Skip to main content

View Diary: The SCOTUS Is Extraordinary: The Right To Choose (191 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  If this is all about abortion, then we lose (4.00)
    the PR wars.  I think Americans are so divided on this issue, that if the dems fight against someone simply because he/she is against Roe vs. Wade, then we will never get those pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals 1n 2006 who might have otherwise have come "home" to the Democratic party, where they really do belong.  

    Now, if this nomimee is fought over something other than Roe vs. Wade, like if Bush does what many freepers are saying he is going to do and he nominates Janice Rogers Brown, we have a chance to make him look like the nut he is.  Even though she is a black woman, she has turned her back on the programs that helped her get where she is, and the liberals in her life.  She can be framed to be against the New Deal.  The senate did just vote for her, but this is more serious.  I think he is going to nominate a wingnut, and I think it will put more people into the dems' camp IF the war is not made to be over the right to choose. It might be over that, but no one should say that.  

    "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

    by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:04:17 AM PDT

    •  This is not about 2006 (3.80)
      This is about THIS nomination in 2005 to the SCOTUS.

      I completely reject the idea that we can play politics on THIS nomination.

      Rehnquist would have been different.

      This one leaves no room for politics.

      The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

      by Armando on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:06:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  ASDF (none)
        THis is way more important than any midterm election will be in the in long run.  Abortion is important yes, but there are so many more issues.

        After all, you need only look back to the beginning of the week, when it was clear that she was a STRONG church/state seperation vote.  Now we are going to lose that, and there's no kennedy buffer there.

        Abortion will dominate the 24 hour channels, but we need to keep up the visibility of other issues as well.

        blog Here's GOP compassion for you...Mountjoy said. "I'm here to tell you it's [homosexuality] not OK, it's not natural"

        by UTBriancl on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:18:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  If we alienate the pro-life Catholic and pro-life (none)
        Evangelists by making this about abortion, then we may even lose our ability to filibuster any more wingnuts by going below 40 Dem senators in 2006 and we may not see another democratic president for many years.

        But, hey, what do I know?  I just have an anti-choice family and many, many anti-choice friends and acquaintances.  

        I think we must keep 2006 and 2008 in mind, like a chess game.  You may win this move and lost the whole game.

        "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

        by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:20:59 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We are never going to get (none)
          the evangelical anti-abortion rights crowd or the conservative Catholic.


        •  40 in '06?? (none)
          We need 40 Senators NOW if we're to have any bargaining power in this process.

          As I say above, we need to provide cover to various Democrats in really-red red states and the abortion issue alone doesn't provide it.

          Just ask yourself, which you would rather have as the headline in those particular states:




          by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:34:33 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Sorry (none)
            "Democrats save Roe Versus Wade" will have a far greater resonance. People DON'T want abortion to be illegal and it is a winning issue IF it is in danger. Why is this so hard to understand for the anti-abortion Democratic wing? Don't you want to win?
            •  That's proven effective the last 10 yrs has it? (none)
              We've got loads of representatives and Senators from those anti-choice states do we?

              Let's do this: have a popular politician run on the abortion issue in a red state and see how well they do.

              Hey, I'm not saying we shouldn't use this to kill Republicans in blue states, and as a rallying cry for endangered Democrats in blue states, but our immediate concern has to be giving the Democrats in red states enough cover to credibly threaten to filibuster.

              If I were Karl Rove, I'd laugh in the face of Kent Conrad if he was threatening to join the 37 other liberal Democrats in a filibuster of a nominee that's being attacked solely for being anti-choice.


              by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:49:52 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  One more time (none)
                Roe is a winning issue if abortions are made illegal or are on the verge of being made illegal. People in this country don't want it to be illegal. And frankly your reading of politics leaves a lot to be desired. Karl Rove won in 2004 to impose his agenda, ie. His agenda takes precedence over what happens to Republican party hopes in 2006 or 2008. Hence their insistence on Bolton, hence their SS platform, hence their religious agenda. Bush didn't won re-election so that anothe republican wins in 2008. He won to impose his agenda. Democrats will win by pointing out and fighting this agenda. Republicans have maxed out their support in red state on this issue. Do you really think they can run on abortion year after yera without doing something about it? Nope, they'll impose their agenda in this term and Democrats will win by fighting this agenda supported by no more than 30% of the country. Perspective.
                •  I think you're missing the point (none)
                  There are 6 votes in favor of upholding Roe on the court.  Regardless of who Bush nominates there will be 5.  It is not on the table and more importantly, IT DOESN'T HELP US WIN ANY SEATS IN CONGRESS.  This fight is about giving 40 Democratic Senators cover to filibuster a wing-nut AND getting to 51 Senators and a majority in the House so the next nominee is rejected or is a true moderate.

                  You may think we get to 51 by running on abortion.  I think we get to 51 by running on an economic populist platform and reform.

