Enyart calls for pro-lifers to oppose John Roberts nomination

[docrob57]

Thank you for clarifying.

I think we've hijacked the thread long enough...

Opps, sorry.

 

[Holly]

Of course Roberts is far from perfect, but Bush had to scramble at the last minute to toss a nominee out there so he could take the heat off of Karl Rove and the Treasongate scandal. Sad that such an important decision, with consequences that will resonate for decades to come, had to be made so hastily and on the basis of such short-term political expediency...

 

[Zakath]

Of course Roberts is far from perfect, but Bush had to scramble at the last minute to toss a nominee out there so he could take the heat off of Karl Rove and the Treasongate scandal. Sad that such an important decision, with consequences that will resonate for decades to come, had to be made so hastily and on the basis of such short-term political expediency...

Whether for good or ill, quite a few political decisions are based on "expediency".

 

[Crow]

There is never going to be a perfect nominee or candidate for anything.

I know, granite, but some issues carry more weight than others.

Whether or not someone is OK with killing babies is a biggie.

 

[Granite]

I know, granite, but some issues carry more weight than others.

Whether or not someone is OK with killing babies is a biggie.

True but it doesn't look as though he's pro-choice; if anything he just needs to clarify his position. I think Enyart leapt before looking.

 

[Crow]

True but it doesn't look as though he's pro-choice; if anything he just needs to clarify his position. I think Enyart leapt before looking.

It sounds like the guy is "pro-life, but let's not overturn Roe vs Wade." Which isn't very pro-life if you think about it.

 

[docrob57]

It sounds like the guy is "pro-life, but let's not overturn Roe vs Wade." Which isn't very pro-life if you think about it.

I'm sure he is personally against abortion, but doesn't want to overturm previous decisions, being a legal positivist and all.

 

[Zakath]

This is pretty much a tempest in a teapot since, until a case actually gets appealed to the SCOTUS, they cannot hear it, correct?

 

[Crow]

This is pretty much a tempest in a teapot since, until a case actually gets appealed to the SCOTUS, they cannot hear it, correct?

Not really. I am very interested in what someone would vote for if it gets to SCOTUS when that person is being considered for the job.

 

[Zakath]

Not really. I am very interested in what someone would vote for if it gets to SCOTUS when that person is being considered for the job.

I think history bears out that SCOTUS justices, being the kind of complex people they tend to be, are hard to call in advance...

 

[Crow]

I understand that, Zakath. But I think there's a better chance of someone voting to overturn Roe vs Wade if that person states that he believes that it should be overturned than rather than from someone who says that it's settled.

 

[Zakath]

I understand that, Zakath. But I think there's a better chance of someone voting to overturn Roe vs Wade if that person states that he believes that it should be overturned than rather than from someone who says that it's settled.

Understood.

That said, I think the best tack to deal with something like that decision is legislative, not judicial. But that's just me...

 

[docrob57]

Understood.

That said, I think the best tack to deal with something like that decision is legislative, not judicial. But that's just me...

Ideally yes, but the Court presently won't uphold laws banning abortion. So the judicial path is really the only one.

By the way, I was just listening to a libertarian radio talk show host who was comforting his audience in the fact that the nominee would do nothing to overturn Roe.

 

[Granite]

I understand that, Zakath. But I think there's a better chance of someone voting to overturn Roe vs Wade if that person states that he believes that it should be overturned than rather than from someone who says that it's settled.

Either that or be wise as a serpent. Flat-out declaring you will vote for dismissing Roe and overturning it will doom you right out of the gate.

 

[Zakath]

Ideally yes, but the Court presently won't uphold laws banning abortion. So the judicial path is really the only one.

How about a similar path to the one used to legislate black slaves as fully human... :think:

 

[docrob57]

How about a similar path to the one used to legislate black slaves as fully human... :think:

Civil war?

 

[Crow]

Either that or be wise as a serpent. Flat-out declaring you will vote for dismissing Roe and overturning it will doom you right out of the gate.

And this guy has told us flat out that he considers Roe vs Wade settled. Hence, this guy isn't for us, he's against us from the starting gate.

 

[docrob57]

Either that or be wise as a serpent. Flat-out declaring you will vote for dismissing Roe and overturning it will doom you right out of the gate.

That is true. However, we have been waiting for too long for that kind of thing to happen.

 

[Zakath]

Civil war?

Hopefully not; and actually unlikely since there's not the economic issues and states rights issues that drove the Civil War...

Think back on your history and recall how Congress legislated freed black slaves into citizenship status...

Could something analogous be done for unborn humans, as well?

 

[Crow]

Of course Roberts is far from perfect, but Bush had to scramble at the last minute to toss a nominee out there so he could take the heat off of Karl Rove and the Treasongate scandal. Sad that such an important decision, with consequences that will resonate for decades to come, had to be made so hastily and on the basis of such short-term political expediency...

Honestly, if I were Bush and I was trying to use a nomination to draw the heat off of me for some issue, I'd pick the most controversial sure to be rejected person I could find. Somebody who would generate tons of indignant howls.

Not this guy. He's too tame.