Debate

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Era Might' post='1678730' date='Oct 16 2008, 12:10 AM']

I was just going to post about that. Is that not the coolest name ever?[/quote]

It sounds like the name of someone who advertises in the parish bulletin.

[Saint Therese]

Could you see O'bama's hooves during the debate?

[rkwright]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1678679' date='Oct 15 2008, 10:48 PM']Careful there, you sound like you're saying that the President shouldn't do everything in his power to promote life, which is a the resounding cry I hear around here.

So given a hypothetical situation where you had to choose between a "competent" Judge who has had a record of generally supporting abortions "rights" or an "incompetent" (or, less qualified) Judge who is what you'd call "pro-life," who would you choose?

I ask because saying that "a competent judge wouldn't support Roe V. Wade" doesn't really cut it. Would John McCain help the pro-life cause by selecting a pro-life judge and swinging the balance of the court, or would he risk choosing someone who could vote for abortion "rights" and continue to stand in the way of the movement?[/quote]

I think McCain is very clear on this. Its not so much that hes pro-life as much as hes a federalist.

He supports Judges who are strict constitutionalists. 99.99% of those are going to be pro-life on the issue of abortion.

Hes not going to say heres a pro-life judge, I'll appoint this one... He's going to find the strict constitutionalist judge, who in turn would also overturn Roe v. Wade.

Your hypothetical presents a false choice - there are certainly competent judges who don't support Roe v. Wade.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1678792' date='Oct 16 2008, 12:51 AM'][b]I think McCain is very clear on this. Its not so much that hes pro-life as much as hes a federalist.[/b]

He supports Judges who are strict constitutionalists. 99.99% of those are going to be pro-life on the issue of abortion.

Hes not going to say heres a pro-life judge, I'll appoint this one... He's going to find the strict constitutionalist judge, who in turn would also overturn Roe v. Wade.

Your hypothetical presents a false choice - there are certainly competent judges who don't support Roe v. Wade.[/quote]

This frustrates me about Republicans (in general) to no end ... the text book definition of a Republican (mind you, not what individuals think, nor even a trend) is that a Republican should want the issue to go to the states. Which will fracture the movement, and lead to situations where someone just needs to cross state lines in order to obtain an abortion.

Abortion is wrong is wrong is wrong ... no matter what state it is in. I feel as though we need a federal banning of abortion, not just a wimpy relegation of the decision to the states.

[Paladin D]

You can watch the entire debate here: [url="http://catholics4mccain.org/?p=234"]http://catholics4mccain.org/?p=234[/url]

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1678726' date='Oct 15 2008, 11:08 PM']As some might know, that "you should have ran against him four years ago" statement was so funny I gave it it's own thread on the lame board. Probably one of the best zingers I've heard since Lloyd Bentsen said "you are no Jack Kennedy" back in 1988.

I do think that McCain should have done this in the first debate. I think the way he handled the financial crisis by calling for campaign suspensions and trying to delay the debates may have cost him the race. Only time will tell.

I'm heavily favoring a vote for Joe the Plumber, though.[/quote]
Mine was when McCain called Obama"MR.GOVERNMENT" I snickered. His whole health care plan scares me. Talk about expanding Government.

[jckinsman]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1678726' date='Oct 15 2008, 11:08 PM']As some might know, that "you should have ran against him four years ago" statement was so funny I gave it it's own thread on the lame board. Probably one of the best zingers I've heard since Lloyd Bentsen said "you are no Jack Kennedy" back in 1988.

I do think that McCain should have done this in the first debate. I think the way he handled the financial crisis by calling for campaign suspensions and trying to delay the debates may have cost him the race. Only time will tell.

I'm heavily favoring a vote for Joe the Plumber, though.[/quote]
Palin/plumber 2012.

