[Jr_Bullit]

Okay - most or you can probably guess where my vote is gonna go...but for ****s and giggles, I tell people I dunno IF I want to vote. Mostly to avoid the pressure or people trying to "sell" their candidate to me (annoying!)

What I find very interesting is the women. I have been approached by more women in the past few weeks, even very very stout republicans, pushing me to vote for Kerry.

Why? Because the next president has several Supreme Court Justices retiring, and with several extreme Republicans already on the SC, the fear is that women's right to choose will be immediately revoked, that laws will be passed turning women back into property - and so on.

Now I know on here we have a variety of opinions on the matter regarding right to choose, what you personally would do versus what you feel your right is to impose upon others and so on. But do you, honestly, feel that if we had a republican majority in the Supreme Court that women could be reduced completely back into property?

Basically, I'm wondering what you think the worst case scenario would be.

 

[Snacks]

I don't think Roe v. Wade will be reversed with whoever ends up in the white house.

I'm sick and tired of the GOP party auguring about abortion being a moral issue. If I had to get an abortion does that make me immoral? Isn't that something for me and my maker to deal with in the end?

Worst case scenario to me? Prayer will come manitory in public schools.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I dunno, with the pressure on the repub side to overturn Roe v. Wade, I almost think that has a bigger chance of being overturned than prayer in schools - but then again, the american culture is bred on fear, and I'm not too big of an exception, just depends on what you're really afraid of.

 

[pnj]

Worst case scenario to me? Prayer will come manitory in public schools.

won't happen.

the people of the united states are becoming more and more devided. the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and people are getting tired of being told what to believe in.

worst case scenario is US civilians becoming terrorists. blowing up and burning government buildings, churches/mosques, etc. small groups of people banning together and using violence and terror.

 

[biggins]

well it is written that if we as a people think that the government is not doing its job properly we have the right to overthrow/form a new government. as far as roe -vs- wade goes, man that woman is just crying for some more time in the limelight. She is an attention whore im my opinion. Prayer in school, naw i dont think it will be a problem. Us citizens becoming homeland terrorists, i would not discount that, especially if bush wins again.

 

[Tenchiro]

All I know is that Kerry wiff force our soldiers to gay marry each other...


Seriously, while I wouldn't be suprised if more restrictions were placed on abortions and the gay marriage issue gets pressed even harder if Bush were to be re-elected. I highly doubt much more will become of it.

There are too many legitimate reasons for legal abortions, and nobody wants women resorting to shady doctor types and endangering their own lives.

 

[tmx]

"..worst case scenario is US civilians becoming terrorists. blowing up and burning government buildings,..."

Agreed. Or rather, an increasing amount of US civilians will become terrorists.

I also believe my rights as a female citizen will be challenged, to say the least.

 

[Snacks]

Okay...looking at the current list of SC Justices only two were nominated in my Democratic Presidents (Clinton)....yikes.

So lets say the idea of Roe v. Wade getting overturned isn't so off.....it's even more scary when I talk to the women in my office about politics (just talking, not preaching) half of them don't care what is going on in the world and even more aren’t going to vote.

My mother is no exception to this rule. She is voting for who ever my father is voting for. When I ask her why, she has no reason

 

[Slugman]

Why? Because the next president has several Supreme Court Justices retiring, and with several extreme Republicans already on the SC, the fear is that women's right to choose will be immediately revoked, that laws will be passed turning women back into property - and so on.

Excuse my ignorance of the SC...and lazyness to google (actually kinda busy at work), but who are the ones that might retire and where do they stand on the issue? Isn't that a HUGE bit of info we'd need to make a decision here?

 

[JRogers]

I don't think Roe v. Wade will be reversed with whoever ends up in the white house.

I'm sick and tired of the GOP party auguring about abortion being a moral issue. If I had to get an abortion does that make me immoral? Isn't that something for me and my maker to deal with in the end?

Worst case scenario to me? Prayer will come manitory in public schools.

