Skip to main content

View Diary: South Dakota Moves To Ban "ALL" Abortions (271 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wake up! (none)
    If the Supreme Court reverses Roe, Lopez will be dead.

    The Republicans have already twice passed national abortion bans--the so-called partial birth abortion bans.  

    Schiavo tells us the Republicans have no fear of overreaching or passing statutes the vast majority of Americans oppose.  And just which of the Vichy Dems would support a filibuster to prevent such legislation?

    •  Lopez and Roe (none)
      do not depend on each other.

      Just because Congress overreached, does not make these laws constitutional.  Plus, if you read the Partial Birth Abortion Act, you will see that it only concerns those abortions which are at all connected to interstate commerce, which I dare say is a very small subsection of abortions.

      •  You are being too literal (none)
        and assuming that the Supreme Court would not be outcome driven.  Hah!  See Bush v. Gore.

        The current court WILL find that the latest iteration of the partial birth aborition ban is constitutional.

        Commerce clause analysis is just a Rorshach test--do you like the statute or not? Remember we are assuming that Stevens or another pro-Roe justice is replaced by a Scalia.

        All abortions are connected to interstate commerce.  Must drugs are part of the "stream of commerce."  The hiring of doctors is not usually just an intra-state issue--especailly doctors who would be willing to perform abortions. Thus, abortion clinics will be shut down.

        We have been asleep at the wheel too long--there is no time to buy into the Republican fools gold of just letting the states decide.

      •  You supported Alito, true? (none)
        You called Roe an "abomination" of constituional law, right?

        This is what I have found from your prior comment history.

        •  I did (none)
          I am not hiding it.  Roe is perhaps one of the most poorly reasoned decisions to come from the Supreme Court ever.  Alito is a judge well qualified to sit on SCOTUS.

          None of which means I support outright bans on abortion.

          •  No, but you (none)
            are not pro-choice, either.

            Most of us are, and those here need to know where you stand on choice before they buy into your analysis.

            Did you vote for John Kerry?

            •  I'd back off this (none)
              Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned.  

              Roe also isn't the law - Casey is.

              The current test for whether a state violates the constitution with respect to abortion rights is the "undue burden" test - which was judicially created in the Casey decision by Sandra Day O'Connor.  

              This means that the test for constitutionality for abortive rights didn't exist when Roe was decided.

              Casey also overruled the trimester framework of Roe.  

              Roe v. Wade IS NOT GOOD LAW - but it matters not because the applicable law in an abortion disucssion is Casey v. Planned Parenthood.

              •  Sorry, I don't buy this "poorly" (none)
                reasoned stuff.  The Court ruled recently in State Farm that punitive damages in civil cases cannot usually exceed three times the amount of compensatory damages, and no more than 10 times the compensatories in the event of something truly egregious and usually resulting in physical injury.  Isn't this a legislative scheme similar to the Roe trimester approach?

                In any event, you miss my broader point: if the court reverses Roe, or Casey, Republicans will attempt national legislation to restrict or ban abortions.  

                We don't have the time to get hung up on whether it's Casey or Roe that will be overruled.  The salient point is that the constitutional right to abortion will be gone, and nothing will prevent Congress from passing anti-choice statutes.

                Is it just me or have the Democrats already thrown in the towell on choice?

                •  State Farm v. Campbell (none)
                  Wasn't a plurality decision.  It was built on the back of BMW v. Gore.  And the same folks who claim that BMW/Campbell was poorly reasoned are the SAME folks who are claiming Roe v. Wade was poorly reasoned.  

                  Go take a look at the dissenters in both State Farm and BMW v. Gore.  

                  But it's a seperate issue entirely.  

                  The trimester framework of Roe was overruled by Casey.  

                  •  No, it was not overruled (none)
                    The undue burden just "amplified" it,  the basic holding of Roe, that women have a constitutional right to an abortion, remains.

                    What is the point in trying to hammer home that Casey changed things?  I am not sure how making that distinction is relevent or helpful?

                    •  Well then you dont understand Casey (none)
                      After Casey, abortion is no longer a "fundamental right."  It is no longer subject to "strict scrutiny."  And the trimester framework is out the window.  But if these distinctions are "unhelpful" to you, then you just don't understand the law.
                •  I agree with Scalia on State Farm and (none)
                  BMW v. Gore.  

