Kasich. Should we be mad at him?

[Socrates]

With regards to the OP and Kasich - typical gutless Republican capitulation (and we wonder why we don't get anywhere politically against abortion).

I can't tell anyone how to feel about it, but personally I find it hard to muster up too much anger against someone I never had any faith in to begin with.  For me Kasich was always towards the bottom of the list of GOP nominees.

Here's a couple pieces that make good cases against Kasich's veto (for those who think it's smart pro-life strategy):

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/john-kasichs-capitulation-on-life-underscores-why-conservatives-lose-policy-fights

https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2016/12/kasich-plays-the-courts-game-on-abortion-with-his-latest-pro-life-veto

 

 

On 12/14/2016 at 0:05 PM, dairygirl4u2c said:

i heard he just didn't want to waste money fighting it in courts since it's obviously unconstitutional the federal courts are packed with leftist social activists who don't give a rat's rear-end what the Constitution actually says. 

fixed for you.

 

Or perhaps you can enlighten us by citing and quoting the part of the Constitution that the proposed law would so obviously violate.

Edited December 20, 2016 by Socrates

[dairygirl4u2c]

like i said to anamaly when he challenged my "obviously unconstitutional" statement, it was just a misunderstanding. it's fair to say something is unconstitutional if the court says it is, even if the evidence says otherwise. that's all i did. if i had my way roe v wade would be overturned based on constitutional interpretation, even though persoally i probably would be a little more permissive on abortion than the many a conservative.

that said, it's not that far fetched what roe did. the constutuion protects "liberty" via the fourteenth amendment and doesn't define that. it's plausible to think a person can interpret that to mean what it means to them personally reading it. i happen to think we should go with what the document originally intended, and history shows that living constutuiton stuff isn't it. but it's plausible to think otherwise.