A few thoughts:

Roe vs. Wade will stand for a long time. The country is too divided on the issue for a politician to take serious and firms steps to actually overturn it. Even those outrightly opposed to abortion would be extremely hesitant to further polarize their voters or lose potential support on a hotbutton issue that, in the end, does not affect that many people.

Although I am pro-choice, I do not buy your argument against the moral argument for abortion at all. Just try and extend it: why should we punish for murder or for rape or theft if this is an issue between you and a higher power? Two reasons: that is not a good way to run a society and there are certain irrefutible moral principles that we cannot make subject to relativisim. The moral arguments for abortion may be incorrect but that does not mean that we cannot concede that if they were correct, they must be enforced. And yes, if one considers abortion to be immoral then, if you have an abortion you are committing an immoral act. While it may be unfair to say that "you are" immoral, for what action could you make such a claim? Also, your argument plays into some of the exact arguments that come from the pro-life side: religious sentiments. In our society, we cannot allow our laws to concede that you will, in fact, be dealt with by your "maker." Wouldn't, as I said above, that negate the need for any punishment to be exacted for any crime?

Also, prayer will not come back into schools. Not going to happen. Our society has moved far away from that ideal of even subtly mixing religious and public functions. Case in point: 10 commandments in the courthouse.

 

[Silver]

If Bush gets to nominate more judges, we might as well fire everyone else and just let Scalia decide stuff (he already has two votes...)

 

[zod]

I don't think Roe v. Wade will be reversed with whoever ends up in the white house.

I'm sick and tired of the GOP party auguring about abortion being a moral issue. If I had to get an abortion does that make me immoral? Isn't that something for me and my maker to deal with in the end?

I agree RoeVWade is going nowhere anytime soon, however I don't think you are getting at what *Jr_Bullit edit* Pro-Life *Jr_Bullit edit* people believe. They don't simply think that abortion is immoral, they think that it is outright murder. If you are going to make the "let my maker deal with it" argument than a lot of things/all things should be legal (including murder).

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Here's an article on the subject - granted a little slanted - I'm still looking for better info:
The next president could tip high court
WASHINGTON — It was a common theme during the 2000 campaign for president: The winner of the election could get to fill as many as three seats on the Supreme Court, and potentially reshape the law for decades.

It didn't turn out that way. Not one of the nine justices on the narrowly divided Supreme Court has retired during George W. Bush's presidency, and he likely will join Jimmy Carter and Franklin Roosevelt as the only presidents in the past century to complete a first term without making an appointment to the court. Carter served just one term; Roosevelt wound up appointing nine justices in his 12 years in office.
This election's potential impact on the Supreme Court has seemed to be an afterthought, as Bush and Democrat John Kerry have battled over the war in Iraq, terrorism and the economy.
But the stakes for the court and the law are even higher now than they were in 2000. The prospect of a change on the court is greater — eight of the justices are now at least 65 — and the replacement of even one justice could affect the law on issues such as abortion rights, affirmative action and religion's role in government.
"The next president will set the direction of the Supreme Court not for just four years, but for four decades," says Nan Aron of Alliance for Justice, a liberal group that monitors judicial nominations.
Precisely how the next Supreme Court nomination will play out is anyone's guess. Much would depend not only on the president and the nominee, but also on the politics of the day and which justice was being replaced. But interviews with more than two dozen legal and political insiders in both parties make it clear that:
If he's re-elected, Bush would seek a conservative high court nominee similar to Justice Antonin Scalia, an outspoken voice of the right on the current court.
Bush has shown he is willing to engage in a nasty confirmation battle in the divided Senate, which must approve court nominees.
Since he took office in 2001 and began nominating judges for key lower courts, Bush has pushed prominent conservative thinkers with strict views of constitutional rights. Several of his nominees have spurred protests by civil libertarians, women's rights advocates and environmentalists.
That has led to a record number of Senate filibusters of appeals court candidates, says Sheldon Goldman, a political science professor at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who tracks judicial nominations.
Republicans hold 51 of the 100 seats in the Senate. But 60 votes are needed to end a filibuster and allow an up-or-down vote on a nominee. Democrats have used filibusters to block votes on 10 — or about one-fifth — of Bush's nominations for U.S. appeals courts, the level below the Supreme Court.