                  The Court just made up that rule out of thin air.  The Constitution does not prohibit excessive punitives.

                  •  You may not agree with State Farm (none)
                    but I can tell you all the folks who fund your conservative friends are ecstatic.  The Republican business interests could not be more happy.

                    One day, some time perhaps in the distant future, when perhaps you are as old as I am, you will come to realize there is no such thing as pure objectivity.  Scalia doesn't intuit true Natural Law--he imposes his values all the time.  It is only human nature.  The best way to guard against bias is to admit to one's one, and to disclose them.  You folks say, and many of you actually believe, you are being objective.  Sorry, those who fail to acknowldege their own biases are the most entrhall to them and the least objective.

                    This whole archconservative "Originalist" theory is nothing but a scam to impose your conservative values on everyone else. Reminds me of the term limits movement a few years back that evaporated when the Republicans took Congress.

                    •  Sorry that's nonsense (none)
                      Originalism is quite the opposite of imposing views on everyone else.  

                      Under originalism, abortion debate, PAS debate, gay marriage debate, etc. will occur where they belong, in the states, and legislatures.  Under originalism the courts actually refuse to impose their beliefs on the rest of the country.

                      It is the "living constitutionalists" who without regard for the views of the majority of the public feel that they can ban capital punishment, or strike down bans on D&X, or mandate gay marriage.  Who exactly is doing the imposing here?

                      (And, btw, Scalia is not a natural law adherent).

                      •  Evisceration of the courts (none)
                        You got a problem with Marbury and John Marshall?
                        •  Not really (none)
                          But I have a problem with courts amending the Constitution when they think it has "evolved."  John Marshall did not suggest that he could re-write the Constitution whenever he didn't like its mandates.  Indeed, Marbury was about limiting the judiciary depsite Congress wanting to extend judiciary's reach.  "Living constitutionalists" take the exact opposite view.
                          •  Minority rights (none)
                            So-called "judicial activism" is the basis of our entire common law system.  The law developed more case-by-case than by legislation....

                            It is you who advocates discarding a centuries-old judicial function.

                          •  Nonsense (none)
                            Common law and constitutional law are not one and the same.  If you recall, any common law decision can be overriden by legislature in a statute.  Because the legislature can do that, judges have some leeway in making policy judgments.

                            That alone suggests that constitutional adjudication is different from traditional common law ajudication.

                            Furthermore, there is no such thing as federal common law (with few exceptions).  That has been recognized as far back as Erie v. Tompkins.

                            And finally, where in any Constitution, charter, or document is judiciary tasked with protecting minority rights?!  The reason minority has any rights is because by social compact (constitution) the majority decided to wall off certain areas from encroachment.  The judiciary did not create right to free speech or equal protection.  Those were majority created rights.  Abortion and gay marriage should be no different.

                          •  Analogy (none)
                            You are too literal.  Most states' civil law was a codification of the common law that had grown up on its own--for centuries--without any, or very little, legislative involvement.  Your view of the courts would eliminate any kind of meaningful role for the judiciary as a co-equal branch of government.

                            Common law continues in the states every day, and in federal courts as well in certain areas.

                            The protection of minority rights is our courts' greatest value--regardless of whether such a role emanated from the Bill of Rights or not.  Your view just begs the question of how the Bill of Rights is to be interpreted.

                            Your view of the courts as quite limited in protecting individual freedom reflects your conservative values.  It appears you want to make adultery illegal--and prosecuted--and look favorably on alienation of affection actions.  Who is in favor of big government here?

                            Do you really want to see Lawrence reversed?  I don't think it should be constitutional to put gays in jail.  You do.  We have different values.

                          •  I do want to see Lawrence reversed (none)
                            There is no constitutional right to privacy.  It is a figment o judicial imagination.

                            Our values are not all that different.  I just choose to fight for my valusat the ballot box, and take my lumps when I lose.  You choose to ignore the ballot box and do an end run around ot by inventing new rights whenever the voting process doesnt give them to you.

