If McCain gets elected...

[real1324 0]

Although I am not against McCain and Palin and there are soooo many issues to look at; Do you think Palin and McCain will push to make abortion illegal? I know that it is unlikely, but still...? Do you think the Supreme Court would just overturn Row. v Wade?

[downwardspiral 0]

Nope

www.FourWheelerHB.com

[quade 4]

Quote

Do you think Palin and McCain will push to make abortion illegal? I know that it is unlikely, but still...? Do you think the Supreme Court would just overturn Row. v Wade?

In the 8 year potential of McCain and the 16 year potential of Palin? Yes, of course, they'd absolutely make appointments to the Supreme Court in hopes of doing that. No question in my mind.

I'm sure you understand that the President himself can't do it, but he (or she) certainly can make appointments in hopes issues would swing certain ways.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 10]

I don't see the SC overturning Roe v Wade even then.

And I am sure you would agree that Obama would push to ban firearms in his selections?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[1969912 0]

Yep, simple as that. Presidents just "appoint" new SC judges.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[lawrocket 3]

Dontcha think it would have already happened, Paul? Republican appointments have a 7-2 advantage right now - something they have had for a while.

But it turns out that these same Republican nominees have demonstrated a respect for stare decisis.

It's interesting, isn't it? To overturn an activist opinion, the justices must be activists. It'd be like being dark white.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[quade 4]

Quote

And I am sure you would agree that Obama would push to ban firearms in his selections?

Some, perhaps, certainly not all, but we're talking apples and oranges here.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[quade 4]

Quote

Yep, simple as that. Presidents just "appoint" new SC judges.

Ok . . . nominate and get approval from Congress . . . point still remains. The Presidents have ALWAYS put up judges they think will continue their ideology. Name one case that has not been so.

Mind you, sometimes the judges end up having minds of their own (which, I believe addresses lawrocket's point).

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Yep, simple as that. Presidents just "appoint" new SC judges.

Ok . . . nominate and get approval from Congress . . . point still remains. The Presidents have ALWAYS put up judges they think will continue their ideology. Name one case that has not been so.

Mind you, sometimes the judges end up having minds of their own (which, I believe addresses lawrocket's point).

Prior to a presidential nomination of a new justice(s), one or more SC judges must announce retirement (a minor point, but one you failed to mention).

Reagan was "pro-life", as were both Bush's. All three nominated SC justices who were later confirmed, yet Roe v. Wade still stands. I don't see any big changes if McCain is elected.

It's not a "minds of their own" issue, and I doubt that's what Lawrocket was talking about.

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[quade 4]

Quote

Prior to a presidential nomination of a new justice(s), one or more SC judges must announce retirement (a minor point, but one you failed to mention).

And you seriously don't think that is possible within the 8 possible McCain and 16 possible Palin years?

Exactly how long do you think people live?

BTW, I'm fairly certain that lawrocket and I can speak in shortcuts and be fully understood by each other. He understands what I understand and vice versa on these subjects. Neither of us feel the need to explain in painful detail to each other how the government works, so, I at least, omit the parts I'm fairly certain he understands.

As for the justices having minds of their own, actually, I believe that's exactly what he was talking about.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Ron 10]

Well, we are talking about the President trying to appoint judges that go along with their views.

Quote

I'm sure you understand that the President himself can't do it, but he (or she) certainly can make appointments in hopes issues would swing certain ways.

Quote

point still remains. The Presidents have ALWAYS put up judges they think will continue their ideology.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[1969912 0]

Quote

Quote

Prior to a presidential nomination of a new justice(s), one or more SC judges must announce retirement (a minor point, but one you failed to mention).

And you seriously don't think that is possible within the 8 possible McCain and 16 possible Palin years?

Exactly how long do you think people live?

BTW, I'm fairly certain that lawrocket and I can speak in shortcuts and be fully understood by each other. He understands what I understand and vice versa on these subjects. Neither of us feel the need to explain in painful detail to each other how the government works, so, I at least, omit the parts I'm fairly certain he understands.