                  DON'T BLAME ME; I VOTED FOR CLARK

                  by DWCG on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:44:08 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Kennedy (none)
                    is not a reliable vote on abortion. And you can run on a populist platform and in favor of choice.Ever heard of Bill Clinton? THERE is NO CHOICE IF ROE IS OVERTURNED. Why is this so hard to understand? Problem arises when purists try to force party in one direction only. You can't sell out abortion rights, a significant voting base(pro-choice) and still hope to win anything. You are simply wrong and as I pointed out your reading of issues is very superficial.
        •  It's all about women's right to live (none)
          Why don't you try to win elections without the pro-choice women's votes.   You will never get the pro-life vote but you can surely lose wmen's votes if you continue to show us how little you support and protect us in our rights of choice.

          I've said this until I'm blue in the face, but women are prepared to leave this party if this party refuses to hear we have had enough, our rights have been compromised enough, we have decided our lives are more important that your flimsy attempts to attract votes from people who will never be loyal to you, Hell, if you're willing to suck up to pro-lifers and turn your backs on women we have absoluttely no reason to stay.

          Let's talk about all your freinds and family who are anti-choice, they're standing in line to vote for Democratic candidates?  You can count on them to show up and do phone banking, GOTV, voter registration drives, fundraising, precinct walking, canvassing, writing letters to the edotors?  Because if you can't then you have pushed women out of this party for no reason at all.

          How does all this make women feel?  Mad as Hell and not willing to take it anymore.

          Losing O'Connors vote is all about choice.   It's time to worry about alienating pro-choice women.  The next question, where will we go?  If need be we'll stay home before we continue to support a party that is willing to see us go into backalleys for abortions we have every right to have.  We will sit home before we support a party that is willing to see us die instead of standing up to the pro-lifers they tried so hard to appease.  

          Tell me I'm taking a stand on principle and I'll tell you, damned right I am, the principle that every woman and giirl deserves to live a life without the fear of dying under the knife of a quack abortionist.

          Why don't you keep worrying about 2006 and 2008 and play that chess game you're so fond of.  Women are tired of your games, we'd prefer to work on staying alive.

          We're only capable of doing on the outside what we're capable of being on the inside.

          by caliberal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 01:04:01 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Please - give me a break (none)
            Where are women who are activists on abortion going to go if we do not make this nomination about abortion?? They know we all still support choice - but it is you and the previous poster who are being purists.  Abortion or die!!! Forget everything else the United States is dealing with, populist issues, there is a part of the Democratic party that only cares about abortion.

            That is fine, that is your right, but know this: I have a LOT of family and friends who don't vote Democratic ONLY because they see the Democratic party as murderers of babies.  When I mention Harry Reid to them, they get confused.  You mean...a Democrat is pro-life, they say.  Yes, I tell them, we welcome all people in the Democratic party. The purists in this party do not.  And you discount peoples' real moral objections to abortion, which makes us as extremist on this issue as the repubs are on school prayer or abortion themselves.  We NEED to be open to different viewpoints, then we can win elections.  Then we can safely filibuster or just vote down those who try to get rid of Roe vs. Wade. I do NOT want to see Roe vs. Wade overturned.  But I think we have to disguise our true motives a bit.

            If you had a candidate for the Supreme Court who fiercely protected individual rights, supported affirmative action, was against abuses by corporations, and was pro-environment, but they were pro-life, EVEN IF IT DID NOT MEAN THE OVERTHROW OF ROE VS WADE, would you support that candidate??? I think not.  This is where we part ways.

            "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

            by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 03:18:29 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Pardon me but what the hell? (none)
      At what point to you feel the need to stand up for anything? We disagree on a lot of things. But this isn't one of them. A moderate conservative to the court is what we need to be fighting to accomplish- not just for abortion but for a lot of other issues as well.
      •  Did you read what I said? (none)
        I agree that we need a moderate on the Court.  But for chrissakes, do we need to scream that this nominee is all about Roe vs. Wade??  It alienates people to make this the number one Democratic priority. There are lots of other issues that we can bring us as well - corporate vs individual, environmental, how about the right to habeas corpus, which seems to be in danger right now.  That is what I said.

        "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

        by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:23:31 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Who is screaming this all about Roe v Wade (none)
          except the conservatives? They already out villifying OConnor as a liberal of all things (She as a moderate conservative so in their minds that makes her liberal). Already seen them on MSNBC CNN etc. And, have said that Roe v Wade is their litmus test. If you want to put you head in the sand, because you think this is something that will turn off voters- you may want to tell the Republicans that because they are proceeding along the lines that they are going to attack, attack attack. While you are proceeding a long the lines- okay let's be careful. Careful is something I normally agree with. But, here's a mistake.
    •  Bigger Picture (none)
      We are looking at 2-4 vacancies in Bush's term with Stevens being one of them. They (the Republican machinery) is planning to fight a 4 year battle and Roe versus wade is what brings in their foot soldiers. You have to understand what is at stake here. Roe V. Wade is not a losing issue if we can convince people, most of whom are against overturning RvW., that it is an endangered law.
    •  Americans are not divided on Roe. (none)
      Your comments betray an ignorance of fact.  The vast majority of Americans, close to 80 percent, believe abortion should remain legal and do not favor overturning Roe.  

