Kerry isn't opposed to appointment of anti-abortion judges??

[theivoryqueen]

what is up with this??

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2580582

I would say this is a CORE issue and if he actually means this, he needs to reconsider.

[Old and In the Way]

1. Bush was opposed to nation building, too.

Go figure.

[KittyWampus]

2. Kerry Is Committed To Appointing Judges Who Recognize Existing Law

Roe v. Wade.

[tom_paine]

41. Bingo. Honest judges, not Bushevik-Nazi style judges

I want my judges to make decisions based on Law and Precendent, not what the Imperial family & Stooges wants them to decide.

I don't care if the judge has their own views, just as long as they aren't scumbag Federalist Phonies who will ALWAYS decide for the Imperial Way.

[mzmolly]

3. It's one of his attempts to reach out.

I dont like it, but here is the bottom line:

as long as that doesn't lead to the Supreme Court overturning the landmark 1973 ruling that made abortion legal.

Now, one might ask how he can consider someone who is "anti-abortion" and maintain our right to choose? I think many people personally oppose abortion, but wish to see it remain legal...I presume this is of what Kerry speaks?

Remember Kucinich was anti-choice not so long ago. Gore and many other dems disaprove of abortion on a personal level, but support a womans right to choose.

I wish Kerry would stop trying this approach though sheesh!

[still_one]

5. I agree

I have contributed about 600 bucks up to now to the Kerry campaign. I am stopping my contributions until he starts to present a clear difference between bush and himself.

[freetobegay]

11. A clear difference?

:eyes:

[still_one]

19. then he better start to distinguish himself

I will end up voting for Kerry, but I will tell you most of the middle of the roaders believe he hasn't defined himself, and they do not know what he stands for.

That is a problem...

[Sparkly]

29. There's no excuse for not knowing "what he stands for"

He has a long record in the Senate; he has a campaign website outlining his proposals, logging press releases, and giving his stances on issues; there are speeches, interviews and ads on the web and on TV; newspapers, magazines, and radio also carry information and analysis; and both Kerry and his surrogates are out there every day making campaign appearances and talking about the differences between Kerry and Bush.

And people still don't know?!

[theivoryqueen]

maybe he's trying to stay catholic.

by appeasing them with conscientious-objector rhetoric?

[mzmolly]

43. I think so, and I think we'll see more of the appeal to the center

strategy. I think he needs to re-think this personally. He's in a tough spot because he's trying to appeal to the south without alienating the left.

Hard to do....

[theivoryqueen]

51. Repeat: to women of a certain age who fought for access to legal abortions

it is distressing to hear a LIBERAL candidate step back from the plate onthis issue. also - I agree with your reply.

[WI_DEM]

4. This is troubling

he says he isn't against appointing anti-choice judges as long as it doesn't lead to overturning Roe--ofcourse the chances of it being overturned is if anti-choice judges are appointed.

[still_one]

7. He also voted for approval of Scalia

but said that was a mistake

There were others who voted against Scalia's confirmation, why didn't he see that?

[zoidberg]

23. Scalia was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a vote of 98-0

It's hard to give Kerry much flak for voting the way he did.

http://www.michaelariens.com/ConLaw/justices/scalia.htm

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/supreme_court/judge_scalia.html

[outinforce]

38. "Anti-Choice"???

I searched the AP news story -- in vain -- for any reference to Kerry saying that he isn't against appointing "anti-choice" judges.

What he did say, according to AP, was that he was not against appointing anti-abortion judges.

There is a difference, you know.

[HFishbine]

6. More troubling -- his vagueness on Iraq and the Middle East

"Look, you may have some deployments of people for a long period of time in the Middle East depending on what the overall approach to the Middle East is."

Depending on the approach? Who's going to decide?

[still_one]

9. I was giving him a free pass on that

but with his ideas about appointing judges who are against a woman's right to choose, I need to take a second look.

I have written, and contacted his campaign for a clarification

[theivoryqueen]

17. You are a pro-active inspiration

I should have done that FIRST! Perhaps this is a glitch, and he will re-state his position regarding choice.

