What Americans Want In A Supreme Court Justice
What Americans Want In A Supreme Court Justice
Scott McClellan (10/7/05):
The President has a long record of appointing people to the bench who are strict constructionists. That’s what the American people want.
That’s not true.
53% believe the Supreme Court should base its rulings, in whole or in part, on the Constitution’s current meaning, rather than on the meaning of the document when it was originally written. (46% take the original intent view and 1% are unsure.)
63% of the public want a new Supreme Court justice who “will keep the court about the same as it is now” or will “make the court more liberal.” (30% want it more conservative.)
59% of the public are uneasy or unsure about Bush’s picks for the Supreme Court. (41% are confident.)
One more: 65% of the American public believe Bush’s priorities for the country are not the same as theirs.
Sort Comments By: Top Rated | Date
116 Responses to “What Americans Want In A Supreme Court Justice”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
When Chief Justice Rehnquist was a political appointee in the Nixon Justice Department, President Nixon asked him to draft a memo explaining what a "strict constructionist" was. Rehnquist's response:
A strict constructionist judge "will generally not be favorably inclined toward claims of either criminal defendants or civil rights plaintiffs."
October 11th, 2005 at 2:54 pmThanks, Ian. I've been wondering what's the meaning of some of these "talking points" the GOPer's toss around. By this standard, half of the federal judges across American are no longer "strict constructionists "--certainly not Roberts or Scalia, or Thomas.
October 11th, 2005 at 2:59 pmThe entire WH staff is feeding off the same delusions--Bush conceives them, Scottie reports them, and the rest of the staff propagate them.
Ian, do you have cite for that? Not challenging, just curious.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:01 pmWow, those numbers are staggering. No big surprise that most people just want this country left alone. That's why i'm convinced the WORST thing the RepubliCANTS could do is get R v W overturned. Most Americans would be furious with the change in the status quo
October 11th, 2005 at 3:01 pmSo "strict constructionists" want a return to the laws of yesteryear - no women's vote, blacks are again 2/3 of a citizen (with no vote), children are property, abortions are illegal (as is interracial marriage), women aren't allowed to own property, AND NO LAWS AGAINST BIGAMY! That's their most ardent wish (the female "strict constructionists" as well, I'll wager).
October 11th, 2005 at 3:05 pmWhat I would like to know if Old Bushie is against abortion than why in the 1970's did he have a girlfriend that had a abortion. He is a total hypocrite. This judge is suppose to represent all American not just the religious wing nuts.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:09 pm#5
October 11th, 2005 at 3:10 pmWell, all of that, but with the change that a corporation is a 'person' under the law, and has more rights than any citizen (well, seeing as how the corporations make lots of money and all....). See, they do want SOME new things.
Mary Poppin: God told Bush it was o.k. for his girlfriend to have an abortion.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:12 pmJust because a bare majority of Americans voted for Dubya doesn't mean a majority of Americans want whatever he wants.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:17 pm#9 That is a big joke right.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:19 pmI think it is funny that the Repubs are bickering between themself. The dems can just watch them.
WTF?...How would bushie know 'what the people want'??? He gets his news from karl! What a joke on us. Where the hell are thoes impeachment people, BRING IT ON....but first just a nice pile of inditments for starters.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:20 pm#11
October 11th, 2005 at 3:33 pmSorry. I did not make the sarcasm clear. As far as I know, he never said THAT. But if God is telling him to slaughter people.... what's one more?....
Link to Rehnquist quote:
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/William_Rehnquist
I'm not a big wikipedia fan, but this does cite a John Dean book as source
October 11th, 2005 at 3:43 pmI want to hear the argument for late-term abortions. Most Americans would agree that this a barbaric method and has gone on for too long.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:44 pmOn the issue of abortion and the courts. Be sure to Lcheck out this most recent poll by Pew.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:45 pmAccording to Dean's book it looks like it came from a memo Rehnquist wrote to Nixon's Attorney General.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:46 pmThis is also "true":
62% of the public want a new Supreme Court justice who “will keep the court about the same as it is now†or will “make the court more conservative.†(29% want it more liberal.) [CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Sept. 26-28, 2005]
or..
69% of the public want a new Supreme Court justice who “will keep the court about the same as it is now†or will “make the court more conservative.†(24% want it more liberal.)[Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Sept. 8-11, 2005]
Look at the links, folks!
October 11th, 2005 at 3:49 pm#13 That is a sick statement to make.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:54 pm#15 I am for a woman's right to choice but the LATE-TERM-ABORTION I AM NOT FOR. This is barbaric.
Not that I don't want to agree with you here that Bush's Supreme Court picks don't reflect the desires of a large chunk of Americans, but it IS a bit dishonest to lump the numbers together like that. When you say, "63% of the public want a new Supreme Court justice who 'will keep the court about the same as it is now' or will 'make the court more liberal.' (30% want it more conservative.)", you're not actually proving that people want the court to move to the left. Conservatives could make the exact opposite argument with just as much dishonest force. They could say that "60% of the public wants the court about the same as it is now or more conservative". And of course that would be accurate, though wouldn't actually tell you anything since there is about an equal chunk of people who want the court moving to the right as there are who want it to move to the left. This type of argument undermines all the other good work that shows up on Think Progress.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:55 pmneocons are always claiming to know exactly what the American people, as a whole, want... but there is no single thing we all want... they tout their views as those of the mainstream, but the facts say otherwise...
October 11th, 2005 at 3:56 pmThat's one of the ways dick-brain justifies doing whatever benefits corporations and the rich.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:56 pmHe opens his sh*t spewing pie hole and tries to put together the sentence:
"That's what the American People want".
Part of what makes the Federalist Society's demand for strict constructionism, or in another one of their strange twisting of word constructs "originalism," suspect is that it must interpret constitutional concepts free and clear of any original intent in order to apply intent--a hermeneutically flawed process. For example, the US Constitution contains an article that allows the document to be amended. It was ratified by the states with not only that article, but also the first ten amendments (since it would not have been ratified without them). Yet these folks wish that we forget all that and instead accept their interpretation for what the mindset of the white male citizens who held title to equipment and/or property during the 1780's. The list of flaws in this line of reasoning are endless.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:56 pmI'd be happy with another Sandy O'Conner. But I would have to be smoking way better than I got to think bush43 is going to nominate a moderate republican, EVER!
To bad too.
October 11th, 2005 at 3:56 pm#19 - Then don't have one.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:04 pm#19 - yes, it is (but should be read in a sacastic generic GOP voice). But I contend that to be within the bounds of their hypocracy. It obviously IS.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:05 pm#25 I am not in that age group anymore. I personally would not have an abortion but I believe a woman has a right to choice because a man does not have to have this baby or raise it.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:09 pmActually, Randy, I would like abortions to cut off at 6 years. When they are 6, THEN we know if we want them. I mean, we have to hear what they have to say first, right?
I love stupid trolls. I say we stop trying to be upfront and honest with them. We aren't given the respect we deserve in our own home, so - let sarcasm rule the day. They just hate sarcasm - it confuses them.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:10 pmThanks for the comments.
What we were trying to isolate was the low number of people who completely agree with McClellan's claims, which he says "is what the American people want." We were trying to show that a majority doesn't. The majority may not be unified on a single position, but they are also not unified (not even in a majority) on McClellans.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:14 pmYes, saying it DOES NOT make it true. Thanks, Amanda.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:15 pmThe problem is, neither of his nominees is a "strict constitutionalist". If they were, they wouldn't subscibe to Bush's ideology. I would prefer that he nominated strict constitutionalists...
