If the Democrats don't win in 2008, Roe V. Wade WILL BE OVER-RULED

[still_one]

There is no question that the republicans have been filling the courts with activist Federalist Society judges, whose ultimate objective is the over-turning of Roe V Wade.

The record of the Democrats has not been that great, but it is the only possibility to save Roe, or for that matter allow stem cell research to occur

It is still a puzzle to me why the Democratic party put up casey in Pennsylvania to run against santorium, instead of a right to choose progressive. He has voted against every stem cell and a woman's right to choose bill that comes up. Is the state of Pennsylvania that much against a woman's right to choose? If so, woman's rights are in more danger than ever.

I believe it was his father in 1992 that tried to overturn Roe V Wade in Planned Parenthood verses casey


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_Parenthood_v._Casey

it is amazing that it didn't get overturned then.

We have a major number of judges who are in their 70's on the Supreme Court, and Stevens is staying on with the hopes that a Democrat wins in 2008.

If a republican wins the executive branch in 2008, not only will roe v wade be overturned, but civil rights will be moved back to the states to decide

[antigop]

1. Um, if the Dems still control the Senate, why would they allow nomination of an anti-choice judge?

nt

[dsc]

2. The same reason that a GOP Senate allowed two pro choice judges

to be approved. Those Democrats who "aren't so good" appointed two pro choice justices.

[Eric J in MN]

4. Because he'll appear with his wife and kids, and his wife will cry, and...

...the Washington Post will declare the nominee "qualified" and claim that any "qualified" nominee must be confirmed.

The Washington Post will also attack any Senator who seems to have made up his mind based on the RECORD of the nominee prior to his testimony, instead of waiting to hear how nicely he claims he'll be fair during the testimony.

[mudesi]

15. Because they're a bunch of spineless enablers?

How many more times do they have to cave in to the Republicans before everyone here gets the picture? Stop electing conservatives into the Democratic party!

[cali]

36. So the repukes were spineless enablers

of Clinton when they voted overwhelmingly for Breyer and Ginsberg? Nope. That's not what it's about. And I'm happy to say that neither of my Senators fit that description.

[still_one]

29. You are correct, they knew that these judges belonged to the Federalist Society

However, the fact remains that no matter how lame the Democrats have been in supporting Roe V Wade, they are still the best chance we have to perserve it.

Pretty sad isn't it, if you are pro-choice, which I am

[JerseygirlCT]

31. Seriously?

You're wondering about that?

All you have to do is look at some of the votes since the last election to know. Not all Democrats are such staunch supporters of women's rights.

We need a strong enough majority to accomodate the wafflers and waiverers who'd like to say: "oh, well, he's a good man, despite his anti-choice views". To me, that's BS. Anti-choice is a no-go, period.

We need a strong enough majority to make room for those we cannot count on. And a Democratic president, in which case the few pro-choice Republicans still around won't have their arms twisted by the likes of Bush/Cheney to vote against what's right. More importantly, we need a strongly pro-choice PRESIDENT who will only send SC candidates with a proven record vis a vis individual rights.

[proud2BlibKansan]

61. The same Dems who allowed FISA to pass?

And the same Dems who continue to vote to fund the war?

You honestly expect them to block a nomination? :rofl:

[Echo In Light]

3. All according to plan

The overarching theocratic components of the rightist agenda is largely unknown and misunderstood due to so many being unwary of just how much wealth and power they've amassed, and how far along the path to theocratic totalitarianism we are. I mean, how many taxpayers are aware of the utterly hateful, bass-awkward "faith-based initiatives" their money goes toward supporting?

People are unaware of the drive toward theocracy because the mainstream media, ever obedient to their masters, will not report on the numerous disturbing aspects of the Christian Re-constructionist movement. We're but one major "attack" away from many aspects of the police state infrastructure being overtly implemented; history shows that within the psychological chaos of a major catastrophe, people will accept measures they would otherwise find deplorable. Blackwater USA is one example of this.

[blondeatlast]

20. Guy, we're very well aware of all of it here. You just haven't been here long.

Believe me, there are few spots on the 'nets that know this better than we do.

[baldguy]

5. Roe v Wade will be the law as long as the neocons think they need the fundies.

If its ever overturned, they will lose they hold over them and lose their support.

[blondeatlast]

21. Yep. Roe v. Wade is rapidly becoming their only defense--and fundraiser,

and GOTV plan, etc.

