What difference did Sandra Day O'Connor make?
What kind of Justice was she? Review these decisions, courtesy of People for the American Way, where she was the swing vote between two sides and give it some thought. What if she had gone the other way?
Key 5-4 rulings in which Sandra Day O’Connor was decisive
Sandra Day O’Connor has been the deciding vote in many important Supreme Court decisions affecting civil rights, environmental protection, personal privacy, voting rights, protection against discrimination, and more. If she is replaced by someone who doesn’t share her fair and impartial perspective, these are among the key 5-4 decisions in danger of being overturned:
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor’s opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.
Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled.
Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary.
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person.
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports.
Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events.
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor.
Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates.
Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties’ use of unlimited soft money contributions.
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion.
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.
Key 5-4 rulings in which Sandra Day O’Connor was decisive
Sandra Day O’Connor has been the deciding vote in many important Supreme Court decisions affecting civil rights, environmental protection, personal privacy, voting rights, protection against discrimination, and more. If she is replaced by someone who doesn’t share her fair and impartial perspective, these are among the key 5-4 decisions in danger of being overturned:
Grutter v. Bollinger (2003) affirmed the right of state colleges and universities to use affirmative action in their admissions policies to increase educational opportunities for minorities and promote racial diversity on campus.
Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation v. EPA (2004) said the Environmental Protection Agency could step in and take action to reduce air pollution under the Clean Air Act when a state conservation agency fails to act.
Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran (2002) upheld state laws giving people the right to a second doctor’s opinion if their HMOs tried to deny them treatment.
Hunt v. Cromartie (2001) affirmed the right of state legislators to take race into account to secure minority voting rights in redistricting.
Tennessee v. Lane (2004) upheld the constitutionality of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and required that courtrooms be physically accessible to the disabled.
Hibbs v. Winn (2004) subjected discriminatory and unconstitutional state tax laws to review by the federal judiciary.
Zadvydas v. Davis (2001) told the government it could not indefinitely detain an immigrant who was under final order of removal even if no other country would accept that person.
Brentwood Academy v. Tennessee Secondary School Athletic Association (2001) affirmed that civil rights laws apply to associations regulating interscholastic sports.
Lee v. Weisman (1992) continued the tradition of government neutrality toward religion, finding that government-sponsored prayer is unacceptable at graduations and other public school events.
Brown v. Legal Foundation of Washington (2003) maintained a key source of funding for legal assistance for the poor.
Morse v. Republican Party of Virginia (1996) said key anti-discrimination provisions of the Voting Rights Act apply to political conventions that choose party candidates.
Federal Election Commission v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee (2001) upheld laws that limit political party expenditures that are coordinated with a candidate and seek to evade campaign contribution limits.
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties’ use of unlimited soft money contributions.
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion.
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.
posted by Hans Riemer at 1:42 PM
32 Comments:
QUOTE:
What kind of Justice was she? Review these decisions, courtesy of People for the American Way, where she was the swing vote between two sides and give it some thought. What if she had gone the other way?
Key 5-4 rulings in which Sandra Day O’Connor was decisive
Sandra Day O’Connor has been the deciding vote in many important Supreme Court decisions affecting civil rights, environmental protection, personal privacy, voting rights, protection against discrimination, and more. If she is replaced by someone who doesn’t share her fair and impartial perspective, these are among the key 5-4 decisions in danger of being overturned:
McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003) upheld most of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance law, including its ban on political parties’ use of unlimited soft money contributions.
/QUOTE:
Why is McCain Feingold constitutional? Do you realize that they're considering making all bloggers calculate the amount of money they spend in time and web hosting and having that count as a contribution to any politician they support? Spending money on a candidate is speech and should not be limited for any reason.
QUOTE:
Stenberg v. Carhart (2000) overturned a state ban on so-called partial birth abortion.
/QUOTE:
Given our constitution, abortion *should* be a state issue. Nowhere does the constitution say that the federal govt has any business legislating about abortion.
QUOTE:
McCreary County v. ACLU of Kentucky (2005) upheld the principle of government neutrality towards religion and ruled unconstitutional Ten Commandments displays in several courthouses.
