The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Oct 1, 2008 11:13:35 GMT -5
I know several McCain supporters who are reconsidering their support for him because of Palin. They still think McCain is great, but they don't want to take the risk of Palin becoming President.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Oct 1, 2008 11:17:29 GMT -5
I know several McCain supporters who are reconsidering their support for him because of Palin. They still think McCain is great, but they don't want to take the risk of Palin becoming President. I know several Obama supporters who are planning on voting for McCain now because of Palin. |
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 1, 2008 11:26:15 GMT -5
I know several McCain supporters who are reconsidering their support for him because of Palin. They still think McCain is great, but they don't want to take the risk of Palin becoming President. I know an entire state that was considering voting for Obama until McCain chose Palin. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 1, 2008 12:53:50 GMT -5
I know several fiscally conservative Republicans who were only borderline McCain supporters who have thrown up their hands with the selection of Palin. They are in a no win situation.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Oct 1, 2008 13:25:50 GMT -5
As a prolife person what I got from palin's interview is the same thing i get from most republican politicians. They give lip service to being prolife but won't actually do anything about it to make abortions illegal. She says she'll counsel that person to choose life but if they don't she's not going to do anything about it.
At this point all Roe v. Wade ensures is that the states cannot make abortions in the first trimester illegal. But they can in the case of second and 3rd trimester. At this point it's a state issue.
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Oct 1, 2008 14:02:55 GMT -5
First off, Austin, if you believe abortion doesn't matter in this or any presidential election, I think you are sadly mistaken. Second, Palin clearly said she is pro-life and she does not support abortion for a 13 year old raped by her father. Third, she clearly said she does not support the punishment of sending a person to jail in the above case. Any other interpretaton of what she said is way off the mark. Finally, I'm still waiting for Obama to be subjected to this sort of questioning, with follow-up. When is someone from the mainstream media going to ask him probing questions on his support for partial-birth abortion or for letting a baby die after a failed abortion? And I don't mean asking a soft question on these two items but probing questions with follow-up questions which force him to answer the questions in full. DFW is correct in saying CBS may be complicit in this treatment of Palin, particularly since we have seen no such treatment of Obama. So wait, you want abortion to be illegal, but you don't want women who have abortions under such a scenario to go to jail? How does that make any sort of logical sense as an argument? Also, basic questions asking your positions on the issues of the day as well as what newspapers and magazines you read are not "gotcha" questions. They're things you should have a handle on if you want to be president. Your attempts to blame CBS for Palin's extreme unpreparedness and lack of intellectual heft is shameless. I doubt anyone on this board does not understand how deeply pro-life I am but it is entirely unrealistic, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, to consider putting people in jail for abortions. I would hope that, given time, the country will come to the realization that abortion is murder and the culture will have changed so that abortions could be treated like any other murder. But, today, it can't happen. That does not make me any less pro-life, however difficult some of you may find it to understand. I am against an anti-abortion amendment at this time but I am in favor of overturning Roe v Wade and letting the states decide. Then I am in favor of education on the science of abortion along with the morality of abortion with the aim, over the course of some years, to let the people know what is actually happening in abortions so the public will demand it be outlawed and an amendment to the constitution would then make sense. This is not what I would prefer in a theoretical world but what I prefer today under today's circumstances. As for CBS I do not fault Couric for asking the questions of Palin but I do deeply fault them for not asking the questions I posed to Obama. Isn't it a coincidence they have not been asked even though Obama has been running for President for over a year? |
|
Jack
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,411
|
Post by Jack on Oct 1, 2008 14:12:42 GMT -5
When will people recognize that Roe v. Wade is not the most important case for abortion rights, that Planned Parenthood v. Casey is the current state of the law? I know that is beyond the grasp of Mrs. Palin, but I expect a little more out of people around here.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Oct 1, 2008 14:28:12 GMT -5
At this point all Roe v. Wade ensures is that the states cannot make abortions in the first trimester illegal. But they can in the case of second and 3rd trimester. At this point it's a state issue. By any chance, could you identify a state at this point that has successfully made any second or third trimester abortion illegal? The states are de facto prohibited from regulating abortion at any point in a woman's pregnancy, regardless of your Scalia/Thomas-esque reading of Roe v. Wade. |
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Oct 1, 2008 14:29:33 GMT -5
From my understand planned parenthood v. Casey Required informed consent, a 24 hour waiting period, and parental consent for minors. but i don't think it said anything about when or whether or not you could have abortions.
|
|
|
|
Post by HoyaSinceBirth on Oct 1, 2008 14:33:28 GMT -5
I mean from what I've read what the law actually says is that Basically states cannot restrict access to abortion in 1st trimester.