Even "the Gay" no longer rallies the troops that much.

[jgraz]

6. They can overturn Roe v Wade now. But they won't

They Rethugs have had a 5-4 anti-abortion majority on the SCOTUS since the Dem capitulation to Alito. You'd think they'd be sending case after case up the food chain in order to overturn Roe.

Of course, the REAL owners of the Republican party know that if Roe is overturned, the GOP will never win another national election. They will likely lose their grip on the politics of the so-called Red States.

Abortion is one of the GOP's favorite wedge issues. The owners of the party don't give a shit about it, but they use it to get the suckers to turn out and vote them into power. If they actually overturn Roe, they know that they'll not only be giving up this valuable weapon, they'll actually be handing it over to the opposition.

No, abortion is too valuable an issue to actually DO anything about it. They like things just the way they are.

[mark414]

7. i tend to agree with this...the guys who actually run the party don't really care about it

as in, don't really care that "little babies are being murdered"

it's red meat for the base...get rid of that, and what do they have left? gays and guns, i guess. :shrug:

[Katherine Brengle]

63. Oh, they care - it's not just about abortion.

It's about privacy. Roe dies, then Griswold, then we're up a creek -- ALL of us, not just women.

[antigop]

9. I agree. The GOP had majorities in BOTH houses. 7 out of 9 judges were appointed by Repubs.

Guess what.

Abortion is STILL LEGAL.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

13. That's Because Pugs Used To Nominate Centrists And Center Right Judges

As the party has moved right their nominees have been more right wing...That's why Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, and Samuel Ailito have been their last three choices...

[antigop]

18. You missed my point. Never mind. n/t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I didn't miss your point...

Your point is the Pugs want to keep it as an issue...

All four judges need to do is grant "cert" on the right abortion case and they can't avoid voting to uphold Roe or overturning it... They have four votes...Anthony Kennedy is on record as "favoring an undue burden" test; as long as a law doesn't put an undue burden on a woman seeking an abortion it passes Constitutional muster....

[antigop]

26. Well, if you want to believe in the boogeyman, you can. n/.t

[DemocratSinceBirth]

28. How Is It A Boogeyman?

You have four judges who presumably believe Roe was wrongly decided...I put presumably because we know Scalia and Thomas believe Roe was wrongly decided but we can only logically assume Roberts and (Sc)ailito do too...That means the Pugs are only one vote away... All it takes to grant cert is four justices... The right case comes up and Roe is overturned...


To a woman who needs a safe abortion it's not a boogeyman, it's her body, her womb, and her life...

[cali]

38. Let's look at that carefully. Many times in the past, presidents

have appointed people like Warren or Souter and been unpleasantly surprised. And no, I don't think that they deliberately put liberal judges in office so they'd still have abortion as an issue. And of course Warren was elevated to the court long before Roe.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

49. They Didn't Vet Justices The Way They Vet Justices Now...

Ike said appointing Warren was one of his biggest mistakes...

I admired Gerald Ford... He stood by his appointment of Justice Stevens...

[DemocratSinceBirth]

11. They Have Four

Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, and (Sc)ailito...

Anthony Kennedy has demonstrated in his votes he opposes a total ban...He's in the "undue" burden camp...

A Rethuglican victory can also result in the overturn of Lawrence, Mapp, and Miranda...

[kestrel91316]

12. ....and don't forget Griswold.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

14. Ha

So the sale of condoms will be decided state by state...

[kestrel91316]

16. And birth control pills. And the others.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

19. They Might Try To Outlaw The "Withdrawl Method" Too

eom

[kestrel91316]

33. Oh, probably.

[blondeatlast]

23. They've already overturned, what? Brown vs. BoE with merely a whimper

from the media--and waht aelse (it's too early in the AM to recall the gloom and doom of theis SCOTUS now).

[mudesi]

17. No, they still need Stevens to die/retire. They have 4 (nm)

[cali]

37. uh, wrong.

Kennedy has long had a mixed voting record regarding abortion rights, but he's definitely not Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Roberts. Abortion is indeed a favorite wedge issue, but if you don't think these guys on the court are true believers, well, you're wrong. What's more, there's no reason not to believe that the repukes couldn't successfully paint this as simply returning the matter to the state level, and get away with it politically.