/QUOTE:
With the exception of the supreme court building itself I guess
Noid you are so far out of the mainstream that your thoughts need no comment because they scare the shit out of people and convince them Bush wingnuttery must go. Keep posting your anti-social rants. All this love from things like live 8 and the tsunami relief efforts are killing the republicans. Because it goes against everyhting that Republicans preach.
I live here in Philly. Just got back from live 8. What a great success for the cause and our great city.
QUOTE:
Noid you are so far out of the mainstream that your thoughts need no comment because they scare the shit out of people and convince them Bush wingnuttery must go. Keep posting your anti-social rants. All this love from things like live 8 and the tsunami relief efforts are killing the republicans. Because it goes against everyhting that Republicans preach.
/QUOTE:
FIrst of all, I'd like to see your polling data and questions that leads you to believe that my ideas are so far out of the mainstream. Given this board for example, it would seem that Reamer's ideas are really unpopular.
But beyond that, even if you were right about the popularity of my ideas, that wouldn't make me any less right. I think it's bull that you and Hans turn all questions of legislative merit into questions of popularity. Maybe if you'd consider things on their merits rather than making up bull on what 'everybody'q thinks, you'd realize how wrong you are on ust about every issue.
P.S. I'm not a republican. I'd also recommend that you open your mind and stop putting ideas and people into little partisan boxes.
Noid you are so far out of the mainstream that your thoughts need no comment because they scare the shit out of people
Pot, meet kettle.
I find it humorous that someone like Erik is going to preach "love" of all things. Erik is the single most intolerant poster here, which really says a lot about the modern American left.
In any case, Erik has tried to say that Noid is "so far out of the mainstream." Well, let's see what that "mainstream" Erik likes to cite really is. Latest polls on the Supreme Court:
"Suppose one of the U.S. Supreme Court justices retires at the end of this term. Would you like to see President Bush nominate a new justice who would make the Supreme Court more liberal than it currently is, more conservative than it currently is or who would keep the Court as it is now?"
More Liberal 30%
Keep it as it is 24%
More conservative 41%
That's a plurality of Americans who want the Supreme Court to be more conservative. If you count those who want to keep it as it is as "moderate", then you've got 65% of the American people preferring that the court NOT go liberal, with only 30% going in the opposite direction.
By the way, there's other polls too, all of which show a plurality or majority of the public showing confidence in Bush's choice of Supreme Court justice, and all of which show more people supporting a more conservative court over a more liberal court.
There's your "mainstream," Erik. Now go ahead, preach some more of that "love" of yours.
I agree with every point Noid made:
McCain-Feingold is an attack on free speech, abortion should be a state issue and having the court rule on religious displays as unconstitutional when they have those same displays in their own courtroom is a bit hypocritical. And the great thing about Noid's points are they're exactly right, all of them. Not once did he say abortion is right or wrong or that religious displays are good or bad, but he made a statement on the actual constitutionality of the rulings. Thats not being out of the mainstream unless you consider logical thought to be outside of the mainstream.
NOID - As far as erik goes if you disagree with any one of his points you're a Republican or right wing nutjob. He could support mustard on a burger and you mayo and you're a Republican, he's really not thinking logically and hasn't presented a logical argument to anything that has been posted in a long time.
My personal opinion on Justice O'Connor's rulings is that its sad that we've allowed one man or woman with such power and authority over our lives. If one person always knows they're going to be the deciding vote on issues like free speech, religious displays and abortion then it illustrates how far we've come from the original intent of a constitutional republic and that the government for the people no longer exists. Justice O'Connor really isn't the person we should be looking to replace with a hard-line conservative, but rather someone who will help lead the court back to its rightful role of interpreting laws instead of creating new powers for the federal government in our lives.
I really expected all this hoopla when Justice Kennedy or Ginsburg retires if Bush is still in office. Also, I wonder how the left in America will treat Bush's nominee if its another woman or minority?
if anything illustrates the importance of the next Supreme Court Justice, it's the recent blunder these men and women made about individual property rights. How did that vote go down, basically party lines. The typical republican justices voted against it and the typical liberal justices voted for it.
So, congress, led by the republicans I might add, tries to fix the problem by passing legislature to cut off federal funding to local gov'ts who seize private property for private development, and who is against the legislative effort, no other than the dems led by Nancy Pelosi. Great!!!!
