posted on September 26, 2005 12:01:24 PM
So remind me please how the new 'polls' showing President Bush's approval ratings dropping are going to change some of the important issues of our day? LOL
-------------
from the AP today...
Sep 26, 12:56 PM EDT
Supreme Court May Hear Abortion Case
WASHINGTON (AP) --
The Bush administration has asked the Supreme Court to reinstate a ban on a procedure that critics call "partial birth" abortions, setting up a showdown that could be decided by the president's new choice for the court.
The appeal, which had been expected, follows a two-year, cross-country legal fight over the federal law.
An appeals court in St. Louis said this summer that the ban on late term abortion is unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the health of the woman.
The Supreme Court has already scheduled arguments in November in another abortion case, involving New Hampshire's parental notification statute. That case also asks whether the state law is unconstitutional because it lacks an exception allowing a minor to have an abortion to protect her health in the event of a medical emergency.
The court should review both cases, Solicitor General Paul Clement said in the appeal, which was filed Friday and released on Monday.
"This case involves the constitutionality of a significant act of Congress that has been invalidated and permanently enjoined by the lower courts," wrote Clement, the government's top Supreme Court lawyer.
The earliest that justices could take up the federal law, known as the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act, is likely next spring. By then, the court could have two new members.
posted on September 26, 2005 12:16:31 PM
Linda - what does one thing have to do with the other? The assertion is that with his dwindling poll numbers, Bush does not have the political power to push some of his pet projects thru the house and senate.
Your article deals with the Supreme Court and conidering that those are lifetime appointments political pull has no influence. Of course if you believe that the intention is to use political pull to influence the decision of the court on constitutional law... I believe that's called judicial activism and once again, I thought that was something you were against.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 26, 2005 12:20:37 PM
fenix - Did you ever find those FIVE posts where I used WND as my links in one week?
---------
And imo, it has everything to do with getting the agenda of the right/conservatives passed. It's because the popularity polls don't change a lot of his power....ability to get things done/changed.
It's a good thing.....
and shows that popularity doesn't mean squat.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 26, 2005 12:26:30 PM
No linda- didn't look - had better things to do.
::And imo, it has everything to do with getting the agenda of the right/conservatives passed.::
Wow - and here I thought that the constitution was supposed to be non partisan.
BTW - If you don't think polls mean anything to politicians you are blind and stupid. Bush may not give a damn about them but then he doesn't have to worry about reelection the members of Congress and the Senate do. Do you REALLY believe that someone up for reelection a year from now isn't paying attention to polls results?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 26, 2005 12:32:53 PM
Oh....I see. You made a FALSE statement you can't support. I KNEW that...just wanted everyone else to know.
And what I see with Judges like Robert's being appointed is they are going to REMOVE the judicial activitism that has been going on in our courts. Not that they are the activists. lol They arent'....it's the dems who have used them, since they can't win an election, as their means/way of pushing their liberal agenda.
We'll never see that eye to eye.
And on the upcoming elections.....I'm not really worried about them at this point. A lot of the left-leaning media discusses it all the time....but a year is a LONG time in the political arena. Things change weekly sometimes.....and I feel confident that will occur.
And no, when I didn't like clinton as a President, I sure didn't vote out any democratic governor, rep, senator, etc....JUST because of my dislike of clinton. I think I'm more mature than that. Voting as punishment to anyone other than the person you dislike, themselves, is very immature, imo. I don't think many serious voters are going to vote out those who they currently support on their local level....to 'get even' with this President. lol Nope....not worried one bit.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 26, 2005 01:36:35 PM
:h....I see. You made a FALSE statement you can't support.::
No Linda - I made a retorical statement that you decided to take literally and then beat like a dead horse. I believe that this is one of those thing that you call others on doing to you but if you have won some pathetic sense of moral victory in this ... bask in it. If this is what makes your day, I'd hate to rob you of it.
I have to find it incredibly interesting that someone so tied to strict constiutionalism and federalism does not believe that the constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Can you explain that to me or is it just that you think people are guaranteed a right to privacy unless they are going to do something that you disagree with.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 26, 2005 02:26:56 PM
fenix - I fully, 100%, support strict constrictionists. The stricter, the better. To me judges like Robert's and Brown are just that. As much as we could ever hope for.
And this President pushing his agenda doesn't mean what the liberals here have implied in past discussions on this issue.
It means we have hope to stop the judicial activism that continues to come from the liberal side of the aisle...that applies to many current, and being decided in our courts currently.... issues like......abortion, the pledge, creation vs evolution in our schools.
None of those were ever written into our Constitution....NOR were they written about in any amendments...to date. It's all up for grabs...mainly in the area of how the judges hand down their decisions.
And a judge who goes ONLY by law....is going to interpret issues differently than liberal ones who think they can MAKE laws to fit their agendas and law that is NOT based on precident or previously established laws.
