A Looming Republican Fissure?

[[censored]]

I agree that most of Republican party probably does not want to make all abortions illegal for the reasons you stated and for the simple reason that most Republican do not want all abortions to be illegal.

My point about most people favoring some restrictions was only that because the majority favors keeping abortions legal does necessarily mean that they would be againt overturning roe v. wade which has made it extremely hard to uphold any restrictions what so ever, even something like partial birth abortions which the public is overwhlemingly against. Basically saying that 76% of Americans favor keeping abortion legal does tell the entire story.

I don't want to get into the age old debate of whether having an abortion should be a or is a (depending on how you look at it ) right but needless to say I disagree.

[ptmusic]

Other issues are more important to me, and the most important issues to me today are being handled poorly by the current administration. So if roe v. wade gets overturned, and as a result there is a huge Republican fissure and a huge Democratic unity, and as a result we get some new blood in the Executive and Legislative branches, I'd be okay with that.

-ptmusic

[Dead]

Two-thirds of Americans support Roe V Wade according to recent polls. You are playing with fire if you try to overturn it.

[masse75]

[ QUOTE ]
On another note, am I the only one who feels that nominating justices who would change the balance of the court and overturn Roe v Wade would have some unwanted consequences for the Republican Party (and their federal candidates, specifically) – that consequence being they lose an issue (if not the issue) which generates so much passion from their base?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a key point. Read an interview with some random Republican strategists/lawmakers. A lot are petrified that if Roe v. Wade is overturned and they have to actually vote on this (on the record, rather than posture during speeches) they will see repercussions from the moderate voters.

Otherwise, why would Bush waffle and say he opposes abortion, but the country isn't ready to overturn Roe? I think Repubs are getting into a pickle...their solid base is telling them it's time to pony up and do something. Look what pandering to the far left has done to the Democratic party. Think the Republican Party wants to go down that road?

[natedogg]

Roe v. Wade is a fantastic ruling. You have a constitutional right to have an abortion. To believe that means you believe in the 9th amendment, which reserves all kinds of rights for the people that aren't explicitly enumerated.

Many idiots (like Bork and Scalia and their supporters) often argue against certain rights and protections because "it's not in the constitution". That is nonsense. The 9th amendment explicitly protects us from such crap. Except it seems to have been forgotton.

American liberals have no respect for the 9th amendment either. The sole exception is Roe v. Wade. Liberals get very uncomfortable when you start talking about all kinds of unenumerated rights that the people reserve for themselves. If you start thinking that way, you realize that most of the New Deal and Great Society could be construed as violating our rights. All the public health intrusions such as seat belt laws and anti-smoking laws would MOST DEFINITELY be construed as 9th amendment violations. Of course, minimum wage and many regulations would also qualify.

I love Roe v. Wade but I think most liberals would be very concerned about supporting it if they understood the implications.

natedogg

[sam h]

Overturning Roe scares the crap out of a lot of Republican politicians. It is precisely because power to regulate abortion will be in the hands of legislators that this is such an unsavory prospect. The last thing many GOP politicos want is to have to vote on an abortion bill. This would mean choosing between appeasing a very powerful and very vocal set of core supporters and interest groups or siding with about 75% of the electorate on a hot button issue that will get tons of press. Plainly put, that is a politican's nightmare.

[BadBoyBenny]

I think the religious right will be upset at GWB's nominees, but thy don't really have the stones to let the Dems take office because they won't vote. I think Rove and GWB realize this.


My guess is if three justices reitre, you see Gonzales, who will likely support Roe, and two more conservative justices, at least one of whom may appear convservative during their vetting, but will still support Roe.

I think GWB has a stronger hand than it appears to people who think the Republicans will split over this and I think he knows it. I also think GWB will pick Gonzoles over another option who is both more conservative and more qualified because he sees the political gain from the hispanic vote as more important to the future of the party than James Dobson and his cronies who have no one else to vote for.

Here is a slate article with a more nuanced line of reasoning that reaches the same conclusion.

link

[BadBoyBenny]

A quality post bro. If this was mostly original thought then I give you my congrats. I didn't read it before making mine or it would seem less repetitive.

[Dynasty]

Only 15 people have voted in this at the time of this post. But, 8 are voting for a "No" option. It amazes me how much you guys don't understand President Bush.

There is absolutely no chance of him nominating a Supreme Court justice that isn't pro-life. He's not going to "take one for the team". He's going to nominate pro-life justices and, after a fight, the Republican-controlled Senate will approve them.

I really am stunned so many people think Bush would suddenly abandon one of his core beliefs. Is this just some kind of wishful thinking?

[pokergripes]

[ QUOTE ]
Only 15 people have voted in this at the time of this post. But, 8 are voting for a "No" option. It amazes me how much you guys don't understand President Bush.

There is absolutely no chance of him nominating a Supreme Court justice that isn't pro-life. He's not going to "take one for the team". He's going to nominate pro-life justices and, after a fight, the Republican-controlled Senate will approve them.

I really am stunned so many people think Bush would suddenly abandon one of his core beliefs. Is this just some kind of wishful thinking?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the question is whether a staunchly pro-life judge can get confirmed...if the answer was a clear "yes", there would be no question that bush would nominate him or her...but there is a real question regarding confirmation, and that has to inform the initial nomination...