For GOP only

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

At the same time, the Dems are offering nothing except cynicism, negativity, and back-stabbing.  Not a way to "sell" any product, including politics.

 

 

Let em keep right on talking that way. Let them continue the constant drumbeat of negativism. I want them to do that. As long as their entire message consists of "Bush Sucks" they wont win anything.

[mreye]

Thanks for this thread.  Great place where GOPers can chat (ignoring the immoral occupacion of foreigners here).

 

I'm no troll.  GOP here for a variety of reasons.  We should criticize the Prez, and the Congress under our control on those points where they have sold out.  I don't like the spending, which if it was being done by Carter and Tip would enrage us.  Etc.

 

At the same time, the Dems are offering nothing except cynicism, negativity, and back-stabbing.  Not a way to "sell" any product, including politics.

You're right. I HATE the spending. Bush has really pissed me off domestically, to be honest.

[southsider2k5]

You're right. I HATE the spending. Bush has really pissed me off domestically, to be honest.

\

No doubt about it. There are a few issues that have really left me lacking and wishing for a more centered canditate.

 

-Emminent domain for private use, property rights in general

 

-Domestic spending is way crazy. I was reading the other day how the spending insertions in bills has tripled since 1994. They ought to be ashamed. Now I know the democrats have gone along with that, but they have never claimed to be in favor of small government either.

 

Right off of the top of my head.

[mreye]

\

No doubt about it.  There are a few issues that have really left me lacking and wishing for a more centered canditate.

 

-Emminent domain for private use, property rights in general

 

-Domestic spending is way crazy.  I was reading the other day how the spending insertions in bills has tripled since 1994.  They ought to be ashamed.  Now I know the democrats have gone along with that, but they have never claimed to be in favor of small government either.

 

Right off of the top of my head.

Ha! I want somebody more to the right. Bush is too centered for me.

[southsider2k5]

Ha! I want somebody more to the right. Bush is too centered for me.

 

This coming from the guy with an obsene avatar :headshake

[mreye]

This coming from the guy with an obsene avatar :headshake

 

It's a monster. It's not real.

Edited January 11, 2006 by mreye

[southsider2k5]

Its like they were reading Soxtalk too...

 

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cf26b6b2-820b-11d...00779e2340.html

[kapkomet]

Its like they were reading Soxtalk too...

 

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/cf26b6b2-820b-11d...00779e2340.html

If people would just listen to us... the world would be a better place.

[Cknolls]

Pro-choice Criticisms of Roe

This is a work in progress. One key source of this info was Ed Whelan’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on the Constitution. A John Cornyn press release was also a helpful resource.

 

Because legal arguments are often very nuanced, I am working to get links to the full texts of all the quoted materials so that readers can view these quotations in their full context. With some articles, this process is more difficult than with others. (All underlines are added by me.)

 

Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.

 

“One of the most curious things about Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.”

 

“The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law,” 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court

 

“Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

 

North Carolina Law Review, 1985

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.

 

“As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe’s author like a grandfather.”

….

 

“What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed.”

 

“The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell’s Nomination Only Underlined Them,” FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002

 

“[A]s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

 

“Liberals, Don’t Make Her an Icon” Washington Post July 10, 2003.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

William Saletan — Slate columnist who left the GOP 2004 because it was too pro-life.

 

“Blackmun’s [supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference.”

 

“Unbecoming Justice Blackmun,” Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School

 

Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”

….

 

“What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

 

“The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” 82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Benjamin Wittes — Washington Post

 

Roe “is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply.”

 

“Letting Go of Roe,” The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Richard Cohen — Washington Post

 

“[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy.”

….

 

“As a layman, it’s hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is.

 

“If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe , with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers.

….

 

Roe “is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument.”

….

 

“Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well.”

 

“Support Choice, Not Roe” Washington Post, October 19, 2005.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School

 

Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore “represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case.”

 

Supreme Injustice: How the High Court Hijacked Election 2000 (New York: Oxford) 2001, p. 194.

 

Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations

 

“In the Court’s first confrontation with the abortion issue, it laid down a set of rules for legislatures to follow. The Court decided too many issues too quickly. The Court should have allowed the democratic processes of the states to adapt and to generate sensible solutions that might not occur to a set of judges.”

 

“The Supreme Court 1995 Term: FOREWORD: LEAVING THINGS UNDECIDED,” 110 Harvard Law Review 6, 20 (1996).

 

“What I think is that it just doesn’t have the stable status of Brown or Miranda because it’s been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think Roe was way overreached. I wouldn’t vote to overturn it myself, but that’s because I think it’s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled.”

 

Quoted in: Brian McGuire, “Roe v. Wade an Issue Ahead of Alito Hearing,” New York Sun November 15, 2005

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Jeffrey Rosen — Legal Affairs Editor, The New Republic

 

“In short, 30 years later, it seems increasingly clear that this pro-choice magazine was correct in 1973 when it criticized Roe on constitutional grounds. Its overturning would be the best thing that could happen to the federal judiciary, the pro-choice movement, and the moderate majority of the American people.

