quote:

It's a catch 22, Jack: if you say Republicans cannot make such claims as using anti-aboriton litmus test to select SC justice nominees, then why does it matter whom you vote for on a presidential level in regards to SC justice appointees? And, if you say that Republicans can make such claims as using anti-aboriton litmus test to select SC justice nominees, then you are going to have to ask this of McCain - and if he can't deliver, then why vote for him in regards to picking SC justice nominees?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

It's a catch 22, Jack: if you say Republicans cannot make such claims as using anti-aboriton litmus test to select SC justice nominees, then why does it matter whom you vote for on a presidential level in regards to SC justice appointees? And, if you say that Republicans can make such claims as using anti-aboriton litmus test to select SC justice nominees, then you are going to have to ask this of McCain - and if he can't deliver, then why vote for him in regards to picking SC justice nominees?

Well, what your analysis ignores (other than the fact you are now backtracking on your claims about Reagan) is two-fold; first that all of the SC justices who wanted to overturn Roe were appointed by Republicans, and secondly none of the SC appointed by Democrats chose to do so.

So of the two choices I actually have, I choose the better of the two in this regard.

quote:

SC justice Kennedy (lauded as a 'conservative judge' and expected to vote to overturn RVW, and did NOT) and OConnor were appointed by Ronald Reagan and Souter was appointed Bush Sr. ALL of the aforementioned voted to NOT overturn RVW in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (in case you need the link again: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/04/scotus.blackmun.papers/). Not quite following you here...

quote:

BTW, you did not answer my questions.

quote:

SC justice Kennedy (lauded as a 'conservative judge' and expected to vote to overturn RVW, and did NOT) and OConnor were appointed by Ronald Reagan and Souter was appointed Bush Sr. ALL of the aforementioned voted to NOT overturn RVW in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey (in case you need the link again: http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/03/04/scotus.blackmun.papers/). Not quite following you here...

quote:

Which doesn't at all contradict my reasoning.

Indeed, that is part of the reason a litmus test doesn't work; judges can't be forced to do anything once they are appointed, and the best one can do is appoint those whose judicial philosophy, as evidenced by past decisions and expressed opinions best indicates how they would rule on these issues.

Indeed, we would have had a much better court if Democrats hadn't assasinated Bork.

quote:

BTW, you did not answer my questions.

quote:

What, why not support Ron Paul?

You know Liz, I generally respect your posts whether I agree with them or not, but I feel you are simply being disingenuous here; if you are looking for an excuse to vote Democrat, don't pretend it's because Republicans have failed to fulfill your expectations on abortion.

quote:

Well, that did not work with SCJ Kennedy, now did it? Which begs the question, why does it matter at a presidential level, whom you vote for, re: sanctity of life; if there are no litmus tests used, and judges thought to be conservative, do not overturn RVW when they have the deciding vote to do so?

quote:

It's a simple question, Jack. Some people here (I would include you) speak as though the ONLY issue that matters is sanctity of life. If that is true, then why not vote for Ron Paul - he is the creme de la creme on the issue of sanctity of life - he scores an 80% from nrlc.org AND is sponsoring HR 2597; much better on pro-life than McCain.

quote:

Well, that did not work with SCJ Kennedy, now did it? Which begs the question, why does it matter at a presidential level, whom you vote for, re: sanctity of life; if there are no litmus tests used, and judges thought to be conservative, do not overturn RVW when they have the deciding vote to do so?

quote:

You claimed Reagan was the standard; now you are claiming he isn't. You need to get your story straight here Liz.

quote:

It's a simple question, Jack. Some people here (I would include you) speak as though the ONLY issue that matters is sanctity of life. If that is true, then why not vote for Ron Paul - he is the creme de la creme on the issue of sanctity of life - he scores an 80% from nrlc.org AND is sponsoring HR 2597; much better on pro-life than McCain.

quote:

I have always held generally the same position (well since I stopped being a Marxist); I will vote for the rightward most viable candidate. There are concievably a few candidates so lacking in any worthwhile values that I couldn't vote for them, but I don't feel that way about McCain, and I am not going to let the perfect subvert the good - and I am certainly not going to vote for a Democrat since there is nothing at all there to attract me to such a candidate.

quote:

And I'm asking you then - should Republican presidents use an anti-abortion litmus test when picking SCJ nominees? A straight yes or no answer please (my next question depends on your yes or no answer).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And I'm asking you then - should Republican presidents use an anti-abortion litmus test when picking SCJ nominees? A straight yes or no answer please (my next question depends on your yes or no answer).