[fryguy]

15. if vagueness is something that is troubling to you..

then politics isn't the game for you. you're not going to hear iron-clad statements about issues of such volatility and fluidness as foreign affairs - especially in the middle east. if kerry were to say something like, "we're never going to be involved in the region again" or something as direct, he would be lambasted as being isolationist, or, if the situation then indicated that action be necessary on our part down the line, he would be criticized for "waffling." the last person I can recall making a unequivocal statement during the campaign it went something like "read my lips, no new taxes...." and we all know how well that did for him....

[fryguy]

8. a judge can be anti-abortion in their personal views

but still recognize and uphold the law of the land....I don't see the contradiction....I don't think he's suggesting from that statement that he's going to start nominating pro-life fundamentalists like our current dictator does.....

[still_one]

12. No, but what he is doing is playing the double talk bullshit

that bush made when he was campaigning on the issue, only on the other side.

What we need is a straight talking leader

Incidently, why did he vote for the nomination of Scalia?

[blm]

27. No what YOU are doing is deliberately spinning what he said.

Those who comprehended Kerry's full statement appreciate his dedication to GOOD governance.

[theivoryqueen]

32. it's not "spin" to recognize appeasement.

Judges personal beliefs matter proufoundly. The courts are our last recourse for a fair government, and they are the sole oversight of bad laws and legislators.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

36. You can say your spin is not spin all you want.

You can say your opinions are not opinions, but are actually facts. But all that will do is make anyone with the ability to read and think critically discount everything you say.

[theivoryqueen]

47. hmm. that's definately a conversation stopper. Kidding.

In science, you try to observe, but are always aware that your observation contains biases you cannot control. The only safeguard is debate among peers with a certain emphasis on attempting to grasp and evaluate opposing positions. Thanks.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

60. Exactly - your opinions are just that: spin - opinions and nothing more.

Thank you for restating my point.

[theivoryqueen]

61. you are welcome. It's a good thing to remember.

Especially during debates like this.

[outinforce]

42. "Judges Personal Beliefs Matter Profoundly"

I would want to be very careful about using a judge's "personal beliefs" as any sort of measure as to whether s/he ought to be appointed as a judge or not.

If you start down that trail, then you must be prepared, I think, to concede to right-wing fundamentalists their notion that a judge's "personal beliefs" matter profoundly as well.

And what that would lead to, of course, would be to confirm as an appropriate matter for dicsussion whether a person's "personal beliefs" include a personal belief in the diety of Jesus, or whether a person's "personal belief's" include a belief that the world wass created in 7 24-hour days.

I don't ever want to give fundamentlists any ammunition to say that it is at all appropriate to consider a person's "personal beliefs" when considering someone for a judge or justice.

I would be much more concerned about the person's intelligence, legal training, fairness, and adherence to the rule of law than about his or her "personal beliefs".

[theivoryqueen]

44. not a statement in support of this, just an observation

I have spent too much time in courtrooms not to notice that each judge has a unique perspective about life and the nuances of the law. Law is an organic, subjective body, and a judge is given the duty of interpretation. Unfortunately interpretation means using ones personal beliefs. Therefore, it is paramount that a judge's beliefs are not in conflict with standing laws or else they will inevitably find a way to weaken them.

[outinforce]

50. So?

If a judge finds a way to weaken "standing laws", do the people (who are sovereign) in this nation have no rememdy?

For instance, one could argue that the "standing law" on marraige has just been "weakened" by the Supreme Court in Massachusetts. (I am not saying that I agree with such a statement --- only that it is an argument that some on the right have adnvanced.)

The notion that a judges "personal beliefs" could lead the judge to weaken "standing laws" most likely is true, but it misses, I think, the point.

And the point is that a njudge or Justice must always put forth legal arguments, and that the laws is not always crystal clear (if it were, we would have no need, really, for judges or justices). It is a jusdge's or a justice's commitment to the rule of law -- things like due process -- that I am much more concerned about.

As I said, I would never want to concede to the right the notion that what person believes (like whether a person believes in Jesus as his/her personal savior -- is ever an appropriate topic for discussion when considering a person to be a judge or justice.

