Why isn't anyone talking about this?

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Democrats don't want judges legislating a woman's body.
Tough issue though. Abortion.
I think we're probably split about 50/50 on it, maybe leaning more towards the choice side.

Anyone got a poll?

You've probably got a pole in your ass and in your mouth. Check for us. Then tell us the truth.

 

[Annie]

Actually I went to Gallup and they did a poll on 4/23/04. Major findings are that the country is split about 47% pro-choice; 45% pro-life. Interestingly enough, the plurality of all believe that abortion should only be available under much tighter controls. The people however are not sure where the rules should come from.

It falls about 30th on issues of importance in voting-interesting since 50% believe Bush wants to end abortion.

Just not an important issue for those who vote. Tells you who votes.

 

[Bern80]

I can't remember which issue it was, but i believe Kerry said he would look to appoint either pro man/woman marriage judges or pro-life juudges. It's a lose, lose deal for the far left. Again i can't remmber which issue it was, but if it's for the former those judges probably will for the later.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Well, only thing I can think of is that this has been an issue ever since Bush was elected. It is probably one of the biggest reason democrats don't want to see Bush reelected.

I agree, it will be alot tougher for Democrats to push their agenda through the courts with judges who actually make judgements based on the Constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

Originally posted by nycflasher
Democrats don't want judges legislating a woman's body.
Tough issue though. Abortion.
I think we're probably split about 50/50 on it, maybe leaning more towards the choice side.

Anyone got a poll?

Last poll i saw was about 70/30 for the life side. but i have no idea where i saw it.

 

[acludem]

Well. first off, as for the question of what happened to state's rights, we had this little thing called the American Civil War about 150 years ago. One side fought for state's rights, the other for national supremacy, states rights lost. Second, as for Bush complaining about Democrats holding up his judicial nominees, that's simply the pot calling the kettle black - Republicans spent the last six years of the Clinton administration refusing hearings, rejecting, and generally stonewalling Clinton's nominees. Then you have cases like Ronnie White's nomination. This case, involving a Missouri Supreme Court justice appointed by Pres. Bush to a federal court, had White's nomination approved by the judiciary committee. Then, John Ashcroft, then a Senator, needed political ammo against his opponent, then-Governor Mel Carnahan, so he organized the Republicans to derail White's nomination on the Senate floor based upon a false pretense that White was "pro-criminal" as Ashcroft put it. White was given no chance to defend his record until after the fact. Later, even some Republicans admitted that were unhappy with how White was treated. Democrats have done none of this. They have been honest and forthright when they opposed a nominee. They have voted against the nominees in committee, and used filibusters. For Republicans to complain for a split second about Democrats politicizing the judicial nomination process is both hypocritical and ludicrous.

acludem

 

[5stringJeff]

Originally posted by acludem
Well. first off, as for the question of what happened to state's rights, we had this little thing called the American Civil War about 150 years ago. One side fought for state's rights, the other for national supremacy, states rights lost. Second, as for Bush complaining about Democrats holding up his judicial nominees, that's simply the pot calling the kettle black - Republicans spent the last six years of the Clinton administration refusing hearings, rejecting, and generally stonewalling Clinton's nominees. Then you have cases like Ronnie White's nomination. This case, involving a Missouri Supreme Court justice appointed by Pres. Bush to a federal court, had White's nomination approved by the judiciary committee. Then, John Ashcroft, then a Senator, needed political ammo against his opponent, then-Governor Mel Carnahan, so he organized the Republicans to derail White's nomination on the Senate floor based upon a false pretense that White was "pro-criminal" as Ashcroft put it. White was given no chance to defend his record until after the fact. Later, even some Republicans admitted that were unhappy with how White was treated. Democrats have done none of this. They have been honest and forthright when they opposed a nominee. They have voted against the nominees in committee, and used filibusters. For Republicans to complain for a split second about Democrats politicizing the judicial nomination process is both hypocritical and ludicrous.

acludem

Hold on while I pull my waders on...

1. The Civil War, while establishing a strong federal government, did not kill state's rights altogether. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the Constitution still stand.
2. Ronnie White was one judge. I wasn't extremely impressed with his record myself, and if Ashcroft was able to convince other GOP senators not to vote for him on the Senate floor, that's great. But Leahy and Daschle won't even bring the nominees up for a vote, and that is dirty politics.

 

[Zhukov]

Second, as for Bush complaining about Democrats holding up his judicial nominees, that's simply the pot calling the kettle black - Republicans spent the last six years of the Clinton administration refusing hearings, rejecting, and generally stonewalling Clinton's nominees.

3.) Did the Republicans ever fillibuster on the Senate floor to prevent a vote on a President's judicial nominations from even taking place? As far as I'm aware, that was a new one. But, thanks to the Democrats, I'm sure we can look forward to it again and again.

 

[acludem]

The Republicans didn't have to filibuster, they were the majority party. As for Judge White, Kit Bond, the other Republican Senator from Missouri actually introduced him at the first hearing for his nomination. Ashcroft was on the Senate Judiciary Committee at that time and did not argue against his nomination when White had an opportunity to defend himself. Instead, Ashcroft ambushed White on the Senate floor having already cajoled Republicans into voting against White so he could have political ammunition against then Governor Mel Carnahan who was running to unseat him. Carnahan (may he rest in peace) was tragically killed in a plane crash a few weeks before the election. He beat Ashcroft anyway. Judge White later was given the opportunity to defend himself before the judiciary committee where even Sen. Orrin Hatch apologized to him for the way his previous nomination had been handled.

acludem