I think I have answered this a few different times. I think that a President should appoint Constitutional Originalists.

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

...Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

...Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

Nobody ever said that. You made it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

...Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

Nobody ever said that. You made it up.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

...Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

Nobody ever said that. You made it up.

Ha! LOL! So, saying things like, "Just remember this, Democrats are the party of death." - is not generalizing that all democrats are the party of death...hmmmm....not! But, good sense of humor there, ljmac!

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: tracydolls

we are a culture that says "they have too many children" stop their welfare and then on the other hand " say do not abort you babies, you are a murderer"

WE also say always vote Repub becasue they will appoint SC Judges that will overturn Roe vs. Wade., even though that has been proven a lie.

sign............... I personally wish they would stop abortions to stop murdering unborns, and so the Repubs would have another issue to fool people.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

...Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

Nobody ever said that. You made it up.

Ha! LOL! So, saying things like, "Just remember this, Democrats are the party of death." - is not generalizing that all democrats are the party of death...hmmmm....not! But, good sense of humor there, ljmac!

Peace and God bless,

I don't find the Democrats funny at all when it comes to their attacks on innocent human beings. They are the party of death and I find their actions repulsive. These are the people who repeatedly repelled attempts to protect babies from having their brains sucked out.

I've never said that "all" Democrats are pro-abortion. You made that up. In fact, I've pointed our precisely that there are a few renegade pro-life Democrats.

quote:



The pro-life judges on the supreme court were all appointed by Republicans, none by Democrats.

quote:

Neither of those things are said by our culture. We have an endless number of social programs for poor children. And if there is anything that is considered out of bounds in the abortion debate, it is calling mothers of aborted children murderers.

The pro-life judges on the supreme court were all appointed by Republicans, none by Democrats.

quote:

Ok. Well then, what does it matter, then, if neither Republican nor Democrat presidential candidate use litmus tests for SCJ appointees on the matter of sanctity of life, then?

And I'm not trying to be a pain; nor trying to say I'm voting Democrat. I am trying to take an honest look an important criteria, that being pro-life, and if McCain would get my vote based soley on this issue, because he is supposedly the stronger candidate on this issue. McCain could still get my vote: he is more pro-life than the others, he has a fairly good record on the environment, he wants to change the healthcare system (and I believe him), but his comments on the Iraq war scare the heck out of me.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

And, Republican presidents have nominated the majority of SCJ in the last 3 decades, and these justices (some highly lauded by conservatives; and one even given the golden key to overturn RVW in 1992 <and was expected to> and did not) have NOT overturned RVW. Trying to return jurisdiction to the states on the matter of sanctity of life thru the courts (via judicial nominees) plainly is not working, and on top of this, litmus tests are not used.

Given the aforementioned, one would conclude that most here would support Ron Paul - since he, by far, is the most pro-life of all the candidates, with an 80% approval rating and his HR 2597 bill is trying to return jurisdiction on the matter of sanctity of life to the states via Congress (something that could have been at least tried by the Republicans from 2000-2006 when they controlled the legislative and executive branch but was not). But that is not the case - many here still support McCain - so I think that being a pro-life candidate must NOT be the only deciding factor on whom one votes for.

Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Ok. Well then, what does it matter, then, if neither Republican nor Democrat presidential candidate use litmus tests for SCJ appointees on the matter of sanctity of life, then?

And I'm not trying to be a pain; nor trying to say I'm voting Democrat. I am trying to take an honest look an important criteria, that being pro-life, and if McCain would get my vote based soley on this issue, because he is supposedly the stronger candidate on this issue. McCain could still get my vote: he is more pro-life than the others, he has a fairly good record on the environment, he wants to change the healthcare system (and I believe him), but his comments on the Iraq war scare the heck out of me.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

And, Republican presidents have nominated the majority of SCJ in the last 3 decades, and these justices (some highly lauded by conservatives; and one even given the golden key to overturn RVW in 1992 <and was expected to> and did not) have NOT overturned RVW. Trying to return jurisdiction to the states on the matter of sanctity of life thru the courts (via judicial nominees) plainly is not working, and on top of this, litmus tests are not used.

