2004 Projected Presidential Electoral Votes as of 6/14/2004

TradeSports.com ^ | Monday, June 14, 2004 | Momaw Nadon

[Reagan Man]

This has nothing to do with being obliged to review acts of Congress. It's all about the power! The USSC has the final say on all matters of Constitutional law. That's the way its been for 200 years. In 1973 the SC came to a conclusion that abortion was a womens right under Constitutional law. That's power. It goes to the reason why the pro-abortion forces are so worried about Bush43 getting opportunities to replace two of the sitting SC justices. Roe v Wade could be overturn, if say O'Conner and Stevens retire and Bush gets to appoint jurists like Luddig or Kozinski to the high court.

>>>He did not say that SCOTUS is the final authority.

I never said that. You're the one editorializing my remarks .....dot dot dot dot dot dot ........

>>>Clearly, according to him, the courts must conform to the law, not the other way around.

You'd think so. But that's not the case.

[television is just wrong]

That is too close, we've gotta get out there and push!

[inquest]

This has nothing to do with being obliged to review acts of Congress. It's all about the power! The USSC has the final say on all matters of Constitutional law.

If you're referring to the way things are understood currently, that's different. My point was simply that the court did not hold in Marbury vs Madison that the court has final say on all matters of constitutional law.

It goes to the reason why the pro-abortion forces are so worried about Bush43 getting opportunities to replace two of the sitting SC justices.

You're talking about something else here. SCOTUS can rule one way today and the opposite way tomorrow. But that doesn't mean the law has changed. All that's changed is the extent to which the law's being respected by the court.

[Reagan Man]

>>>If you're referring to the way things are understood currently, that's different.

It's not different. It's reality! And it's a 200 year old standard of reality.

You're a purist. I'm a realist.

[inquest]

Of course it's different. Marshall did not say or imply that the court's opinion of law is the same as the law itself. That false notion came later. That's the difference.

[Abram]

I think that abortion is a moral issue that has recently (over the last 40 years) become more of a political issue. I won't say that I won't vote against a pro-choice candidate or necessarily vote for a pro-life candidate. I don't rate it up there as a determining factor when deciding who merits my support, be it financial/vote/time, etc.
I was a campaign manager of a state representative candidate that was a pro-choice, fiscal conservative Republican (we live in a very liberal district that usually has to put up token resistence to pro-union, environmental wackos). We were glad to actually get within 5% of winning.
I have withheld support from Republicans that made anti-Mormon comments which is extremely intolerant and extremely stupid considering that most Mormons in Washington State are Republican and a large voting bloc.

[Reagan Man]

I won't say never, but it would take a special candidate and the right set of circumstances for me to vote for anyone who is pro-choice and supports abortion on demand. Outside of Gerald Ford in 1976, I can't say I ever voted for a pro-choice candidate. Back then, however, abortion wasn't a hot button issue like it is today for conservative Republicans. OTOH, that was before Americans decided to start ending 1-1/2 million human lives per year --- in excess of 43 million since 1973. Abortion on demand is an abomination and the blackest mark in the history of mankind. IMO, abortion shows a total lack of intelligence, compassion and humanity.

[Abram]

I agree that abortion on demand is truly an blight on humankind, but people are free to make a choice. That being said, it is a choice...all be it a bad choice and immoral choice, but still a choice.

I wasn't old enough to vote for Ford, I was 4, but I probably would have voted for him too. I can't think of a Republican nominee that I wouldn't have voted for, but I considered voting for Perot in 1992, but came around. Most of my Republican family and Republican friends did vote for Perot in 1992 because they felt betrayed on taxes by Bush I. He was no Ronald, was he? In 2000 I supported first McCain and then Bush. Yes Freepers flame me, but I still would support McCain....

[Reagan Man]

... people are free to make a choice.

If you mean that abortion is legal, you're right. It's a choice. Albeit, a bad choice and a wrong choice. I will fight for the right of the unborn til I die. Hopefully, the American people will come to their senses one day and demand that RoevWade be reversed.

Don't forget what Reagan said:

"... we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide."

Human life at any stage of developement is precious. Since 1973 American women have had a legal right to kill their unborn child. They may have a legal right, but they don't have a moral right. Period.