Debate

[SpareTime]

[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]

yes it is very wrong. what we need is a constitutional amendment, not a "give the issue back to the states" bandaid.

[Hassan]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1678909' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:37 AM']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.[/quote]




I just had a test on Constitutional Law, the William Rehnquist reference just gave me flashbacks to all his damman oppinions I had to read

He was brilliant though. And many of the most brilliant justices did not have formal education or juducual experience. Look at John Marshal or Warren (yes I like him, please let the beating be mercyfull ).

I think you can tell to some extent. I mean the two judges I disagree with most are Scalia and Thomas. I really don't think Thomas is a very good justice. I've never found his oppinions particularly enlightening or insightfull. On the other hand, love him or hate him, Scalia is a very, very good judge (in my oppinion). I disagree with his politics but I don't think anyone can honestly deney his legal brilliance.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Hassan

[SpareTime]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1679065' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:26 PM']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.[/quote]

i must disagree. giving the issue back to the states means 50 new problems. it makes much more sense to have a constitutional amendment defining life and rights as from the point of conception to natural death. otherwise, as already stated, abortion within certain states won't stop, it will just mean traveling out of state to get an abortion.

[flip]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1679065' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:26 PM']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.[/quote]


Umm, I think making Abortion an illegal federal law is WAY better than having the states decide. The goal is to stop abortion, not just move it around to different states.

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1679065' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:26 PM']...

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.[/quote]

It may be too late unfortunately. Although time will tell.

[kamiller42]

[quote name='SpareTime' post='1679081' date='Oct 16 2008, 02:39 PM']i must disagree. giving the issue back to the states means 50 new problems. it makes much more sense to have a constitutional amendment defining life and rights as from the point of conception to natural death. otherwise, as already stated, abortion within certain states won't stop, it will just mean traveling out of state to get an abortion.[/quote]
Do not ignore the "conquer" portion of "divide and conquer." The ultimate goal is the abolishing of abortion at the federal level, but in the meantime.... To get an amendment passed take a lot of work, a lot of support. We can get that support state by state. Too many states avoid the issue with the excuse of "well, Roe is the law. Our hands are tied." That excuse will go away. And when one states adopts a pro-life stand by amendment or proposition, some of that state's resources be poured into another state.

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='flip' post='1679285' date='Oct 16 2008, 06:20 PM']Umm, I think making Abortion an illegal federal law is WAY better than having the states decide. The goal is to stop abortion, not just move it around to different states.[/quote]


The goal is also to punish those who do it. Abortion will never stop. It's been going on from the start, in every culture and every age, and there are tons of ways to do it. The problem is that it's shameful for any country to sanction it, which is what they are effectively doing by making it legal. And then the same country has the nerve to complain about their crime rate. Abortion is the ultimate crime against humanity. At least if abortion is illegal someone will be punished if they are caught.

Edited October 17, 2008 by Madame Vengier