Lawyers connected to the Bush White House say that despite the possibility of continued filibusters by Senate Democrats, Bush is not likely to select a moderate high court nominee to try to win Democratic support.

"This is a matter of principle for the president," says Bradford Berenson, former associate White House counsel for Bush. "If he didn't give in to those kind of threats in his first term, why would he do it after an election to a second term? His position will be stronger, not weaker."

At the Republican National Convention last month, Bush said, "I will continue to appoint federal judges who know the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law."
•If Kerry is elected, he would seek a more conciliatory approach, and try to avoid nominating a liberal who would anger many Republicans. But he would face a partisan battle anyway.
Kerry "has talked about working to end the gridlock," says Robert Gordon, the Democrat's director of domestic policy. "The high level of partisanship doesn't serve the American people. Consultation (with senators) does not give up your rights as president. It's the way to make the system work."
Still, Republican resentment of the Democratic filibusters of Bush nominees lingers, and the GOP is warning that there will be payback if Kerry is elected.
"There's more bitterness in the process now than four years ago," says Democratic lawyer Ronald Klain, who helped guide several of President Clinton's judicial nominees to confirmation and is an informal adviser to Kerry. "No matter who's nominated, it's going to be a heavy lift."

Gordon says it is premature to discuss potential Democratic nominees. But he notes that Kerry has quoted the late Justice Potter Stewart, who said that a good judge gives opinions that provide "no idea if the judge was a man or a woman, Republican or Democrat, Christian or a Jew."

However, Kerry also has said that any nominee of his would have to support Roe vs. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that made abortion legal nationwide. (Six justices on the court support abortion rights, but they include Anthony Kennedy, who has voted for greater regulation of abortion.)

Kerry's stance on abortion rights could add a layer of tension to what would be a difficult confirmation process. •Regardless of who wins the presidency, there will be a strong push to give the Supreme Court its first Hispanic justice.
There now are more than 35 million Hispanics in the USA, and they represent the nation's fastest-growing minority group. Hispanic groups are planning to lobby aggressively for one of their own on the court.
Presidents often look for a distinctive characteristic in a nominee that could resonate with the American people and make history. Lyndon Johnson won praise for appointing the court's first African-American member, Thurgood Marshall, in 1967.
Ronald Reagan took pride in saying that he had nominated the first female justice, Sandra Day O'Connor, in 1981.
During Bush's first term, Republican insiders suggested that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales, a longtime friend of the president, would have a leg up on any nomination to the court. But Gonzales' prospects may have dimmed since he was drawn into the scandal over the abuse of Iraqi detainees by U.S. soldiers at the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad.
Gonzales, 49, wrote a memo in 2002 that said foreign fighters captured in Afghanistan were not entitled to protections under the Geneva Conventions.
Some members of Congress and human rights groups said that memo might have helped lead to abusive interrogation techniques at Abu Ghraib.
Gonzales said there is no link between his memo on Afghanistan and prisoners of war in Iraq, but even Gonzales' supporters say that nominating him would be more difficult now because it would lead to more scrutiny of the Abu Ghraib scandal. Still, Gonzales, whose office has created a "short list" of potential Bush nominees, is likely to play a key role in determining whom Bush would choose.
Emilio Garza, a U.S. appeals court judge in Texas, often is mentioned by Republican insiders as being on Bush's list. Garza, 57, has drawn fire from women's rights groups because he has criticized the Roe vs. Waderuling and has said that states, not the federal government, should regulate abortion.
Democratic lawyers who follow nomination politics say that U.S. appeals court Judge Sonia Sotomayor, 50, of New York, would be a top contender for a Kerry appointment. Sotomayor, who is of Puerto Rican descent, is known as a moderate jurist and could represent a bipartisan choice: She was tapped for a U.S. trial court seat by the first President Bush, then elevated to the appeals court by Clinton.