October 11th, 2005 at 4:23 pm#20... I thought so too until I realised where they were going.
What they said is NOT dishonest. They are trying to rebut the administrations claim that "We're trying to do what the majority of Americans want".
They are trying to appoint a right wing strict constructionist. A minority of people want a right wing strict constructionist. A minority of people want a left winger and a minority of people want the same as we currently have. Given that we have three minority groups, it is perfectly legitimate to claim that choice X is NOT what the majority want.
40 percent want the status quo. 24% want more liberal, 27% want more conservative... thus if they appoint a conservative judge (27%) they are NOT doing what "The American people want" (64% say no). If they were trying to do what the American people want they would try and keep the status quo as that would fit with the wishes of 40% and the rest would be split among the "could have been worse" and the "could have been better" camps.
This is not intellectual dishonesty, but it was a careful phrasing...
Z.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:30 pmAs we seem to have an abortion sideline going...
Personally I feel that Abortion (no mattter how late term we are talking) should be an informed decision made by the woman with medical advice. Whether the womans wishes are carried out should depend at least in part on prevalent medical opinion (get at least two doctors to sign off on all of them)... Doctors should not be able to abort without the signed, informed consent of the "mother" but should not have to do it just because she wants them to.
This allows for late term abortions when medically necessary. If there was a circumstance when you would potentially lose the mother and child, then the mother should be able to decide if she is willing to take the risk, or if there is another alternative.
Of course the "all life is sacred, except for mothers who die in childbirth while giving birth to stillborn children" camp will disagree...
Z.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:38 pmThe vast majority of late term abortions (which is a very rare proceedure, btw -- most women don't go through 7-8 months of pregnancy than up and change their minds) occur because of health concerns. Either the pregnancy is putting the mother's life in grave danger, or some kind of disease was detected in the fetus that would make the child's life short, brutal, and extrememly painful.
This is an EXTREMEMLY personal and difficult decision, and if you have never been in this situation, I think you really don't know what you are talking about.
October 11th, 2005 at 4:39 pmAre you talking about abortion from a standpoint of policy or the Constitution?
There is a big difference, and it's an important distinction to make.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:21 pmJamie,
That's very true - and in fact late term abortions are not covered on Roe v. Wade - they are a separate issue already handled at the state level. This is what republicans 'claim' they want for roe v. wade, but clearly abortion is nothing more than a reichwing tactic to distract a large block of voters while their cronies raid the piggy bank...
October 11th, 2005 at 5:22 pm#27 - Thanks for clarifying. The choice belongs to the woman. Sorry for the snarkiness.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:27 pmRyan
You are exactly right. I was responding to some comments further up the thread about how "disgusting" late-term abortion is and how no one can defend it -- I really have no idea what this has to do with the topic at hand. I am just sick of the argument about "abortion on demand" that women can just suddenly decide after 7-8 months of pregnancy that she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore. It's bullshit. When Clinton vetoed the late term abortion act, he gave several women who had the procedure done speak about why they did it. Not a single one said that they just changed their minds. In every case, it was a heart crushing decision made because of health concerns. People who claim otherwise don't know what they are talking about.
Funny story -- when bush signed the partial birth abortion act into law, he was surrounded by lawmakers and activist and not a single one of them had a working, viable uterious (the few women were obviously post-menapausal).
October 11th, 2005 at 5:32 pmJamie,
It's so stupid, because if the reichwing were consistent they would be forbidding separation of siamese twins. After all the separation of one might (or often intentionally) kill(s) one of the twins to save another. This is no different than a late term abortion - and yet an under developed fetus is considered so precious as to forbid protecting the life of a mother - when no so such restrictions are placed on conjoined twins!
It's just the sort of stupid and irrational bat guano that always comes of these knee jerk pseudo religious moronic dimwits!
October 11th, 2005 at 5:36 pmWhat is with the abortion stuff?
ANY judge bush43 puts up is going to vote against ANY abortion stuff. Don't you all know that yet?
Statistically speaking - the home of most 3rd trimester abortions in the US is Kansas. Yep, bible belt Kansas has the loosest laws. Most of the time, the baby has been shown to be genetically defective. Encephaletic, Spina Bifida Occulta or some such thing where the fetus will die anyway. There aren't any Welfare Queens driving up in Cadillacs for this poster child. But the anti choice crowd plays it for everything it's worth.
C'mon folks, get real. Do any of you really think someone is going to carry it for 6 or 7 months and then decide they don't want a baby after all? NO, that isn't why late term abortions happen. Usually, it does involve the health and possible medical ramifications of the mother. Duh!
October 11th, 2005 at 5:46 pmJamie and Ryan, you are way too thoughtful for the Reichwing-nuts who would take control of everyone else's life.
October 11th, 2005 at 5:54 pmThese difficult, heart-rending decisions are not to be legislated, but are to be determined through medical science, consultations, and individual health concerns.
What the people want and the efficacy of abortion are irrelevant to the proper functioning of the Supreme Court. The Court's proper function should be to consider cases relative to the Constitution. The Constitution was established to, among other things listed in its preamble, "secure the blessings of liberty." So, in an ideal world, any action or proposal which would limit ones liberty (considering the effect on others) is not constitutional. This would apply directly to abortion. And there are other clauses, such as the equal protection clause, which are meant to protect our rights to equality, etc. So the Court's duty is to protect our rights, which are wide-ranging and not completely stated in the Constitution, and not to determine the limits on our rights. The Court should neither act as a legislature nor fail to enforce constitutional limitations on government power, and you might call this 'strict construction.'
October 11th, 2005 at 6:56 pmOK - who knows the gossip -- I have read references several times. Bushie had a girlfriend in the 70's who had an abortion?
October 11th, 2005 at 7:16 pmRobin Lowman
October 11th, 2005 at 7:22 pmhttp://archive.democrats.com/display.cfm?id=159
Amanda is forgetting (on purpose?) the 51% of voters who actually re-elected George Bush in November 2004. Their votes counted - unlike the 3-second answers of mere opinion poll respondents - because they actually delivered the judicial appointment power that George Bush now wields.
Once again, the left shows its blindness to the fact that opinions, without votes, are like noses: everybody has one, and nobody really cares all that much about his neighbor's nose. Everybody cares about political power, though. Too bad the left can't gain power without actually winning an election. The left hasn't won an election in a very long time, and the way things are going it looks like they never will.
But, hey, who am I to interrupt these irrelevant musings? Atta girl, Amanda, keep up the good work!
October 11th, 2005 at 8:31 pm#45 Ron
October 11th, 2005 at 8:46 pmThank you! Of course, there's nothing going to be done about it, but at least I know what others have been referring to--he was a hypocrite from way back when wasn't he?
Sorry - that should have been Thanks to DON!
October 11th, 2005 at 8:52 pm"These difficult, heart-rending decisions are not to be legislated, but are to be determined through medical science, consultations, and individual health concerns."
What a crock! If I determine, through "medical science, consultation [whatever that means], and individual health concerns that all rapists should be castrated, and all pedophiles should be shot, I'm not entitled to take the law into my own hands and pass judgment on all rapists and pedophiles, no matter how "difficult" and "heart-rending" the decision may be. It is precisely for this reason that we have state legislatures, and it is the people, acting by and through their elected legislators, who are empowered by the constitution to make such decisions.
In the case of abortion, though, the right of legislatures to protect the lives of unborn children, has been usurped by nine unelected, life-tenured judges - all of whom are now dead. It's time for the people to take back their God-given rights, and to put the genie of judicial legislation back in its bottle.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:02 pm#49.