              •  Casey is more mealy-mouthed nonsense (none)
                "Undue burden."  Who the hell knows what that is?  Kennedy for instance was in the Casey majority but in Stenberg's dissent.  He did not think that Nebraska PBA imposed an undue burden. SOC did.  Who is right?!  The answer is "who cares."  It's not the judges who should be making these value judgments but people through their elected representatives.  Casey must be overruled.
              •  Casey affirmed Roe (none)
                Here is what the Supreme Court in Casey held:

                After considering the fundamental constitutional questions resolved by Roe, principles of institutional integrity,  and the rule of stare decisis, we are led to conclude this: the essential holding of Roe v. Wade should be retained and once again reaffirmed.

                It must be stated at the outset and with clarity that HN1Roe's essential holding, the holding we reaffirm, has three parts. First is a recognition of the right of the woman to choose to have an abortion before viability and to obtain it without undue interference from the State. Before viability, the State's interests are not strong enough to support a prohibition of abortion or the imposition of a substantial obstacle to the woman's effective right to elect the procedure. Second is a confirmation of the State's power to restrict abortions after fetal viability, if the law contains exceptions for pregnancies which endanger the woman's life or health. And third is the principle that the State has legitimate interests from the outset of the pregnancy in protecting the health of the woman and the life of the fetus that may become a child. These principles do not contradict one another; and we adhere to each.

                Casey 505 U.S. 833, 845-46.  The above quote comes from Part I of the decision jointly authored by O'Connor, Souter and Kennedy. Blackmun and Stevens concurred in Part I of the decision.  Part I thus represents a holding of a majority of the court.  

                Rehnquist, Thomas, Scalia and White dissented.  White was replaced by Ginsburg; O'Connor by Alito; Blackmun by Breyer; Rehnquist by Roberts.  So, you now have 5-4 in favor of Roe/Casey.

                The trimester approach was let go but not the fundamental holding of Roe--that is what a majority of the Supreme court has said in its own words. And arguably the Casey approach of undue burden provides greater rights to women than the trimester approach.

                This argument that Roe has already been overruled is just plain wrong and feeds into this notion that the law is quite fluid--and by  implication can be more easily reversed than if it were older, more established.

            •  Well I am pro-choice (none)
              That does not mean that I support abortion on demand, government funded at any time for any reason, at any age.
              •  Which abortions would you criminalize? (none)
                And did you vote for John Kerry?
                •  I would not (none)
                  "criminalize" abortions.  I would rather follow the German model.  Abortions would be available up until about 12 weeks provided that there is truly informed consent.  I would support parental notification and ideally spousal notification (with exception in cases of potential abuse).  I would oppose government funding of abortion.  I would oppose D&X and all late-term abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother or prevent grievous bodily harm to her.  
                  •  Doubletalk (none)
                    How do you make abortions "unavailable" without criminalizing them?

                    Did you vote for John Kerry?

                    •  Call it what you like (none)
                      You like "criminalize," fine.  

                      (Although there are other ways of doing it.  E.g., refusing to renew licenses of doctors who perform abortions outside of legal parameters).

                      •  And when they perform abortions (none)
                        without a license, they go to...jail, right?

                        You are trying to sugercoat this whole thing.

                        More Republican steath strategy.  Bullshit!  Foolsgold.

                        You just waive a magic wand, and aboriton goes away without jail, subpoenas or the overeager Kansas attorney general who is investingating women's pregnancies?

                        Did you support the Schiavo legislation?


                        •  No I did not support Schiavo (none)

                          Fine, let's stop sugarcoating.  yes, I am in favor of limitation on abortion (as described above).  I am in favor of criminal penalties for the abortions performed beyond those limitations.  However, I support legalized abortion in the early stages of pregnancy as a policy matter, though I am personally opposed to it.

                          •  Did you vote for John Kerry? t (none)
                            The question has been put several times now. If you are a Republican, don't you think you should tell us?
                          •  And i answered that (none)
                            I view the question as irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  You can choose to debate on merits or not at all.  Who I voted for, or didn't vote for is irrelevant to the discussion of Roe or Casey.
                          •  Yes, it is absolultely relevent (none)
                            This is described as a Democratic blog.  If you are not here to help Demcorats, then that puts all your assertions in a certain light.  No one saying yo can't comment.  For many, they may assume that you are trying to be part of a big tent.  I think you are trying to hurt us.

