When Hillary Clinton supporters learn that John McBush thinks Roe V. Wade should be overturned, they will run to vote for Obama in Nov...They will not support a candiate who is so strongly against a women's right to choose...
The next POTUS will likely make 2 Supreme Court appointments...With McBush, we would get far right idealogues like Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, & Ailito...Scalia's rhtetoric yesterday on his dissent on Gitmo case was fear tactics as its worst (2 links on the recent ruling attached)....(though it will be a Democratic Senate so it will be hard for McCain to appoint far right justices on the court)....
For the sake of the Supreme Court alone, not only for abortion rights, but civil liberties, workers rights, environment, etc. Senator Obama deserves the vote of every single registered Democrat in the country in Nov. (along w/some independents & some moderate Republicans)...
Perhaps even GA. Gambler might argee w/me on this one?.......
From the New York Times:
Editorial
Justice 5, Brutality 4
* comments (325)
* Sign In to E-Mail or Save This
* Print
Published: June 13, 2008
For years, with the help of compliant Republicans and frightened Democrats in Congress, President Bush has denied the protections of justice, democracy and plain human decency to the hundreds of men that he decided to label “unlawful enemy combatants” and throw into never-ending detention.
Skip to next paragraph
The Board Blog
Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers.
Go to The Board »
Readers' Comments
"We are one judge away from a court sanctioned dictatorship."
John Stanley, Washington
* Read Full Comment »
Twice the Supreme Court swatted back his imperial overreaching, and twice Congress helped Mr. Bush try to open a gaping loophole in the Constitution. On Thursday, the court turned back the most recent effort to subvert justice with a stirring defense of habeas corpus, the right of anyone being held by the government to challenge his confinement before a judge.
The court ruled that the detainees being held in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have that cherished right, and that the process for them to challenge their confinement is inadequate. It was a very good day for people who value freedom and abhor Mr. Bush’s attempts to turn Guantánamo Bay into a constitutional-rights-free zone.
The right of habeas corpus is so central to the American legal system that it has its own clause in the Constitution: it cannot be suspended except “when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”
Despite this, the Bush administration repeatedly tried to strip away habeas rights. First, it herded prisoners who were seized in Afghanistan, and in other foreign countries, into the United States Navy base at Guantánamo Bay and claimed that since the base is on foreign territory, the detainees’ habeas cases could not be heard in the federal courts. In 2004, the court rejected that argument, ruling that Guantánamo, which is under American control, is effectively part of the United States.
In 2006, the court handed the administration another defeat, ruling that it had relied improperly on the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005 to hold the detainees on Guantánamo without giving them habeas rights. Since then, Congress passed another law, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that tried — and failed horribly — to fix the problems with the Detainee Treatment Act.
Now, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court has affirmed the detainees’ habeas rights. The majority, in an opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ruled that the Military Commissions Act violates the Suspension Clause, by eliminating habeas corpus although the requirements of the Constitution — invasion or rebellion — do not exist.
The court ruled that the military tribunals that are hearing the detainees’ cases — the administration’s weak alternative to habeas proceedings in a federal court — are not an adequate substitute. The hearings cut back on basic due process protections, like the right to counsel and the right to present evidence of innocence.
It was disturbing that four justices dissented from this eminently reasonable decision. The lead dissent, by Chief Justice John Roberts, dismisses habeas as “most fundamentally a procedural right.” Chief Justice Roberts thinks the detainees receive such “generous” protections at their hearings that the majority should not have worried about whether they had habeas rights.
There is an enormous gulf between the substance and tone of the majority opinion, with its rich appreciation of the liberties that the founders wrote into the Constitution, and the what-is-all-the-fuss-about dissent. It is sobering to think that habeas hangs by a single vote in the Supreme Court of the United States — a reminder that the composition of the court could depend on the outcome of this year’s presidential election. The ruling is a major victory for civil liberties — but a timely reminder of how fragile they are.
-- Modified on 6/13/2008 5:03:56 PM
-- Modified on 6/13/2008 5:04:38 PM
-- Modified on 6/13/2008 5:07:49 PM
I think that the abortion issue will be a huge one that we will hear more about in the coming months as both these men gear up their campaigns. We are living in trying times, health and safety and reproductive rights are important and more women are becoming vocal about wanting rights over their bodies. I wonder if the McCain camp might start to modify their beliefs on this issue if they see voters running to Obama because of this important topic?