Not nine, Rehnquist and White dissented.
"all of whom are now dead." Wow! Rehnquist has only been in the ground a month and he's already old news.
October 11th, 2005 at 9:22 pm"What a crock! If I determine, through “medical science, consultation [whatever that means], and individual health concerns that all rapists should be castrated, and all pedophiles should be shot, I’m not entitled to take the law into my own hands and pass judgment on all rapists and pedophiles, no matter how “difficult†and “heart-rending†the decision may be. "
What a crock is accurate - but only when describe this stupid and trite response on your part. First of all you compare 'enforced treatment' with individual rights. Your comparison would only be valid if abortions were FORCED you retard dope! If science dictated that castration works, and a pedophile like yourself wanted to castrate yourself - I'd say go ahead as that's your civil liberty. It's amazing how clueless you morons are about the difference between civil rights and the rights of society to restrict individual rights. You compare a civil rights issue, with the right of a state to enforce a mutilation! You're so stupid you make stupid look smart!
"It is precisely for this reason that we have state legislatures, and it is the people, acting by and through their elected legislators, who are empowered by the constitution to make such decisions."
Bullshit! The legislation is empowered with protecting individual rights, not restrict and enforce state required mutilations which is what you compared abortion to. What a dope! The state does NOT have a right to enforce this, any more than it should have a right to restrict families from pulling the plug.
"In the case of abortion, though, the right of legislatures to protect the lives of unborn children, has been usurped by nine unelected, life-tenured judges - all of whom are now dead. It’s time for the people to take back their God-given rights, and to put the genie of judicial legislation back in its bottle."
First of all a fetus is a fetus, not an unborn child. This 'voodoo non-reason' is at the heart of zealots and morons like yourself. You're rallied around a lie and nonsense and use it as an excuse to take away rights. It's always the mantra of stupid dopes like you. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one. If you want to believe a fetus is a child, you can do so. But you don't have a right to inflict those nonsensical delusions on others!
These morons always frame an argument based in a discredited lie - and they repeat the same lie over and over until they hope everyone believes the same lie. It's just a mass hysteria of religious terrorists!
October 11th, 2005 at 9:59 pmBlue State Red is a criminal. Criminals have no say here.
Marie, I too heard that Bushie's girlfriend had an abortion. I'm sure his daughters have had at least one by now too.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:05 pmDon, thanks for the link. Maybe the source has to be quiet about the abortion but we dont. Lets keep reminding the public that Laura Bushie killed an ex-boyfriend when she blew a stop sign and lets keep ol Georgies abortion on the front page.
I've always said that if abortion becomes illegal the pugs will have a list of doctors that will perform illegal ones. Looks like you've provided evidence to this Don.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:10 pmRyan (#51): First of all a fetus is a fetus, not an unborn child. This ‘voodoo non-reason’ is at the heart of zealots and morons like yourself. You’re rallied around a lie and nonsense and use it as an excuse to take away rights. It’s always the mantra of stupid dopes like you. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one. If you want to believe a fetus is a child, you can do so. But you don’t have a right to inflict those nonsensical delusions on others!
So, in other words, your defense of Roe v. Wade is that thinking that the---whatever it is---is an "unborn child" entitled to protection is stupid, and so the people who believe this stupid opinion have no right to impose their stupid opinion on others.
Someone else could just as easily say that thinking that the---whatever it is---is a "fetus" entitled to no protection is stupid, and so the people who believe this stupid opinion also have no right to impose it on others.
So, at the end of the day, doesn't this logic reduce the issue to whose belief as to when life begins is right and whose is wrong?
Note: Asserting that clearly your belief is right and their belief is wrong---as many tend to do when presented with this question---does not provide an answer.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:22 pm"So, in other words, your defense of Roe v. Wade is that thinking that the—whatever it is—is an “unborn child†entitled to protection is stupid, and so the people who believe this stupid opinion have no right to impose their stupid opinion on others."
From a medical perspective, a 'person' is someone with alpha waves - a fetus does NOT have a developed brain and is not YET a human being - in the same way that sperm may have your DNA, but is NOT a person. You're correct that I don't have a right to impose my belief on others about abortion - but I don't recall being in favor of FORCED ABORTIOn - which is what this would mean. No one is forcing people to have abortion based on my beliefs - but by the same token, you and your moron friends want to impose your ignorant and unscientific views on me.
"Someone else could just as easily say that thinking that the—whatever it is—is a “fetus†entitled to no protection is stupid, and so the people who believe this stupid opinion also have no right to impose it on others."
They could - and they'd be unscientific and irrational - but then again those who are overly religious or overly conservative typically fit that description.
"So, at the end of the day, doesn’t this logic reduce the issue to whose belief as to when life begins is right and whose is wrong?"
No, because science is provable and based on logic, reason and fact. Your belief is based on ignorance, prejudice and delusion. You're entitled to live that way, but you should not be allowed to subject a rational and civil society to that ignorance.
"Note: Asserting that clearly your belief is right and their belief is wrong—as many tend to do when presented with this question—does not provide an answer."
That's true - but when both sides believe differently and there's a foundation of basis for both - then it shouldn't be within the ability of one side to FORCE the other into their beliefs - which is what the anti-abortionist freaks believe they (you) have a right to do. Get a clue!
October 11th, 2005 at 10:43 pmRedState.org compared Harriet Miers to Justice Van DeVanter, one of the least capable justices in history.
What do I want in a justice?
Another Cardozo.
Here are the words of his biographer:
"He was the first modern judge to tell us how he decided cases, how he made law, and, by implication, how others should do so..."
Strict constructionist? Cardozo overturned hundreds of years of product liability law so that we can enjoy the protection from unscrupulous manufacturers we take for granted today. Before Cardozo, if a product injured you, you could only sue the person who sold it to you, not the one who made it. So much for precedent. Here are his words from McPherson v. Buick Motor (1916):
"The defendant is a manufacturer of automobiles. It sold an automobile to a retail dealer. The retail dealer resold to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was in the car it suddenly collapsed. He was thrown out and injured. One of the wheels was made of defective wood, and its spokes crumbled into fragments."
The court needs a Cardozo. Someone who actually asks "What is it I do when I decide a case."
Compare that to what Miers has written.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:47 pmBesides, if the retards of the right ACTUALLY cared about innocent lives, they wouldn't support the death penalty, war or any number of other events that KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. They're (you're) truly a hypocrit and moron if you can't see that.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:48 pmRemember, Blue State Red, even though libs view abortion as "...a heart rending decision" - they STILL support it. So how "heart rending" is it - enough to wrap up in a terry bathrobe and take a pint of Ben & Jerry's to bed for a week? Your misplaced concern is consistent - misplaced!
Here's a fresh idea for libs to get to TOTALLY PACK the court - using the FDR model - GET ELECTED and re-take the Congress. BTW, where has that vocal boomerang, Chairman Dean been lately? We conservatives do like him and wish he'd be front and center MORE!!!!
THANKS, Don - great site - "impartial" with un-named sources - sounds credible to me!! wink-wink!!! Shhhh, while you're at it - I have a tidbit only a couple of years older than your nugget! It's about a drunk who blew through a bridge to kill an attractive young staffer (she worked for his dead brother). I think he is the same hypocrite who works for women's rights yet loves to grope, man-handle and in this case, kill them.
th
October 11th, 2005 at 10:48 pmMightyWindbag - I'm always reminded of the song 'the bitch is back' when I see your nonsensical rants. Here to spread more misery and ignorance I see... Oh well, clearly you were raised in an abusive family and associate a whooping with love - so I'm here to show you some love...
