Abortion and Stare Decisis!

It is interesting to be categorized by readers of this blog. When GOP conservatives (quasi) and Kool-Aid drinking Limbaugh fanatics cannot respond intellectually to what I have written, they attach an appellative to you. They want to categorically stigmatize you with a label that makes them feel good about their ignorant selves. Several of the aforementioned have erroneously labeled me as a liberal, are you ever wrong on that appellative! I make Pat Buchanan look like he is still in Kindergarten by comparison. Am I a radical? No! I am a balanced conservative that studies the issues being considered, and then offer intellectual response (s). In other words I think before I engage my mouth, something that true liberals and arm-chair critics do not. One issue that recently came to my attention was Obama’s stance on abortion. Rick Warren, a poser minister if there ever was one, queried Obama on the when life begins question seeking the old abortion stance response that so many politicians and people running for office face. Obama’s response was not strong to Warren’s must ask question, but for a liberal, it was better than some that I’ve heard over the years. Maybe Obama did not want to be caught up in a trap by responding to the question another way. Why is this question so important that it demands an emphatic answer? Are there not more important issues that affect most Americans? Now I want to posit something for consideration. Does it really make a difference on what the candidate believes concerning this issue? NO, and I’ll tell you why.

This same query was posed to Bush forty-one. Bush is a pro-life president. And I think Obama in all reality is the same. For whatever reason the candidates must pander to every lobby group under the sun and give them the answers they want to hear to get elected to office. Once in office they can change positions on the issues, elected officials flip-flop on beliefs and issues all the time. But, what if anything can be done about the abortion issue? Can Roe v Wade be overturned? Yes, it is possible but for now highly unlikely. Bush forty-one has been in office for almost eight years now. My question is this; has he been able to get Roe v Wade overturned during his time in office? No he has not! Now why do you suppose this is? Time for a little back in time lesson! In landmark Supreme Court cases Roe v Wade stands as monumental. In 1992, the Supreme Court decided the case of Planned Parenthood of Southern Pennsylvania vs. Casey. This case was presented in hopes of changing Roe v Wade. Because the make-up of the Court had changed and become more conservative since Roe was first decided, many people believed that the Court might use this case to overturn Roe altogether. But what happened?

In a 5-4 decision the Court reaffirmed its commitment to Roe and to the basic right of a woman to have an abortion under certain circumstances. Justice O’Connor, who authored the majority opinion, argued that stare decisis required the Court to not overturn Roe. Stare decisis is the general principal that when a point has been settled by decision, it forms a precedent which is not afterwards to be departed from (landmarkcases.org). Yes, stare Decisis came into play and the court ruled against Casey. Incidentally, I am from Pennsylvania and I supported Governor Casey completely in this case. However, it is very difficult to overturn cases wherein stare decisis is the precedent by preceding court cases. The full legal term is “stare decisis et quieta non movere” meaning “stand by decisions and do not move that which is still”. Oh, this happened during the end of Bush one and the beginning of Clinton presidencies. Now to return to point; If Bush one followed by Clinton, followed by Bush two could not change the Roe v Wade ruling, what’s the point and why even ask the abortion question? Doesn’t this issue appear to be a moot point? What would it take to change this ruling? A complete conservative Supreme Court with a test case to challenge the current ruling could result in overturning Roe v Wade. But, will it happen any time soon is the question. Look how hard it was to get conservative judges on the Supreme Court to start with. The moderates on the court are not pro life vote guarantees, and neither are the avowed liberals willing to cast their vote in favor of overturning this flawed decision any time soon. (BTW, if you want my true stance on what should be done with beyond doubt convicted murderers specifically with aggravating circumstances such as cop killers, you can bring me a truckload of rocks as I have a lot of work to do!) Just thought I would insert that little personal gem. Anyway, don’t look for change anytime soon on Roe v Wade. But, wouldn’t it be a shocker if Obama was elected president and pushed for this to be overturned, wishful thinking, perhaps. I do believe however, there is more to Obama than meets the eye.

Chief Justice John Robert’s opinion on this volatile issue taken from the Washington Post September 15, 2005.