I don't know about you, but the fact that my local gov't can seize my house because someone wants to put a hotel on that land and create higher tax revenue is absolutely ridiculous. Now we are basically leasing our property from our local gov't. What a crock.
This is great. A private investor is looking to invoke eminent domain on Justice Souter's home in Weare, New Hamshire to build a hotel. Souter of course voted to allow your property to be seized for the better good of your local community even if the project was for a private investor.
http://freestarmedia.com/hotellostliberty2.html
This is a link to an article explaining the beginning of the end of individual property rights.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-09-28-justices-property_x.htm
I think even the Libby's will have a difficult time justifying this court decision.
Sandra - Thank you for serving our country for all these years.
I'd say that belief against foriegn aid to africa but money towards is right wing. Belief that campaign finance laws are unconstitutional is not only far right wing but far out of the mainstream. Belief that the federal government can't overturn bans on abortion at the state level is far right and out of the mainstream. It also mean that you beleive that the federal government cannot enforce anti-slavery laws, anti-lynching laws, or the civil rights act. Belief that Christian symbols that promote one religion over others should be dispalyed by our state governments is also unconstitional. Not to mention your out of the mainstream extreme views of social security.
By the way for the idiots who think that the ten commandments is a display promoting religion in the sumpreme court. It's one symbol of many promoting LAW.
There's a name for people like you Noid, Conspiracy Wingnuts. And if you are not a republican, what are you?
They are more like our enemy, Part II
by kos
Tue Jul 5th, 2005 at 12:56:25 PDT
Last night I wrote "How the Islamic crazies are like the Right" to hammer home how fundamentalist Islam has more in common with the radical religious right, the American Taliban, than it does with the American Left.
This is a key point-- it was easier for the Right to tie the American Left with our previous boogeyman, the communists, since we technically were nearer to the extreme left than where conservatives.
But today, things look quite different. I started the ball rolling on similarities on that previous post. Here are more similarities, as submitted by readers:
Foreign Policy
Al Qaida/Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
American Taliban: World domination - do it our way or we attack
Liberals: Peace and international cooperation
Executing Minors
Al Qaida/Taliban: Executing Minors OK
American Taliban: Executing Minors OK
Liberals: Find this to be a barbaric and embarrassing practice
Pop Culture
Al Qaida/Taliban: Hate it... kill it
American Taliban: Hate it... ban it
Liberals: Laugh at it... boycott it
Self-image
Al Qaida/Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
American Taliban: Belief in their own infallibility
Liberals: Willingness to consider other viewpoints
God
Al Qaida/Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
American Taliban: God is on our side and will help us kill our enemies
Liberals: God may or may not exist and will not help us kill anyone
Stem Cell Research
Al Qaida/Taliban: No Stem cell research
American Taliban: No Stem cell research
Liberals: Stem cell research
Leaders
Al Qaida/Taliban: God choose Osama Bin Laden to defeat the Great Satan
American Taliban: God choose George W. Bush to lead us
Liberals: God didn't choose anyone
Use of Force
Al Qaida/Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
American Taliban: As a means of propagating a world view
Liberals: As a last resort
Bush's War in Iraq
Al Qaida/Taliban: Love it!
American Taliban: Love it!
Liberals: It's a disaster
Press
Al Qaida/Taliban: Control of the Press
American Taliban: Manipulation of the Press
Liberals: Freedom of the Press
Free Speech
Al Qaida/Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is an infidel and must be silenced
American Taliban: Anyone who disagrees with us is a traitor and must be silenced
Liberals: Anyone who disagrees with us is in for a spirited discussion
Individuals
Al Qaida/Taliban: Conform or else
American Taliban: Conform or else
Liberals: Embrace diversity
Cooperation
Al Qaida/Taliban: You're either with us or against us
American Taliban: You're either with us or against us
Liberals: We're all in this together
Tolerance
Al Qaida/Taliban: Death to the infidels
American Taliban: Kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity
Liberals: Live and let live
Conscience
Al Qaida/Taliban: Obedience to authority
American Taliban: Obedience to authority
Liberals: Critical reflection
Origins
Al Qaida/Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
American Taliban: Universe and man created 6,000 years ago by God
Liberals: The Universe began as we know it at least 14 billion years ago, maybe more
Leaders
Al Qaida/Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
American Taliban: Subservient to will of its leaders
Liberals: Will served by Representative government
Fear
Al Qaida/Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
American Taliban: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in moral absolutes and scorn those that threaten those absolutes
Liberals: Life is scary and uncertain, seek refuge in accepting that respect for our fellow man and the individual choices he/she makes is eminently moral
Women
Al Qaida/Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
American Taliban: A woman's place is in the home
Liberals: A woman's place is wherever she wants it to be
Marriage
Al Qaida/Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
American Taliban: Marriage is only between a man and a woman
Liberals: Marriage is between any two people who love each other
We could keep this up all day, I suspect. Remember, the point isn't that the American Taliban is just like Al Qaida (though given the chance...), the point is that there's no reason that liberals would ever "root" for Al Qaida or the Taliban or any of the crazies in the Islamic fundamentalist world.
