Posted on 02/18/2007 2:31:51 PM PST by Spiff
Trying to read too much into any 2008 poll at this point, especially with respect to horserace numbers, is somewhat silly and a waste of time. But a recent FOX News poll does have some interesting tidbits in the internals asking about voters' general impressions on issues.
Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who is pro-choice on the issue of abortion? Republicans only: More likely 22 percent (a lot more likely 12 percent, somewhat more likely 10 percent). Less likely 46 percent (a lot less likely 36 percent, somewhat less likely 10 percent). Not a major factor 30 percent. Are you more who are more or less likely to support a candidate who supports civil unions for gays and lesbians? Republicans only: More likely 8 percent (a lot more likely 5 percent, somewhat more likely 3 percent). Less likely 50 percent (a lot less likely 39 percent, somewhat less likely 11 percent). Not a major factor 38 percent. [snip]
The biggest red flag for Giuliani has to be that only 42 percent of Republicans surveyed correctly identified him as pro-choice. Twenty-one percent of Republican voters have it wrong and think Giuliani is pro-life, and another 36 percent of Republicans don't have a clue what his position on abortion. In other words, nearly six out of 10 registered Republican voters have yet to learn something about Giuliani which, we can infer from the first question on abortion, will make close to half of them either "somewhat" less likely or "a lot" less likely to vote for him. There's no doubt the same holds true of his position on civil unions for gays, and the Second Amendment as well.Running the Republican Numbers on Rudy
[snip]
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I don't know what you're arguing here. It is the right of the states to recognize same-sex marriages, absent a constitutional amendment, no matter what you think of it.
No, we oppose gay marriage, but we are not automatically opposed to some form of civil unions.
"We have had almost 16 years of avowedly Pro-Life Presidents. Abortion is still legal."
So putting in a pro-abortion president is the way to go?
And no, we haven't had 16 years of pro-life presidents. At least not in a row recently. Your moronic post forgot to mention the eight years of Bill Clinton, and his appointments of Breyer and Ginsberg. Justice White was pro-life and was replaced by one of those two clowns Clinton put on the U.S. supreme court.
So, is Jim Robinson an "extreme fringe zealot" that you want out of the Republican Party?
To accept Rudolf Giuliani as the leader of the Republican party, among many other socialist mores we've fought against for so many years, we are told that we must accept abortion into our hearts. It is an accepted practice in modern America and only a minority of Americans say otherwise. Why resist?Well, I'm sorry. I do not accept abortion into my heart. And I doubt the majority of Americans will either.
The mass murder of helpless innocent babies in the womb is evil. Period. Poking sharp instruments into the skulls of partially born babies and sucking their brains out is grotesque barbarism so horrific to be beyond the ability of most people to fully comprehend. It's unthinkable evil.
Knowing that the Democrat Party lovingly embraces this evil as part of their platform literally makes me sick to my stomach. Every time I see the face of Hillary, Kennedy, Schumer, Reid, et al, I see the face of pure evil. It's as if I'm looking into the face of Nazism
Rudolf Giuliani does not deliver us from this evil, he delivers us to it.
If the Republican party embraces this evil culture of death platform as the Democrat party does, then I will have to agree... it's time to move on.
The party of Reagan will be dead. The party of Lincoln will be dead. The party of Jeffersonian life and liberty will be dead. The only party defending human life and liberty in America will be dead.
The Republican party becomes the Democrat party and the Democrat party becomes the communist party, the right to life and liberty in America be damned.
Time and evil marches on.Please pray for America.
140 posted on 02/11/2007 4:43:04 PM PST by Jim Robinson ("Electable" gave us Gerald Ford and Bob Dole. Voting for the right-wing kook gave us Reagan. ~ A.C.)
No it is not... REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 98 U.S. 145, October Term, 1878.
OK who is going to win? Who do you think?
Same differnece to me.
Don't forget: Rudy singlehandedly ran into the WTC and personally saved more people than all the NYPD and NYFD combined, then turned around and SAVED ALL OF US! Yessirree!
No it is not... REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES, 98 U.S. 145, 98 U.S. 145, October Term, 1878.
It is insignificant to me.
"Opposition to Giuliani is centered around a bunch of extreme fringe zealots. Good riddance to them. I welcome their exit from the party."
And I welcome the exit of RINOs like Lincoln Chafee in the past election. Most republican losers in 2006 were RINOs. I welcome their exit.
Something about coming on a conservative forum and ranting about the right-wing seems like trolling to me. One poster even went on about "right-wing a**holes". Maybe Daily Kos would be more to your liking? They hate right-wingers there too.
We already know you can copy and paste. Now explain what that has to do with anything. If you're referencing the decision I suspect you are, you are actually undermining your own non-argument.
Hmm ok, so what you are saying is that the President of these United States plays absolutely no role in a Marriage bill? Suppose the House and Senate pass a bill that says states that do not support gay marriage can no longer receive Federal monies for anything?
I will give you one very big example, Seat Belt Laws.
Now they're going to accuse you of tattling on them to the boss. Frankly, there's no hope whatever of winning these people over, partly because some of them are on this forum for the sole purpose of promoting liberalism, and partly because some of them are longtime libertarians who have always opposed social conservatism (and, really, opposed religion and religious traditions). I am just hoping they don't destroy the forum.
"OK who is going to win? Who do you think?"