" It’s about a drunk who blew through a bridge to kill an attractive young staffer (she worked for his dead brother). "
That sounds suspiciously like a cross between Drunken George and Murdering Laura...
October 11th, 2005 at 11:07 pm"I think he is the same hypocrite who works for women’s rights yet loves to grope, man-handle and in this case, kill them."
It would never dawn on a moron that if a priveleged new englander wanted to 'kill' someone, they wouldn't bother being there themselves. Just ask GeezAssW how to murder without getting caught - he can teach you how the elite actually do this. This is always a nonsensical and irrational argument of the fascist tools - they're so STUPID they actually believe this tripe! Bahahaha - useless fools!
October 11th, 2005 at 11:09 pmThe majority of the anti-abortion movement are male adherents to Christian fundamentalism. Judaism and its offshoot Christianity began in an environment where women were revered and were the connections with a higher being, with Mother Earth. This connection had to be broken. Now came the obsession with dominating women and their mystical powers. And then came the biblical myths, of woman formed from a man's rib, and so she is an imperfect being, and one who deceives. Came the Inquisition, and a million women were burned at the stake. Shamans had become witches, in man's view. They were hanged in Salem, Mass. in 1629. Christianity was anti-woman. They couldn't be priests, they had no access to power, and couldn't own property. The Bible speaks repeatedly of the wickedness and subservience of women. They couldn't vote in the freedom-loving USA until the 20's. And now, with Christian fundamentalism riding a neocon crest, a new victory over devil woman might be realized. Put her in her place. Control her body for her. Make her a breeder.. . . Shame on you.
October 11th, 2005 at 11:45 pmDon,
So true. The 'book of mary' was also stripped from the bible as part of the gnostic purges, and even though she was the actual prophet who was supposed to lead the church, the 'men' who followed did their best to undo this once the religion fell under Roman and military hands. No surprise... Military men tend to have real 'issues' with women...
October 12th, 2005 at 12:25 amRyan, the point is not that Roe v. Wade forces those who are anti-abortion to undergo abortions against their will; it is that it forces them to adopt a definition of life with which they do not agree.
If one assumes that life begins at conception, clearly abortion is murder. On the other hand, if it does not, it seems equally clear that abortion is well within a woman's rights. In effect, Roe v. Wade as modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a declaration that the people of a state cannot believe that life begins at any point prior to "viability", just as a decision by the Supreme Court that abortion should always be illegal would be a declaration that the people of a state cannot believe that life begins at any point after conception. The point at which life begins is simply not a justiciable question.
It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate the answers to such questions, and, as such, the legal reasoning in Roe/Casey is painfully flawed and fundamentally incorrect. If the people of a state make the democratic, legislative finding that life begins at conception, and they codify these beliefs by barring abortion (with an exception to save the life of the mother), it is not for the federal courts to say that they're wrong.
I will support Roe/Casey when someone can show me a way to do so while operating under the assumption that the belief that life begins at conception is valid.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:50 am"Ryan, the point is not that Roe v. Wade forces those who are anti-abortion to undergo abortions against their will; it is that it forces them to adopt a definition of life with which they do not agree."
Bullshit. In fact the opposite is true. The anti-abortionists force everyone to comply with their values and RESTRICT others from behavior that differs from them. The fact that you're too stupid to realize this is ridiculous. If you don't want an abortion, don't have one - and I
"If one assumes that life begins at conception, clearly abortion is murder. "
And that's where the problem is - you 'assume', and this is YOUR assumption. So once again you force others to judge this based on YOUR assumption, which frankly is DIFFERENT from mine. If you have this assumption - don't have an abortion - but in fact I and SCIENCE disagrees with you.
"On the other hand, if it does not, it seems equally clear that abortion is well within a woman’s rights. In effect, Roe v. Wade as modified by Planned Parenthood v. Casey is a declaration that the people of a state cannot believe that life begins at any point prior to “viabilityâ€, just as a decision by the Supreme Court that abortion should always be illegal would be a declaration that the people of a state cannot believe that life begins at any point after conception. The point at which life begins is simply not a justiciable question."
Blah Blah Blah. Virus is 'life', so this is nonsense. The reality is that Roe v. Wave is based on 'viability', which designates a 'human'
"It is not the role of the federal judiciary to dictate the answers to such questions, and, as such, the legal reasoning in Roe/Casey is painfully flawed and fundamentally incorrect. "
Actually that's true - that's why Roe v. Wade (not wave dipshit) is correct. If you restrict abortions - that restriction DOES answer this question - whereas legalized abortion lets the INDIVIDUAL choose. Your reasoning defeats your assumption - get smart and realize it.
"If the people of a state make the democratic, legislative finding that life begins at conception, and they codify these beliefs by barring abortion (with an exception to save the life of the mother), it is not for the federal courts to say that they’re wrong."
A democratic codification of 'beliefs' that discrimate against civil rights and civil liberties is unconstitutional. The fact is that people who make that 'finding' cannot possibly do so through science or reason. They do so out of religious ignorance and bigotry.
"I will support Roe/Casey when someone can show me a way to do so while operating under the assumption that the belief that life begins at conception is valid."
Ah please - this is such a stupid framing argument. The belief that life begins at conception is based in religious ignorance and intolerance. You can choose to believe that if you wish - you have no right to subjegate others (me/others) based on this ignorance. This is your stupidity, not mine. You can choose to believe it and restrict your own behavior based on your ignorance - but my religion and my beliefs say different - and you can't PROVE my beliefs are wrong, therefore you wish to simply inflict your prejudice on me. Get over it moron!
October 12th, 2005 at 1:00 amNot sure what happened - this got truncated, so I'll repost this section.
“Ryan, the point is not that Roe v. Wade forces those who are anti-abortion to undergo abortions against their will; it is that it forces them to adopt a definition of life with which they do not agree.â€
Bullshit. In fact the opposite is true. The anti-abortionists force everyone to comply with their values and RESTRICT others from behavior that differs from them. The fact that you’re too stupid to realize this is ridiculous. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one - and I should have a right to follow my own conscience, science and religion. If you 'enforce' your opinion based on your bigotry, it makes me FORCED to follow your ignorance - but legalized abortion doesn't FORCE my values on you. If you don't want an abortion - don't have one. Your attempt to legislate your morality and religious ignorance is just nonsense.
Your 'belief' is based on preconceptions and nonsense - it isn't based on science or even a BROADER set of religions. Christians who think abortion is religiously wrong know nothing of their own religion
Judaism on Abortion:
"Judaism sanctions abortion under some circumstances because it does not regard the fetus as an autonomous person. This is based partly on the Torah (Exodus 21:22-23), which prescribes monetary damages when a person injures a pregnant woman, causing a miscarriage.
Judaism holds that the fetus is not yet a full human being, and thus killing a fetus is not murder. Abortion, when necessary, must take place before the first 40 days, when the fetus is referred to as "mere water". (Christians who agree with these Jewish views may refer to this idea as abortion before the "quickening" of the soul by God in the fetus.)
The Mishna (Ohalot 7:6) explicitly indicates that one is to abort a fetus if the continuation of pregnancy might imperil the life of the mother. Later authorities have differed as to how far one might go in defining the peril to the mother in order to justify abortion, and at what stage of gestation a fetus is considered having a soul."
