Race 4 2008 Evening Essential Reads

22 Responses to “Race 4 2008 Evening Essential Reads”

1. ACT Blog Says:
   October 26th, 2007 at 7:27 pm

   “whether he would describe himself as ‘pro-choice’: “You know what I am. I’ve described it in the past. I’ve opposed abortion. I’d like to see a society in which there is no abortion. I think you have to get there by changing people’s minds and hearts. I’m not in favor of changing the law and the right that presently exists. But I do think I’m in favor of everything else that would limit the number of abortions, that would increase the number of adoptions and that would move us in the direction of many fewer abortions. And if we could get to no abortions based on people’s decision-making, I’d be in favor of that.”

   So, basically, he wants to do everything to stop abortion – except stop abortion. The idea of changing hearts and minds is noble, and it will be required to some degree to legally end abortion, but the fact is that a large number of people who have abortions simply cannot be bothered to consider the life of the child – this in an America where adoption agencies and churches vastly outnumber abortion clinics. Abortion simply cannot be stopped without legal intervention.

2. JA Pruce Says:
   October 26th, 2007 at 7:46 pm

   One way that Governor Romney could out-flank Mayor Giuliani on the right and add to his growing support among Values Voters, would be if he commited to signing an executive order outlawing abortion upon entering office, thus sending the issue to the supreme court where Roe would likely be overturned. It will be interesting to see if he would commit to such a strategy.

3. MetroRepublican Says:
   October 26th, 2007 at 7:59 pm

   JA Pruce, yeah, that’d be a way to sabotage the entire 2008. General and probably downticket too. Great idea.

4. Thomas Alan Says:
   October 27th, 2007 at 12:21 am

   #2

   Do a head count. There are, at most, 4 justices who would overturn Roe.

   Besides, an executive order outlawing abortion would be found unconstitutional even by 9 Clarence Thomas clones.

5. ACT Blog Says:
   October 27th, 2007 at 8:50 am

   four justices, we only need one more. The day is coming, and Justice Stevens is getting pretty old. Thats one of the reasons I don’t trust Giuliani – because the next justice nominated to the Supreme Court could be the vote that finally eliminates Roe v. Wade. I have a hard time believing that a man who supports and funds abortion rights would be willing or able to put in the exhausting fight that is going to be needed to get another pro-life vote on the court.

   After that, well, the abortion issue moves to the Congress, where who knows what will happen.

6. JA Pruce Says:
   October 27th, 2007 at 11:38 am

   I agree that if one of our candidates is elected next Fall that we will likely be living in a post Roe world before 2012, then I believe the debate will shift to getting Griswald v. Connecticutt overturned.

7. Opinionated Says:
   October 27th, 2007 at 12:17 pm

   JA Pruce

   “I believe the debate will shift to getting Griswald v. Connecticut overturned.”

   You people are insane. And dangerous.

   From Freedom of Religion to Fourth Amendment freedoms to everything else, what makes us a free people is that we have an umbrella Right to Privacy.

   You crazies believe the State can prevent the dissemination of birth control aid? You want to get into bed with us?

   Before this election, I knew the Left was nuts, I had no idea that segments of the Conservative Right, with who I thought I frequently made common cause, were totalitarian crazy.

8. MetroRepublican Says:
   October 27th, 2007 at 12:46 pm

   OH. MY. GOD.

   Cheering for Griswald to be overturned? If we got anywhere close to that, I would vote a straight Democratic ticket until you people were forever relegated into the ash-heap of history.

   Actually, you are. You just haven’t realized it. Over 50% of *Republicans* support gay unions or marriage.

   Griswald????????? All I can say is…. die.

9. Opinionated Says:
   October 27th, 2007 at 12:56 pm

   MetroRepublican

   The reaction to Giuliani, the lies, the defamation, the vitriol, the peek into what they really believe, has opened my eyes politically as nothing has in decades.

   I despise the Democrats. More each day. They will take my money. They will make me and my family less secure. They will appease out enemies.

   But it’s nothing like what I am realizing that SOME SoCons will do. They will take away our liberty, our freedoms.

   Lucky that none of their bat shit views will ever come to fruition. At least in any United States any of us recognise.

10. Thomas Alan Says:
    October 27th, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    Although I think Griswald is bull****, it will never be overturned. For one thing a state will never again even want to impose a blanket ban on contraception.

11. JA Pruce Says:
    October 27th, 2007 at 8:47 pm

    Metro, Opinionated,

    Let me state for the record that I totally oppose overturning Griswald but I have heard many cultural conservatives call into question that decision suggesting it laid the ground work for Roe. If you read my post I was simply prognosticating about what the next debate after Roe will likely be. I was impersonally and objectively trying to predict the next battle in the culture war — I should have more expllicit about my own opinion and I can see where you might have infered my support. I actually think that Roe should remain the law of the land and that we will likely transcend the issue soon through scientific advancement.

12. Thomas Alan Says:
    October 27th, 2007 at 11:38 pm

    You think the next battle in the culture war is to ban the sale of contraceptives to married couples?