[theivoryqueen]

53. we the people have only limited remedy over the judiciary

most appointees for life are never really punished - old hanging McBride in Fort Worth has repeatedly been hauled up in front of the 9th - hands duly slapped for infringements ranging from jailing FEDERAL prosecutors for imaginary incivility to screaming at juries. He's an ass we are stuck with until he dies. Some judges are elected, but look very closely at your next ballot before you pull the "all democrat" lever. Many judicial races are run with no democratic opponent, thus guaranteeing right wing judicial decisions.

[outinforce]

56. THAT is Precisely

why I am much more concerned about a person's legal philosophy than about his/her own "personal beliefs" about life, slavation, or anything else.

If a person has an understanding that the people are ultimately sovereign, and that the people are capable of self-governance, then I feel much more comfortable with such a person as a judge or justice -- even if his/her background might indicate that s/he and I are on opposite sides of a political issue.

A person's poltics, for me anyway, is not so much a matter of concern when thinking about her/his qualfications to serve as a judge or justice. What, for me, is far more important is how they view the law, and where the legitimacy for the law comes from. If I get the notion that a person feels that it is up to the judicial branch -- which, as you correctly indicate, is for the most part neither elected nor subject to terms which expire -- then i get really nervous.

Because then the political functions of governance are transferred from the place where they belong -- the legislature -- to the place where they most certainly do not belong -- the judiciary.

THe legislature is accountable to the people. The judiciary is not.

[fryguy]

28. 98-0

Scalia was unanimously confirmed by the Senate - the question is, why did any dems - who controlled the chamber at the time - vote for him. A simple answer could be that there is no simple answer to congressional voting. Who were the options available? Could Congress have anticipated how horrible the guy would be on the SCOTUS? After all, mistakes are often made in predicting how a justice will rule on issues - just look at Souter, nominated by Bush I, repukes were shocked when he failed to toe the line like he was expected to.....

[theivoryqueen]

10. Look, I am voting for Kerry - okay? I want him to know that in advance

So he can lay down the moderate overture talk on my behalf. He really needn't try to play to the "middle" anymore. There isn't one.

[still_one]

14. Write to his campaign, and tell them

that's what I did

[theivoryqueen]

22. I will, and if ya'll don't mind will include a link to this board

Is that okay - don't want to invade anyones's privacy without your OK.

[outinforce]

46. "There Isn't One"?

"He really needn't try to play to the "middle" anymore. There isn't one."

Really?

I, for one, happen to think that there is a "middle".

I would hate to see us all become nothing but a bunch of people who cannot compromise on an issue. That, I think, is the mark of an extremist.

[theivoryqueen]

48. I admit I do believe that we are a nation divided, currently.

I think that if you dig, pretty quickly you find out just what side of the fence any given person is on. There are few fence sitters with comfortable seats left.

[outinforce]

52. Perhaps You Are Correct

But my own sense is that if we ever truly become a nation in which compromise is not possible, and in which there are truly two sides and each side vies for the power to impose its own will on the other side, then we will have become a nation much different from the one the founders of this nation envisioned.

They purposely set up a system which drives the process towards the center. Rule by consent.

My own fear is that if we do not engage the process in a move towards the center, we will become, as a nation, increasingly polarized -- two sides with each side trying to gain power to impose its will on the other side.

I don't want to live in a place like that.

I would much prefer to live in a place where differences of opinion on issues are acknoqwledged and where compromise -- rather that force -- is used as the touchstone for good governance.

If a person feels passionately about a great political issue of the day, such a notion as mine can be frustrating and annoying.

Neverthless, I think the alternative is much more dire.

[theivoryqueen]

54. That is what we are all here for at DU - keep the debate healthy

and to try to consider others opinions thoughtfully. I love this site for that reason most of all. You never get that at right wing sites or functions!

[outinforce]

57. And Yet,

I agree with everything you said in your post.

And yet, if we do not wish to become two nations within the same country, we simply must find a way to engaqe even those poeple who vist right wing sites and who attend right wing functions in a dialogue or in a process that will work to consensus on the issues of our day.