The problem is that the old testament was translated from Greek and not Hebrew for the Catholic bible, and it was MISTRANSLATED.
"Exodus 21:22-23 is interpreted by Christian tradition as an unequivocal assertion that the child formed in the womb is a human being, because the Greek version of the Old Testament (Septuagint) translates in such a way as to distinctly state that a life is to be taken in the extreme case of a "life" lost (whereas the Hebrew only explicitly mentions a monetary compensation, if a premature birth is caused by unintentional violence - thus the Jewish view of the issue). The implication of course, is that the fetus can be recognized for what it is, so that damage to it may be assessed. Speculations arose then, concerning whether the child should only be considered a human being after it has been "formed", which led to a diversity of views on the matter. However, the biblical issue gradually resolved around Genesis 1:26-27, which affirms that man is made lower than God but above material creation, in the image of God. Genesis 2:7 is further interpreted as giving man the dignity of the name, man, even before he becomes a "living being". And Genesis 9:6 sharply distinguishes between animal life and the life of man who is made in the image of God, teaching that, "Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.".
Life at 'conception' is based on 'tradition' and not science or reason. You can live in that tradition if you choose - but I don't live in your world of ignorance - and I find your attempt to oppress me with your ignorance unacceptable!
October 12th, 2005 at 1:18 amRemember, Blue State Red, even though libs view abortion as “…a heart rending decision†- they STILL support it. So how “heart rending†is it - enough to wrap up in a terry bathrobe and take a pint of Ben & Jerry’s to bed for a week?
Once again I find myself stunned by the callousness displayed by Mighty Aphrodite. You'd think someone who named themselves after the goddess of love would have a little more compassion.
The "heart rending" decision that was being discussed, because you must not have read the entire post, was about late-term abortions carried out because the pregnancy posed grave danger to the mother, or because the fetus had some kind of condition that, if delivered, would make his/her life brutal, painful, and short. I'm not talking about a couple who had a condom break and couldn't afford to have a child -- I'm talking about a couple who wanted to start a family, got pregnant, carried the fetus for 7-8 months -- probably had a baby shower and got the nursery all set up -- then discovered that something went horribly wrong. Your comment about "wrap up in a terry bathrobe and take a pint of Ben & Jerry’s to bed for a week" is absolutely disgusting.
Shame on you.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:46 amTHINK PROGRESS IS LYING.
The question asks how the constitution should be interpreted. The possible responses:
As the framers intended: 47%
Meaning in today's world: 36%
Combination: 10%
Unsure: 8%
THINK PROGRESS INCLUDED PEOPLE WHO ANSWERED "UNSURE" AS PART OF THEIR 53%. How is that logical?
By the SAME LOGIC, I could say, "64% believe the Supreme Court should base its rulings, in whole or in part, on the meaning of the document as it was originally written, rather than on its current meaning." That statement is exactly as true as TP's statement.
If we limit the numbers to only those people who give a clear answer, constructionists outnumber non-constructionists by 11 percentage points.
Let's stick to facts, please. We're citizens; let's not emulate politicians.
TP should issue a correction on the front page.
October 12th, 2005 at 9:54 am#666 - Jamie, Shame on YOU, for agreeing that the deliberate vicious killing of a baby (that's a soon-to be-born fetus for pro-abort types) to "save the life of the mother". Yours is a phony argument. If mom's blood pressure spiked or toxicity rates imperilled her, a faster procedure, the Caesarian section, could save mom and baby. The "saving mom" argument is disgusting and disingenuous. But then, mom might have a scar to nurse with Ben and Jerry's for a week or two in her ugly terry bathrobe.
P.S. WHO ARE YOU to callously sit back while babies who might have lives that are "brutal, painful, and short" are killed to SPARE....WHO??? Where did your immense GOD complex come from - you sound a little like a "master Race" kind of person to me.
October 12th, 2005 at 11:16 amRyan, again you do not answer the question.
You spend your entire post in 65 providing a rebuttal to the religious justifications that someone somewhere, but no one here, has given in defending their belief that abortion is wrong. That's completely and totally irrelevant to the question I posed.
Now then, to 64...
Bullshit. In fact the opposite is true. The anti-abortionists force everyone to comply with their values and RESTRICT others from behavior that differs from them. The fact that you’re too stupid to realize this is ridiculous. If you don’t want an abortion, don’t have one - and I should have a right to follow my own conscience, science and religion. If you ‘enforce’ your opinion based on your bigotry, it makes me FORCED to follow your ignorance - but legalized abortion doesn’t FORCE my values on you. If you don’t want an abortion - don’t have one. Your attempt to legislate your morality and religious ignorance is just nonsense.
So, if the Supreme Court determines that it is the woman's right to "abort" her child up until it reaches the age of five, this doesn't force the people of a state to accept the philosophical judgment that life prior to age five is not worth protecting?
Blah Blah Blah. Virus is ‘life’, so this is nonsense. The reality is that Roe v. Wave is based on ‘viability’, which designates a ‘human’
Exactly. You've finally admitted it. Roe v. Wade is the federal adoption of a particular philosophy of what constitutes a human and an exclusion of all others. How exactly is it the role of the federal government to dictate to the states the proper definition of life?
And next comes the part when you call yourself a dipshit for saying "Roe v. Wave" instead of "Roe v. Wade"---very amusing.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:00 pm"53% believe the Supreme Court should base its rulings, in whole or in part, on the Constitution’s current meaning, rather than on the meaning of the document when it was originally written. (46% take the original intent view and 1% are unsure.)"
I would doubt this poll just as I'd doubt any other poll conducted by Pew and the Princeton liberals. But let's say it is accurate; what nonsense! The very idea that the Constitution could mean anything other than what the authors had in mind at the time of it's writing is laughable and in practice as we know...destructive to our nation. It doesn't surprise me that 53% of the unwashed mob with little more than a 12th grade public education doesn't understand why the Constitution speaks and must speak for itself and that we don't need the black robed oppressors telling us what it really means. "Is, doesn't necessarily mean "is", remember?
But what the hell, even Jimmah "The Genius" Carter recently said most of you people are too f'ing stupid to be trusted with the vote so there you are. They are smart and you are stupid. I'm willing to live with that as long as they don't start telling me the 2nd Amendment really means only the government can have a modern battle rifle or a handgun. But that's going to happen and when it does you won't be able to find enough people willing to be black robed oppressors to fill all the vacancies created by those of us who take Jefferson at his word.
I mean that in a nice way.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:19 pmBut that’s going to happen and when it does you won’t be able to find enough people willing to be black robed oppressors to fill all the vacancies created by those of us who take Jefferson at his word.
Speaking of the "unwashed mob with little more than a 12th grade public education", I-RIGHT-I, I assume you realize that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written and that he played no part in it. But I'm sure you knew that already.
The chief architects of the Constitution, the men who we look to in determining original intent, are, of course, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton. Ohhh wait, they disagreed about EVERYTHING. So who's original intent are we supposed to listen to...Madison's or Hamilton's? Oh no, don't look now, you may have to think.
October 12th, 2005 at 12:38 pm"Jamie, Shame on YOU, for agreeing that the deliberate vicious killing of a baby (that’s a soon-to be-born fetus for pro-abort types) to “save the life of the motherâ€. Yours is a phony argument."
Bullshit. Only an idiot who's never looked at the facts would say this - that's a REPUBLICAN for anyone who hadn't guessed. The life of the child, mother or both is typically at risk or the child is so deformed as to make it a reasonable request to abort it when late term abortions are performed. These are also HIGHLY REGULATED by states they're performed in. The case (LIE) you raise is simply that - a LIE!