I'll take the field. Any republican, even McCain, is acceptable to me except for Giuliani and, to a lesser extent, Hagel. I'll take any republican but Giuliani or Hagel in 2008.
"We have had almost 16 years of avowedly Pro-Life Presidents. Abortion is still legal."
No need to call people who disagree with you, "moron".
Eight years of Ronald Reagan plus almost eight of GWB sure adds up to 16 to me.
The point is that the POTUS can do very little to influence these social issues, which are really issues that belong to the States to decide, not the Federal Government.
Rudy has stated he would appoint Judges who would apponi strict constructtionists in the mold of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts.
In the face of Hillary Clinton who would have a pro-choice Litmus Test and appoint judges like Janet Reno and Lani Guenier, that is fine with me.
The Correct Supreme Court precedent to cite in reference to "gay" marriage is one that the homo-activists have tried to suppress. It's a bit complicated, and because it is so, I'll let Justice Kennard of the California Supreme Court explain the detail to you, for me:
[i]Indeed, there is a decision of the United States Supreme Court, binding on all other courts and public officials, that a state law restricting marriage to opposite-sex couples does not violate the federal Constitution’s guarantees of equal protection and due process of law. After the Minnesota Supreme Court held that Minnesota laws preventing marriages between persons of the same sex did not violate the equal protection or due process clauses of the United States Constitution (Baker v. Nelson (Minn. 1971) 191 N.W.2d 185), the decision was appealed to the United States Supreme Court, as federal law then permitted (see 28 U.S.C. former § 1257(2), 62 Stat. 929 as amended by 84 Stat. 590). The high court later dismissed that appeal “for want of substantial federal question.” (Baker v. Nelson (1972) 409 U.S. 810.) As the United States Supreme Court has explained, a dismissal on the ground that an appeal presents no substantial federal question is a decision on the merits of the case, establishing that the lower court’s decision on the issues of federal law was correct. (Mandel v. Bradley (1977) 432 U.S. 173, 176; Hicks v. Miranda (1975) 422 U.S. 332, 344.) Summary decisions of this kind “prevent lower courts from coming to opposite conclusions on the precise issues presented and necessarily decided by those actions.” (Mandel v. Bradley, supra, at p. 176.) Thus, the high court’s summary decision in Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, prevents lower courts and public officials from coming to the conclusion that a state law barring marriage between persons of the same sex violates the equal protection or due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. The binding force of a summary decision on the merits continues until the high court instructs otherwise. (Hicks v. Miranda, supra, 422 U.S. at p. 344.) That court may release lower courts from the binding effect of one of its decisions on the merits either by expressly overruling that decision or through “ ‘doctrinal developments’ ” that are necessarily incompatible with that decision. (Id. at p. 344.) The United States Supreme Court has not expressly overruled Baker v. Nelson, supra, 409 U.S. 810, nor do any of its later decisions contain doctrinal developments that are necessarily incompatible with that decision... Until the United States Supreme Court says otherwise, which it has not yet done, Baker v. Nelson defines federal constitutional law on the question whether a state may deny same-sex couples the right to marry."[/i]
Baker v Nelson, although it's only a summary decision, is binding precedent to this day, and is the LAW OF THE LAND.
And yes, Marriage is a STATE issue. I could cite case after case that proves this, but I don't need to. It's settled law. What you are probably concerned about is the Full Faith and Credit Clause. However, this fear may be a bit misplaced. A VALID reading of the FF&C Clause would not mandate that other States accept the marriage definition of another.
There are three reasons for this. 1st, Marriage Licenses don't reach the level of a Judgment (while strangely a divorce does) under the clause. 2nd, there is a public policy exception to the clause, and 3rd, Congress has the express power to define how the clause works, and this is something that they did with the 1996 DOMA.
The only concern is that an activist and out of control court would rewrite the law and settled precedent from the bench. I believe that this is a valid concern, and thus is more than enough reason to push for the FMA.
Marriage is a State issue. And a valid interpretation of FF&C wouldn't put other states at risk of having to accept an out of state homo "marriage".
That doesn't mean that we need to support a homo-loving RINO for President though.
I might respect the author's opinion more if he knew how to spell Rudolph. He obviously hasn't researched the man's views well if he can't spell his name!
Reynolds is not applicable. Utah was a Territory, Utah did not become a State until 1896. There is quite a bit of difference between a Territory and a State.
The applicable case law couldn't be clearer, for example, as Justice Frankfurter explained in his concurring opinion in Williams v North Carolina:
[i]"The Constitution of the United States, however, [b]reserves authority over marriage and divorce to each of the forty-eight states.[/b] That is our starting-point... We are not authorized nor are we qualified to formulate a national code of domestic relations.There may be some who think our modern social life is such that there is today a need, as there was not when the Constitution was framed, for vesting national authority over marriage and divorce in Congress, just as the national legislatures of Canada and Australia have been vested with such powers. Beginning in 1884, numerous proposals to amend the Constitution to confer such authority have been introduced in Congress. But those whose business it is to amend the Constitution have not seen fit to amend it in this way.[/i]
Homo-activists are the ones pushing to ignore established precedent and make marriage subject to Federal Control, when it has long been delegated as a State Power.
They want Courts to do what the activist Court did in 1973 with Roe and establish homo-"marriage" nationwide via fiat. Short of that, they want the Courts to ignore established precedent and allow one State to make public policy for the rest of the State via a faulty reading of the FF&C Clause.
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.