The reasons we hate the American Taliban are the same reasons we hate fundamentalists of all stripes -- they seek to impose their own moral code on the rest of society, and do so with the zeal and moral absolutism possible only from those who believe they are doing "God's work".
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/5/155625/7722
Hmmmmm, do I sense a left-wing echo chamber member.
Lets work on these assumptions erik:
1) "I'd say that belief against foriegn aid to africa but money towards is right wing."
Aid to Africa is a lost cause as long as the tyrants who rule those countries raid the effort before it gets to those its intended to help. Of course, we can always try to talk to the murderous dictators and see if they will give up power, or perhaps we should ask the UN to draft a few dozen resolutions, that should teach them a lesson and allow aid to reach the people who need it most.
2) "Belief that campaign finance laws are unconstitutional is not only far right wing but far out of the mainstream."
So you like the idea that political speech should be monitored and, if needed, censored because it may play a contribution in a campaign? Now who is the extremist?
3) "Belief that the federal government can't overturn bans on abortion at the state level is far right and out of the mainstream. It also mean that you beleive that the federal government cannot enforce anti-slavery laws, anti-lynching laws, or the civil rights act."
Now before we get into abortion, let me say that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT has NO RIGHT to interfere with the lives of women, however states can make laws restricting certain procedures if it is believed that life, liberty and/or property is being violated. If you don't like the state laws move, or legislate otherwise. Now, for what you said, do you even have a clue how out-of-step you logic is? The examples you posted above deal with protecting life and freedom, whereas abortion (unless the mother's life is truly in danger) is the practice of aborting a developing life. I would think those that support anti-slavery and anti-lynching laws would support states that affirm life is precious, even if they think that life is in the form of a developing fetus.
4) "Belief that Christian symbols that promote one religion over others should be dispalyed by our state governments is also unconstitional."
I never mentioned displays that promote religion, reread my statements erik. I said religious displays, which are like crosses, ten commandments, the star of david, etc. In the case of my great state of Texas, the display was fine because of the context in which it was displayed. I also find it odd that someone as extreme to the left as you would be ok with any Christian symbols being present in the Supreme Court Chambers.
5) "Not to mention your out of the mainstream extreme views of social security."
You have to provide one instance in which my views on social security are extreme, and furthermore have not provided an answer to my question regarding your own hypocritical stance on SS. Care to educate us as to why someone like yourself who has stated that you should not rely on social security to retire on would be against private accounts?
Belief that the federal government can't overturn bans on abortion at the state level is far right and out of the mainstream.
Clearly, Erik has never read the Constitution, and clearly Erik does not understand the concepts of federalism and state's rights.
The federal government can ENFORCE any law on the book that it wants to. The federal government should not, however, be overriding state sovereignty. Roe v. Wade was not just some court decision, it was a de facto piece of legislation. It overrides any say the states have with regards to abortion, thus becoming a piece of legislation itself.
Folks like Erik epitomize the liberals of today. They don't care about the Constitution, they don't care about the rule of law and the structure of America's government. Instead, they'd like to impose their agenda any way they can- be it through using the courts to legislate (something which it constitutionally should not be doing), or be it through making the federal government bigger and bigger, usurping the power of state governments.