Given the aforementioned, one would conclude that most here would support Ron Paul - since he, by far, is the most pro-life of all the candidates, with an 80% approval rating and his HR 2597 bill is trying to return jurisdiction on the matter of sanctity of life to the states via Congress (something that could have been at least tried by the Republicans from 2000-2006 when they controlled the legislative and executive branch but was not). But that is not the case - many here still support McCain - so I think that being a pro-life candidate must NOT be the only deciding factor on whom one votes for.

Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

I am not sure what isn’t coming through here; as I said the criteria by which I operate politically is that I vote for the rightward most viable candidate. I only have exceptions to that rule when someone makes it clear that are a pro-choice candidate or they want to impose gay marriage on the state through either Federal or State imposition. McCain is currently the rightward most viable candidate, Ron Paul is not.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tracydolls

quote:

Neither of those things are said by our culture. We have an endless number of social programs for poor children. And if there is anything that is considered out of bounds in the abortion debate, it is calling mothers of aborted children murderers.

The pro-life judges on the supreme court were all appointed by Republicans, none by Democrats.

Oh please ljmac, I could proably go thru your prevoius post and find where you said it. And every program out there is debated ad nauseum, welfare cut, the only thing I wish get out of the debate isssue is nutjobs, and put Christians in there to talk it over with supporters of it.


well anyone knows the SC Judges are appointed by Republicans.

quote:

Well, Jack, you said that litmus should not be used for SCJ nominees. So, I then asked why it matters on a presidential level, whom you vote for. I understand that 'viability' for a Republican candidate overrules more pro-life candidates for you when you vote. However, I don't think the aforementioned answers why, if you think litmus tests should not be used for SCJ nominees (at all on any issue), why then, does it matter whom you vote for at the presidential level on the matter of sanctity of life. If you could be so kind as to elaborate on this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lizahana

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Well, I asked as a yes or no question. So, you are saying "no" here? I'm not trying to be a pain - I just want to understand if you think Republican presidents should use an anti-abortion litmus test for SC nominees and I asked for a yes or no answer.

No, I don't think a single issue litmus test is good for appointing SC justices because it demonstrably doesn't work. I think overall judicial philosophy is proabably a better indicator of how a judge will rule.

And, I guess I'm a little surprised in general about people's conclusions on these forums. One cannot say that all Democrats are pro-choice, because they are not; and one cannot say that all Republicans are pro-life because they are not.

...Just my two cents. Peace and God bless,

Nobody ever said that. You made it up.

Ha! LOL! So, saying things like, "Just remember this, Democrats are the party of death." - is not generalizing that all democrats are the party of death...hmmmm....not! But, good sense of humor there, ljmac!

Peace and God bless,

I don't find the Democrats funny at all when it comes to their attacks on innocent human beings. They are the party of death and I find their actions repulsive. These are the people who repeatedly repelled attempts to protect babies from having their brains sucked out.

I've never said that "all" Democrats are pro-abortion. You made that up. In fact, I've pointed our precisely that there are a few renegade pro-life Democrats.

ljmac,

I never said the Democrats are funny, ljmac - I was saying you were funny to say you never said all Democrats are pro-abortion when you say things like, "Democrats are the party of death."

You have called the Democrats the party of death. The only time you acknowledge there were pro-life democrats is when I called you on it, and you quickly then dismiss them. Here is one of your posts from the '50 million dead and thirsty for more" thread, post #99:

"Democrats for Life - The party that falsely champions itself as protectors of the weak has a few pro-life leaning legislators, very few. They're people you've never heard of and won't as long as they remain in the party of death. "

These types of comments are transparent and false and only serve to make people not want to read your posts. And if you continue to deny that you have never generalized Democrats as the
'party of death', I will continue to post quotes that you have made.

Peace and God bless,

quote:

ORIGINAL: ljmac


You don't understand the meaning of generalization. If one says that the NBA is a league of tall men, that is absolutely true even though 5'5" Earl Boykins plays for Charlotte. If one says that Democrats are pro-abortion, that is true even though there are a few renegade pro-lifers hiding in the closet.