Posted on 11/25/2004 2:32:59 PM PST by Ed Current
Edited on 11/26/2004 1:56:06 PM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
To prepare for a possible Supreme Court vacancy, and the fierce political fight over abortion that is sure to follow, the abortion rights group NARAL Pro-Choice America taped and has ready to run a 30-second television commercial warning what could happen if Roe vs. Wade is overturned.
(Excerpt) Read more at concordmonitor.com ...
Of the nine new members of the Senate, seven are pro-life. The new pro-life Senators are Mel Martinez of Florida, Johnny Isakson of Georgia, David Vitter of Louisiana, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Jim DeMint of South Carolina, and John Thune of South Dakota.
Mel Martinez and Jim DeMint defeated EMILY’s List candidates. Richard Burr defeated pro-abortion Erskine Bowles, former chief of staff to President Clinton and, of course, John Thune defeated pro-abortion Minority Leader Tom Daschle. Wirthlin Worldwide post-election poll, taken November 2, found that 42% of the people said that abortion affected their vote. Twenty-five percent said they voted for pro-life candidates while 13% voted for pro-abortion candidates. This comes out to a 12% increment for pro-life candidates.
Asked in another manner, 8% of the voters said that abortion was the most important issue in deciding who to vote for-- 6% voted for George W. Bush while 2% voted for John Kerry. This was a net increment of 4% for President Bush. http://www.nrlc.org/Post/Tobias110404.html
The NRLC Scorecard (for what is worth) for the 108th Congress U.S. Senate rated Kerry & Klinton 0% and Zell Miller(D) & John Breaux (D) @ 100% http://www.capwiz.com/nrlc/scorecard/?chamber=S&session=108&x=14&y=12
The phrase "indicating a pro-choice/pro-life voting record " comes from NARAL.
Mel Martinez, Jim DeMint, Richard Burr, and John Thune replace Senators who scored lower than Arlen Specter by NRLC.
Pro- murder BARACK OBAMA, Illinois replaced Peter Fitzgerald (R) who scored 100% Pro-life. Alan Keyes would have been the CHOICE for Pro-Lifers and any American with common sense. Pro-murder Ken Salazar replaced Ben Nighthorse Campbell who scored 82% Pro-life
prochoiceamerica.org : 109th Congress Choice Composition claims that there will be 50 Pro-life senators in the 109th.
Bush & the GOP shouldn't have much of a problem getting moderates such as Kennedy and O'Connor into the lower federal courts and maybe even a few Scalia types.
Getting a Scalia clone on SCOTUS is a coin toss - HEADS is a moderate and TAILS is no Scalia clones.
If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takes an oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval as it is of the supreme judges when it may be brought before them for judicial decision. The opinion of the judges has no more authority over Congress than the opinion of Congress has over the judges, and on that point the President is independent of both. The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve.
It's fascinating to see what kind of people these pro-death "scholars" are. David Garrow has been put on a short leash out at Emory because of his harassment and intimidation of a black female subordinate. If his support of all the leading liberal causes had not made him Big Scholar on Campus, he'd be gone.
It's fascinating to see what kind of people these pro-death "scholars" are.
Intellectual Morons: How Ideology Makes Smart People Fall for Stupid Ideas
Bruce Bartlett on Teachers & Politics on NRO Financial
This is the time of year when millions of parents send their children off to universities. Unfortunately, one price of getting one’s children into a top school these days is that they may be subjected to four years of liberal propaganda.
Those in academia like to call the liberal orientation of most college faculty a red herring. But objective research continually shows that it is not. The latest data appear in the Aug. 29 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education. A solid majority of those teaching at both public and private universities described themselves as being either liberal or far left. Less than a third considered themselves middle of the road and just 15 percent said they were conservative. Not surprisingly, 50 percent of the general public considers college professors to be more liberal than they are.
Interestingly, this puts most faculty members well to the left of their students. According to the same source, less than 28 percent of them would be classified as liberal or far left. More than half consider themselves to be middle of the road, and 21 percent say they are conservative. A new Gallup poll suggests that this may even understate the case. It found that 29 percent of those age 18 to 24 consider themselves to be conservatives, with just 30 percent saying they are liberals.
The Chronicle is not the first to document the leftist orientation of most university faculty. A survey by pollster Frank Luntz last year found that just 3 percent of Ivy League professors called themselves Republicans, with 57 percent belonging to the Democratic party. Among those voting in the 2000 election, Al Gore captured 84 percent of their votes. Just 9 percent voted for George W. Bush, barely more than the 6 percent who voted for Ralph Nader. Among the population as a whole, the vote for president was almost evenly split between Bush and Gore.