The left just wants power. If it was REALLY just about policy, the left would promote state's rights, go to their blue states, and legalize every possible form of abortion that it wanted to. Instead, the left feels the need to force its agenda on the rest of America, through the courts and a big federal government. How unfortunate.
The Most Activist Judge: Clarence Thomas
by Hunter
Wed Jul 6th, 2005 at 11:17:08 PDT
This New York Times op-ed by Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder suggests an actual measure for what makes an "activist" judge:
We found that justices vary widely in their inclination to strike down Congressional laws. Justice Clarence Thomas, appointed by President George H. W. Bush, was the most inclined, voting to invalidate 65.63 percent of those laws; Justice Stephen Breyer, appointed by President Bill Clinton, was the least, voting to invalidate 28.13 percent. The tally for all the justices appears below.
Thomas 65.63 %
Kennedy 64.06 %
Scalia 56.25 %
Rehnquist 46.88 %
O'Connor 46.77 %
Souter 42.19 %
Stevens 39.34 %
Ginsburg 39.06 %
Breyer 28.13 %
One conclusion our data suggests is that those justices often considered more "liberal" - Justices Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, David Souter and John Paul Stevens - vote least frequently to overturn Congressional statutes, while those often labeled "conservative" vote more frequently to do so. At least by this measure (others are possible, of course), the latter group is the most activist.
Bush has repeatedly praised Scalia and Thomas as model judges; one can infer, from that, that what Bush and the conservatives are really looking for are judges that "legislate from the bench", overturning laws and overriding the will of Congress. Right?
As the editorial suggests, the entire Republican notion of "activist judges" is imprecise at best. To that I'd add silly, intellectually lazy, and more than infrequently completely dishonest. The religious right wants desperately to appoint "activist judges" who reshape laws according to religious conservative preferences. They just don't want anyone else to point that out.
So let's toss that Republican talking point down the nearest storm drain. Or start using it against them.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/7/6/14178/92515
Why does this guy keep citing Daily Kos?
And he talks to US about "echo chambers."
Pure hilarity.
And by the way, Erik, "activism" is not defined as how many laws one turns over. Especially not CONGRESSIONAL law, much of which has done nothing more than expand big government and deficit spending in the past 20 years. The statistics you cited from your echo chamber do nothing more than prove the fact that the more constructionist judges are following the Constitution, while the liberal ones continue to let Congress and the federal government get away with abuse of power.
Erik seems to be stuck in the echo, eccchhhooo, ecccchhhhhhhhoooooooo, ecccccccccchhhhhhhhhhhooooooooooooooo chamber.
It would have been nice if your lib leaning justices would have added one more activist decision to their stats with the recent eminent domain decision. oh well
When I heard that O'Connor had retired, I actually cried. Because what now? What is going to happen to our country now? What if Bush appoints a conservative? We can say goodbye to our right to confidential birth control and abortions, amongst many other things that we take for granted. O'Connor, as a swing vote, was vital to what many, many, many of us take for granted. I can only hope with all my heart that Bush will not appoint a conservative, and if not, well, I'll see you in canada.
One thing that we really need to think about is Saving Roe. Go to www.plannedparenthood.com and look at SaveRoe.
angela, I seriously doubt any judge Bush nominates will end up being the reason why Roe v Wade is overturned. Abortion whether you think its right or wrong should be a state issue, and if the legislature would deal with these issues instead of activist courts we wouldn't have these problems, because you could convince your state to protect abortion rights for women or move to a state that already protects abortion instead of waiting breathlessly for a single man or woman to decide what the ENTIRE country should or shouldn't do. Does that fear of having 'women's rights' overturned make you a believer that we've allowed the courts far too much power in our government? When a single court judge is the only thing standing between what you consider your rights and those who want to take them away doesn't that strike you as wrong? Not because there are people who want you to no longer have the choice, but that one person can wield so much power over your life?
anon, I've already pointed out how hypocritical erik is, and doing so again will only earn me another 'right wing nutjob' label of which I already have far too many to properly display. So instead of pointing out the large flaws in erik's logic I'll just re-state my original question for him to once again ignore:
erik - Care to educate us as to why someone like yourself who has stated that you should not rely on social security to retire on would be against private accounts? Or has the daily kos not covered that one yet from which you could regurgitate a post?