Edited October 16, 2008 by jckinsman

[Justin86]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1678679' date='Oct 16 2008, 12:48 PM']So given a hypothetical situation where you had to choose between a "competent" Judge who has had a record of generally supporting abortions "rights" or an "incompetent" (or, less qualified) Judge who is what you'd call "pro-life," who would you choose?[/quote]
Your hypothetical runs into problems when you consider historically prior judicial experience is NOT a must have for Supreme Court Justices. The last last man appointed to the Court without prior judicial experience was William Rehnquist.

Trying to gauge whether or not a lawyer is "competent" or "qualified" for the Supreme Court is something like trying to determine if there's saminlia in your fruit just by looking at it. There really isn't a litmus test per se, although these days all of them seem to have studied Constitutional Law at Ivy League schools. Personally, I think just being a Constitutional lawyer no matter where it you got your degree qualifies someone for the Court.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' post='1678726' date='Oct 15 2008, 11:08 PM']As some might know, that "you should have ran against him four years ago" statement was so funny I gave it it's own thread on the lame board. Probably one of the best zingers I've heard since Lloyd Bentsen said "you are no Jack Kennedy" back in 1988.[/quote]
I disagree. The vehemence of McCain's disavowal said to me that Obama's linking McCain with Bush is working, and it's really getting under McCain's skin. His demeanor when he made the statement was "angry old man." In addition, it provided the perfect opening for Obama to come back and say, "gee, John, I'm sorry I had you confused with Bush there for a minute. It's just that you supported all his policies and, indeed, represent a continuation of those policies."

McCain certainly seemed more genuine during this debate. Unfortunately for him, it's too little, too late.

On a final note, when they were talking about campaign advertising and how each side has gone negative, McCain noted that the Obama camp claimed that he was against federal funding for stem cell research, and then claimed that he wasn't. What should we make of that vis-a-vis McCain's stance on "life" issues?

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1678792' date='Oct 15 2008, 10:51 PM']I think McCain is very clear on this. Its not so much that hes pro-life as much as hes a federalist.

He supports Judges who are strict constitutionalists. 99.99% of those are going to be pro-life on the issue of abortion.

Hes not going to say heres a pro-life judge, I'll appoint this one... He's going to find the strict constitutionalist judge, who in turn would also overturn Roe v. Wade.

Your hypothetical presents a false choice - there are certainly competent judges who don't support Roe v. Wade.[/quote]
Forgive me, but I'm just feeling confused about this.

You guys are the ones who would vote for the crappiest candidate if he was the pro-life choice and the other was the pro-choice candidate, but you don't find it disturbing at all that McCain didn't specifically say he would ensure a pro-life candidate? "Qualified" and all the other words he used to describe who he would choose don't mean anything. It's all subjective.

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='Norseman82' post='1678644' date='Oct 15 2008, 10:22 PM']McCain did manage to slip in a remark something to the effect that judges who openly supported Roe vs. Wade did not meet the qualifications (federalist, "strict constructionist"). That was EXACTLY the way to phrase it, IMHO.[/quote]

iawtc

[quote name='rkwright' post='1678792' date='Oct 15 2008, 11:51 PM']I think McCain is very clear on this. Its not so much that hes pro-life as much as hes a federalist.

He supports Judges who are strict constitutionalists. 99.99% of those are going to be pro-life on the issue of abortion.

Hes not going to say heres a pro-life judge, I'll appoint this one... He's going to find the strict constitutionalist judge, who in turn would also overturn Roe v. Wade.

Your hypothetical presents a false choice - there are certainly competent judges who don't support Roe v. Wade.[/quote]

again - well put.

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1678819' date='Oct 16 2008, 12:08 AM']This frustrates me about Republicans (in general) to no end ... the text book definition of a Republican (mind you, not what individuals think, nor even a trend) is that a Republican should want the issue to go to the states. Which will fracture the movement, and lead to situations where someone just needs to cross state lines in order to obtain an abortion.