….

 

“Thirty years after Roe, the finest constitutional minds in the country still have not been able to produce a constitutional justification for striking down restrictions on early-term abortions that is substantially more convincing than Justice Harry Blackmun’s famously artless opinion itself. As a result, the pro-choice majority asks nominees to swear allegiance to the decision without being able to identify an intelligible principle to support it.”

 

“Worst Choice” The New Republic February 24, 2003

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Michael Kinsley

 

“Against all odds (and, I’m afraid, against all logic), the basic holding of Roe v. Wade is secure in the Supreme Court.

….

 

“…a freedom of choice law would guarantee abortion rights the correct way, democratically, rather than by constitutional origami.”

 

“Bad Choice” The New Republic, June 13, 1994.

 

“Liberal judicial activism peaked with Roe v. Wade, the 1973 abortion decision….

 

“Although I am pro-choice, I was taught in law school, and still believe, that Roe v. Wade is a muddle of bad reasoning and an authentic example of judicial overreaching. I also believe it was a political disaster for liberals. Roe is what first politicized religious conservatives while cutting off a political process that was legalizing abortion state by state anyway.”

 

“The Right’s Kind of Activism,” Washington Post, November 14, 2004.

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Kermit Roosevelt — University of Pennsylvania Law School

 

“t is time to admit in public that, as an example of the practice of constitutional opinion writing, Roe is a serious disappointment. You will be hard-pressed to find a constitutional law professor, even among those who support the idea of constitutional protection for the right to choose, who will embrace the opinion itself rather than the result.

 

“This is not surprising. As constitutional argument, Roe is barely coherent. The court pulled its fundamental right to choose more or less from the constitutional ether. It supported that right via a lengthy, but purposeless, cross-cultural historical review of abortion restrictions and a tidy but irrelevant refutation of the straw-man argument that a fetus is a constitutional ‘person’ entited to the protection of the 14th Amendment.

….

 

“By declaring an inviolable fundamental right to abortion, Roe short-circuited the democratic deliberation that is the most reliable method of deciding questions of competing values.”

 

“Shaky Basis for a Constitutional ‘Right’,” Washington Post, January 22, 2003.

 

 

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

 

Archibald Cox — Watergate Special Prosecutor, Harvard Law School

 

“The failure to confront the issue in principled terms leaves the opinion to read like a set of hospital rules and regulations…. Neither historian, nor layman, nor lawyer will be persuaded that all the prescriptions of Justice Blackmun are part of the Constitution”

 

The Role of the Supreme Court in American Government, pp. 113-114 (1976)

[kevin57]

Americans have never reacted well to court fiats. Roe v. Wade made a blanket rule for every State and in virtually every circumstance.

 

We are a representative democracy. Policy should be set by elected bodies, not appointed jurists.

 

It's the same mistake most liberal groups make. They figure they either can't get their proposals through legislatures, or they're too lazy to do the heavy lifting that those efforts require.

 

Gay rights would be a current example. If it's handled through local and state laws, people will more willingly accept it, but for a judge to set the rules, that's going to backfire...and it has.

[southsideirish71]

Titanic & Clinton Book Study Class

 

 

 

Students were assigned to read 2 books, "Titanic" & "My Life" by Bill Clinton. One student turned in the following book report, with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories!

 

His professor gave him an A+ for this report:

 

Titanic:..... $29.99

Clinton:..... $29.99

 

 

Titanic:..... Over 3 hours to read

Clinton:..... Over 3 hours to read

 

 

Titanic:..... The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and

subsequent catastrophe.

 

Clinton:..... The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and

subsequent catastrophe.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack is a starving artist.

 

Clinton:..... Bill is a bulls*** artist.

 

 

Titanic:..... In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.

 

Clinton:..... Ditto for Bill.

 

 

Titanic:..... During ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.

 

Clinton:..... Ditto for Monica.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack teaches Rose to spit.

Clinton:..... Let's not go there.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose gets to keep her jewelry.

 

Clinton:..... Monica's forced to return her gifts.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.

 

Clinton:..... Clinton doesn't remember Jack.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.

 

Clinton:..... Monica..., let's not go there, either.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack surrenders to an icy death.

 

Clinton:..... Bill goes home to Hilary...basically the same thing.

[WilliamTell]

hahaha, very nice, very nice.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hey Tex-

 

Any chance we can get an Independents Only thread started and pinned, to go with these Dem/GOP threads?

 

The antics of certain wingers are growing tiresome.

 

Thanks.

[mreye]

Hey Tex-

 

Any chance we can get an Independents Only thread started and pinned, to go with these Dem/GOP threads?