The irony here is that unlike almost all other workers in society, university professors are granted tenure — a lifetime job from which it is almost impossible to be fired — precisely in order to guarantee freedom of expression. But in practice, the tenure process has become the means by which the Left rigorously weeds out conservatives. In many university departments, opposition from a single faculty member is all that is necessary to deny tenure. These days, such a blackball is most likely to be used against a conservative, especially in disciplines such as sociology, history, English, and government.
It would seem that when the gal who brought us Roe vs. Wade wants a reversal that we should get one.... This stroy reminds conservatives that even some liberals turn conservative as late as forty-somethings in life. It is a powerful message when one reverses their cause, in this case abortion, 30-years later.
Very interesting, but a bit of wishful thinking analysis. The issue is not how many Justices an average president would replace statistically. The issue is how many Justices on average a second term president who replaced zero justices in his first term replace.
But if Bush only gets to replace 3 Justices, the next president, likely Jeb Bush will get to replace some too.
Johnny Isakson isn't pro-life.
Roe doesn't have to be reversed it just has to be watered down so much that it becomes meaningless.
Since there's no inalienable right in the Constitution to murder one's child Roe has always been unconstitutional.
The Constitution, as interpreted by the Judiciary, is the only thing keeping Roe alive. Change the makeup of the Judiciary and you change the interpretations of all cases relating to Roe. Change the interpretations and you render Roe moot.
When the exit pollls revealed that the leading vote indicator was "moral values," anyone could see this coming. Unfortunately, it appears as if no one was paying attention when Roe vs. Wade was rendered in the 1970's. If they had, they would know that the court make up of the 1970's and today reflects a republican, pro-life majority. However, Roe remains in place.
At the time of Roe v. Wade, the SCOTUS make-up was 5-4 Republicans. The five gop justices having been appointed under Presidents Nixon and Eisenhower. While abortion was not the hot button issue it is today, the make up of the court and their suvsequent vote still speaks for itself.
Fast forward to today's make-up. Currently, the court consists of 7 Republican appointees and only 2 democrats. Both of the dems came from Clinton, while the Republicans were appointed by Ford, Reagan, and Bush 41. If we wanted to change Roe, we should have and could have done it by now. What would pro-lifers like the court to be made up of? Nine extreme right wingers before they make their move?
Roe v. Wade has been a two decade precedent. America and especially my party needs to accept that it is not going anywhere. Instead, we need to focus on returning to the roots of educating our children on the responsible measures to prevent the circumstances for abortion. The simple fact is it isnt going to be reversed. So lets control what we can control and stop worrying about what we can't.
On a personal note, please visit the home of my organization Republicans and Democrats for Positive and Issue Oriented Politics. (www.rdpiop.com). We have launched our Revolution '06 campaign, so please feel free to visit, sign up, read stories from 150 newspapers daily, and correspond on our blog as well.
Whatever it takes.
I would like to see the actual wording on this question. These results conflict with years and years of polling done by gallup on the subject. Most people favor more restrictions (parental notification, late term abortion ban) than we currently have.
How would the founding fathers feel about Abortion? What did Thomas Jefferson say about Majority rule? The majority in this country now has to abide by Minority rule.
http://www.theconservativerepublican.com/ThomasJefferson.html
The present court indicated its thinking on precedents of this sort when it reversed Bowers v. Hardwick and thus decriminalized sodomy (and opened the door to gay marriage). Precedent matters not a bit when the right constituency opposes it.
Overturning Roe would not make abortion illegal - it would return the issue to state governance.
Welcome to Free Republic - how nice of you to join us on Thanksgiving Day. Happy Thanksgiving!
This is where the hysteria of the feminists sneaks in. There is no call to criminalize Roe, there is the call to overturn the decision, but that just leads to the status quo ante; the situation that existed before Roe. States like NY and CA had already legalized abortion, but other states' anti-abortion laws were nullified. These would be back in effect, and the states could then try to change the laws as their citizens saw fit.
I don't think the prospects are good for a Human Life Amendment. Many have become selfish and unwilling to give up a supposed 'right', but those same people may be willing to place some needed restrictions on abortion in their states.
No one even remembers what Roe v. Wade said anymore.
States have the absolute right to regulate abortion in the third trimester.
States have a limited right to regulate abortion in the second trimester.
States are have an extremely limited right to regulate abortion in the first trimester.
In 1973 they even had the foresight to say as science becomes more advanced these limits should change to reflect that advancement (more limits in the first and second trimesters to address medicine of the future).
We can't even outlaw partial birth abortion, without a judge misrepresenting this as a right.
DK
Roe was handed down in 1973 (that's three decades plus). Wrong then and wrong now.
Democrats have much to gain if abortions decline. The Roe Effect
Please FreepMail me if you want on or off my Pro-Life Ping List.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.