                            If you are trying to be coy and won't tell us your true colors, then all of your assertions come into doubt.  Not all of us have the ability to track down and verify all your talking points.  This is especially true when you are holding yourself out as an expert witness on constitutional law matters.

                            Your intentions go to trust--and how much we can trust what you are representing.  We have to go on trust to a certain extent.  We can't, or most of us can't, track down every single point you make.  That you refuse to drop your mask shows that you know this too.

                            Bias, counselor.  You know it.  You want to preserve your ability to masqurade as a Democrat.    

                          •  I don't think I am trying to (none)
                            help or hurt anyone.  if you notice I do not provide political advice or strategy suggestions.

                            I am expounding on my views of constitutional law.  If you track back through my posts, you will see that they are by and large limited to that area (with some exceptions).  

                            Because constitutional law is separate and apart from politics, it makes no difference who you voted for.  (As a reminder, Earl Warren was a Republican while Frankfurter and White were Democrats).  Feel free to disagree with my conlaw analysis, but keep it apart from politics as they are really not one and the same.

                          •  Separate and apart from politics? (none)

                            That's the phoney line that Federalist conservatives like you use to impose your "objective" values on everyone else.

                            Tell me there is no "value" decision in what constitutes a "reasonable" search or seizure, or "cruel or unusual" punishment.

                          •  There isnt or shouldnt be (none)
                            It should be interpreted with reference to the original understanding like all other provisions of the Constitution.
                          •  So, "reasonable" (none)
                            means what was reasonable in 1789?

                            By George, you can keep that musket but not that revolver?

                            You understand of course that you are in essence arguing for the ultimate irrelevance of the judiciary--which is fine when you THINK you are in the majority.

                          •  And you are apparently arguing (none)
                            that the judiciary is not co-equal but supreme branch with the power to amend the constitution at will.  I must have missed that Article.
                          •  More bullshit (none)
                            You are here trying to influence the debate but unwillng to come clean on your true loyalties.

                            You are trying to sell people here on the foolsgold of the Republican stealth/incrementalist strategy.  By not telling us you are a Republican partisan, you being deceptive.

                            What is it with conservatives and secrecy?  Just tell us so we can have an honest debate.  An honest debate requires that everyone's biases be put on the table.  You are not willing to do this completely.

                          •  And I am telling you that (none)
                            my biases is only to the originalist interpretation.  I do not care about the party affiliation of a person who engages in proper constitutional interpretation.  So give it a rest
                          •  Nonsense (none)
                            We can have an honest debate about the meaning of the Constitution without reference to party labels.  (Earl Warren was a Republican as is Justice Stevens.  Justices Frankfurter and White were Democrats).

                            I am not trying to sell a strategy.  I am trying to "sell" the proper ConLaw interpretation.

                  •  YOU'D FOLLOW THE GERMAN MODEL? (none)
                    But you claim to be an "originalist"?

                    Methinks you don't know what you're talking about.

                    •  My policy preferences (none)
                      i.e., following the German model have nothing to do whatever with my view of the Constitution.  I believe the Constitution does not restrict abortion legislation, i.e. it permist complete bans and legislation allowing abortion up until the moment of birth, and everything in between.  Given that latitude, we can choose policy that best suits our moral taste.  I think German model suits my moral tastes the best.
                      •  Suits "your" moral taste?! (none)
                        You know the answer: If you don't like  abortion, then don't have one.

                        And you are king for everyone else....

                        You are really trying to help us Democrats, huh?

                        •  That's a ridiculous statement (none)
                          that's like saying, if you like minimum wage, you pay it, and leave everyone else alone.  All of the policy decisions are undelied in one way or another by moral choices.  

                          The starkest example is this.  We think it is immoral to kill, but are willing to make exceptions for killings in time of war or in self-defense.  But not in all self-defense, only if the attacker is causing you/threatening severe bodily harm and not just trying to slap your face.  The end result is the same, the person is dead.  But we attach different moral judgment to the way he ended up dead.  That is a policy choice we made underlied by moral judgments.

                          So too with for example child labor.  We have come to the conclusion that it is immoral to force yound children to work instead of going to school.

                          So too with selling kidneys for profit.  We have come to the conclusion that it is immoral to give organs to those able to pay the most as opposed to those in most need.

                          Abortion is not exempt from moral calculus.