[Sparkly]

40. What cali said. nt

[still_one]

48. You are wrong on both accounts. In 1992 we Roe was almost overturned

If it wasn't for a change of view regarding 3 of the judges, who were specifically chosen to overturn roe it would have happened

It isn't only roe, it is also religion in schools, under the guise of free speech

A lot of things are hanging on by a thread. Assuming they won't overturn Roe when their strongest base wants it overturned is an flawed assumption, that will be fatal

Perhaps you are not aware of states already working toward that goal, and more

[Toots]

8. If we need fear to motivate Democrats to the polls then so be it

In reality though we know the issue is way too important to the Republicans to let it get resolved/overturned. Without it what would they have, their record?

[spanone]

10. if the dems don't win in 2008 we can all pack it in.

roe v. wade will be the least of our worries. imo

[GreenTea]

22. The republicans don't ever want to see abortion completely illegal....

If they did it would be....They had both houses, the executive branch and five anti choice judges on the US Supreme Court....the republicans have been lying and saying they want abortion completely illegal and Roe vs. Wade over-turned for over thirty five years....However, look at the facts, abortion brings in tons of money for the republicans, just by the mere mentioning the word, abortion will bring out tens of millions of anti choice voters for the republican party whenever the word is used, all for republican political gain....Abortion being legal help keeps republicans elected in many areas as well as helping republican sponsored ballot measures passed....And it's always a great wedge issue for the republicans whenever need it.

Still, the republicans have sadly legislated abortion to make it near impossible for a woman to have a choice in many areas of this country....but to completely make it illegal, NEVER! It would be suicide for the republican party to do so....with the incredible amount of money donated, huge amounts of money given to the republican party when they use the abortion issue and the amazing, monstrous out-pour of voters in many areas coming out for republicans party who use the abortion issue to fire up their voter base with the the anger & passion it stirs up, the republicans want and need abortion to remain legal....

Of course the republicans will deny it to their death....but the fact remains, they could of outlawed abortion anytime they wanted to, when Sandra Day O'Connor stepped down on July 1st 2005 her successor, Justice Samuel Alito is anti-abortion, as was at the time, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist as is Rehnquist successor, John G. Roberts, along with the three other anti choice judges....Reagan nominated and appointed Antonin Scalia & Anthony M. Kennedy, and anti choice Bush nominated and appointed Clarence Thomas!

It's complete bullshit that the republicans ever want to see abortion completely illegal.....The republicans do however want to make it nearly impossible for a woman to get an abortion anywhere in the country, but be sure the republicans never want it to be completely illegal....the republicans benefit far too much by keeping abortion legal than to make it other wise....

If the republicans really wanted to they could of easily made abortion completely illegal in the past.

[cali]

42. The republican may not, but they no longer have control

over those they put on the Court. And no, they couldn't have made it illegal in the past, and you don't provide even a theory as to how they would have accompllished it.

[antigop]

24. pssst....here's what I'm worried about --- the Supreme Court is NOW pro-business

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_28/b4042040.htm?campaign_id=rss_daily

>>
With controversial rulings on abortion and campaign finance, the current U.S. Supreme Court has waded into some of the most explosive issues in American politics. Under the leadership of new Chief Justice John G. Roberts, the high court appears to be on the verge of rewriting vast tracts of settled Constitutional law. But there's another important emerging feature of the Roberts Court that has not drawn nearly as much attention: its sympathy to business.
>>

Multinational corporations and their hostile takeover of this country present the biggest threat to me and my family.

[CK_John]

27. I put this in the same category as the draft, maybe we need this to wake up the sheep. n/t

[still_one]

30. What the Democrats should say is at the minimum they support Justice O'conner view on Roe /nt

[mmonk]

32. Unless Giuliani wins.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

53. Giuliani Said He Would Appoint Strict Constructionists To The Court In The Mold Of Scalia and

(Sc)alito...

[emilyg]

34. K&R

[RiverStone]

35. SCOTUS gave Shrub his illegitimate Presidency

They would take away choice too if a rethug were to appoint another justice.

[depakid]

39. Many Democrats don't care

They were all too pleased to confirm Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito.

[Booster]

41. We go around in circles on abortion just like the Freepers go

around in circles on gay marriage. Same shit every election from both sides. These issues are getting really tiresome.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

58. How Is Choice And Gay Rights Tiresome?

DSB

[Booster]

60. It's not the subjects that are tiresome. It's the arguments for and

against. Both subjects are buzz words for both sides. We get fired up about gay rights and they get fired up about abortion. None of the politicians really want either subject to go away because they are what fires up their bases. We just go through the exact same motions at every election - that's whats tiresome.

