If the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v Wade...and they are the final say...then why does it matter if a politician is pro-life or pro-choice other than as a way to judge their personal ethics?

I mean in order for there ever be a way to overturn a supreme court ruling there would have to be so many things aligned that it's near impossible and incredibly unlikely.

Am I missing something?

8/30/2008 2:06:24 PM

Quote :

"then why does it matter if a politician is pro-life or pro-choice other than as a way to judge their personal ethics?"

presidents select the justices

if a state creates legislation and someone sues, it could make it all the way through the courts again

also, it is up to the supreme court on what cases they want to hear

if you have some nutjobs in the court, it could come up again

[Edited on August 30, 2008 at 2:11 PM. Reason : 

8/30/2008 2:10:31 PM

being pro-choice doesn't make me any less ethical than someone who is pro-life

8/30/2008 2:10:43 PM

well...the President nominates the judge to the Supreme court, and the Senate conducts hearings to confirm it. A pro-life President may be more likely to pick a Pro-life Judge as did Bush when Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down. When/If the case comes through for appeal that would touch on the issues of Roe v. Wade (like it can since it's still controversial) the law can change just like that. So that's why it's important.

[Edited on August 30, 2008 at 2:13 PM. Reason : ]

8/30/2008 2:10:55 PM

yeah i'd actually prefer our govt be opposite what it is... i'd rather have a liberal supreme court (since they don't really influence economic decisions) and a conservative congress

8/30/2008 2:14:07 PM

Quote :

"If the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v Wade...and they are the final say...then why does it matter if a politician is pro-life or pro-choice other than as a way to judge their personal ethics? I mean in order for there ever be a way to overturn a supreme court ruling there would have to be so many things aligned that it's near impossible and incredibly unlikely. Am I missing something?"

not really, interpretation of law is the reason why things keep changing all the time. Also the politician's views (or stated views) matter because if a opening should occur on the courts, its up to the president to nominate them, but up to congress to confer nomination. (lol nom nom nom).

8/30/2008 2:15:49 PM

But you can't appeal a Supreme Court ruling....so the only way to change anything would be to change the way in which government treats the the core laws of our country... I mean there would have to be a majority (at least, not sure by what margin but I think at LEAST 60-40) in the Senate, the House, the courts and the executive branch. So theoretically since dems are usually pro-choice, this would never happen?


As for the states creating legislation, do you mean if they made abortion laws a state issue rather than a federal one?

8/30/2008 2:16:31 PM

Quote :

"But you can't appeal a Supreme Court ruling"

you can, in a way; but instead of actually appealing the ruling, you bring the same case but with a different (or same but more inventive/creative) argument.

8/30/2008 2:18:55 PM

wrong section?

8/30/2008 2:19:19 PM

either way, good thread.

8/30/2008 2:21:48 PM

RABBLE RABBLE RABBLLEE




wait duuuudee... you're busting my chit chat highs

8/30/2008 2:22:03 PM

I mean look, I don't want anyone telling me what I can do with my body...but I just can't seem to fathom making a choice of who I want to lead our country based on their beliefs on something that in all reality will never be an issue. I mean there are just too many things that would need to fall in place.

8/30/2008 2:22:50 PM

you shouldn't use the abortion issue to choose who you want to vote for, especially with all the other shit we got going on

8/30/2008 2:24:23 PM

can you please take some more pics of your legs?

I'm walls1441 and i approved this message.

8/30/2008 2:24:40 PM

^

8/30/2008 2:25:43 PM

I agree...but it's a real sticking point with a lot of people...especially women because we tend to take it very personally (which I understand) but absolutely there are a ton of other issues which are way more important...

I mean it just seems so hypocritical (I know, welcome to politics) that we have the right to choose whether or not to end a pregnancy but like in the case of socializing health care, we don't have the right to choose which doctor to go to.

8/30/2008 2:29:06 PM

"if you have some nutjobs in the court, it could come up again"

hahah generally i consider insulting someone's intelligence over their beliefs to be incredibly idiotic. but that's a fucking retard statement

8/30/2008 2:32:11 PM

ok

i would consider both far left and far right justices nutjobs when the pulse of america is moderation

8/30/2008 2:35:46 PM

^6 that is how i feel. i mean it is ONE issue. but this is how tschudi's parents vote. abortion is their ONE issue. they say they realize there are other issues, but that this is more important than all the rest. i wonder what they would have done if lieberman was on mccain's ticket. DEAR GOD NOT AN EXPERIENCED MODERATE NOOOOOOOOO.

yea, there are really people that exist that vote solely on abortion. i can't really fathom it either. i get if it is ONE of your issues...fine, for most people it is. but i just feel like there are so many other important issues, that when put together, outweigh this one. why can't we focus on people who are already here?? a right to life isn't that extraordinary if you can't get good education, healthcare, if you're going to be beaten by your parents, raped, murdered, have trouble finding a job, etc etc etc.

its also kind of nauseating to have the government saying "you can't do this" so much. the emphatic role of the judiciary is to say what the law IS not what it SHOULD be. and while i agree the constitution is a living document and has SOME room for interpretation, proposing amendments to outlaw abortion and gay marriage seem EXTREME. hello, the constitution has only been amended 27 times in two hundred years and amendments 1-10 came ALL at once. i think it is something that needs to be taken more seriously.

/rant.

[Edited on August 30, 2008 at 2:36 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on August 30, 2008 at 2:37 PM. Reason : D]

8/30/2008 2:36:15 PM

Quote :

"a right to life isn't that extraordinary if you can't get good education, healthcare, if you're going to be beaten by your parents, raped, murdered, have trouble finding a job, etc etc etc. "

amen

People are more concerned about the rights and welfare of a fetus that is not even born yet than of the people that are currently walking the earth.

Makes no sense.