--Sitara Devi
If only Obama's mama would have exercised her right to an abortion.
the same could easily be said about your own mama
if you are going to steal old jokes and use them as your own, at least down be so crass
Try learning the basic rules of grammer and spelling before you start correcting people!
wanna try that one again, dipshit?
I was taugth that sentences start with capital letters.
Dipshit, I have not heard anyone use that term since sixth grade. What an eloquent and witty repartee, sure hope your parents did not waste money on a private school education for you.
ttfn
I was taught "grammar" is spelled "ar" at the end, not "er".
Thus, its pretty fucking ironic you chastise me for "grammer and spelling".
In essence, then, the entirety of your complaint regarding my first post was that I did not bother to capitalize the first letter of one sentence? Thanks for the input; you really successfully shot down the entirety of my argument.
By the way, your last "sentence" is grammatical incorrect. Perhaps you should retake a remedial English course yourself. You not only can't spell properly, but have trouble understanding simple sentence structure.
That would be grammatically correct not grammatical. If you want to play English teacher know your syntax rules.
Problems facing us and rest of the world are enormous in the coming decade and if we don't get our act together we will be in deep shit. Let us see:
1) Energy prices sky rocketing, speculators are driving up the price affecting everyone's life everywhere.
2) K-12 Education system has crumbled to the point of non-existence.
3) Terrorism and related violence
4) Nations infrastructure is crumbling
5) Nation is getting hit by ever increasing natural calamities costing billions and billions of dollars
Sure there more.
We are arguing about who should control women's decision what to do and who can marry whom, just because nut cases are pushing their agenda.
Let us look at reality. Those who have money will go where ever they need to go to get medically safe abortion. Those without money, either would resort to unsafe back street methods or have many children born to welfare and or crime.
What is really brain dead is bringing up an issue that was settled 40 years ago by the Supreme Court in Roe vs. Wade. Let the those affected make their own decision, and I bet they will make the right one based on individual beliefs and circumstances.
It is one of those stupid arguments neither side will ever win. One side will argue right to life and the other side will argue individual freedom and rights. A third argument that can postulated is, is the supreme court willing relegate women to second class citizenship by taking away to make decisions for themselves.
It is true fact that prohibition, banning drugs worked so well, there is no alcohol or drug problems any where.
Dumb fuck argument. Leave it alone.
"What is really brain dead is bringing up an issue that was settled 40 years ago by the Supreme Court"
so you are saying that once the SC rules on something, it can never be revisted? Then I guess we should still have segregated schools.
SC decision on what is or is not constitutional is not reflecting an unalterable fact, but is merely the majority interpretation of 9 specific individuals. Change the individuals over time, and a different collective interpretation may emerge.
Its okay to actually amend the Constitution itself, but SC majority vote on how to interpret the Constitution is somehow etched in stone and never allowed to be reconsidered? Furthermore, SC does specifically allow for revisiting an issue when there is something different brought up about the same topic.
As specific to R v W, some could easily make the arguments that it turns on when does life begin: at conception, when it can survive if taken out of the womb, or birth. People can differ on their opinions on that, and thus on their stance for R v W, but that has nothing to do with the Const. If you have 9 judges who believe life begins at birth, and thus claim Const does not preclude abortions up until the time of birth...then years later a different group of judges believe life begins at conception and thus abortion is murder, they can overturn the original decision in a new case by arguing the original reasoning was flawed because the definition of life was incorrect, and not saying anything different about interpreting the Const. itself.
If it can be revisited once, it can be revisited numerous times making the Supreme Justice argument even dumber.
Not willing to get into when life begins, really begins, creationism vs. evolution, etc. It has been dumb fuck argument and will remain a dumb fuck argument as long as irrational dumb fucks continue to argue.
It is women's body and she should have the ultimate say.
As far as voting for Obambi, Supreme court appointments are a mute point for me.