 

The antics of certain wingers are growing tiresome.

 

Thanks.

Screw you!

[kapkomet]

Titanic & Clinton Book Study Class

 

 

 

Students were assigned to read 2 books, "Titanic" & "My Life" by Bill Clinton. One student turned in the following book report, with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories!

 

His professor gave him an A+ for this report:

 

Titanic:..... $29.99

Clinton:..... $29.99

 

 

Titanic:..... Over 3 hours to read

Clinton:..... Over 3 hours to read

 

 

Titanic:..... The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and

subsequent catastrophe.

 

Clinton:..... The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and

subsequent catastrophe.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack is a starving artist.

 

Clinton:..... Bill is a bulls*** artist.

 

 

Titanic:..... In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.

 

Clinton:..... Ditto for Bill.

 

 

Titanic:..... During ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.

 

Clinton:..... Ditto for Monica.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack teaches Rose to spit.

Clinton:..... Let's not go there.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose gets to keep her jewelry.

 

Clinton:..... Monica's forced to return her gifts.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.

 

Clinton:..... Clinton doesn't remember Jack.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.

 

Clinton:..... Monica..., let's not go there, either.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack surrenders to an icy death.

 

Clinton:..... Bill goes home to Hilary...basically the same thing.

Yea, it's a joke, but it's also beneath some folks.

[sox4lifeinPA]

Yea, it's a joke, but it's also beneath some folks.

 

Classic™

[kapkomet]

Classic™

You caught that, huh? Congrats. No one else did.

[IlliniBob72]

I sometimes wonder if Democratic politicians and the people they represent, particularly concerning Iraq, are mentally ill. The people who want to get out of Iraq NOW have to be insane. There is no possible explanation for someone with half a brain to think that leaving right now is in the best interests of America, the region, or the world. They are either incredibly stupid and shortsighted or are saying things they do not truly believe in order to pander to the left wing extremists of their party.

 

I shudder to think what these people would have been saying or doing had they been around during the Civil War or the World Wars.

[EvilMonkey]

http://truthlaidbear.com/gopleadershipquestions.php

 

Contibute your input on the questions that you think should be answered by the candidates aspiring to be House Majority Leader for the GOP.

 

Some good ones here that I sure would like to see answered.

[southsider2k5]

I offered a question on premenient domain.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

Titanic & Clinton Book Study Class

 

 

 

Students were assigned to read 2 books, "Titanic" & "My Life" by Bill Clinton. One student turned in the following book report, with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories!

 

His professor gave him an A+ for this report:

 

Titanic:..... $29.99

Clinton:..... $29.99

 

 

Titanic:..... Over 3 hours to read

Clinton:..... Over 3 hours to read

 

 

Titanic:..... The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and

subsequent catastrophe.

 

Clinton:..... The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and

subsequent catastrophe.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack is a starving artist.

 

Clinton:..... Bill is a bulls*** artist.

 

 

Titanic:..... In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.

 

Clinton:..... Ditto for Bill.

 

 

Titanic:..... During ordeal, Rose's dress gets ruined.

 

Clinton:..... Ditto for Monica.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack teaches Rose to spit.

Clinton:..... Let's not go there.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose gets to keep her jewelry.

 

Clinton:..... Monica's forced to return her gifts.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.

 

Clinton:..... Clinton doesn't remember Jack.

 

 

Titanic:..... Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.

 

Clinton:..... Monica..., let's not go there, either.

 

 

Titanic:..... Jack surrenders to an icy death.

 

Clinton:..... Bill goes home to Hilary...basically the same thing.

 

Thats just f***ing priceless..

 

 

[southsider2k5]

[JUGGERNAUT]

Social issues - GOP/Lib

Educational issues - GOP/Lib

Privacy issues - Libertarians

Economic issues - Maybe the Green Party (Nader fan)

Environmental issues - Definitely the Green Party

 

Don't see much use for the Democrats any more. They are bloated & busting at the seams (see Kennedy) & they've all but abandoned their primary reason for existence: protect the American worker. If I could wake up in an America where the Dems were beaten into submission & replaced by the best of the indies all rolled into one Worker's Party of America I think it would be a much better place to live.

 

If you assume that all politicans are crooks & all parties are more or less crooked & cast your vote for the people you feel will do you the least harm then I think you can consider yourself an indie voter.

Edited January 27, 2006 by JUGGERNAUT

[Texsox]

Kap and any Texas GOP, what do you think of Perry's new TV ads? For some reason, probably meeting him three times and a Scouting connection, I like the guy and so far have not found a better candidate.

[kapkomet]

Kap and any Texas GOP, what do you think of Perry's new TV ads? For some reason, probably meeting him three times and a Scouting connection, I like the guy and so far have not found a better candidate.

I haven't seen the commercials, well, maybe one. But I didn't pay that much attention to it.

 

I'll watch closer next time.