Why isn't anyone talking about this?

[Syntax_Divinity]

This really baffles me. The next president of the United States will very likely have the responsibility of appointing two, maybe three supreme court justices. O'Conner and Rehnquist are almost certainly going to retire, leaving two vacancies. This may be the single most important issue of the election, due to the broad social and judicial implications of the appointments. What's up?

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I actually am a News junkie. I've seen it discussed on NBC twice, Fox once, and CNN twice. I watch the news all the time, and listen to NPR in the car. There is almost no mention of it. You hear about it on C-SPAN occasionally, but the mainstream media outlets seem to be ignoring it and concentrating on this gay marriage and prisoner abuse garbage. Why don't we talk about something a little more salient?

 

[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.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
I actually am a News junkie. I've seen it discussed on NBC twice, Fox once, and CNN twice. I watch the news all the time, and listen to NPR in the car. There is almost no mention of it. You hear about it on C-SPAN occasionally, but the mainstream media outlets seem to be ignoring it and concentrating on this gay marriage and prisoner abuse garbage. Why don't we talk about something a little more salient?

I've been hearing quite a lot about it when I watch MSNBC, etc. The discussion, as it should be, usually comes from the partisan guests. It shouldn't be up to the reporters to bag on this. The GOP isn't going to talk about it, as the left will use it against them. The Dems don't want to push it too much, because they know a lot of their base (swing voters) are actually more conservative than they would have the general public believe and that might not bode well for them. Many Southern democrats are "church going" democrats and anti-abortion. If the Dems hammer on this, it only appeals to the extreme left of the party, so they have a fine line to walk.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by freeandfun1
I've been hearing quite a lot about it when I watch MSNBC, etc. The discussion, as it should be, usually comes from the partisan guests. It shouldn't be up to the reporters to bag on this. The GOP isn't going to talk about it, as the left will use it against them. The Dems don't want to push it too much, because they know a lot of their base (swing voters) are actually more conservative than they would have the general public believe and that might not bode well for them. Many Southern democrats are "church going" democrats and anti-abortion. If the Dems hammer on this, it only appeals to the extreme left of the party, so they have a fine line to walk.

Sounds about right.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

That's what I meant. I don't expect the journalists to bring it up, but I guess you've been seeing some programs that I haven't. I've barely seen it mentioned on any television news outlet in several months. You're reasoning for the reluctance makes sense.

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by Syntax_Divinity
That's what I meant. I don't expect the journalists to bring it up, but I guess you've been seeing some programs that I haven't. I've barely seen it mentioned on any television news outlet in several months. You're reasoning for the reluctance makes sense.

The only ones that usually bring it up are the nut cakes and they only bring it up when they are losing a debate on a totally different subject. You hear them say, "yeah, but if Bush wins, look out for Roe v. Wade being overturned... blah, blah, blah...." They use it as a deflection and that is about it.

 

[dilloduck]

Bush has also made several pre-war comments accusing the dems of blocking all of his picks for federal judges. If the discussion started about the supreme court it would put the dem blocking strategy gack into the headlights and I'm not sure they want that. Who knows tho-----they might have to get that desperate and frighten thier constituents to the polls.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

Roe being overturned is a distinct possibilty. We know that Scalia and Thomas have been extremely vocal about their desire to overturn Roe, and Kennedy and Souter have expressed deep reservations about the case. If Bush were to win, and the GOP keeps the senate, you can bet on Roe being at least damaged, probably overturned completely.

 

[dilloduck]

and the problem with that would be?

 

[freeandfun1]

both of you make good points. Frankly, I look at Roe v. Wade as being law and I really doubt it will ever be overturned.

Frankly, (serious question) if it were overturned in the Supreme Court, how would that affect the rights of the states to make their own rulings on abortion?

I cannot imagine that it will ever be totally overturned and I am not sure what damage could be done other than damage to parts of abortion law that most Americans don't support anyway - things like partial birth abortion, federally funded abortions and abortions for minors without parental consent.

I am not that well versed on abortion laws though, so I really don't know......

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

I didn't say it was a problem. The whole problem with Roe to begin with is that the issue of abortion and the right to privacy was confused. It was an example of judicial activism. I agree with the disposition of the court (a woman has a right to abortion and the states have an interest in the life of a fetus), but I think the overall rationale was illogical. The abortion debate is not about the question of whether a fetus is a "constitutional" person, but how far can the government violate the privacy rights of an individual to endorse a particular view of the sanctity of human life.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

This shouldn't be taken as evidence that I am not pro-choice ( I hate that term), but that I disagree with judicial activism.

 

[5stringJeff]

I would like to see Roe overturned so that the abortion issue can be decided by the states, where it belongs.

 

[Syntax_Divinity]

That doesn't make any sense. Do you think abortion is murder?

 

[freeandfun1]

Originally posted by gop_jeff
I would like to see Roe overturned so that the abortion issue can be decided by the states, where it belongs.

agreed..... what ever happened to state's rights?

 

[dilloduck]

Agreed-----judicial activism bothers me too jury nullification ain't too cool either

 

[dilloduck]

time out-----you spoke a sec too soon syntax----talking about kerrys " stand" on supreme court candidates on FOX right now

 

[rtwngAvngr]

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.

Yeah. So they can keep packing the benches with baby killers, and socialists.

 

[nycflasher]

Originally posted by rtwngAvngr
Yeah. So they can keep packing the benches with baby killers, and socialists.

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?