Jesus Christ, Angela. You cried? Grow up.
I can tell you I was pissed when your lib justices decided that my property is no longer my property, but I didn't cry. Stop whinning about roe vs. wade. That will never be overturned.
The Supreme Court is so backwards. They protect the right of mothers to kill their fetuses, but in the same breath say it's barbaric to sentence teenagers to death for committing some of the most unimaginable and horrible murders one can think of.
What a bunch of clowns.
What if you were a pregnant woman and some teenager tried to rob you, and in the process he/she beat you senseless and caused you to have a miscarriage. I bet you would think a murder took place, but guess what, we can't have the death penalty for young innocent teenagers. According to libs, a murder didn't even take place.
What the hell. I don't care if a woman wants to have an abortion, have them everyday if you want, just admit that a fetus is a living human life so that the people who do want to carry and have their child can have the full protection and rights for their unborn child that a born child has.
QUOTE:
cried. Because what now? What is going to happen to our country now? What if Bush appoints a conservative? We can say goodbye to our right to confidential birth control and abortions, amongst many other things that we take for granted. O'Connor, as a swing vote, was vital to what many, many, many of us take for granted. I can only hope with all my heart that Bush will not appoint a conservative, and if not, well, I'll see you in canada.
One thing that we really need to think about is Saving Roe. Go to www.plannedparenthood.com and look at SaveRoe.
/QUOTE:
Are you aware of the fact that Norma McCorvey, the original "Roe" in Roe v. Wade, is Pro-Life:
http://www.leaderu.com/common/roev.html
But beyond that, as has been explained in previous posts, abortion ought to be a state issue. If you care so little about the constitution that you're okay with Roe v. Wade then I'd be more than happy to see you go to Canada.
Every time I read an email from Rock The Vote, I am again highly amused by the assumption that all the "hip slick and cool" young adults in the nation are flaming liberals. I don't mind that John Roberts is nominated at all. My "personal freedom" does not feel threatened by it. Again, I am laughing at the scare tactics used by your website, as well as alot of liberals to frighten all of us into submission.
The following is from an organization called Eagle Forum, and it helped me see things in a different way......
I was sitting at my computer starting to write this week's column when I received a phone call asking me to listen to an important recorded message from our old friend Newt Gingrich. Expecting to get more information about his new alliance with Hillary Clinton to change health care as we know it, I stayed on the line.
But no, Newt was telling me about the danger from illegal aliens coming across our open borders. He talked about the threat this poses to our national security in an era of terrorism, the high costs to U.S. taxpayers, the follies of multiculturalism, and the urgent need for everyone in our country to be able to speak our English language.
The message was skillfully designed to appeal to Americans who are outraged at our government's failure to protect us from the invasion of illegals. But slyly buried in the middle of Newt's message was an endorsement of a "guest worker" plan to invite even more aliens to take U.S. jobs.
The politicians and business executives, who are determined to continue bringing in foreigners to work for lower wages than Americans expect, have gotten smart. The plan to import "willing workers" from other countries is now being packaged in the language of concern about border security.
This strategy is obvious in the new White House-backed coalition called Americans for Border and Economic Security, organized by Republican lobbyist (and former Republican National Committee Chairman) Ed Gillespie. Admission to this coalition costs $50,000 to $250,000, fees that will finance a political-style campaign to sell the American people on a guest-worker program wrapped in a few border-security measures.
This bait-and-switch maneuver is also the approach of the soon-to-be-introduced bill sponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and John Kyl (R-AZ). It's called the "Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act," and boy is it comprehensive; the advance summary runs a dozen pages of fine print.
The Cornyn-Kyl bill starts off with authorizing 10,000 more Border Patrol Agents. But more agents were congressionally authorized months ago and the Bush Administration refused to add them.
The Cornyn-Kyl bill increases criminal penalties for alien smuggling, document fraud, gang violence, and drug trafficking. But that only applies to criminals who are caught; our Border Patrol is catching less than half of the illegals coming over the border, and we inspect only a tiny percent of the Mexican trucks which NAFTA has forced us to allow on our highways.