Otherwise, it seems to me, we will become exactly the sort of nation I fear the most -- two sides glaring at each other and vying for power so that they can inmpose their will on the other side.

That is how a great deal of the world lives. It is NOT what America is supposed to be, I think.

[blm]

13. Read the WHOLE statement. He's saying exactly what ANY pres SHOULD say.

union maid said it perfectly in her post...she gets it....

union_maid (938 posts) Thu May-20-04 09:57 AM
Response to Original message
3. He needs to learn more about the soundbytes is all

He was saying that the good judges decide on the law. In the cases of the best ones you couldn't tell what their politics were by their decisions. In the case of judges like that he would not have a problem appointing one who didn't agree with him personally. That's a very important point about the judiciary but is going to be lost in the stupid headlines.

[still_one]

16. remember he did vote for Scalia's nomination...

[Feanorcurufinwe]

24. "he regrets his 1986 vote to confirm Antonin Scalia"

"If you're looking for me to admit that I made a mistake in my years in the Senate, there you go -- there's one," said the four-term Massachusetts senator.
http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/politics/2580582

[blm]

26. In 1986...fer chrissakes. He said he regrets it now.

Were YOU in the streets supporting Kerry back then while he was being skewered EVERY day in the press and from the DC powerstructures for his investigations of BCCI and IranContra? Can I criticize you for what you were doing then?

Or are you more interested in keeping the ONE man who exposed more government corruption than any other lawmaker OUT of the White House?

[fryguy]

30. Scalia was confirmed 98-0

The entire Democratically controlled Senate voted for the guy (read: asshole). Does that mean you won't support any dem who was in Congress at the time.....

[theivoryqueen]

20. I understand his comment - and be clear - I WILL VOTE FOR KERRY

but anyone who's ever been in a court of law understands immediately and without question that a judges personal disposition and core beliefs have everything to do with his rulings!

[still_one]

21. I will vote for Kerry also

but he cannot stand on the fence anymore, and needs to take concrete stands on issues

[fryguy]

37. "stand on the fence"

that's sounding like the RW propoganda machine is infecting you. next thing we'll start seeing is comments about him voting for a bill before voting against it. don't let one-line, sound-bite reporting shape your opinions - that's what the GOP wants you to do.

[the_real_38]

18. If he doesn't clarify this, I will vote for Nader ....

.... outlawing abortion would be a social cataclysm for this country - 1 million unwanted children coming into the world every year, when our foster system is already overwhelmed.

F*** kerry! I'm not playing along with s*** like this!

[AgentLadyBug]

34. ok, buh-bye. /eom

[fryguy]

40. voting for nader = voting for bush = insuring abortion is outlawed

so don't start bitching on Nov. 3rd when shrubs picking out new wall paper for another 4 years in the WH

[FARAFIELD]

25. I THINK ITS GOOD

This whole ca-ca about judges is out of hand, now granted the four that we held up were absolute turds and dont deserve to be there. But most jurists are pretty good, its when they appoint these bizzaroos like scalia and Thomas. Look at souter he was fine, stevens was fine, in some of the writings with blackmun kennedy doesnt appear to be entirely gone in the head. We just have to live with the "appointed for life". If we dissalow everyone because of one issue the progress of the country isnt served. I say this as a pro-choice Catholic

[theivoryqueen]

31. Sent the anti-appeasement message to Kerry HQ. Maybe he'll listen.

I sure do hope so.

[fryguy]

33. Make no mistake about it.....

If you are a support of protecting a woman's right to choice, Kerry - even with such vagaries - HAS GOT TO BE YOUR CANDIDATE in the upcoming election. Because, even if he does not voice his support in the crystal-clear terms you might wish, Bush has voiced his OPPOSITION to it as plainly as can be, and given 4 more years will do all he can to insure Roe is rendered inert if not overturned.....

.....so gripe that Kerry isn't the perfect liberal progressive candidate for you, but recognize that the option is the devil himself, and such doubt and infighting will undoubtedly be exploited by the evil empire in control now.....