The current Supreme Court has been together for 10 years, the longest stretch the court has gone without a new member since 1812-1823. None of the justices has indicated any immediate plans to retire, but many analysts who watch the court closely believe that change is likely during the next presidential term.

 

[Jr_Bullit]

Clarence Thomas, who is 56 and is perhaps the most conservative justice, is the only one younger than 65. Most of the speculation over retirements has focused on the three oldest members: Chief Justice William Rehnquist, a conservative who will be 80 on Friday; John Paul Stevens, 84, who votes with the court's four-member liberal wing, and Sandra Day O'Connor, 74.

O'Connor is a moderate conservative who is widely viewed as the most influential justice because she has voted with the liberals to form majorities in several key rulings, including decisions that upheld abortion rights and preserved racial preferences in college admissions.

Rehnquist and Stevens are at opposite poles of the court. Rehnquist, a Nixon appointee in 1972 who was elevated to chief by Reagan in 1986, generally favors law enforcement over defendants' rights, opposes affirmative action and seeks to limit federal power in favor of states' rights. Stevens, a Ford appointee in 1975, is a defender of prisoners' rights, access to abortion and a high wall of separation between church and state.

A departure by any of the justices could have broad consequences in the law. If Bush were to pick a replacement for Stevens, for example, it could mean greater restrictions on abortion and affirmative action, among other things. But if Kerry were able to replace Rehnquist, the court could swing to the liberals' favor, and abortion rights and affirmative action policies could get more protection.

There are several competitive Senate races this fall, and the ultimate balance of power in the chamber would also affect any nomination.

Bush's nomination of Miguel Estrada to the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, a traditional steppingstone to the Supreme Court, reflected how divisive judicial nominations can be. Estrada was nominated in 2001, and his name was pending for more than two years.

Republican leaders rounded up 55 Senate votes in support of Estrada, a Honduran-born, Harvard-educated lawyer in Washington. But Democrats held up the nomination with seven filibusters before Estrada asked that his name be withdrawn in 2003. Democrats said Estrada was too conservative, and that he had not sufficiently pushed the administration to release internal memos he had written as a government lawyer.

Would Senate block Hispanic?

Boyden Gray, who was White House counsel to the first President Bush and is close to the current administration, says the Estrada episode could have consequences for Kerry.

"The Democrats were so keen on blocking Miguel Estrada and others," Gray says. "If Kerry wins, they shouldn't be surprised to see their key people blocked."

Although the nomination of Estrada for the D.C. Circuit appeals court failed, he could resurface as a provocative contender for the Supreme Court if Bush is re-elected to office.

Some Bush advisers figure it would be difficult for Democrats to block a Senate vote on the first Hispanic nominee to the high court, and Estrada remains a favorite among influential conservatives in Washington.

University of North Carolina law professor William Marshall, a former special adviser to the Clinton Justice Department who now works with Democratic activists on legal issues, says Kerry is likely to take a page from Clinton's playbook and seek candidates acceptable to key Republicans.

In an effort to avoid fights on the Senate floor over his nominees, Clinton ran some of their names by key Republicans, including Orrin Hatch, who was then the Judiciary Committee chairman. Clinton's two Supreme Court nominees — Ruth Bader Ginsburg in 1993 and Stephen Breyer in 1994 — were confirmed easily.Link

 

[Jr_Bullit]

I agree RoeVWade is going nowhere anytime soon, however I don't think you are getting at what Pro-Choice people believe. They don't simply think that abortion is immoral, they think that it is outright murder. If you are going to make the "let my maker deal with it" argument than a lot of things/all things should be legal (including murder).

You mean the "pro-live" people right? Pro-choice, last I checked, was for people who approved the right to choose abortion.

 

[zod]

Yea typo, I get confused (you know small town, minimal education, lot's of inbreeding)