As for the justices having minds of their own, actually, I believe that's exactly what he was talking about.

Possible, but not likely. Hope not, anyway. I really don't see a big change in abortion law, ever.

Glad to see that you're being realistic about The McCain/Palin ticket

Stare decisis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis

"Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ."
-NickDG

[BillyVance 34]

Quote

Yep, simple as that. Presidents just "appoint" new SC judges.

Who are THEN put through the wringer by congress with a yea or nay. Not every appointee gets through.

"Mediocre people don't like high achievers, and high achievers don't like mediocre people." - SIX TIME National Champion coach Nick Saban

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I don't see the SC overturning Roe v Wade even then.

And I am sure you would agree that Obama would push to ban firearms in his selections?

It's more likely that R v W would be overturned than guns. The recent gun decision just came down and cemented that.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Dontcha think it would have already happened, Paul? Republican appointments have a 7-2 advantage right now - something they have had for a while.

But it turns out that these same Republican nominees have demonstrated a respect for stare decisis.

It's interesting, isn't it? To overturn an activist opinion, the justices must be activists. It'd be like being dark white.

That whole judges are activists thing is so Republican. Yet when the Repubs get a nod like the recent gun woner nod, they don't call that activism.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Yep, simple as that. Presidents just "appoint" new SC judges.

The Senate must confirm with a simple majority for SCOTUS justices. Furthermore, it is an appointment for life, so it isn't easy, a judge must die or retire.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I don't see any big changes if McCain is elected.


Me either, for anything.

[Lucky... 0]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>He understands what I understand and vice versa on these subjects.


It's kind of clarvoyant, isn't it? Gives me the willies.

[klingeme 1]

Hopefully

[ml6967 0]

I think the backlash would be unreal. It would be the closest thing to revolution since the 30s. Most importantly, people must fight for their beliefs no matter what they are. Usually people don't find the time to take to the streets, but I think they would if Roe vs. Wade were overturned.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Hopefully

So you want to impose YOUR personal views on everyone else. NICE!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[alw 0]

Quote

. . . Do you think Palin and McCain will push to make abortion illegal? I know that it is unlikely, but still...? Do you think the Supreme Court would just overturn Row. v Wade?

Digging into their positions, there are two salient points.

First they have beliefs as do we all, they both believe that life begins at conception and they both believe that abortion to save the live of the mother should be a choice.

Second, they have a legislative position regarding abortion. That position is that the states should control the laws regarding abortion, not the federal government. This is a practical and desirable position. Why? Because this is a contentious issue and a one size fits all approach will devide people on an emotional issue. Allowing the states to make the laws on the issue some will fall on one side and some on the other, in essence giving people a choice.

Disclosure: I support McCain-Palin.

---------------------------------------------
Every day is a bonus - every night is an adventure.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

. . . Do you think Palin and McCain will push to make abortion illegal? I know that it is unlikely, but still...? Do you think the Supreme Court would just overturn Row. v Wade?

Digging into their positions, there are two salient points.

First they have beliefs as do we all, they both believe that life begins at conception and they both believe that abortion to save the live of the mother should be a choice.

Second, they have a legislative position regarding abortion. That position is that the states should control the laws regarding abortion, not the federal government. This is a practical and desirable position. .

Why shouldn't THE WOMEN decide for themselves instead of having the feds OR the states decide it for them.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[klingeme 1]

Quote

Quote

Hopefully

So you want to impose YOUR personal views on everyone else. NICE!

I speak for myself and the unborn who can not speak for themselves.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Second, they have a legislative position regarding abortion. That position is that the states should control the laws regarding abortion, not the federal government. This is a practical and desirable position. Why? Because this is a contentious issue and a one size fits all approach will devide people on an emotional issue. Allowing the states to make the laws on the issue some will fall on one side and some on the other, in essence giving people a choice.

Well, except for those women unfortunate enough to live in states that don't think they deserve a choice.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)