View Full Version : Activist Judges and Abortion
Herr Scholz
6/6/2006, 09:57 AM
Since Bush is re-energizing the social and religious conservatives due to election time and since the gay marriage thread was pretty tame...
I keep hearing the argument that "activist judges" are to blame for our gay marriage crisis today. We apparently need a constitutional amendment to keep these wahoo liberal judges from stuffing their leftist agendas down the American voters' throats against their will. The American people are clearly against gay marriage. Referendums in 19 states against gay marriage have passed with wide margins. Last November, a statewide constitutional ban on gay marriage overwhelmingly passed in Texas with the support of 76 percent of voters. Bush uses this as support for the constitutional amendment. He said a federal ban would be necessary "so that we can take this issue out of the hands of overreaching judges and put it back where it belongs: in the hands of the American people."
My question is this: since the majority of polled American voters are for some sort of abortion remaining legal as proven time and again by different polls (58% of adults want some sort of legal abortion in this latest poll below), wouldn't it be just as "activist" of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade completely? Wouldn't that be against the will of the American people too? I understand that most Americans view abortion as morally reprehensible and that tighter restrictions need to be put on the process (the language in some polls), but wouldn't outlawing abortion alltogether be just as nefarious as the judges allowing gay marriage against the will of the American people? Or can only liberals be activist?
Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg Poll. April 8-11, 2006. N=1,357 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3 (for all adults).
"As you may know, South Dakota adopted a law that would ban all abortions, except to save the life of the mother. Do you approve or disapprove of the South Dakota abortion law?"
Approve Disapprove Unsure
% % %
ALL adults 34 58 8
Democrats 24 69 7
Independents 27 67 6
Republicans 52 42 6
http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
Or should both issues just be left up to the states without messing with the constitution?
The difference I see is that with abortion a life without a voice is being terminated. The repubs. would argue that the babies would vote unanimously for an end to abortion.
Hatfield
6/6/2006, 10:01 AM
babies can't vote and the underlying premise of Herr's situation is exactly the same.
it's just tissue in a woman's body Fugue
Herr Scholz
6/6/2006, 10:04 AM
The repubs. would argue...
Yes, the Repubs would argue for a ban. However, if you'll look more closely at the poll above, Republicans are the only group with a majority voting for the complete ban of abortions (except to save the mother). The majority of the American people are for keeping it legal in some fashion. That was my point. Should the judges heed the voice of the American majority or not? Or just when it suits the Republican party now in power?
Is judicial activism OK only when it suits the ruling party's agenda?
Sooner in Tampa
6/6/2006, 10:05 AM
Gay marriage vs. Abortion is apples vs. oranges.
One is an issue about a certain lifestyle...the other one is about life and death.
Bad comparison.
babies can't vote and the underlying premise of Herr's situation is exactly the same.
people are dying in the gay marriage issue?
Hatfield
6/6/2006, 10:07 AM
Gay marriage vs. Abortion is apples vs. oranges.
One is an issue about a certain lifestyle...the other one is about life and death.
Bad comparison.
the issue is will of the people not the specific instance...if i am reading herr's post correctly.
Vaevictis
6/6/2006, 10:07 AM
I think the likely answer from the conservative base is "LALALALA I CANT HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA LA"
Hatfield
6/6/2006, 10:07 AM
people are dying in the gay marriage issue?
millions......(think about it) ;)
the issue is will of the people not the specific instance...if i am reading herr's post correctly.
that's why I think the instance matters here though. I see Herr's point but I think abortion should be substituted out.
Herr Scholz
6/6/2006, 10:08 AM
the issue is will of the people not the specific instance...if i am reading herr's post correctly.
That's correct. Will of the people and the subsequent actions of the courts. Bush is the one who wants gay marriage out of the courts' hands. Maybe he should try to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion.
TexasLidig8r
6/6/2006, 10:10 AM
Actually, overturning Roe v. Wade would return the issue of abortion back to the voice of the people. Most people wrongly believe that in overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supremes would be "banning abortion." Nothing is further from the truth.
IF Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Supremes would be returning to individual states the issue of whether abortion should be legal in each of the states. Legislatures in each state would then need to decide whether the people of their state should approve abortion in the guise of a state constitutional amendment or would pass a law (which would inevitably be challenged) either approving or outlawing abortion.