What about the incredible costs to U.S. taxpayers of illegal aliens, such as health care at our hospitals, schooling for their children, subsidized housing, Earned Income Tax Credit subsidies, and in-state college tuition rates? The Cornyn-Kyl bill would deny taxpayer benefits only to aliens found to pose a threat to national security (not to those who threaten our pocketbooks).
The comprehensive Cornyn-Kyl bill contains dozens of excellent and necessary proposals that should have been ordered years ago, such as eliminating the Diversity Visa Program.
But buried in the middle of this vast bill is Title V, which creates a "Nonimmigrant Temporary Worker Category." That's the euphemism for giving amnesty to some ten million illegal aliens already in the United States, plus creating "guest worker" status for them and for millions more aliens who will be invited into our country to take U.S. jobs.
Amnesty means a general pardon for offenses against the government. The Cornyn-Kyl bill includes no punishment whatsoever for the crimes committed by illegal aliens, by makers and users of fraudulent documents, or by employers who hire the cheap labor.
The Cornyn-Kyl bill would establish a new visa category called "W" that would allow aliens to enter the United States "when there are no available U.S. workers." The bill would require employers to pay "W" aliens the minimum wage but not require the market wage.
In other words, Silicon Valley corporations could advertise in "America's Job Bank" for computer specialists at the U.S. minimum wage, no Americans would apply, and thousands of computer specialists from India and Pakistan would board planes to take the jobs for which, allegedly, "there are no available U.S. workers."
The "W" workers would be allowed to extend their time in the United States up to six years, during which period their family members may come and visit for 30 days at a time. The bill doesn't answer the question of what happens when the "W" worker is visited by his wife, and they have a baby who becomes an "anchor baby," i.e., a U.S. citizen, with all the rights and taxpayer benefits for the baby and all his relatives.
Amnesty, even under the label "guest worker," is highly offensive to the American people. It cannot be made palatable by hiding it in a bill that pretends to be about "enforcement" or "reform" of border security.
The Bush Admin is giving millions each year towards African Aid. People need to realize that much of this aid is never reaching the people. Throwing money at them will not solve their problems. African war lords keep these funds for themselves and watch their people suffer. The only way to help Africa is to introduce a stable form of government to them. This would insure their ability to become a productive and prosperous nation. We have been giving them billions is aid for decades now, and it does no good. The only thing we have done is supply evil war lords with more material objects. The Clinton Admin noticed this problem as well. Also as a side note - Live 8 concert monies go towards "promoting awareness" about Afircan poverty - promoting awareness does not give Africa peace and stability.
I don't understand why libs are so scared that they might lose their right to kill their unborn children. They only thing that could possibly happen is that the right to abortion may be limited from state to state. Which is the way it should have been from the start. Don't worry people - You'll still be able to kill your babies. This is what liberals are all about. The right to kill. Sad sad political party. Conservatives have many faults, but I am quite proud to say that standing behind the American Holocaust is not one of them.
"I don't understand why libs are so scared that they might lose their right to kill their unborn children." I couldn't agree more with that comment! I received an e-mail from "Rock The Vote" about the Sandra Day O'Conner resignation that had a very interesting paragraph on it...
"Although a strong voice for a restrained Supreme Court, O'Connor did not share the intense ideology of a Justice Scalia or Thomas and was a swing vote on a number of issues that you probably care a lot about: affirmative action, abortion, school prayer, the right to privacy and the death penalty. In short, her vote protected a lot of individual rights and liberties and endorsed a number of progressive policies. O'Connor's replacement, John Roberts, a major player in conservative legal circles, is not expected to be a swing vote on those same issues."
I love how "Rock The Vote" which is supposed to be a non partisan organization spins things. Is overturning a ban on partial birth abortion considered a "progressive policies" or "protecting an individuals right“? I don't think so. The people at “Rock The Vote” should take a look at the election results from last year. Not all young people are liberals… I am young conservative and there is a large army of us. How come last year during the election “Rock The Vote” on MTV showed an hour long profile on Senator Kerry but didn’t have a thing on President Bush? What happened to equal time??!? Last year I attended rallies for both President Bush and Senator Kerry and there were more young people at the President Bush rally. It’s just that young liberals are more loud and aggressive and are always trying to shove their opinions down the throat of others. That’s why they call us conservatives are the silent majority!!
Post a Comment
<< Home