13. Matthew E. Miller Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 10:50 am

    I think legally, Griswold is just as untenable as Roe (Black’s dissent is goregous). And I have absolutely no desire to ban contraception. I’m not even in favor of “abstinence-only education”. Some people happen to want decisions overturned, because they’re simply bad decisions, and do a disservice to our Constitution. I’m opposed to the death penalty, but would vigourously oppose the sort of opinions Anthony Kennedy rights on the issue. The Death Penalty, in many of it’s brutal incarnations, is constitutional. Whether I like it or not. I’d say the same thing about Griswold and Lawrence v. Texas. The thought of banning gay sex is absolutely repungnant to me. And, I’m reasonably favorable to the idea of a limited “right to privacy”. Unfortunately, I don’t get my way in all matters. The Constitution does.

14. cwpete Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 11:07 am

    Hilliary’s House of Horrors? I love it!

15. ACT Blog Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 11:50 am

    If Romney, Huckabee, McCain, or Thompson get elected in 2008, I would guess that Roe is gone by 2012. If its Giuliani, I would like to say the same thing, but I don’t trust him on his judges promise, or rather, I don’t trust that his idea of a “constitutionalist” would overturn Roe v. Wade.

    As for contraception, I don’t support limiting it, but it should take a far back seat to abstinence and dedication to one parter in schools (that is, if schools should even teach sex-ed).

16. MetroRepublican Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 11:55 am

    ACT, LOL. What gives you the idea that Roberts or Alito would overturn Roe? Roberts is a humble judge and Roe/Griswold are woven so tightly into constitutional law– and modern life, where we have accepted privacy– that he is not going to cast an anti-Roe vote. I don’t think Alito is, either.

    Bush knew that overturning Roe would destroy the Republican party, and he set out to make it the majority party for a generation. Why do you think he did not choose justices who would clearly overturn it? Luttig, Jones, Garza, Brown, etc, all turned down by Bush.

17. MetroRepublican Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 11:59 am

    Regarding the 2-man race thing, I think it’s interesting the Romney folks think that is in their interest. Romney pales in comparison head-to-head against Rudy, where Rudy polls about 20 points ahead of Romney.

    Romney has a chance in a multiway field where all candidates are flawed in some respects and Romney is the consensus candidate of 1/4 of the voters. But he has a ceiling.

    Rudy has a higher ceiling and crushes each opponent one-on-one by 15-20 point margins. Because one-on-one, voters most focus on Rudy the whole package, not just his alleged flaws vs. those of others. And his strengths are so huge they simply swamp Mitt or Fred or McCain when the focus is one-on-one.

18. Matthew E. Miller Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

    MetroRepublican,

    Bush set out to make a majority party for a generation? Huh? Bush’s most admirable (and infuriating) quality, is that he shows absolutely no sign of caring what happens to his popularity, his movement, or his party. He’s interesting in doing what’s “right”. And I’m happy you believe that neither Roberts or Alito will vote to overturn Roe. That was and remains their genius as nominees: the ability to lull socially liberal Republicans such as yourself into a false sense of security. That’s why I always felt they were considerably better choices then Luttig, Jones, or Brown (Garza would have been fine for these purposes). Roberts in particular fits this mold. There are actually people who voted for his confirmation, that are genuinely surprised that he’s proven to be a good bit more conservative then Alito. They simply weren’t paying attention. And I’ll be happy to see more Roberts’ and Alito’s (are there anymore?), and will chuckle cheerily at your disbelief when these “humble” justices, send Roe to it’s grave.

19. MetroRepublican Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 12:13 pm

    Matt, well, I think they were brilliant picks in their ability to fool social conservatives into thinking they will overturn Roe. So time will tell.

    Yes, despite how things have turned out, Bush and Rove DID set out to make the GOP a majority party for a generation. Did you forget all that? Private social security accounts were supposed to be a key part of that.

20. Opinionated Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 12:54 pm

    16 MetroRepublican

    Alito might. Roberts may not.

    Smart people are looking to the societal consequence of overturning Roe.

    Leave it as it is, and woman and families are free to do what they will. No one forces pro life women to undergo abortion.

    Overturn Roe and several States, and only several States, will prohibit abortion.

    Certainly it wouldn’t be convenient, but women in those few States who want an abortion will travel.

    I think it’s a pretty good assumption that certain legislatures in those anti abortion States will then attempt to make such travel for abortion illegal.

    If such legislation is passed, all hell will break loose.

    Making abortion, specifically, a Constitutional right in Roe, was a very bad and hypocritical decision. (If abortion is a Constitutional right how about prostitution?)

    The only thing much worse then the forced Roe decision- overturning Roe.

21. Thomas Alan Says:
    October 28th, 2007 at 5:24 pm

    #16

    CJ Roberts is more conservative than the conventional wisdom would have us believe. As for Justice Alito, I would be very surprised if he were willing to uphold Constitutional nonsense such as Roe.

    If those two got enough votes, I’m pretty sure they would eviscerate Roe through a series of rulings until there was almost nothing left of it.

22. Runevisdag.Com » Race 4 2008 Evening Essential Reads Says:
    October 29th, 2007 at 1:40 pm

    [...] D. wrote an interesting post today on Race 4 2008 Evening Essential ReadsHere’s a quick [...]