My real issue with the guy is his inexperience, not so stellar resume , very little time in the Senate, lack of clarity on issues, his lack of judgement with regards to his church, friends and associations. He hasn't really shown me grasp of any pressing problems we face and how he plans to fix them.
So, I pick the more experienced in this case and who has consistently shown willingness to work together to get things done. A Fiscal conservative, an out of the ordinary independent minded and have the guts to stand up.
I am an Independent and have traditionally voted for Democrats but not this time. No way, no how.
One more thing, I do not intend to get into an argument about the dumb for and against Abortion argument promoted by Pro-Life or Pro-Choice. No one knows the circumstances so it must be left to the Woman to make the decision. Woman are not slaves, they are not second class citizens and bunch of males does not have the right to dictate what they should and should not do period.
-- Modified on 6/14/2008 5:20:02 PM
Abortion is still MURDER, no matter what you care to call it.
And as for the Guantanamo case. . .
This decision will ultimately go down as the worst and most dangerous decisions of the century (and it's still quite early). The five insane dolts that voted for this were the same ones that voted in favor of Property Seizures for private use back in 2005. This new ruling now surpasses that one as the worst of the century.
no, you probably don't, and still mix it up with the 5-4 vote AFTER the SC ruled by 9-2 the Florida method of recount was unconstitutional.
"Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000), was a United States Supreme Court case heard on December 11, 2000. In a per curiam opinion, by a vote of 7-2, the Court held that the Florida Supreme Court's scheme for recounting ballots was unconstitutional, and by a vote of 5-4, the Court held that no alternative scheme could be established within the time limits established by Florida Legislature. The per curiam opinion was argued on the basis of Equal Protection.
The decision stopped the recount that was occurring in Florida and allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's electoral votes to stand. Florida's 25 electoral votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 Electoral College votes, defeating Democrat Al Gore.— Excerpted from Bush v. Gore on Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia."
And after all the different unofficial, independent recounts, Gore STILL lost.
You fail to mention that the Dems were only trying to recount the districts where they thought they could pickup additional votes, by trying to "guess" who people had been "trying" to vote for.
-- Modified on 6/14/2008 11:17:30 AM
I made the distinction between the first vote, which went 7-2, with only the two most partisan lefty loonies sucking on Gore's cock, and the second vote, which would not have allowed for that recount anyway, as 5-4. But you, and your ilk, want to pretend the first vote never occurred and that rejecting the recount was 5-4 when it was 7-2. People like you claim the recount was stopped 5-4 when it wasn't. Get your facts right before you post anymore.
And try reading my posts with your eyes open next time so you can at least make an attempt at understanding before you go off the deep end again.
Only admit to those facts that support your argument. Ignore, deny or at the very least obfuscate those facts that tend to weaken your argument. Or just do what Zin does, Make shit up. lol
Oh, I get it. It was the worst one for Gore, cause the Dems weren't allowed to try to steal the election by cherry picking recounts. Even after all the unofficial recounts were completed, Gore STILL lost.
What's a judicial decision called that doesn't really matter one way or the other in the end?
Actually McCain believes that the states should decide on abortion matters .
also admit that Roe v. Wade was a terrible judical decision. Overturning R v. W will NOT make abortion illegal. It would only return the issue back to each State.
Damn, states rights and individualism you are going to give all the womb to tomb libs a nightmare!
continue the Bush disaster. This is a referendum on Bush's policies, pure and simple.
A vote for McCain is a vote for a third term of GW Bush.
Searching for a Doctor to operate to remove the cancer, one wants to a partial excision. Another wants to cut off your dick.
Neither of these two Doctors are available quickly enough so you settle for a third rate one who intends to make the amputation at your neck line. . . all the while you're saying, “But hey, he’ll get the tumor”.
Modified 'cause I do like your analogy better.
-- Modified on 6/14/2008 6:37:04 PM
not only dangerous if you let them go, but also ugly as hell.
But like most Republicans, your geography is fucked up. It's not on our TOE, it's on our DICK. If you used either one more, you might know the difference.
Either very gallant or very stupid. No doubt how we're all voting.
-- Modified on 6/14/2008 2:48:29 PM
that is, willing to twist the English language 180 and then blame the other guy for the flipflop.