Abortion is wrong is wrong is wrong ... no matter what state it is in. I feel as though we need a federal banning of abortion, not just a wimpy relegation of the decision to the states.[/quote]

"Text book" states' rights people i know wouldn't have a problem with it being outlawed at the federal level by means of a constitutional amendment. In the meantime, we need to overturn the ridiculous Roe decision, though.

[quote name='jckinsman' post='1678902' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:17 AM']Mine was when McCain called Obama"MR.GOVERNMENT" I snickered.[/quote]

"Senator Government" - that was classic.

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1678921' date='Oct 16 2008, 07:25 AM']On a final note, when they were talking about campaign advertising and how each side has gone negative, McCain noted that the Obama camp claimed that he was against federal funding for stem cell research, and then claimed that he wasn't. What should we make of that vis-a-vis McCain's stance on "life" issues?[/quote]

He didn't specify adult vs. embryonic - as far as i know, McCain doesn't have a problem with adult stem cell research (and neither does the Church).

[fides quarens intellectum]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1678955' date='Oct 16 2008, 10:15 AM']Forgive me, but I'm just feeling confused about this.

You guys are the ones who would vote for the crappiest candidate if he was the pro-life choice and the other was the pro-choice candidate, but you don't find it disturbing at all that McCain didn't specifically say he would ensure a pro-life candidate? "Qualified" and all the other words he used to describe who he would choose don't mean anything. It's all subjective.[/quote]

There is no way he can "ensure" anything about a justice - someone already brought up how effective "ensuring" has been to presidents in the past.

What he was saying is:
1) He's pro-life.
2) SCOTUS justices should be strict constitutionalists, not bench legislators.

Thus, i, and it appears others on this board, inferred that the kind of judges McCain would nominate are exactly the kind we need to overturn Roe.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1678621' date='Oct 15 2008, 11:13 PM']I want McCain to elaborate more about what he said about nominating Justices based on qualification and not stances. He mentioned he voted to approve Justice Ginsberg, the liberal, pro-choice Justice...

Interesting.[/quote]
It isn't right that litmus tests be applied to judges up for the Supreme Court. They should be voted on based on their abilities as judges, not as lawmakers. If they are approved because they want to rewrite the meaning of the Constitution, for good or for bad, then they are not going to make honest justices.

That having been said, if they are good justices, they will uphold the Constitution and natural law, which are both entirely pro-life.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1678955' date='Oct 16 2008, 11:15 AM']You guys are the ones who would vote for the crappiest candidate if he was the pro-life choice and the other was the pro-choice candidate, but you don't find it disturbing at all that McCain didn't specifically say he would ensure a pro-life candidate? "Qualified" and all the other words he used to describe who he would choose don't mean anything. It's all subjective.[/quote]
If he said what you think he should say, that he would nominate someone only if he/she is pro-life, you would be the first in line to point out his hypocrisy. That would be a litmus test which he said he want do.

He gave a good, solid answer. Point McCain.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1678819' date='Oct 16 2008, 01:08 AM']This frustrates me about Republicans (in general) to no end ... the text book definition of a Republican (mind you, not what individuals think, nor even a trend) is that a Republican should want the issue to go to the states. Which will fracture the movement, and lead to situations where someone just needs to cross state lines in order to obtain an abortion.

Abortion is wrong is wrong is wrong ... no matter what state it is in. I feel as though we need a federal banning of abortion, not just a wimpy relegation of the decision to the states.[/quote]
The abortion issue falling back to the states would be a huge step forward for the pr-life movement. Fracture? More like "divide and conquer." It would make the pro-life movement more powerful because resources spread across 50 states could coalesce around the few remaining pro-abortion states.

To all,

In regards to the debate, I thought McCain had a slight win in debate 1, tie in debate 2 (the snoozer), and clean Obama's clock in debate #3. His pro-life answers were fantastic. His economic plan makes much more sense (and cents!) than Obama's. Obama's solution are government centered. McCain's are centered around the people with the assistance of the government when necessary.