/rant completed

[theivoryqueen]

35. Hey - I'm there. If I could have already voted for him - I would've.

he's the only candidate with a chance to get the electoral votes needed to fire bushco. But pleeeezzzee can't he stop trying to please everyone?

[fryguy]

39. he's trying to appeal to as broad a cross-section as possible

THAT'S how you win a national election. All this talk about him trying to please everyone, sitting on the fence, flip-flopping, is just the sort of talk the GOP wants to hear. Pardon the metaphor, but he's trying to create as big a tent as possible for the Democratic party - just as shrubbery does. If all Kerry needed to win was the progressive/liberal New England vote, he'd be speaking the exact same as he's done in Senate races.

[theivoryqueen]

49. perhaps you are right.

it's just disturbing to women of a certain age, who fought to gain access to legal abortions, to "hear" a LIBERAL candidate stepping back from the plate.

[redqueen]

45. Look at our choices

Bush - we're screwed, the SCOTUS will be partisan for decades.

Kerry - not so much.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. "He's eatin' bagels, he's eatin' pizza.."

From some old Dylan song about two-faced politicians.

Pro-life/pro-choice. Pro gun control/anti-gun control. Pro-war/anti-war. Liberal/Moderate. Name an issue, he's got, not just one, but two (or more)positions. Perhaps he should try advertising himself as the "Not too compassionate liberal".

The Dummy-in-Chief struts his semi-literate, redneck, chickenhawk, good ol' boy, smirking fascism, while Kerry keeps trying not to be a liberal.

Pathetic.

[redqueen]

58. Hate the game, not the player

Why do they act this way?

Here's a hint: during my stint as a tech writer, I learned that in writing for a general adult audience, you should target your writing to about the 8th grade level.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

59. Perhaps, it's time for something new and novel.

Like addressing American citizens as responsible adults rather than 8th graders. You never know, they might even appreciate it.

As a sometimes teacher of adults, I discovered that when I didn't patronize them and treat them as ignoramuses they didn't act like ignoramuses.

This slip & slide shuffle that Kerry is doing is downright insulting.

[redqueen]

62. That's what Kucinich tried

You saw how well that worked out.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

63. I partially agree.

The unfortunate thing was that Kucinich never got a real hearing. Just as Bradley didn't. He was brushed off as "too liberal" by the party bosses from the gate.

Kerry now has the opportunity to do what Bradley and Kucinich tried. From all indications, he prefers the DLC dogma of trying to attract the 8th graders.

That's what Gore tried. You saw how well that worked out.

[redqueen]

64. I hear ya

I don't think Kerry will make that same mistake. He's spent nearly a quarter of a century in DC. He knows the games that go on.

I like to hope that he's waiting for the right moment to strike. Any action by him now takes energy out of the blame game going on between the intel/military/WH. He'd be an idiot to distract people from that spectacle.

Plus, when you consider how explosive the abortion issue is, one might say it would be smart for him to say as little as possible about it so as not to give ammo to either side that they could start firing away with.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

65. I hope you're right.

But, I'm not holding my breath.

As for the Abortion issue, and you can add gun control, homosexuality, race, etc, all "explosive" issues, I believe that those are the very things he should take a clear stand on. We have allowed the repugs and the likes of Limbaugh define the issues through innuendo and anecdote. i.e., the "Welfare Queens with 8 kids living in mansions", the "Rich latte sipping career sluts who get abortions between hair appointments.", the "The gungrabbers wrenching granpa's old muzzle loader from the hands of grandma.", the "Destruction of the family by the gays", etc., ad nauseum.

Kerry certainly has the ability to present the issues in a manner that actually addresses the issues rather than resorting to the easy platitudes.

That said, I believe that the whole notion of patriotism being synonomous with missles, guns, and winning the big game, is the issue in this election. Kerry has been avoiding this one too, much to my disgust. Which is the reason, barring a real change, I'll be voting Green this year.

We'll see if he's biding his time, or is just another creature of the DLC.

[genius]

66. Dennis was the only one with the litmus test Did you vote for him?

If this is an issue for you, you should have voted for Dennis. Bush is only appointing anti-choice justices. So Kerry's at least better than Bush.