most Republicans secretly do not want RVW overturned, IMHO. Given the history, this is not a bad assumption either.

I do agree with you that there are other important issues. For me, for these - universal healthcare, getting out of Iraq and the environment - for these other issues that are very dear to me - the Democrats definitely get my vote.

quote:

While I agree what Kennedy did in this case was highly disappointing and a cause for skepticism, the reality is those who voted correctly were all conservative Republican appointments – the Republicans are simply a better bet in this case when presented with two choices. It’s a war of attrition, and not for those who can’t hang in for the long haul.

quote:

Jack, I meant that they should try thru Congress, and largely they do not. Republicans could have gone thru Congress to return Sanctity of Life to the states, from 2000-2006 when they controlled both the legislatvie and executive branches of government - and they did not.

quote:

I agree – I think a number of Republican congressmen and women are weak spined on the issue – but over 100 of them signed on to support this legislation – how many Democrats did?

quote:

VS saying you are pro-life and then not doing anything that works to overturn RVW.

And as I said - I am staunchly pro-environment, pro-getting out of Iraq and pro-universal healthcare - ALL issues that are very dear to me. The ONE issue I agree with Republicans on, that of pro-life - they have choked when it comes to actually overturning RVW. So, yes, I am leaning Obama. But, again, if McCain said he would use an anti-abortion litmus test, I would definitely consider him.

quote:

Well, we will see in the general election where they stand, won’t we?

quote:

I'll be so relieved when Hillary finally nails down the nomination so people here can stop inventing reasons Obama shouldn't be the democratic nominee. I don't believe most Americans, and yes, I said most, are ready for a black president. And don't worry, it won't happen. In a few weeks, after enough "dirt" and fearmongering have turned Obama into everything from a terrorist, to a monster to the Anti-Christ, Hillary will take Texas and Ohio and you guys can breathe a sigh of relief. Then you'll get exactly what you obviously want and deserve: Eight more years of Clintons in the White House.

quote:

I'll be so relieved when Hillary finally nails down the nomination so people here can stop inventing reasons Obama shouldn't be the democratic nominee. I don't believe most Americans, and yes, I said most, are ready for a black president. And don't worry, it won't happen.