The truth does not win; the truth is just what is left when everything else is wasted
Quote of the day
Email & RSSSign up to oD's editorial summaries email:
openDemocracy likes
NavigationOur writers |
 |
Sandra Day O' Connor retires!Posts: Joined: 2004-04-23
Well, as an American woman this aspect frightens me. Bush is President and I cant wait to see who he nominates. Kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye. Kiss our environment goodbye. Nice knowing you Alaskan preserve.
Renquist is extremely ill, it is just a matter of time before he retires. If we do not make sure there is an even mix on the bench, we will not have an even balance. All those laws that took years to pass, interpret through the court system, to actually get in front of The Supreme Court Justices to become the law of the land, suddenly left up to George Bush. Now that scares me. The man is an idiot. He looks at the now and not what will happen if ...
God help us all,
Joeanna
Submitted on Tue, 2005-07-05 14:29
Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
Joanne Nee,
I watched George W.Bush give an interview to the British Independent TV's Trevor McDonald, on the eve of the Gleneagles meeting of the G8 in Scotland.
The overriding impression that I got is that Bush is a man who is entirely out of his depth. He was at times lost for words, at others he mouthed off responses containing phrases he had obviously learnt to repeat when he thinks he is on the same wavelength of the questioner but which are superficial in scope.
I cannot remember any US President who is so clearly limited intellectually.
Returning to your point,I believe that Bush is merely a pawn for the smart and cynical operators around him and that you are right to be worried about THEIR appintment/s to the Supreme Court. They will use them in their now obvious attempt to turn the US into what is effectively a one party State, with the help of the dominant right wing media and the war against terror.
Submitted on Tue, 2005-07-05 15:02
reply Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
I am utterly shocked that there no other Americans concerned about the make up of the highest court in the land!!! That Brolly, who isnt even American has more concern. Wow, thats appaulling! (not you brolly, the situation!)
With disgust,
Joeanna
Submitted on Thu, 2005-07-07 15:19
reply Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
Joanna:
I am surprised that you think Americans are not interested in the Supreme Court vacancy. There has been extremely intense lobbying on the issue.
I would like to share a different point of view with you on Roe v. Wade and the rest of this. I was once a supporter of that decision and the whole liberal approach to Supreme Court decisions.
I have changed my mind. To me, the most fundamental issue is this: who gets to decide? When the Supreme Court rules, that means that the people get no say on a question. Why should the rules on abortion, or gay marriage, not be decided by vote of the people?
I think that the American Left has made a huge mistake seeking to put through so much of its agenda by judicial fiat. The Court should be a neutral enforcer of existing rules. It should not change the fundamental rules.
Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. Roe v. Wade is very badly reasoned law. It comes close to saying that anything which five Supreme Court justices say is immoral is therefore unconstitutional. This is profoundly anti-democratic.
Submitted on Fri, 2005-07-08 01:10
reply Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
Dear Rick,
Im going to put this as bluntly as I know how:
1.I have found you to be pompous and elitist in your thinking, therefore, I have stopped responding to most of your post.
2. Our government, as set by the founding fathers (which if you are a lawyer you should know this) set forth a system of three branches, Executive, legislative and Judicial. As a means of checks and balances. It is the legislation that votes a law in, and the supreme court has the final say on the interpretation of that law. A system which I believe is appropriate. I believe that a woman has the right do decide what she wants to do with HER body. And it was President Bush and congress who ratified DOMA in 1996, in order to prevent states that agreed to gay marriages that other states did not have to recognize such. Arent you a lawyer? Im just a paralegal and I knew that.
Now in government states are autonomous, unless it breaches constitutional issues in which case the feds may step in. At which point that state may make an arguement through the court system. Ergo, Loving v. Virginia, which in1967 struck down virginia's anti-miscegenation law. So, no, I disagree with you on that issue. I could list alot of other laws put in place by the supreme court but that would just be overkill.
My whole point was that Sandra Day O'Connor was the swing vote, she was a moderate. It kept things even. I believe in the checks and balances, and if you believe that we should not be cautious in who gets nominated then you clearly arent as intelligent as I gave you credit for. Im not saying that as an insult Rick, I do find you extremely bright, but sometimes rather obtuse. Especially when it comes to the human condition.
Roe v. Wade is about an inalienable right against cruel treatment, that we are all made equal. So, in lieu of your arguement, then a man has the right to make a woman either have/or not have a baby? Where is the womans right to choose? Is it the mans body that changes, NO. Is it the man who has to give birth, NO. So, I wouldnt even go there Rick. I believe that a woman has a right to do what she wishes with her body, and the legal defenition of a human being is 26 weeks of gestation, so your crap out of luck there. Now, I myself would never have an abortion, but I dont believe that a woman should not have the right to choose what happens to her body.
I could go on about what the Supreme court does, but I think that would be redundent.
As for calling President Bush an idiot, Ive got every right too. Just the same as the people who called Clinton and his wife names. I have A CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to speak my mind. Would I jump in front of a bullet for him, yes, yes I would. He is my President, allbeit not the brightest bulb of the bunch, and I thought even less of Kerry, but I voted for him. So, I suggest before you label me Rick, you should ask first. I am and always have been an independent. I vote for whoever I think will do the best job. So you can be as trite as you want, it does not bother me. If it quacks like a duck, and waddles like a duck, its a duck. No getting aroung that one.
I do hope you had a lovely vacation, welcome back.
