<blockquote>
<p>But I don't see how Bush as a born-again Christian could be pro-choice. Isn't that against their creed? (hey, it's late and I'm getting cynical)</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Jimmy Carter was a born-again Christian, but pro-choice as a matter of public policy. For that matter, John Kerry's Catholic "creed" is certainly anti-abortion. If I recall, Kerry is pro-choice.</p>
<p>I would not describe George Bush as a "pro-choice" candidate. But, I doubt very much that he would decide to wade into that quagmire. Betch, his Supreme Court nominees will have NO record on the issue. My guess is that he will go out of his way to nominate a conservative judge who is above reproach. It only makes sense from a confirmation standpoint.</p>
<p>Well, everyone's free to stay...or leave. That's what makes America great. I've spent a lot of time in France, and I'd much prefer to stay home in America, merci beaucoup! And, as for the draft: I don't see the draft as horrible. I see it as EVERY American's duty. My father served, my father in law served, my husband served. I'd be proud if either of my children were called to serve. Sad and worried - yes. But proud not angry.</p>
<p>"a conservative judge" is not going to find a penumbral right to privacy. Also, we are always very good at digging out all the old opinions on related issues and similar interpretations of marginal constitutional rights and predicting pretty darn well. But again, the proof will be in the pudding.</p>
<p>It seems to me that presidents are routinely surprised by the Supreme Court judges they appoint.</p>
<p>For example, 7 of the 9 current Supreme Court justices were nominated by Republican Presidents. I can't remember about Gerald Ford, who has one nominee still on the bench, but Bush I and Reagan (6 appointees) ran for President as anti-abortion candidates. Yet, despite the makeup of the Court, I'm not aware of any serious challenge to Roe v. Wade.</p>
<p>Heck, a stacked "conservative" Court didn't even overturn Affirmative Action in the UMich cases last summer.</p>
<p>I don't consider the current court a stacked conservative court at all. It includes the entire political spectrum pretty much and has appointees from Nixon, Reagan (3), Ford, Bush Sr. (2), and Clinton (2). It breaks down like this I believe. </p>
<p>Pro-overturning Roe v. Wade--Rehnquist (Nixon), Scalia (Reagan), Thomas (Bush).<br>
Rehnquist will probably step down soon and his replacement will not change the current balance on the issue, but the next two appointments could. O'Connor and Ginsburg have both had cancer, Stevens is 80-plus years old. Scalia, Breyer and Thomas are younger and vigorous and Souter, my favorite, I forget.</p>
<p>P.S. Carolyn I never said you were intolerant. What I said was that I think we are becoming an intolerant society.</p>
<p>Okay, last post: I googled this question and although I didn't find much, will just post this link below, fyi. I don't think that it offers a prediction but it may suggest some of the pressure Bush will be under when he has his Supreme Court picks:</p>
<p>Patient is correct, in my opinion. The term "strict constructionist" is certainly linked with being against Roe v. Wade and its constellation of penumbral rights. That's not even reading between the lines and I'm surprised that the meaning of that phrase is even at issue. Here's a quote from, granted, a pro-abortion website: "Pro-life advocates refer to Roe v. Wade as an example of Judicial Activism or legislating from the bench, i.e., that judges are making the law rather than interpreting it. In these terms, pro-life advocates believe in Strict Constructionism, or a literal interpretation of the Constitution with no implied rights." I would have thought that these are agreed-upon meanings of these terms.</p>
<p>I also think that Bush's statement, quoted by Carolyn above, "I believe the ideal world is one in which every child is protected in law and welcomed to life" is about a clear a statement about the wish to overturn Roe v. Wade as could be made without actually mentioning the name of the case.</p>
<p>Guys, stop freaking out. GWB can't overturn Roe v. Wade, because he's not on the Supreme Court.</p>
<p>Okay, now that my pedantism is out of the way:</p>
<p>Rehnquist is not coming back to work. Scalia will most likely be appointed chief Justice and Bush will try to bring in someone conservative-- but he won't apply the sort of litmus test everyone thinks he will.</p>
<p>The problem Bush has right now is Arlen Specter. Arlen Specter is a crazy old Republican who may become the Judiciary Chairman soon. He has had the audacity to tell Bush (through the media) who he should not even consider appointing, because Specter says he'll fight every single nominee...</p>
<p>Specter promises to apply that litmus test and not appoint a pro life judge. At all. </p>
<p>the Repubs out there, The Corner on National Review says:</p>
<p>"Here are the numbers for Senate Republicans on the Judiciary Committee. If you want to take action on making sure Specter is not judiciary chairman, call your Republican senators. If you do not have a Republican senator, call Republicans on the Judicary Committee. They are: </p>
<p>Complain about Specter, and hopefully we'll make our point known. We're going to have to promote this culture of life a lot if we actually want it.</p>
<p>As a liberal, I can tell you right now that 1) I don't want Roe v. Wade to be overturned and 2) It won't.</p>
<p>Here is why...</p>
<p>Arlen Specter is not going to allow a conservative judge on the court. Even when Clarence Thomas was question before being accepted to the court, he was asked about Roe v. Wade. If anyone who Bush attempts to appoint to the court says they will overturn it, they are going to be immeditely thrown out of the candidate pool.</p>
<p>Something that interesteddad said, though, is actually quite true: for some reason, Supreme Court nominees often surprise after their appointment. I know that was true for Harry Blackmun, who was expected to be quite conservative, and who utterly agonized over the Roe v. Wade decision, and shocked the people who were expecting a different result from him. I believe that also Stevens and Souter have been somewhat surprising. It is heartening to know that people appointed to that position take their oath, and the job of interpreting such an amazing document, so seriously and honestly. </p>