                          •  Yes, I understand (none)
                            you and your fellow conservatives believe that all the world should dance to the tune of your "moral" calculus.

                            This is simple.  All laws should be moral.  Not all moral precepts should be enacted into law.  Adultery is a moral issue and should not be a legal one--unless you are like your compadre Thomas at RedState.

                            Abortion involves the body of a woman--she gets to make the call on when she has a child.  Done.  Finito.  Over.


                          •  You obviously don't get it (none)
                            First of all, the world does revolve about society's moral calculus.

                            And adultery has always been a legal issue.  And it has to be.  At the very least because it is grounds for divorce (a legal procedure).

                            Second of all, abortion involves more than just the body of the woman.  For starters it also involves the guy whose child it is.  It also happens to invlove the unborn child.  Now you may not believe that he is "alive" or if alive deserving of protection.  I disagree with you there to some extent.  So, i think that abortion calculus is more than just "body of a woman."

                            And btw, selling kidneys also just involves the "body of a the (wo)man."  But we don't let that happen either.

                          •  But we allow voluntary donation (none)
                             As long as the doctor isn't paying for the fetus...

                            I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting. But I feel better having screamed. Don't you?

                            by Anderson Republican on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 01:59:00 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Another one!!! (none)

                            So, adultery is a "legal issue?"  Oh my!  I totally disagree, and don't know if my jaw will drop any further.  

                            No, adultery, at least in most states is not needed to get a divorce.  I think Reagan signed the no-fault divorce statute here in California.  You going against Reagan?  Didn't think so.

                            And, heh, just a word of friendly advice, if you ever work for a large firm, don't go around talking about how adultery is a "legal issue."  It will make the partners very nervous and think you are some kind of informant/revival preacher.

                          •  I didn't say adultery is NEEDED (none)
                            for divorce, but is GROUNDS for it.

                            In NY, where we do not have a no-fault divorce, adultery is one of the possible grounds.

                            And my partners dont care about my views of law and morality as long as I do good work here.  But at the end of the day, adultery is a legal issue.  Most states prohibit it (though obviously don't enforce it).  And there may even be civil consequences for adulterous behavior (e.g., suits for alienation of affection).

                          •  Alienation of Affection? (none)
                            Oh my!  You dusting off a lot of old stuff here.

                            That tort has not been viable for decades--except in the State of Utah, as far as I know.  You wanna go down the hall and tell your partners you have got this hot new case where you are going to allege alienation of affection? Women are just chattel to be stolen?

                            Yup, New York still has that antiquated system.  Too bad.

                            Can we talk about Lawrence?  You don't like that one either, do you?  Texas should be allowed to put gays in jail, right?

                            Get back to work my friend.  I can play around--I am not sure you can--those billable hours just screaming at ya.  

                          •  Lawrence is just as bad as Roe (none)
                            while i do not support anti-sodomy laws, I do not think they are unconstitutional.

                            And why is it only women?  As far as I remember, alienation of affection could be brought by both men and women.  I can play around, we don't have minimum billables.

                          •  The tort of (none)
                            alienation of affection was traditionally the ammo a wife would use to scare away the homewrecker.  It hasn't been tried in today's world of equality....Cite me one recent case where the tort survived demurrer or a 12(b)6) motion.

                            Oh my, so busy legislating the sexual morality of your fellow man.

                          •  Umm, lookie here (none)

                            That website list a number of recent cases.

                            And seems to me that some other states Hawaii, New Hampshire, Illinois, Mississippi, New Mexico, South Dakota and Utah also retain this tort.

                            Oh, and if you don't legislate sexual morality I guess polygamy laws and incest laws are unconstitutional?  Good to know.

                          •  But it is a minority view (none)
                            The article you cite to states:

                            As of July 2003, 43 states and the District of Columbia had abolished the cause of action for alienation of affection.

                            The trend is going the other way.  But, Mr. Morality, sticking your nose in other people's business won't get you very far.  What adults do in the privacy of their bedroom is no one else's business.  If you want to start some type of morality crusade, be my guest.

                            My values are different than yours.  I value freedom and liberty.  


                          •  If your values are different (none)
                            express them at the ballot box.  I will see how many votes you get when you start advocating for legalization of incest and polygamy.
                          •  Strawman (none)
                            No one is talking about incest or polygamy.