" If mom’s blood pressure spiked or toxicity rates imperilled her, a faster procedure, the Caesarian section, could save mom and baby. "
Bullshit - you can't POSSIBLY be a woman or you'd know better! The reality is that a late term fetus will not survive removal, and many times the point is the child is too DEFORMED to want it to survive. You may like watching a fetus turn into a suffering child - but then again you're a cruel pscyhotic!
"The “saving mom†argument is disgusting and disingenuous. "
Why, because it's the truth and it trumps your lies?
"But then, mom might have a scar to nurse with Ben and Jerry’s for a week or two in her ugly terry bathrobe."
Blah, Blah, Blah, the drag queen shows why she's the bitchiest bitch of them all. Nothing but HATE, and you talk about saving babies? Why, so you can MURDER THEM you vicious freak?
"P.S. WHO ARE YOU to callously sit back while babies who might have lives that are “brutal, painful, and short†are killed to SPARE….WHO???"
Actually a fetus does NOT have developed parts of the brain that feel pain - then again you're unscientific and probably believe the world is flat. Just because you call a fetus a baby and PRETEND that it has a developed brain doesn't make it true. But considering how UNDERDEVELOPED your brain is, clearly you were an aborted child that never developed fully!
" Where did your immense GOD complex come from - you sound a little like a “master Race†kind of person to me."
Oh please - the master race LEFT THE GOVERNMENT IN CHARGE OF BIRTHS - just like you propose. And they also talked about BREEDING OUT HOMOSEXUALITY - just like religious folks in your community talk about. A NAZI LIKE YOU shouldn't compare civil rights to Nazi behaviors - when your own mirrors that of the Nazis so clearly. But then again I've clearly established that you're Psychotic - so what else should anyone expect but failure from your arguments?
"Comment by mighty aphrodite"
LIES BY MIGHTY WINGBAG THE BITCHIEST DRAG QUEEN IN CALIFORNIA...
October 12th, 2005 at 12:52 pm"So, if the Supreme Court determines that it is the woman’s right to “abort†her child up until it reaches the age of five, this doesn’t force the people of a state to accept the philosophical judgment that life prior to age five is not worth protecting?"
Ok, so he's lost all RATIONAL arguments, so here comes the "what if monkeys flew out of my ass argument". Well that argument would be as wrong as yours, because clearly children DO have brains, consciousness and reasoning. But considering the bible did support slavery of children, and I can see how you'd feel children have no worth. I however can tell the difference between a rational argument and a stupid strawman - you in your defeated desparation however cannot!
"Blah Blah Blah. Virus is ‘life’, so this is nonsense. The reality is that Roe v. Wave is based on ‘viability’, which designates a ‘human’"
"Exactly. You’ve finally admitted it. Roe v. Wade is the federal adoption of a particular philosophy of what constitutes a human and an exclusion of all others. How exactly is it the role of the federal government to dictate to the states the proper definition of life?"
Well like on most things your grasp of reality seems slim to non-existent. The supreme court bases its decisions on FACTS, not RELIGION when it comes to civil laws. The FACTS disagree with your opinion, and what the supreme court did is say that those facts should allow people to CHOOSE which philosophy they wish to operate under. The EXACT OPPOSITE OF YOUR CLAIM YOU DIMWIT! And to mention totally unrelated to WHAT I SAID. Why are you guys all so stupid? Is it genetic, or learned? Roe v. Wade does NOT enforce a particular philosophy, as it gives THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE THE PHILOSOPHY to the individual. If the supreme court made abortion REQUIRED or ILLEGAL - that would be choosing sides. But hateful idiots like you believe that only your choice is right, so therefore no one else should have the right to choose for themselves. Forget that their religion AND science is on their side, and NOT yours.
"And next comes the part when you call yourself a dipshit for saying “Roe v. Wave†instead of “Roe v. Wadeâ€â€”very amusing. "
I pulled it from your post. I find nothing 'amusing' about you, just pathetic idiocy. Your arguments are nonsensical framed rhetoric. They aren't based on reasoning or rational thought. You can't tell the difference between enforced and freedom to act, and how those are COMPLETELY different legal decisions. You're a retarded moron - and you're too witless to see why.
October 12th, 2005 at 1:00 pm"But that’s going to happen and when it does you won’t be able to find enough people willing to be black robed oppressors to fill all the vacancies created by those of us who take Jefferson at his word."
More death threats from our resident crazy nitwit - how nice... Reichwingers are so predictably violent and hate filled. No wonder Hitler was so despised by the rest of the world. You should travel more and actually TALK to the foreigners and not just yell at them because your Coke doesn't have enough ice. You'd find that a similar kind of response is welling up around the current fascists (that would be you). You were nitwits in the 30s before people understood what fascism is, now you're just stupid and pathetic.
October 12th, 2005 at 1:03 pmThe fact is that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT A MORE LIBERAL COURT. But then again, republicans and reichwingers don't believe in democracy, only aristocracy and cronyism...
October 12th, 2005 at 1:04 pmThe fact is that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT A MORE LIBERAL COURT. But then again, republicans and reichwingers don’t believe in democracy, only aristocracy and cronyism…
Comment by Ryan "likes democracy" Neat
Screw the majority. This isn't a democracy dumbass. Thank God this isn't a democracy. We, the truly gifted moral agents of the One True God of The Red White and Blue will take care of you losers.
Note to self: Buy rope futures.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:23 pmThat’s not true.
53% believe the Supreme Court should base its rulings, in whole or in part, on the Constitution’s current meaning, rather than on the meaning of the document when it was originally written. (46% take the original intent view and 1% are unsure.)
Identify the source of this poll.. let me guess the reason you did not identify it is becuase it is from some fake or bias group like people for the american way or the new york times
October 12th, 2005 at 2:27 pm"Lets keep reminding the public that Laura Bushie killed an ex-boyfriend when she blew a stop sign and lets keep ol Georgies abortion on the front page."
Yes, by all means, work yourselves into a lather shouting this discredited garbage from the rooftops. Better yet, get the Kossacks and the moveon.org crowd to gin up a national campaign about it on the 'net. The voters will reject it all because the voters HATE this kind of trash - and the left will have dug itself deeper into oblivion than before.
Keep up the good work!
October 12th, 2005 at 2:29 pm"But that’s going to happen and when it does you won’t be able to find enough people willing to be black robed oppressors to fill all the vacancies created by those of us who take Jefferson at his word."
-cryptic death threat type comment by yours truly, iRi.
Speaking of the “unwashed mob with little more than a 12th grade public educationâ€, I-RIGHT-I, I assume you realize that Jefferson was in France when the Constitution was written and that he played no part in it. But I’m sure you knew that already.
Scathing retort by cj the history 101 drop-out
The thing you've got to remember about me cj is that around here I never ax a question I don't already know the answer to. In addition, I already know what you're going to say before you ever read my comment. I didn't think you'd catch the Jefferson quote I was alluding to so I had it ready. Here it is and for once I agree with Thomas "never met a black girl he didn't like" Jefferson....
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:32 pm~Thomas Jefferson
"First of all a fetus is a fetus, not an unborn child."