      This is the time to talk about Roe because it has never been more vulnerable.  

      And by the way, how dare you suggest that Roe [read:  reproductive rights] take a backseat?  Should we also get to the back of the bus?  

      Half of this nation is female.  Fully one-third of a female's life is reproductive.  Roe is going to be the topic of conversation for a long time.  Better get used to it.  

      •  I give up - there is no talking reason on this (none)
        site any time abortion is brought up.

        I may not have habeas corpus, govts may be able to take my home away, the FBI may be able to spy on me and get my bank and library records, credit card companies may own me, but by God, I can get an abortion so all is right with America. There are other issues, and we need to fight for them as well, NOT just the right to choose.  

        Why is it so hard to fight for more than one issue?


        "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

        by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:29:10 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nobody is saying (none)
          not to fight for other issues--that's your strawman.

          All of the issues you raise are important and not a single person here is saying otherwise.  Jesus.

          What we are saying, though, is that this issue is critical at the moment.  If you are unable to figure out why that is, well, I feel sorry for you.  

          •  Then I guess I will have to live with your (none)
            deep felt sympathy - because I do NOT think that even if you think abortion is the #1 issue right now, that you should shout that out.

            As said above by someone else, we have really done well holding onto our majorities in the House and Senate being pro-choice, haven't we?? The Americans have really supported us on this, yup, can't you tell as we lose more representatives every single election? Our chess game has been at the top of its form, hasn't it. So y'all keep yelling about the same issue, over and over, and Americans will support you as they have the last 10 years.

            If I were a republican, I would be licking my chops at the screams over abortion from the democrats.  Because then I could get away with an individual who hates individuals' rights and the environment.

            "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

            by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:38:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Jeez (none)
              They haven't supported us because they don't think abortion will be made illegal. They will support us if the spectre of illegal abortion is there. Besides, abortion debate is 30 years old and how many pro-choice Democrats have won around the country in this period? Quite a few including last POTUS.
            •  Here's the thing (none)
              We disagree with you and say so, and say why.

              Why do you object to that? People explained why and you act as if there is some attack on you.

              If they were shouting you down with no facts that would be one thing. But they aren't.

              I think your complaints are unseemly.

              The SCOTUS is Extraordinary.

              by Armando on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 09:45:10 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I am arguing for my point of view (none)
                I think making this about abortion is going to alienate a lot of voters who would perhaps be leaning towards the Dems right now. How is that being personally sensitive towards any attacks on me?? Where did I mention one time that I felt personally attacked? I said it is a waste discussing abortion on this site, because people start screaming right away, things like,

                "Pardon me but what the hell?

                At what point to you feel the need to stand up for anything? We disagree on a lot of things. But this isn't one of them. A moderate conservative to the court is what we need to be fighting to accomplish- not just for abortion but for a lot of other issues as well."

                 I never even responded on a personal level to this, so what are you talking about? I think you need to go back and look at some responses to my statements.

                You can try to make my disagreement with you over this just because I am just some "overly sensitive female," but this is about ideas and strategy in my book.  Sorry - I admire a lot of what you write but I think you are way off base here.

                "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

                by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:04:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  You're wrong (none)
                  It will, however wake up many pro-choice libertarians and moderate Republicans who haven't voted on this issue because they assumed the battle was over and done.

                  Why do you think Bush ran around calling Roe V. Wade "the law of the land" during the last election?  Why do you think he spoke to his anti-abortion base in code words?

                  This is dangerous territory for Republicans and they know it.  It's one thing to go after teenage girls and made up procedures,  it's a far different thing to go wholly after the right to choose.

                  Having said all of this, I agree with you in one sense.  I don't think we should stress Roe alone.  I think we should stress Griswald and the right to privacy in general, which are surely under threat.

                  And I think we should bring up the Schiavo debacle as many times as humanly possible during the course of this battle.  

                  •  I think you're wrong (none)
                    I think BushCo have no intention of overturning Roe vs. Wade.  How, then, would they ever get any Christian Evangelical voters out?? They tend to stay home unless all fired up.  

                    "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

                    by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 03:20:48 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

        •  Adigal (none)
          It's not, but everything you listed is about one issue -- habeas corpus, Patriot Act, informational privacy -- all part of the larger issue of the right to privacy, of which the abortion fight is the primary battleground.  It's really all about one issue in the end -- Liberty.

          It's the RULE OF LAW, stupid!

          by Rick Oliver on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:41:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree, Rick, 100% (none)
            So let's call it what it is - the right to privacy!! I bet you 80% of Americans do NOT want the govt in any of their private decisions.  I am not disagreeing with the issue - I am disagreeing with the framing.

            "If you are not outraged, you are not paying attention."

            by adigal on Fri Jul 01, 2005 at 10:55:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site