                            Minority rights should not be subject to the ballot box--that is why they are "minority" rights.

                            Go put gays and adulterers in jail and see how many votes you get--although the idea is so absurd, it's hard to contemplate

                            Bottom line:  I detest what you stand for.  I live in country that is not your country.  You want to hijack my country.  I will fight you.  Others will fight you.   And God help you if you are ever remotely successful in trying to bring your version of sexual morality into our lives.

                          •  Why is that a strawman? (none)
                            You said what people do in their bedrooms cannot be legislated.  Icest generaly occurs in people's bedrooms.  So does polygamy.  So we can't legislate those?  And if we can what makes that moral judgement any different from anyother moral judgment regarding sexuality?

                            Minority rights in the end are always subject to the ballot box.  Witness the reaction across the country to the Goodridge decision.

                            I do not want to put gays or adulterers in jail.  Though I think that the party committing adultery should pay more/get les during the divorce proceedings.  If for nothing else then for violating a contract freely entered into.  But just because I think that laws banning sodomy are ass-backwars does not make them unconstitutional.

                            And like it or not sexual morality will always be legislated.  Live with it. Some states will set age of consent at 14, other at 16, yet others at 18, and yet others will use a sliding scale.  These are strictly moral judgment calls.  And the constitution says nothing about these calls.  They are stritly for the people to make.

                            And it is you who wants to hijack the country absent any popular consent.  It is the "living constitutionalists" who feel that the judiciary can abolish death penalty despite the fact that it is explicitly provided for in the Constitution.  It is the "living constitutionalists" who want to remove "under G-d" from teh pledge despite the fact that an overwhelming majority of Americans support keping it there.  It is the "living constitutionalists" who want to mandate government fnding of abortion despite public's opposition and despite the fact that the Constitution does not require the government to fund anything at all, much less a specific program.

                          •  Religious motivation? (none)
                            It appears you are an Orthodox Jew.  True?

                            You seem upset at the issues re the Pledge, various issues re abortion and the like.  You appear very concerned with outcomes, no?  

                            I have yet to meet an "Originalist" who was not motivated by their religious beliefs to (in my opinion) impose their beliefs on others.  Or stated another way, I have yet to meet an Originalist who was not intensely religious.  If the Originalist position was an "objective" position, then why do all these Originalists devolve into religious issues?  An Originalist who was an atheist would be a refreshing change.

                            It is all about religious zealots finding a rationale to impose their beliefs on others, and Originalism fits the bill.

                            You misstate the formulation re sex, and it is correctly stated thusly:  What consenting ADULTS do in the privacy of their bedroom is no one else's business.  Look above and you will see that I talked about ADULTS.  

                            Most cases where incest or polygamy is prosecuted involve children.  In fact, I know of no effort to prosecute such cases where no child is involved.  

                            Live your life the way you want, and I will do likewise.

                          •  Nope (none)
                            I am a Jew, but not Orthodox.  I am religious but not "intensly."  But I fail to see what that has to do with anything.  My motivation is limited powers of the unelected judiciary and expanded powers of the people.  Not my religion.  The Pledge issue was brought up is not because my religious beliefs require me to say it (indeed if I were an Orthodox Jew, saying God's name in vain (i.e. other than prayer) would be sinful).  It was brough up because  the 9th Circuit ruled the Pledge unconstitutional despite the fact that Washington added words "so help me God" to the Oath, despite the fact that Congress opens each day with a prayer, despite the fact that courts open with "God save this honorable court," etc.  There is just no legal basis for declaring the Pledge as is unconstitutional.  So, I am not concerned with outcome.  I am concerned with getting there.  If there is an argument that the COnstitution as originally understood requires a result that is politically unpalatable to me, so be it.  You apparently make no such distinction.  You seem to think that Constitution can be molded and remolded to achieve that which you could not achieve at the ballot box.

                            Second, incest is or can be practiced by adults as well as children.  Recently there was a case of Michigan (I believe) couple who were "married" but who also were brother and sister.  They were prosecuted.  They were adults.  Utah polygamists are all adults.  So, the whole "it's children" argument is nonsense.

                          •  Correction (none)
                            It was a Wisconsin couple and they were sentenced to 8 and 5 years respectively and their conviction was upheld on June 22, 2005 by the 7th Circuit.