This statement, buried amid so much left wing blather, exposes the contempt for human life that lies at the heart of the so-called "progressive" movement. It is a statement that could never be made by anyone who has ever seen a sonogram at 13 weeks, and witnessed the beating heart and the fully formed features of an unborn child. Whetever abortion is - an civil right or a moral abomination - there is no disputing the fact that abortions kill unborn children. If the left cannot be honest about that fact, its claim to moral authority is nothing but a sick joke.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:35 pm"Besides, if the retards of the right ACTUALLY cared about innocent lives, they wouldn’t support the death penalty, war or any number of other events that KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE. They’re (you’re) truly a hypocrit and moron if you can’t see that."
At least I can spell "hypocrite."
I also can easily distinguish between killing an unborn child and executing a murderer who has been convicted by due process of law. I can distinguish just as easily between killing an unborn child and waging war against a mortal enemy who has sworn to destroy all unborn children and their parents. And I can do it without cursing or calling names.
That you cannot distinguish between these things is not a personal failing on your part. It merely demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of all the left wing propaganda to which you have been exposed. I was exposed to the same propaganda, and I once believed as you do - until I saw that the left's talent for balancing angels on pinheads has only resulted in more human death and destruction. For example, the millions murdered by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot - just to name a few, would be no fans of left wing propaganda if they were alive today. You should think about them once in a while.
October 12th, 2005 at 2:48 pm"Screw the majority. This isn’t a democracy dumbass. Thank God this isn’t a democracy. "
That's true - it's currently a fascist dictatorship.
"We, the truly gifted moral agents of the One True God of The Red White and Blue will take care of you losers."
Blah, Blah, Blah. This country is also not a THEOCRACY by constitutional definition, and its laws are meant to be based on 'enlightment', not christianity. So frankly you don't belong here - go to someplace like Iran where you're better suited.
"Note to self: Buy rope futures."
You should hang yourself - I agree. A person like you is a perfect candidate for suicide... After all, it's clear you're worthless to this society...
"Comment by I-RIGHT-I"
Always Wrong is more like it.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:13 pmCharles,
Follow the link you dope - it's identified on the page... Classic republican moron - you don't even look at the resources and facts that are in front of you!
October 12th, 2005 at 3:15 pm"P.S. WHO ARE YOU to callously sit back while babies who might have lives that are “brutal, painful, and short†are killed to SPARE….WHO??? Where did your immense GOD complex come from - you sound a little like a “master Race†kind of person to me. "
Once again, you fail to actually read my post. I'm saying it is up to the PARENTS to decide. I have no right to tell another person what they can and cannot decide when it comes to this, the most personal of all decisions -- and neither do you. You are the one who is saying that you know better than the people who have opted to end pregnancy rather than watch their child suffer for a few months and than die horribly. You have obviously never been in this situation and you don't know what you are talking about.
YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT.
Oh -- and when all else fails, call someone a nazi. Cute.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:15 pm1. If a fetus is a child, shouldn't the state issue 'conception certificates' instead of 'birth certificates?' "Hey, honey, I'm late again, let's trip on down to the courthouse."
2. Our liberty rights are pre-existing and inherent to our being as people (not feti) and can not be voted away by 'the people,' democratically or otherwise.
3. Getting back to the good stuff:
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) - At 17, Laura Bush ran a stop sign and crashed into another car, killing her boyfriend who [was driving]? it, according to an accident report released to The Associated Press on Wednesday.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:20 pmhttp://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3910b26e685a.htm
"“First of all a fetus is a fetus, not an unborn child.â€
This statement, buried amid so much left wing blather, exposes the contempt for human life that lies at the heart of the so-called “progressive†movement. "
Someone who believes in the death penalty, torture and pre-emptive war against a country that didn't attack us talks about contempt for human life. Bahahaha, what an idiot!
"It is a statement that could never be made by anyone who has ever seen a sonogram at 13 weeks, and witnessed the beating heart and the fully formed features of an unborn child. "
You mean a fetus. How emotional, sentimental and nonsensical you are. A fetus at 13 weeks looks virtually identical to any number of animal fetus. It's only 2 inches long and is NOT a child. Do you even know what a 13 week fetus looks like?
http://www.geocities.com/pregnancyhelpnow/fetaldevelopment.html
What a moron. I'm always amazed at the idiotic strawman arguments these dopes bring up
"Whetever abortion is - an civil right or a moral abomination - there is no disputing the fact that abortions kill unborn children."
Nonsense frame. Science disagrees with you. Other religions disagree with you. Many in your OWN religion disagree with you. You wish to legislate based on fables, myths and nonsense. You call a fetus a 'child', yet if the fetus is aborted 'by god', it's a miscarriage and will not live because its brain, and body are not formed into a child yet. You're an idiot.
" If the left cannot be honest about that fact, its claim to moral authority is nothing but a sick joke."
Oh please, you're the moron who can't be honest. What do you call a 'child', something that 'looks' almost human? Then a chimp fetus is a child. Do you call dna a child? Because an egg, sperm and your discarded skin cells qualify. You're probably the same stupid dope that thought Schiavo 'was alive'. You're such a moron!
"Comment by Blue State Red "
Comment by redneck moron is more like it.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:21 pm"At least I can spell “hypocrite.â€"
A fixation of spellings is a sign of paranoid personality disorder - based on your paranoia about abortion, you should look it up sometime.
"I also can easily distinguish between killing an unborn child and executing a murderer who has been convicted by due process of law. "
And yet over 2 dozen innocent people were killed (MURDERED) who were determined to be innocent after their deaths. So in your desire to kill the guilty, you and your kind have murdered DOZENS of innocent poeple. So once again - HYPOCRITE!!!!
"I can distinguish just as easily between killing an unborn child and waging war against a mortal enemy who has sworn to destroy all unborn children and their parents."
Oh please - that's so unchrist like. What a Hypocrite! When Jesus was given the opportunity to free all of the jews from their mortal enemy, or simply die as a pascifist - he chose death. You're immoral.
" And I can do it without cursing or calling names."
No you can't. You call those who disagree with you murderers - you dope! At least my names are accurate descriptions of your idiocy.
"That you cannot distinguish between these things is not a personal failing on your part. "
Judge not, lest ye be judged. Your inability to distinguish science, reason or the divinity of other beliefs is your personal failing - not mine.
"It merely demonstrates the moral bankruptcy of all the left wing propaganda to which you have been exposed. "
Bahaha, the guy who supports murdering innocent adults, who would let children die in poverty, and go uneducated, who would let people wonder the streets in poverty out of his greed, who wages war on innocent people, who stands for cronyism and corruption claims others are moral bankrupt. No wonder psycholigists describe religious fanatics as people who 'project oppression on the oppressed'. You're truly insane.
"I was exposed to the same propaganda, and I once believed as you do - until I saw that the left’s talent for balancing angels on pinheads has only resulted in more human death and destruction. "
Oh please, not another stupid NeoCon pseudo liberal freak. Oh you never believed anything - you just picked one extremism and switched to another.
"For example, the millions murdered by Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Ho Chi Minh and Pol Pot - just to name a few, would be no fans of left wing propaganda if they were alive today. You should think about them once in a while."
Actually they were all totalitarianists - which is more right wing than left wing despite the supposed and proposed 'liberal economics'. The problem is that most freaks like you can't distinguish between economic and political systems. China currently demostrates how you can have a 'communist political' and 'capitalist economic' system. And not to mention that I don't know a single progressive who identifies with communism - so this is just a strawman accusation based in nonsense. You're an idiot.
October 12th, 2005 at 3:29 pmThe fact is that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT A MORE LIBERAL COURT. But then again, republicans and reichwingers don’t believe in democracy, only aristocracy and cronyism…
Comment by Ryan “likes democracy†Neat
Screw the majority. This isn’t a democracy dumbass. Thank God this isn’t a democracy. We, the truly gifted moral agents of the One True God of The Red White and Blue will take care of you losers.
