Petition for John Ashcroft
- Thread starter eagle-eyes
- Start date
Your right adad,
Sometimes you do have to bite the bullet, this election being a perfect example, Bush not being a real strong pro lifer or a real strong RKBA guy. Even though we (everybody on this thread)have gone back an forth on Ashcroft and his nomination and the issues surrounding it, we all probably (if it were up to us) would support him and vote for his nomination, me because he is both pro life and pro RKBA , others just because he's pro life ,and others just because he's pro RKBA. Izzy being the exception, he's got a good point though, it does seem kinda strange standing up for a guy who lost an election to a dead man and then didn't even contest it!!!
Sometimes you do have to bite the bullet, this election being a perfect example, Bush not being a real strong pro lifer or a real strong RKBA guy. Even though we (everybody on this thread)have gone back an forth on Ashcroft and his nomination and the issues surrounding it, we all probably (if it were up to us) would support him and vote for his nomination, me because he is both pro life and pro RKBA , others just because he's pro life ,and others just because he's pro RKBA. Izzy being the exception, he's got a good point though, it does seem kinda strange standing up for a guy who lost an election to a dead man and then didn't even contest it!!!
Well said, adad
...which is counter-productive. I'm fairly certain their non-republican choices weren't pro-life either.
Although I strongly believe in LIFE and in RKBA, I do understand that when we are "stuck" with someone who isn't as strong on both as I am, that doesn't mean I should ditch him and the same is true for the person posted above who was anti-Ashcroft because of his views being pro-life. Unfortunately, even though you might think a particular nominee isn't "perfect," just remember the alternatives do not necessarily improve.
Just my $0.02... or maybe it's $0.04 now...
...which is counter-productive. I'm fairly certain their non-republican choices weren't pro-life either.
Although I strongly believe in LIFE and in RKBA, I do understand that when we are "stuck" with someone who isn't as strong on both as I am, that doesn't mean I should ditch him and the same is true for the person posted above who was anti-Ashcroft because of his views being pro-life. Unfortunately, even though you might think a particular nominee isn't "perfect," just remember the alternatives do not necessarily improve.
Just my $0.02... or maybe it's $0.04 now...
Take a breath...
Lest anyone get too far ranging here, let's remember one thing:
If Roe v.Wade is ever overturned (and I don't think it will be in the next 4 years) it will be on the basis of (to quote AlGore) "no controlling legal authority". It will be overturned as not being a constitutional issue, therefore not involving the Federal Gov't. It will then be returned to the states, for them to decide on a state by state basis. Here in NJ, being a bastion of liberalism, nothing will change. The "procedures" will be as readily available as ever, if not more so. Now, perhaps in OK or NC, the situation might be different, depending on state legislatures, but the idea that an overturn would immediately make all procedures illegal and lead to back-alley mutilations is pure nonsense spread by the fear mongering "choice" lobby.
Lest anyone get too far ranging here, let's remember one thing:
If Roe v.Wade is ever overturned (and I don't think it will be in the next 4 years) it will be on the basis of (to quote AlGore) "no controlling legal authority". It will be overturned as not being a constitutional issue, therefore not involving the Federal Gov't. It will then be returned to the states, for them to decide on a state by state basis. Here in NJ, being a bastion of liberalism, nothing will change. The "procedures" will be as readily available as ever, if not more so. Now, perhaps in OK or NC, the situation might be different, depending on state legislatures, but the idea that an overturn would immediately make all procedures illegal and lead to back-alley mutilations is pure nonsense spread by the fear mongering "choice" lobby.
See this is what I'm talking about. Abortion is not a federal issue. I don't like abortion. I don't support abortion. But I think that the feds have no say in the area. There is no delegation in the Constitution for the Congress or any other branch to regulate abortion.
Some make the argument that the due process clause applies. " . . . shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" - abortion being a deprivation of life (which I happen to think is correct.) They forget that the Constitution only serves to limit government, not actions undertaken by private parties on private property. A prohibition on the government performing abortions? Certainly. A prohibition on private parties contracting with other private parties for abortions? Leave it up to the states.
Some make the argument that the due process clause applies. " . . . shall not be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law" - abortion being a deprivation of life (which I happen to think is correct.) They forget that the Constitution only serves to limit government, not actions undertaken by private parties on private property. A prohibition on the government performing abortions? Certainly. A prohibition on private parties contracting with other private parties for abortions? Leave it up to the states.
just kidding, Don't shoot!
Just the facts
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that I support abortion or the idea that it should be a state issue, just explaining the legal facts of the case.
Believe me, as a NJ resident (where a obtaining pistol permit is like a senate confirmation proceeding and all hollowpoints are outlawed) I am well aware of the pitfalls of local control on important issues pertaining to civil rights.
I believe that the taking of unborn life is not a civil right - it is a violent criminal act on par with manslaughter, and every state (last I checked) has laws regarding that.
The issue of "choice" is taken into consideration at many steps along the path to pregnancy by the willing (let's not deal with the low percentage exceptions) participants. People choose to drink, drug, unzip, and go unprotected. They have exhausted their choices at that point.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't saying that I support abortion or the idea that it should be a state issue, just explaining the legal facts of the case.
Believe me, as a NJ resident (where a obtaining pistol permit is like a senate confirmation proceeding and all hollowpoints are outlawed) I am well aware of the pitfalls of local control on important issues pertaining to civil rights.
I believe that the taking of unborn life is not a civil right - it is a violent criminal act on par with manslaughter, and every state (last I checked) has laws regarding that.
The issue of "choice" is taken into consideration at many steps along the path to pregnancy by the willing (let's not deal with the low percentage exceptions) participants. People choose to drink, drug, unzip, and go unprotected. They have exhausted their choices at that point.