In 2nd trimester the states can restrict abortion for maternal health reasons
In 3rd trimester the states can restrict abortion for maternal and/or fetal health reasons( except in the case that the child’s birth threatens the life of the mother)
Abortion is legal in all 40 weeks of pregnancy but legal is not equal to available
After viability states may but need not restrict it to cases where the woman’s life or health is at stake. The health exception means that this amounts to no effective legal restriction at all
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 1, 2008 19:18:35 GMT -5
First off, Austin, if you believe abortion doesn't matter in this or any presidential election, I think you are sadly mistaken. I am sure it is an important issue when deciding who to vote for for some people. What I mean when I say it doesn't matter is that I don't think we're going to see the Supreme Court of the United States kick the abortion question back to the states in my lifetime, no matter who McCain or Obama appoints to the high court (if either even have the opportunity to make an appointment). For the record, I would support a decision that would allow individual states to make their own decisions, but I would encourage my elected representatives to keep abortions legal. Appointment of Supreme Court justices is the only (small) potential effect a US President can have on the abortion issue. Even if the issue is ever kicked back to the states, your local legislature will be in charge. Third, she clearly said she does not support the punishment of sending a person to jail in the above case. Any other interpretaton of what she said is way off the mark. The Texas statute overturned by Roe v. Wade made it a felony offense for doctors to perform abortions. It did not criminalize the activity of women who sought abortions or had abortions performed by physicians (or non-physicians). The laws of other states did criminalize such conduct. The American Bar Association's Uniform Abortion Act footnoted in Roe criminalized the activity of "any person who performs or procures an abortion." When I hear politicians state they want Roe v. Wade overturned (Sorry Jack, the pols don't mention PP v. Casey, although your observation is correct), I don't think it's unreasonable to assume they want to return to the days of felony convictions for women who have abortions and/or doctors who perform abortions. To be fair, I guess I should give Palin an opportunity to clarify. Perhaps, as HoyaNyr320 suggested, she simply thinks that only licensed physicians should face potential confinement for violations of abortion law. But why not clarify, given the opportunity? it is entirely unrealistic, AT THIS POINT IN TIME, to consider putting people in jail for abortions. Why? Because it will lose the GOP votes? And what do you think will happen in the future? Establishment of toothless laws prohibiting abortion will give the pro-life movement the moral high ground, and the rest of America will come around? In nearly every Western nation that has decided the abortion issue through the political process, the "safe, legal, and rare" camp has won. The pro-life movement can't have it both ways. If pro-lifers wish to have a frank conversation about abortion, they need to be honest about the penalties they wish to impose for the criminalization of abortion. ed, you have said you wish to see it treated the same as any other kind of murder. I don't think you are alone in your opinion. Palin's comment, in my opinion, can therefore be interpreted in two ways: 1) At best, it is an incomplete statement on her position on criminalizing abortion. If that's the case, I hope she will take the opportunity to further explain her views. 2) At worst, it is (as I said above) a restatement of the Clinton position on abortion. I hope to hear more in tomorrow's debate. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Oct 1, 2008 19:41:32 GMT -5
I wonder if Biden said he opposed the Dred Scott decision whether Palin would reflexively disagree.
|
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Oct 1, 2008 20:22:13 GMT -5
Look, our Supreme Court made a decision without any of the 9 realizing that a federal law had been passed saying the death penalty was appropriate in military court for child rape. Then -- then! -- they had the audacity to stick with their decision. You can have knowledge of every SC case in the world, and you can still be 9 idiots.
|
|
|
|
Post by PushyGuyFanClub on Oct 1, 2008 20:23:19 GMT -5
This is not to say I either agree/disagree with that ultimate decision. It should however be clear that that case was decided with an enormous and idiotic blindspot.