“Judge Roberts made clear that he believes the Constitution contains a right to privacy, and he expressed his agreement with high-court decisions striking down bans on contraception. While he declined to address the merits of Roe v. Wade, he did indicate that it is a decision to which stare decisis considerations properly apply. Importantly, he said several times that the subsequent decision in Planned Parenthood v. Casey — which reaffirmed Roe’s core principle — was independently entitled to be treated as a precedent. That implies that there would be a heavy burden for the court in upsetting abortion rights now. Judge Roberts was careful not to say what he would do, but his comments suggest that he appreciates the difficulty of eliminating a right the court has solemnly declared, and redeclared, in the past.”

PS Am I for abortions? Absolutely not!

GOP Chi-Cain-ery!

The more the GOP strives to ram this candidate down the Republican Party’s throat the more resentful one becomes. John McCuckoo is a first class loon in claiming rights to be the next in line Presidential candidate. But, based on what? What makes McCuckoo think that he has some deserved right of passage to stake claim to this nomination, what has he done that grants him the right to be successor to the throne? Oh, he served in Viet Nam! So did many others! Oh, he was a prisoner of war! There were quite a few that were taken captive and can say the same thing! There is one distinction that he has that many of his fellow captives cannot claim; John McCuckoo is a traitor to his country. Don’t believe that? During his POW captivity, McCuckoo was broken by his captors and signed a statement admitting the war crimes of the USA against Viet Nam et al. Claiming extreme duress, McCuckoo broke under the pressure. And now he wants the exalted position of president of the USA! What makes him think that he can handle that pressured position? And incidentally, there were many POW’s in Nam that endured even more torture and humiliation than John McCuckoo, and they never broke, never signed any war crimes admission papers.

John McCuckoo is also known for his unstable temperament. He is known to lose his temper over minor incidents. John McCuckoo also has a bad gambling habit so can we trust him to make judicious decisions? Hardly! One of the major problems this buffoon has is faithfulness to spouse. While he was a POW in Nam, his former wife did everything she could to obtain his release. Let’s read the quote from a reputable news source.
“McCain is angry because he says correctly that I was critical of the breakup of his first marriage [to Carol Shepp; McCain adopted her two sons, Doug and Andy] and ‘traffic in allegations that [he] had committed treason while a prisoner of war in Vietnam.’ I admit I don’t know of his side of the story. But I do know that McCain’s first wife, Carol, had worked for him with such devotion when he was a POW. Yet, as soon as McCain was back and assigned to the Navy’s Office of Congressional Affairs, one of his colleagues disgustedly reported that McCain was making overtures to every good-looking female who came near the office. Perhaps that contributed to the breakup of his first marriage. I don’t know, but it is hard not to feel sympathy for his first wife and think that someone who had worked so tirelessly and selflessly on behalf of her husband did not receive similar devotion and loyalty in return (Weyrich, Newsmax, 2005, 26).

Now the adultery situation with “I’m too good to be true” John Edwards has been revealed, McCuckoo is in the same boat by his adulterous affairs, can this person be trusted in the high office of presidency? Wasn’t Bill Clinton bad enough, do we need another infidel taking the high office of the presidency? Where are the good moral Republicans? Where can we find a man of honor untarnished by the temptations of this world? It is a real shame that the GOP can only field such a one as McCuckoo and then have the audacity to endorse and stand behind this lunatic. This is really a dilemma! Surely there are better offerings to be found. Oh, and in this same issue of Newsmax, Rush Limbaugh is adamant against McCuckoo becoming the next president, but has Rush changed his mind? Has Rush been compromised by the GOP’s candidate? Is Rush the GOP Waterboy despite his opposition to such? Listen to Limbaugh disparagement of Obama and you can only wonder if Limbaugh is a GOP subterfuge. His rhetoric sounds like bovine scatology to me. For someone that is not very fond of John McCuckoo, his narrative does not reflect the animus that was once purported. Can we say political double entendre here? Personally, The GOP needs a lesson. If Obama is elected president that lesson would be more than deserved. That would be the slap in the face the GOP really needs for offering someone like McCuckoo for a presidential candidate. The GOP needs to pay for their insipid behavior and do nothing agenda during the last four years. The oil crisis is reflective of their ineptitude to accomplish anything. Why did the GOP hold back until recently to lodge any protest against high oil prices, do they have any investment in the oil industry, are they speculators also? What a stinking mess this GOP. Maybe a serious time-out will change their minds and behavior. Do you think?