<p>Scalia and Thomas have been utterly predictable, as I suppose has Ginsburg on the other end of the spectrum. O'Connor and Breyer I believe were known to be independent and moderate or slightly to one side or the other, when they were appointed.</p>
<p>The right to an abortion is not contained in the Constitution. If you have read Roe v. Wade, you can tell that the Supreme Court simply made up a new right. The Constitution provides a mechanism for its amendment. On occasion, the Supreme Court simply decides it knows better than do the people and passes its own legislation, rather than wait for Americans to force an amendment. President Bush will not appoint justices who think they are legislators (at least I hope he doesn't). </p>
<p>Roe v. Wade will not be overturned regardless of the justices President Bush appoints. My conclusion is based on -- ego (no not mine, the ego of justices). Supreme Court Justices believe they are always right and are certain of this. They do not like to be reversed. History is not kind to justices who are later reversed. Current justices know this. The only people who can reverse current justices are Supreme Court Justices serving in courts coming after them. If you are a Supreme Court Justice and you do not wish to have later courts reverse your opinion, then you should adopt the practice of following precedent. Thus, if a later Supreme Court also follows precedent, this means your opinions are not reversed. Roe v. Wade is binding precedent and has been tested several times. It will not be reversed (even though it should be) because reversal of such a prominent decision will expose the Roe Supreme Court Justices as the activists they were.</p>
<p>BTW, the supposed Bush quote by iplayoboe was never made by President Bush. It is just one more Democrat lie spread throughout the internet, much like the draft rummor was spread.</p>
<p>Abortion is a woman's choice, so men should not even be posting in this forum with their opinions, because frankly, they don't matter. I'm sorry if I've offended you by being blunt, but seriously, men are not the ones who will be pregnant or who will end up raising the child if it is an unwanted child (meaning unplanned, not specifically "asked for" by both parents).</p>
<p>Roe v. Wade should not be overturned ever. It is a hallmark piece of progressive legislation, the kind that makes our country one of the best in the world. This type of freedom is one of the core values of our society, and, if overturned, will just send us back tens of years legislation and freedom-wise.</p>
<p>I know that this post is probably going to elicit some strong opposal, so please just be civil about it. No need to be derogatory in any way (as some other posts have been).</p>
<p>Well, to me it doesn't matter if Roe v. Wade is overturned (I mean I wouldn't care if it were, but I'm not in a hurry to get it overturned). What I think is that liberals and conservatives should agree on a compromise. What cant' we ban abortions in the second and third trimester, while allow those in the first trimester. I mean, a woman knows she's pregnant and should be able to make a choice either way. Waiting until the baby is fully developed, then having it killed is pointless. I think this is the only way in which everyone could agree.</p>
<p>jaug1-- exactly right about Arlen Specter. Which is why us Republiquans have to stop him immediately.</p>
<p>I complete disagree, calidan. Well, first of all, you can't just tell males to shut up about it. Males dominate politics, so they're legislating you. </p>
<p>And second, Roe v. Wade was not some hallmark piece of legislature. It was a politically activist decision that clearly showed me at least, why 9 people not elected by the public in any way shape or form should not be deciding things that rule our lives. I support initiatives and referendums over anything else. "Our great country" was founded on federalism-- the united <em>states</em>. Each state should still have a right to ask its citizens what they want to do, especially regarding more social issues like abortion and gay marriage.</p>
<p>I personally don't want Ginsburg telling me how to live my life. To me the Supreme Court is more of an oligarchy than a democratic institution, and if it ever was the latter, it's not now.</p>
<p>alukaszewicz-- good point but first trimester fetuses are still children. And I think killing off our future generations is a bad idea, plain and simple. especially when there are so many other options out there.</p>
<p>babybird, I completely agree with you. In a perfect society, we wouldn't have any abortions. But there is no way this will be a reality, given that there are so many pro choice liberals around.</p>
<p>My goodness, maybe we should give extra credit for AP Government.</p>
<p>The value of the Supreme Court in our system of checks and balances is PRECISELY because it is not an elected body. Because the Justices are appointed for life and do not stand for re-election, they are not held to the whims of political fashion, but can interpret the Constitution with a great deal of independence.</p>
<p>People love to throw out analogies to Nazi Germany in political discussions, but it is the independent, deliberative nature of the Supreme Court that protects us against popular sentiment of clearly unconstitutional legislation.</p>
<p>Now, obviously the Supreme Court does not operate in a vacuum. We can argue about activist courts overstepping the bounds or not. But, the Supreme Court has served this country pretty well.</p>
<p>BTW, it is thought that the real breakthrough of the Civil Rights movement was the realization by NAACP Attorney Thurgood Marshall (and others) that they could use court actions to proactively achieve policy changes lacking the popular support for legislative action. </p>
<p>Ironically, today conservative political groups are using the same tactics, for example in well-funded, well-organized court challenges to things like affirmative action. The plaintiffs in the UMich cases last summer were found from advertising and recruitment, hand-selected to tailor the eventual Supreme Court challenge in very specific ways.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the Supreme Court looks to be more and more influenced by day to day politics than ever before. The Supreme Court of today is not the Supreme Court of Marbury v Madison or Brown v Board. They're just not. They've decided to take an activist stance on issues that affect the general voting public-- things that are too out there to be said can be "inferred" by the Constitution.</p>
<p>When that begins to happen, it's time to hear what the people have to say on it.</p>