8/30/2008 3:07:39 PM

I just find myself thinking that an awful lot of energy is spent on something that for all intents and purposes is a non-issue. Do I believe that the government should help people that can't help themselves? Absolutely...to a point. Look at Obama...his mother turned to government help so that she could provide for her children and give them an education so that they WOULDN'T have to turn to the government...and it worked so that's money well spent... But when it's a cycle within the generations that's a problem...and why should the government help those that CHOOSE not to help themselves. Now if a person is born with a handicap then that's where helping those that can't help themselves has the most relevance...but laziness isn't a handicap.

How many people do any of you know that have received 'settlements' from a car or work accident? I think I know one person and he was hit by a drunk truck driver and dragged until his arm nearly severed... in my whole life I know that one person.... But you watch 'Judge Joe Brown' or 'Judge Judy' and 85% of the people that come through there have gotten or are waiting on a 'settlement' (and that case isn't the reason they're in court). And then you see the grandparents, and parents and children of the same family...not bettering themselves but just continuing to use the government as their parent.

/rant

8/30/2008 3:11:44 PM

maybe you should spend this time updating your site


I'm walls1441 and i approved this message.

8/30/2008 3:12:14 PM

i know rite.....

It will be done!

8/30/2008 3:12:53 PM

Quote :

"its also kind of nauseating to have the government saying "you can't do this" so much"

I don't know about you, but I don't really mind when it's things like "YOU CAN'T KILL PEOPLE" or "YOU CAN'T STEAL THINGS."

In the case of abortion, I understand what you meant... but there are many laws meant to protect us rather than just thwarting/controlling every aspect of our lives.

[Edited on August 30, 2008 at 3:14 PM. Reason : .]

8/30/2008 3:13:44 PM

^^ see look what you've done. ^


I'm walls1441 and i approved this message.

8/30/2008 3:14:13 PM

I want to make a new thread

Abortion: Serious Business

but I can't think of what to put in the body

8/30/2008 3:15:14 PM

i had a really good idea for a thread that involved Serious Business in the title but i can't remember what it was now.


I'm walls1441 and i approved this message.

8/30/2008 3:16:03 PM

Serious Question: Why don't people ever answer my gmail?

8/30/2008 3:19:32 PM

^^^

Obviously a serious business coat hanger

8/30/2008 3:26:27 PM

Quote :

"If the Supreme Court ruled on Roe v Wade...and they are the final say...then why does it matter if a politician is pro-life or pro-choice other than as a way to judge their personal ethics?"

Just because the Supreme Court has ruled that abortion is legal doesn't mean that a state couldn't pass a law against it anyway.

8/30/2008 3:26:46 PM

Quote :

"In the case of abortion, I understand what you meant... but there are many laws meant to protect us rather than just thwarting/controlling every aspect of our lives. "

well obviously, but i guess i was referring more to social issues like abortion, gay marriage or civil union whatever, pot (not that i want to even get into that debate AT ALL so no one do, thx), etc. its just like, unnecessary. and i guess i was just trying to illustrate the fact that amending the constitution is a HUGE deal (to me at least) and people that want to amend it for abortion or gay marriage...it just seems so extreme it is hard for me to wrap my head around.

you're right...some laws are appreciated. but the whole idea of a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion...it just seems like meddling to me. again, why can't we focus on people who are already here and do something productive instead of meddling in the lives of citizens. i get that some people view it as a LIFE but...lives are taken everyday. i don't get why a zygote is more important than like a starving elderly woman in the street (extreme example, but we get my point)

i just think a reversal of roe v. wade also seems like a slippery slope. and not just with sexual reproductive rights. it will have other far reaching effects.

8/30/2008 3:29:42 PM

Noen....I <3 you....and the email is coming....

^^but then that's a matter to be considered for when you're voting for a governor or senator etc...not a President...right?

8/30/2008 3:32:58 PM

The Roe v Wade is extremely shaky.

A president with the right pull could pretty easily set the stage for it to be overturned. The Supreme court is always changing and evolving, as do the laws the rule on.

8/30/2008 4:04:19 PM

Let's say that I have just woken up from a coma to find McCain and Obama running for Pres...have either or them made a statement or a campaign promise yet? I.E. 'Read my lips, no new taxes'... or, 'If I'm President, I will socialize health care' or 'If I'm President I'll do my best to overturn Roe v Wade'?

8/30/2008 4:12:55 PM

If Roe vs. Wade was overturned, then it wouldn't abolish abortion, it would turn the issue back to being a states issue.

Quote :

"so the only way to change anything would be to change the way in which government treats the the core laws of our country... I mean there would have to be a majority (at least, not sure by what margin but I think at LEAST 60-40) in the Senate, the House, the courts and the executive branch. "

The way to overturn what the Supreme Court ruled is by either challenging it again with another case, or by creating an amendment to the constitution.

Quote :

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

Amending the constitution was purposely made incredibly difficult to do.

8/30/2008 4:32:39 PM

just push her down some stairs, christ, do you need the govt to do EVERYTHING for you?

8/30/2008 4:34:09 PM

que?

8/30/2008 4:35:07 PM

Quote :

"'If I'm President I'll do my best to overturn Roe v Wade'?"

no, but McCain is pro-life and Obama is pro-choice. All that tells you is the leaning they will have in appointing justices (maybe). For the average joe it doesn't mean shit. For the people who really care, they may work their entire working lives just trying to uphold it or overturn it, in which case the leaning may matter.

8/30/2008 6:13:05 PM

Quote :

"I mean in order for there ever be a way to overturn a supreme court ruling there would have to be so many things aligned that it's near impossible and incredibly unlikely."

neg

8/30/2008 6:27:27 PM

^what do you mean? It's never happened before....

8/30/2008 8:44:20 PM