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,304
|
Post by Cambridge on Oct 2, 2008 8:46:37 GMT -5
I agree with PGFC, it was a poorly reasoned opinion because of that basic research failure. There are several viable arguments as to why the military courts would not be viable precedent, but those arguments did not see the light as they were not even considered. It is a gaffe, almost unimaginable and embarassing for the court and its clerks.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Oct 2, 2008 10:13:59 GMT -5
The fact that SCOTUS' clerks missed the military's child rape law is pretty bad and definitely embarrassing but the Majority's main arguments---lack of national consensus and the extreme nature and scope of capital punishment vis-a-vis the crime---are pretty unaffected by it, IMO.
But for a politician whose entire political career began (and arguably rests upon) a single issue---anti-abortion---one would expect her to be able to at least name the case---PP v. Casey---that upheld Roe and became the law of the land when asked by Couric which cases she thought were poor decisions. It's not like anybody asked her to compare Justice Alito's 3rd Circuit jurisprudence with his SCOTUS jurisprudence or even give an analysis of Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe. It was a high arcing, slow softball in a league that doesn't even call strikes, and Palin hit nothing but air. Truly pathetic. If she's not even knowledgeable about her MAIN ISSUE, what on earth is she knowledgeable about? We know it's not which newspapers and magazines she reads!
|
|
TBird41
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
"Roy! I Love All 7'2" of you Roy!"
Posts: 8,740
|
Post by TBird41 on Oct 2, 2008 10:21:36 GMT -5
The fact that SCOTUS' clerks missed the military's child rape law is pretty bad and definitely embarrassing but the Majority's main arguments---lack of national consensus and the extreme nature and scope of capital punishment vis-a-vis the crime---are pretty unaffected by it, IMO. But for a politician whose entire political career began (and arguably rests upon) a single issue---anti-abortion---one would expect her to be able to at least name the case---PP v. Casey---that upheld Roe and became the law of the land when asked by Couric which cases she thought were poor decisions. It's not like anybody asked her to compare Justice Alito's 3rd Circuit jurisprudence with his SCOTUS jurisprudence or even give an analysis of Justice Blackmun's opinion in Roe. It was a high arcing, slow softball in a league that doesn't even call strikes, and Palin hit nothing but air. Truly pathetic. If she's not even knowledgeable about her MAIN ISSUE, what on earth is she knowledgeable about? We know it's not which newspapers and magazines she reads! I wouldn't say Palin's career rests on Abortion anymore. She didn't win the governor's race because of it. She won because of ethics. Anyone who tells you otherwise is wrong--that was the #1 issue in Alaska in 2006 |
|
|
|
Post by williambraskyiii on Oct 2, 2008 11:24:32 GMT -5
Sorry but after seeing the clip of the SC discussion, I don't think it was abominable, or even marginally surprising, that Sarah Palin couldn't NAME another Supreme Court case that she disagreed with...if your educational background doesn't include legal training, asking a state politician about contemporary SC jurisprudence, and specifically to name cases, seems out of left field. The expectation for her to ably enunciate her underlying fundamental beliefs is one thing, but i view Couric's question and the aftemath as unfair and unreasonable.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Oct 2, 2008 11:53:14 GMT -5
Sorry but after seeing the clip of the SC discussion, I don't think it was abominable, or even marginally surprising, that Sarah Palin couldn't NAME another Supreme Court case that she disagreed with...if your educational background doesn't include legal training, asking a state politician about contemporary SC jurisprudence, and specifically to name cases, seems out of left field. The expectation for her to ably enunciate her underlying fundamental beliefs is one thing, but i view Couric's question and the aftemath as unfair and unreasonable. FWIW, Biden's answers to Couric's questions were pretty bad, too. Re: Roe, he basically said SCOTUS decisions can be a good replacement for the democratic process. Re: the Violence Against Women Act decision, he basically said the federal government should be able to regulate anything it wants. |
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 19,460
|
Post by SSHoya on Oct 2, 2008 12:33:28 GMT -5
|
|