[ShortnFiery]

43. Women's CHOICE is *part* of a larger problem ---> Perpetual War.

:shrug: It should not be taken out of context as the alpha and omega ISSUE in order to elect a President.

Ideally, the majority of people, in IDEAL social support situations, want NO abortions - however, in fairness to ALL AMERICANS, we should create the circumstances to make them FULLY legal, but opted to - rare in number. :shrug:

[still_one]

44. They are both important, however consider this:

In 2008 there will be 26 republican seats up for reelection in the Senate, and 12 Democratic seats
That means there is a strong potential that vetos can be over-ridden

We know that most likely a Democratic President will nominate a pro-choice Justice.

What I am driving at is if a Democratic president does NOT want to remove our troops from Iraq, Congress can pass legislation that requires him to, and they can override a veto

For starters, they can repeal the IWR, followed by getting our troops out

Of course, if Congress does become solidly Democratic, and doesn't do it, then it is time to start looking for a new party that represents the people

[Hepburn]

45. This is really odd....but I was thinking about the issue of abortion...

...and opened the Greatest Page on the DU...and here is your thread.

The RWs and the Christian nutcases are gonna drive abortion underground and we all know the consequences.

I worked my ass off in the 1960s for a lot of causes and it seems like 40+ years later, we are heading back to Square One.

Shit.

[still_one]

47. and that includes civil rights also. There is no excuse for anyone sitting out this election

People may not remember, but there were cases argued regarding a woman's right to birth control not just abortion

We are really on the edge of a cliff

I have no doubt that Stevens is hanging on with the hopes that a Democrat will choose the next justice

there are 26 republican seats open for re-election in the Senate, and only 12 Democratic. Things have never looked so hopeful for us, and yet at the same time so hopeless

[Hepburn]

52. I feel some days like I am in some time warp....

...and the Repigs are a bunch of Victorian tyrannts and we are living in the early 1880s. Scares the heck out of me. Like they may even urge the RULE OF THUMB back on us as valid law.

:scared:

[still_one]

54. so do I. Hang in there, I think we will win both house and the executive branch /nt

[Hepburn]

55. Boy, do I ever hope you are right.

I wish sooooooooooooooooo much that we can get back to doing what is right for PEOPLE and not for CORPORATIONS and CHURCHES.

[weeve]

46. 8 - 1

I read a few weeks back that Souter and Ginsberg ( in addition to Stevens )are also likely to retire after the next election. Unless my math is completely wrong, if a Republican gets in and the Congress swings back ( a distinct possibility with Hillary as the nominee ) ... we're looking at a lot of potential 7-2 or even 8-1 decicions for decades to come ... and not just on abortion.

God Help Us All ...

[still_one]

51. If Hillary wins the nomination, and her appointments reflect an anti-abortion stand

and if a DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS allows those appointments, then the Republic is gone along with the Democratic party

I do not believe Hillary will allow that to happen, and I am not a Clinton fan. The people Bill Clinton appointed sure are in contrast to your assertion

[Flabbergasted]

50. Not a chance in hell. R v W will never be overturned.

[WinkyDink]

56. Well-known Casey vs. Unknown Unfortunately-named (think about it) Penacchio =

no contest.

[and-justice-for-all]

57. It sure would be...

like the very next day the rethug takes the throne...

But I do not forsee a thug winning in '08, do you? Just look at them, not one has the ways and means to hold office. For those who want to live in a Theocracy, the have 8 very well groomed goons to choose from.

If a rethug wins in '08, I will ask for asylum in the UK or Germany to escape continuous tryanny.

[Pushed To The Left]

59. The most pro-choice thing a voter can do is to support the Democratic candidate in 2008!

Even the so-called pro-choice Rudy Guiliani says he will appoint right-wing justices like Alito and Roberts. I don't think any of our candidates would do that to the Courts.

[Katherine Brengle]

62. It's part of their greater plan - if they kill Roe, they'll be able to kill privacy, and if they

kill privacy, they can really take everything over and there won't be a damn thing short of rioting in the streets that will fix it.

[dailykoff]

64. There are certain candidates who will throw anything

under the bus to get elected, and there's no reason to think reproductive rights isn't one of them.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.