Sincerely,
Joeanna
Submitted on Fri, 2005-07-08 14:31
reply Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
Joeanna:
Of course you have the right to call Bush any name that you wish. However, I suggest that it is not a good idea to insult one's opponents. I think it creates an environment not very conducive to productive discussion. I suggest that discusion goes better, if conducted in a tone of mutual respect and focus upon substance.
With regard to Roe v. Wade,I was not attacking abortion, gay rights or any other substantive postion. Rather, my point was addressed to the issue of which branch of government should decide these issues. I think that the judiciary -- which is unelected -- should confine itself to neutral interpretation of the Constitution and the existing laws.
You can certainly make a good argument for a right to abortion. You can also make a good argument for a right to a job or a home. None of these rights,however, are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. Take a look at the actual language of Roe v. Wade. It nowhere relies upon any particular part of the Constitution. Instead, it extends a previous, judicially created right -- the right to privacy -- which is itself based upon the "penumbras" of the actual Bill of Rights.
Were Roe to be overruled, the effect would not to outlaw abortion. Rather, the effect would be to send this issue back to the State legislatures for decision. Most polls show abortion having majority support. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that abortion would continue to be legal in most American states. (There are obviously some states that would be likely to outlaw or severely restrict it.)
There is an outside chance that the Court would not only overrule Roe but would also outlaw abortion. The way that could happen would be to define a fetus as a human being. Were such a definition adopted, then the 14th Amendment protections would be triggered for the unborn. Honestly, I do not know -- and no one knows-- what the chance is that the Court might do this.
Submitted on Fri, 2005-07-08 15:49
reply Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
Dear Rick,
You should know then that the President nominates, and the congress scrutinizes in a public forum and either oks it or says nope, try again. Now, dont you think their constituents are watching? I know I will.
The word Idiot is to imply his level of intelligence, not an insult, an obvious observation. Im sorry if it bothers your Republican feelings, would ignorant be better? I dont remember you being so kind to Clinton. Remember, Im an Independent and I find that a representative of my country comes across as "not the brightest bulb" then I have issue with it, and that in and of itself can cause lack of focus on real issues, since he is the one making the mess in the first place.
The legisislation make the laws, with help of high paid lobbyist, and it is up to the Supreme court, if a case is to get that far, to interpret that law. The bill of rights are as crucial as the constitution, they were designed in tandem, so lets not try to nitpick, Im really not as obtuse as you take me for.
If you truly believe that Roe v. Wade would not affect Womens RIGHTS if overturned then you have some serious issues. It was the cornerstone on which was built many rights women have fought long and hard to have. You really dont want to take a trip down memory lane with me about the history of womens rights over the last century, do you?
The overturning of Roe v. Wade has a larger implication than just abortion. It is the right that a woman has over her own body. Dont skirt me, rick. I know one to many lawyers that play that game. I dont. If I dont understand something, or I misunderstand something, Ill let you know, or Ill check it out. If Im wrong, I was raised to apologize, if Im right, I was raised to fight.
I really not trying to dislike you Rick, but reading your post, Im having a hard time getting past how arrogant you come across. You seem to frame arguements so that the person you are debating cant make valid points, if they do, you ignore it, skirt around it or say theyre cracking up. I find this distasteful. I expected more from you for some reason.
Submitted on Sat, 2005-07-09 13:25
reply Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
Joeanna:
Since you support abortion rights, it is certainly logical of you to lobby for appointment of new justice who will support Roe. As we both know, Bush is not likely to give you what you want, so you are correct to gear up in anticipation. We are likely to have a huge fight over this issue.
My point does not seem to interest you. I would simply like to see the judiciary get out of the business of setting social policy. I would like to see issues as abortion,and gay rights, handled by the legislature.
Submitted on Mon, 2005-07-11 21:34
reply Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
Dear Rick,
Ok, apparently Im not understanding your point, because I stated that the judiciary branch interprets the law that was put forth by the legislative branch, which are the folks that we voted for. The Supreme court can only deal with what legal issue is put before it.
Social policy, or at least the tone, is set by the President and what his platform is that he is running on. Then one has to contend with the "special interest groups" , the lobbyist and "contributors to the party" have on their agenda. Bills may be put forth to the Senate, by petition, but then it has to survive that vote and then passed on to Congress, and has to survive that vote, leaving the President the ultimate right to Veto. So, it really isnt The Supreme Court that SETS social policy. Like I said DOMA was put in place by Bush and it did cause quite a stir, he basically broke precedent with DOMA.
However, on the more local areas of government there has been alot of movement to pass laws on gay rights. Massachuesetts passed a law that it was legal for Gays to marry. I havent checked lately to see if the uproar has overturned the states decision or not, but it will be interesting to see.
If I have still failed to understand your point, please let me know. I am trying to understand, and if it makes you feel any better, I thought Kerry was a moron. Voting was not fun for me.
Joeanna
Submitted on Tue, 2005-07-12 00:54
reply Re: Sandra Day O' Connor retires!
One other thing. Joanna, Brolly, get off of this nonsense about Bush being an idiot. That is very disrespectful. Bush is President. He represents the United States. Have some respect.
If you disagree, say so. It is a free country. But this constant personal abuse is childish. If there is one thing that is more irritating about the Left than anything else, it is this constant refrain of theirs that anyone who disagrees with them is an illiterate buffoon.
Why do you have all wisdom? What gives you the right to mock a leader elected by tens of millions of free citizens of a great country? Again, when you disagree, say so. But leave off the personal abuse;you just make yourself look arrogant and disdainful.
Submitted on Fri, 2005-07-08 01:15
reply Post new comment |
|
|