                            So your "it's just children" argument is nonsense

                          •  G-d? (none)
                            You seem VERY concerend about a lawsuit that was defeated. "Under God" remains in the pledge and never ceased being part of the pledge as recited in school.  I know of no elected Democrat who wanted the pledge changed.  Micheal Newdow, the plaintiff who brought the suit, appears to be one of the few who was really concerned about this.  Yet, you and those concerned about religious issues, go on and on about a lawsuit you WON.

                            There is a perfectly logical basis for ruling "under god" in the Pledge unconstitutional:  It discriminates against Hindus and Buddhists because they do not believe in God. Very simple.  Government cannot pick winners and losers in the religious sphere.  

                            Of course, any argument can be taken to its logical extreme, which is what happened here.  No one really cares about this issue except the religious loons who desperately crave the government's seal of approval.  And, as a Liberal, I am able to see issues in other terms than  the binary, black-or-white world of absolutism inhabited by most conservatives.  For me, no harm, no foul.  The Pledge is virtually meaningless, or perhaps better stated, quite vanilla--so the government's preference for Western religion over Eastern religion is also virtually meaningless.

                            As to your assertion that you are not particulary religious, I don't believe you.  You have yet to admit you voted for George Bush, and I had to drag it out of you that you were advocating criminal penalties for abortion.  Becasue you are less than candid in expressing your views, I assume you are similarly trying to downplay your religious views.  Your obsession with the Pledge, as well as other telltale tracks, betray you.  

                            As to the incest prosecution among adults, I assume that the example you cite is the exception rather than the rule.  If prosecutors start investigating any seemingly overly-friendly or affectionate relationships betweeen adult fathers and daughters or siblings, then you would have TROUBLE on your hands.

                            As to the prosecution of the Utah polygamists, no, there were not all adults.  With respect to recent prosecutions, you may be thinking of Tom Green, one of the few people prosecuted for polygamy in recent memory.  He "married" underage girls.  

                            During a weeklong trial, prosecutor David Leavitt attempted to portray Green as a man driven by an outsized ego to marry teen-age girls.

                            Utah by and large looks the other way when it comes to polygamy.  The only reason they decided to prosecute Green was the involvement of young girls and the desire to spruce up Utah's image.  

                          •  Well, (none)
                            First of all, get your facts straight.  "we" (whatever that means) didn't "win" the Newdow lawsuit.  It was dismissed on a technicality.  If you havd been following the news, since then a District judge in California again ruled for Newdow in a new case that did not have same procedural stumbling block.

                            You can believe me or not, that's your choice.  You are obviously misrepresenting my views on abortion.  Everyone (or almost everyone) is in favor of criminal penalties for certain types of abortion.  Show me a large group of people who favor abortion literally up until the moment of birth?!  And if you think that those are not OK, then I guess you too want to "criminalize" abortions, huh?  I am in favor of legalized early abortions but with some restrictions.  I think majority of American public agrees with me.

                            As for the Wisconsin case, of course it is an exception.  Duh!  Brothers and sisters having sex is always an exception.  I don't know of many siblings who want to fuck each other.  Do you?  And do you REALLY think teh public would be up in arms if the prosecutors brought cases against father-daughter (adult) sexual relationships?!  You must be living in a loony toons world.  The public would be lining up to stone the father (and possibly the daughter).

                            Finally, in Utah, marrying "teenage girls" per se is not illegal, because the age of consent for marriage in Utah is 15 provided there is parental consent and court approval or 16 with parental consent only.  And the fact that Utah and other states "look the other way" means only that they have bigger fish to fry, not that these laws are unconstitutional or do not enjoy public's support.

                    •  You forgot to ask WHICH German model (none)

                      I know that this is vitriol. No solution, spleen-venting. But I feel better having screamed. Don't you?

                      by Anderson Republican on Fri Feb 10, 2006 at 12:57:59 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

          •  Are you (none)
            None of which means I support outright bans on abortion.

            drgrishka at

            If you are, you say here that you don't support an outright ban on abortion. To what extent do you agree with us "Dims"?

      •  Drgrsika1--Republican Troll (none)
        Here is his posting history on RedState.

        Don't buy his foolsgold.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site