Why do people vote for candidates based on their views on abortion?

KingRaw! said:
6 of the 9 supreme court justices today were appointed by Regan and the Bushes. And yet Roe V Wade hasn't been overturned yet.
Click to expand...

What is your arguement that it will never be overturned? All it would take is a swing of one vote. That could happen with the next appointment.
 
KingRaw! said:
He's the only one who would actually do it if he said he would. He's viewed by people as a crazy person. In other words, he actually does what he promises.
Click to expand...

But where has he said he would and how would he? He has proposed ending the federal judges ability to stop state laws on abortion, but that would still require congress.

I think Paul is less likely to promote judges on this issue than probably any Repub candidate. Any other will be beholden to the RR on judges. Abortion will be THE issue. With Paul, he objects to the Supremes on a lot more than abortion. 9th and 10th amendments will be key.
 
cawacko said:
What is your arguement that it will never be overturned? All it would take is a swing of one vote. That could happen with the next appointment.
Click to expand...

Republican politicians make too much money for their campaigns, by direct mail targeting of right wing christians whose number one issue is abortion.

You take abortion out of the equation, and you get a bunch of economically depressed christians looking at other issues.

The Republican party does not want a bunch of ecnomically depressed christians looking at other issues.
 
It would only take one more vote to overturn it and yet 6 of the 9 in office now were appointed by conservative presidents.
 
KingRaw! said:
"Seven of the current justices of the court were appointed by Republican presidents, while two were nominated by a Democratic president. It is popularly accepted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito compose the Court's conservative wing. Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer are generally thought of as the Court's liberal wing. Justice Kennedy, generally thought of as a moderate conservative, is considered most likely to be the swing vote that determines the outcome of certain close cases." -Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Cool. So you can copy Wikipedia. Now tell me why you thought the VP was a tie-breaker on the 9 person SCOTUS.
 
"Cool. So you can copy Wikipedia. Now tell me why you thought the VP was a tie-breaker on the 9 person SCOTUS."


Because I thought I overheard it on the daily show or Cnn. I didn't claim it was a fact. I wasn't sure. And that stuff I copied from Wikipedia proves my point. 6 of the 9 guys in office right now were appointed by conservative presidents. If the republican party was serious about overturning Roe V Wade then the time is now. But that hasn't happened yet........
 
KingRaw! said:
"Cool. So you can copy Wikipedia. Now tell me why you thought the VP was a tie-breaker on the 9 person SCOTUS."


Because I thought I overheard it on the daily show or Cnn. I didn't claim it was a fact. I wasn't sure. And that stuff I copied from Wikipedia proves my point. 6 of the 9 guys in office right now were appointed by conservative presidents. If the republican party was serious about overturning Roe V Wade then the time is now. But that hasn't happened yet........
Click to expand...

Wouldn't simple mathmatic skills tell you that there would not be a tie with nine people voting?
 
Last edited:
KingRaw! said:
"Cool. So you can copy Wikipedia. Now tell me why you thought the VP was a tie-breaker on the 9 person SCOTUS."


Because I thought I overheard it on the daily show or Cnn. I didn't claim it was a fact. I wasn't sure. And that stuff I copied from Wikipedia proves my point. 6 of the 9 guys in office right now were appointed by conservative presidents. If the republican party was serious about overturning Roe V Wade then the time is now. But that hasn't happened yet........
Click to expand...

Becauase it hasn't been overturned yet doesn't mean it won't be overturned in the future.
 
"Wouldn't simple mathmatic skills tell you that there will not be a tie with nine people voting?"


Ok I wasn't even sure how many people were in it until I looked so get off your high horse.
 
Socrtease said:
Yeah then we could be like Communist Romania which forced women to stay pregnant. Maybe we could do like they did and force women to the OB/GYN regularly and have them have a state supervised gynocological exam to make sure they haven't aborted or if they are pregnant they STAY pregnant.
Click to expand...

So, were we Communist during the Red Scare?!? Oh, and China forces millions of abortions on its subjects...
 
"Becauase it hasn't been overturned yet doesn't mean it won't be overturned in the future."


They have the votes now......or do they? 6 of the 9 ones right now were appointed by conservative presidents. But as my Wikipedia quote says, there are 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and 1 moderate conservative. Now why would there be a tie when 6 of the 9 guys in office were appointed by presidents who campaigned on being pro-life and wanted roe v wade to be overturned?
 
KingRaw! said:
"Becauase it hasn't been overturned yet doesn't mean it won't be overturned in the future."


They have the votes now......or do they? 6 of the 9 ones right now were appointed by conservative presidents. But as my Wikipedia quote says, there are 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and 1 moderate conservative. Now why would there be a tie when 6 of the 9 guys in office were appointed by presidents who campaigned on being pro-life and wanted roe v wade to be overturned?
Click to expand...

There cannot be a tie with nine members on the court. Votes are either 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3 or 5-4. You cannot tie.
 
KingRaw! said:
"Becauase it hasn't been overturned yet doesn't mean it won't be overturned in the future."


They have the votes now......or do they? 6 of the 9 ones right now were appointed by conservative presidents. But as my Wikipedia quote says, there are 4 conservatives, 4 liberals and 1 moderate conservative. Now why would there be a tie when 6 of the 9 guys in office were appointed by presidents who campaigned on being pro-life and wanted roe v wade to be overturned?
Click to expand...

When you nominatee someone you have no control over how they may vote on issues in the future. See: David Souter.
 
My point is unless it's someone like pat robertson, Roe V Wade will never be overturned. The conservatives that campiagn on being pro-life are just trying to get the evangelical vote. They might be pro-life but they don't care enough to really change things.
 
"There cannot be a tie with nine members on the court. Votes are either 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3 or 5-4. You cannot tie."


So you're saying that conservatives have the majority. But Roe V Wade hasn't been overturned yet. Strange....



"When you nominatee someone you have no control over how they may vote on issues in the future. See: David Souter."


The president should have good judgement and should know how his nominee will vote. Otherwise, he's putting his promises on the line.
 
There's always going to be an excuse for not overturning Roe V Wade unless it's President Falwell. These guys are just trying to win the election. It's stupid to vote for someone based on his or her views on abortion. Nothing will change the laws so you should vote for someone based on national security and healthcare.
 
KingRaw! said:
"There cannot be a tie with nine members on the court. Votes are either 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3 or 5-4. You cannot tie."


So you're saying that conservatives have the majority. But Roe V Wade hasn't been overturned yet. Strange....



"When you nominatee someone you have no control over how they may vote on issues in the future. See: David Souter."


The president should have good judgement and should know how his nominee will vote. Otherwise, he's putting his promises on the line.
Click to expand...

I'm saying there cannot be a tie with nine people on the Court. You still don't seem to get that.

You know how a potential nominee has voted in the past and have an idea of their philosphy but its still not a guarantee.
 
KingRaw! said:
There's always going to be an excuse for not overturning Roe V Wade unless it's President Falwell. These guys are just trying to win the election. It's stupid to vote for someone based on his or her views on abortion. Nothing will change the laws so you should vote for someone based on national security and healthcare.
Click to expand...

I would imagine there are large numbers of feminist groups who would strongly disagree with you that roe v. wade is not threatened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top