In essence, Roe v. Wade took away the people's vote on abortion.
Sooner in Tampa
6/6/2006, 10:11 AM
Judges should NEVER rule by public opinon. I don't care whose side you are on, the law is not a popularity contest.
OklahomaTuba
6/6/2006, 10:14 AM
My question is this: since the majority of polled American voters are for some sort of abortion remaining legal as proven time and again by different polls (58% of adults want some sort of legal abortion in this latest poll below), wouldn't it be just as "activist" of the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade completely? Wouldn't that be against the will of the American people too?
How can this be judicial activism if the people aren't allowed to vote on it?
The people VOTED against homosexual "marriage", and the liberal judges basically ignored that. That is what is meant by activist judges.
I say, put abortion up to a vote.
Let the people decide if killing unborn babies is the right thing to do.
The most terrifying statement in the world to a liberal/progressive, "lets put it to a vote".
Hatfield
6/6/2006, 10:14 AM
we should vote on laws like american idol
Herr Scholz
6/6/2006, 10:14 AM
Actually, overturning Roe v. Wade would return the issue of abortion back to the voice of the people.
Right, I see that.
crawfish
6/6/2006, 10:15 AM
Argue all you want, but texas still sucks.
TexasLidig8r
6/6/2006, 10:21 AM
Argue all you want, but texas still sucks.
BASTADGE!!!! Rice burnin', supporting the Japanese economic war machine mudbug!! BUY AMERICAN! BUY AMERICAN!!! ;)
Hamhock
6/6/2006, 10:22 AM
In essence, Roe v. Wade took away the people's vote on abortion.
Equals activist judges.
BudSooner
6/6/2006, 10:34 AM
Fried chicken, Ahhh hells yeah!!!!!!
Oops, sorry wrong thread.
Vaevictis
6/6/2006, 10:35 AM
Do keep in mind that people can still vote to outlaw abortion, it's just that it requires a supermajority on the national level ;p
(ie, get two thirds of state voters to approve a measure requiring the reps they send to Congress to vote for an anti-abortion amendment and requiring the state legislatures to approve when it comes)
so what if the will of the people was that you could kill your kids that were up to 3 years old?
picasso
6/6/2006, 11:09 AM
he NEEDS to re-energize the conservative voting base. otherwise the Repubs are going to lose big time.
truth is though, I doubt either side is getting high marks.
soonerbrat
6/6/2006, 12:05 PM
Fried chicken, Ahhh hells yeah!!!!!!
Oops, sorry wrong thread.
my mom brought me leftover spaghetti for lunch. yummy
TUSooner
6/6/2006, 12:31 PM
Actually, overturning Roe v. Wade would return the issue of abortion back to the voice of the people. Most people wrongly believe that in overturning Roe v. Wade, the Supremes would be "banning abortion." Nothing is further from the truth.
IF Roe v. Wade is overturned, the Supremes would be returning to individual states the issue of whether abortion should be legal in each of the states. Legislatures in each state would then need to decide whether the people of their state should approve abortion in the guise of a state constitutional amendment or would pass a law (which would inevitably be challenged) either approving or outlawing abortion.
In essence, Roe v. Wade took away the people's vote on abortion.
Hear him!
TUSooner
6/6/2006, 12:32 PM
so what if the will of the people was that you could kill your kids that were up to 3 years old?
That would be bad, but I might consider killing somebody else's !
not
really
:rolleyes:
OklahomaTuba
6/6/2006, 12:50 PM
he NEEDS to re-energize the conservative voting base. otherwise the Repubs are going to lose big time.
truth is though, I doubt either side is getting high marks.
To some degree that is true, however what energizes the conservative base the most is dims/libz. Conservatives actually turn out on election days, are more organized, have more money, there are more of them, etc. This is why the dimz have to hide their real beliefs and extremist ideology when running for office normally, just to appear more centrist and normal. Its actually kind of fun seeing Hillary try to do this while slowly ****ing off the left wing moonbats.
crawfish
6/6/2006, 12:55 PM
my mom brought me leftover spaghetti for lunch. yummy
Ewww. I think that's illegal in most states. :eddie:
Remember, only the judges that disagree with you are "activists". :D
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.