But my point of this thread is to say to all those liberals here, who keep repeating over and over that this President doesn't have much power since his 'poll' numbers are down. LOL I'm saying he has a HUGE amount of power to change the direction this Nation is taking just by appointing two conservative judges.....hopefully BOTH just like Robert's. Extremely intelligent...and who goes by established laws. And let's our legislators MAKE laws. That's the way it's supposed to be....not the way it's been going.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 26, 2005 02:32:58 PMI made a retorical statement that you decided to take literally and then beat like a dead horse.
Oh....so when one becomes embarassed because they make an untrue statement.....NOW asking for that person to back up their incorrect statement is beating a dead horse. I see how it's supposed to work for those on the left.
If you don't want to be challenged....if you don't want to admit you said an untruth....that's okay. I understand you normally don't go around making false statements about others....but you did that time - and don't have the courage to admit it. I would be embarassed for making a false statement too....so I understand...completely.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 26, 2005 02:53:03 PM
:: Oh....so when one becomes embarassed because they make an untrue statement::
Um - there you go showing off that leaping ability again. I'm not embarassed Linda... it's a message board.
I didn't look, have no desire to look, could not care less, it was a retorical statement that was part of a bigger point. You chose to lock on to the minutia. I realize, looking back at how many times you returned to that thread that it was very important to you and I am sorry that I do not share that passion for the topic but honestly... I just don't care.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Sep 26, 2005 02:53 PM ]
posted on September 26, 2005 03:03:53 PM
Fenix,
I'm not sure your using the right word:
rhe·tor·i·cal (r-tôr-kl, -tr-)
adj.
Of or relating to rhetoric.
Characterized by overelaborate or bombastic rhetoric.
Used for persuasive effect: a speech punctuated by rhetorical pauses.
adj 1: of or relating to rhetoric; "accepted two or three verbal and rhetorical changes I suggested"- W.A.White; "the rhetorical sin of the meaningless variation"- Lewis Mumford 2: concerned with effect or style of writing and speaking; "a rhetorical question is one asked solely to produce an effect (especially to make an assertion) rather than to elicit a reply" [ant: unrhetorical]
posted on September 26, 2005 03:37:23 PM
I know what it means Colin. I was marveling at Lindas questioning of someone that used a liberal website and was pointing out the hypocracy of her mockery of it since she so often uses conservative sites.. such as WND
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 26, 2005 03:42:03 PM
Colin - I had almost posted that same link...asking her the same question. lol
------
Oh fenix - I'm over it. Just pointing out how you made the exaggerated statement as a point of FACT....when it wasn't true at all, but then wouldn't come back and address my FIRST responsive post to you. You just chose to ignore it...run away...rather than just deal with it them. Then there'd wouldn't have been any 'dead horse' to beat. You chose not to take that route...not I.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 26, 2005 04:01:03 PM
No Linda - I did not "run away" - I was tying up loose ends here in preperation for leaving for a week which got postponed because of Rita. Come on. Do you really think I take this place THAT seriously?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 26, 2005 05:55:45 PM
LOL dbl - I know....but we all know that being called a old lady can be taken so many different ways. ;-D [not]
"Try to remember what that great profit of peace once said: "Can't we all get along?"
As long as Linda persists in her tedious and mean spirited personal attacks on those with differing opinions, the answer to that question is no. It's like trying to "get along" while a mad dog runs about in the middle of the room foaming at the mouth.
Fenix made the only reasonable response to this topic when she said, "Linda - what does one thing have to do with the other? The assertion is that with his dwindling poll numbers, Bush does not have the political power to push some of his pet projects thru the house and senate."
"Your article deals with the Supreme Court and considering that those are lifetime appointments political pull has no influence. Of course if you believe that the intention is to use political pull to influence the decision of the court on constitutional law... I believe that's called judicial activism and once again, I thought that was something you were against."
Linda immediately changed the topic to "Fenix" and as you can clearly see, the topic discussion ends and the posters and readers go elsewhere.
posted on September 27, 2005 06:56:06 AM
Linda, don't you think that the left will then call the judges "activists"?
I am for allowing abortion and keeping unwanted children out of this world. But I do think Ohio did the right thing in making sure the parents are notified if the person is under 18.
It is amusing though that those who screamed about "genocide" still support abortion.
Oh wait here comes the lame "They are not the same" argument LOL
What is that saying about rose colored glasses?
Ron
[ edited by WashingtoneBayer on Sep 27, 2005 06:59 AM ]
posted on September 27, 2005 07:07:13 AM
OK Rom - Are you saying that the same would does not apply when Pro LIfers are also Pro Death Penalty? Do you think that Linda, if asked, would not offer..as you put it...the lame "They are not the same" argument LOL
So the question now is... do conservatives and liberals buy their rose colored glasses from the same supplier.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
[ edited by fenix03 on Sep 27, 2005 09:03 AM ]
posted on September 27, 2005 08:47:03 AM
Ron, did you know in WA state that children can get abortions without parents consent or even knowledge???