Note to self: Buy rope futures.
where did this come from.. typical liberal thinking he speaks for everyone in america and is the only person that know what is right,,,, typical
October 12th, 2005 at 3:29 pm"where did this come from.. typical liberal thinking he speaks for everyone in america and is the only person that know what is right,,,, typical
Comment by Charles Seeman "
Typical conservative thinking. When you point out you have a right to have your own opinions and rights that those opinions have - then the reichwingers 'project' their own beliefs that 'they're right' as an excuse to say you're doing so. You're projecting your own feelings of superiority by trying to dictate your moral values over me - and when I exercise my own beliefs, you accuse me of saying I know what's right? Well I do know what's right for me, and I believe in your right to do what's right for you. But you aren't granted to right to force me to live within your narrow and bigotted views - which is exactly what republican values attempt to do.
You're the party of non-reason, non-logic and non-accountability. You're such losers!
October 12th, 2005 at 3:37 pm"Screw the majority. This isn’t a democracy dumbass."
FYI, it's a republic that's supposed to balance the will of the people with protecting those people from creating legislation that infringes on the rights of some minority group. This is in fact what the supreme court protected us from. The minority of nitwits like you that believe in fairy tales and mythology in place of facts, science, reason and rational thought.
From nitwits like mighty dingbat who thinks descartes recanted rational thought - when it's clear the 'church' wrote end of life tomes in his name that match neither the language nor methodologies of the man. You guys are so ridiculously shallow and irrational, that you can't even hold a rational discussion. It's like squishing jello. You talk about the left being 'squishy', but only because it's the part of yourself that's most accurate to describe you with. Your morals are squishy. Your ideas are squishy. Your values are squishy. Your thought processes are squishy. And your humanity is squishy. And when all added together you're a squishy mess of contradictions and insanities.
October 12th, 2005 at 4:29 pm"Note to self: Buy rope futures."
where did this come from.. typical liberal thinking he speaks for everyone in america and is the only person that know what is right,,,, typical
Comment by Charles Seeman
Charlie, can I call you Charlie? I'm not a liberal but I did play one on TV once. I don't claim to speak for everyone, only those that like me are RIGHT 99.9% of the time. I'm tell'n ya. Buy rope. There's a lot of people that need hang'n and rope will be a commodity in high demand one day soon. Just ax Ryan "Call me Princess" Neat. He knows a rope has his name on it.
October 12th, 2005 at 4:46 pm"Charlie, can I call you Charlie? I’m not a liberal but I did play one on TV once. I don’t claim to speak for everyone, only those that like me are RIGHT 99.9% of the time. I’m tell’n ya. Buy rope. There’s a lot of people that need hang’n and rope will be a commodity in high demand one day soon. Just ax Ryan “Call me Princess†Neat. He knows a rope has his name on it."
Death threats are a common tactic of psychotic reichwingers. Because their actions are indefensible, they (like the BT Killer and any number of other republican murderers) resort to violence to silence the voices that prove them wrong...
And what MrWrong forgets, is that most revolutions are revolts AGAINST fascism - not for it... If there's a rope, it will be from some who's less enlightened than me who doesn't agree with my pascifist stance. That's ok, karma would dictate that MrWrong's evil desires will consume him in his own failures. And that will be fair...
October 12th, 2005 at 4:53 pmThe fact is that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT A MORE LIBERAL COURT. But then again, republicans and reichwingers don’t believe in democracy, only aristocracy and cronyism…
October 12th, 2005 at 4:54 pmAnd what MrWrong forgets, is that most revolutions are revolts AGAINST fascism - not for it
Comment by Ryan "Che" Neat
Bullshit
October 12th, 2005 at 5:19 pm"And what MrWrong forgets, is that most revolutions are revolts AGAINST fascism - not for it
Comment by Ryan “Che†Neat
Bullshit "
And yet it's true. Fascists take over by military coup. Anti-fascists take over by revolution...
Name one case where this isn't true? Where a 'popular' revolution was a fascist revolution? If any exist, I don't know of a single case...
October 12th, 2005 at 5:26 pmHitlerWrong believes fascism is good - his hero thought the same thing. He will probably end up shooting himself just like the coward he emulates...
October 12th, 2005 at 5:27 pmAgain...
The fact is that THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WANT A MORE LIBERAL COURT. But then again, republicans and reichwingers don’t believe in democracy, only aristocracy and cronyism…
October 12th, 2005 at 5:28 pmThis is what religion brings.
Lies, coverups, abuse and corruption!
http://abcnews.go.com/US/LegalCenter/wireStory?id=1205401
The whole premise of needing an 'organization' to find divinity is not only idiotic, but inherently invalid. Only an individual can find their own divinity, in the same way that only an individual can quit drinking. It can't be forced on someone - and this is why the church inherently draws the corrupt, the power hungry and the non-divine!
October 12th, 2005 at 6:41 pm[...] Think Progress: [...]
October 13th, 2005 at 11:21 amSometimes I wonder if the people really know what they want.
October 13th, 2005 at 12:06 pmThis is what religion brings.
Lies, coverups, abuse and corruption!
http://abcnews.go.com/ US/ LegalCenter/ wireStory?id=1205401
Comment by Ryan "I can't believe I ate the hole thing!" Neat
Actually, that story shows what happens when you allow queers in positions of power and near little boys, nothing else.
October 14th, 2005 at 12:23 pmWow, its the I hate GWB web site. If more people want a liberal court then why are there more conservatives???? GW did win the last election by a couple of million votes. And all you abortion right freaks, if you use abortion as a form of birth control, then it is murder. If you were raped or your life was in jeopardy, ok, just not birth control. You can have your right to choose but you cannot choose abortion for birth control. You chose when you had sex without protection, since when are we allowed a do over. Wait I meant to choose BC, oops, too late.
October 25th, 2005 at 8:36 pmCooking Recipes
Cooking Recipes
December 17th, 2005 at 4:12 pmXBOX 360
XBOX 360 games
December 17th, 2005 at 4:17 pmBrad Pitt
Brad Pitt
December 18th, 2005 at 8:17 amVerizon Ringtones
Verizon Ringtones
December 18th, 2005 at 8:17 amFree Horoscope
Horoscope
December 19th, 2005 at 8:20 amWedding Bands
Wedding Bands
December 20th, 2005 at 3:36 pm50Cent
50Cent
December 20th, 2005 at 7:54 pmSamsung Ringtones
samsung ringtones
December 22nd, 2005 at 11:34 pmDodge Charger 2006
Dodge Charger 2006
December 25th, 2005 at 5:52 amspam filter
spam filter
December 27th, 2005 at 12:21 pmwedding ring
wedding rings
January 1st, 2006 at 1:05 pmwedding ring
wedding rings
January 1st, 2006 at 1:05 pmamerica's next top model
I Googled for something completely different, but found your page...and have to say thanks. nice read.
March 15th, 2008 at 11:03 pmGay Sex Gay Ass Gay Ass
I can not agree with you in 100% regarding some thoughts, but you got good point of view
March 23rd, 2008 at 10:23 pmAdelaide
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing. To keep our faces toward change and behave like free spirits in the presence of fate is strength undefeatable.
March 29th, 2008 at 6:15 pmBaby Nursery
I enjoyed reading your blog. It is so interesting reading other peoples personal take on a subject.
March 31st, 2008 at 7:29 pm