Children that are 13 and older can, and yes, 13 is still a child
Maybe its just in this county, but I know its been around for awhile, as I went to the school to talk to them when my kids brought these papers home in H.S. announcing this. They could get free birth control and/or an abortion (without parents consent or knowledge) at age 13! Yeah I was upset, but not a thing I could do about it.
posted on September 27, 2005 10:05:06 AM
That is what it was when my 2 were in H.S. in the mid to later 90's.
I didn't get ANYWHERE with the school about the issue, it was 'I had no right to know, and do not question the boards decision on this' type thing.
I did tell them both that if they were going for an abortion, to PLEASE tell me, I wouldn't stop them, but I would want to know and be there, as this is a PROCEDURE, invasive also!
Neither one did it, but for BC, I didn't want to know I guess, and I believe they did use the pill. In later years, they tried the depo shot, patch, and didn't like either.
May have been just in their school dist. It may have changed now (I HOPE SO) yeah 13 is a child in my book, so is 14, 15, 16, 17 and even 18...
posted on September 27, 2005 12:38:45 PM
helen....I just LOVE how you can blame ME when I was insulted by fenix.
You're inability to see the truth of any situation NEVER ceases to amaze me. NEVER.
------
Ron, I do understand your position....but for me personally taking the life of a baby that can survive out of the womb....is just unacceptable. There's no reason, other than the *life* of the woman being in danger, why she can't decide to abort that fetus in the first trimester. Or maybe also in cases where there are severe genetic issues with the baby. But normal, almost full term baby's are being aborted, when they could live but for the mother's decision.. Baby's are being aborted because they have clef lips...which is fixable. Things like that.
I'm talking here about partial-birth abortions....not all abortions.
And I agree this IS nothing more than genocide....anyone can see that...they just have to look to the total number of abortions.
And I agree since the
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 27, 2005 12:47:23 PM
Ron - Sorry, my phone won't quit ringing today... LOL
Linda, don't you think that the left will then call the judges "activists"?
For me personally, I don't care what they call it. It's the way it had always been done....but the liberals have changed that in the past decade. Now, we might get it back to the way it was meant to be....keeping the division between the branches of our government seperate....not having them 'cross' over into each other like they are now.
It even bothers me that the USSC is 'taking into account', in their decision making process, what is done on an International basis. We should, imo, ONLY be using what our Constitution says...not that of how the 'world' thinks we should be doing things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
[ edited by Linda_K on Sep 27, 2005 12:51 PM ]
posted on September 27, 2005 01:58:51 PM
::There's no reason, other than the *life* of the woman being in danger, why she can't decide to abort that fetus in the first trimester.::
Well Linda - looks like you AGREE with the appeal courts judgement then. I don't understand why you are so eager to have their decision reverse since the reason that it was ruled unconstitutional is that it did not allow for a late term abortion if the mothers life was in danger.
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 27, 2005 02:54:44 PM
LOL fenix - According to the last stats that I've seen, something like 90+% of the American public don't agree with late-term abortions and want to see them banned.
What liberals can't admit is that even other liberals/dems/et al agree with that limitation. It's been the activist courts that have overturned these rulings.
And the point of this thread was so say....these TWO USSC judges ARE going to have a LONG last affect on the direction our country takes. No more judges deciding issues when there is no law.
And the best part is....their influence/decisions are going to have lasting effect for DECADES to come.
"Whenever the nation is under attack, from within or without, liberals side with the enemy. This is their essence." --Ann Coulter
And why the American Voters chose to RE-elect President Bush to four more years. YES!!!
posted on September 27, 2005 03:10:37 PM
That's not the question Linda. It's not a question of the popularity of the issue. The post that you started this thread with clearly states that the ruling was deamed unconstitutional because it makes no exception for the health of the woman.
From your post where you stated There's no reason, other than the *life* of the woman being in danger,... it sounds as if you agree with the ruling.
It's pretty simple... either you believe that there should at least be consideration for the health/life of the mother as you stated and you agree with the ruling or you disagree with the ruling and you feel that there should be no room for consideration for the life/health of the mother.
Where do you stand?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 27, 2005 03:12:26 PM
Linda - do you HONESTLY believe that the USSC is going to say that it is legal to deny a late term abortion when the mothers life is in danger?
~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~ • ~~~
An intelligent deaf-mute is better than an ignorant person who can speak.
posted on September 27, 2005 06:50:07 PM
Helen, If that's not the kettle calling the pot black, I don't know what is?
"As long as Linda persists in her tedious and mean spirited personal attacks on those with differing opinions, the answer to that question is no. It's like trying to "get along" while a mad dog runs about in the middle of the room foaming at the mouth."
You have always been Venomous in your attactks....Not that I haven't been too. The only difference is I try to do it with a little humor. Sometimes....very little humor.
BTW, some of you, on this very board have pushed to to the pro abortion side. I hope your happy.
h....I see. You made a FALSE statement you can't support.::
