Political Hippo Circle Jerk - America, farg YEAH!

[PhillyGirl]

SEe, those are MCCAIN'S stances. Palin's are so much farther extreme than his.

I am pro-choice. I do NOT believe in abortions for birth control purposes, but banning them? Banning them would only lead to far much worse things. Allowing them ONLY for instances of rape/incest would lead to wrongful accusations of rape/incest. Banning them would also lead to "do it yourself" or backalley abortions...which would lead to MORE deaths (mother and child).

I believe in better sex education, better birth control options being made readily available for young, sexually active teens and open options.

Pro-choice does NOT mean pro-abortion.

[SD_Eagle5]

I don't put it past Palin to do all she could do overturn Roe v. Wade. Sorry, she is too skeery like that. She could appoint those who WOULD work to overturn it.

And yes, SD, she said it herself:

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Saying 'teach both and let them debate about it' is different than the evangical nutjobs who think only Creationism should be taught. I have no problem with letting students chose which one they think is right.

Palin could hire whomever she likes, I don't see what that has to do with the Senate and House voting against a bill. Checks and Balances and Seperation of Powers would never allow that to go through.

[Wingspan]

I don't put it past Palin to do all she could do overturn Roe v. Wade. Sorry, she is too skeery like that. She could appoint those who WOULD work to overturn it.

And yes, SD, she said it herself:

It can NOT be overturned...the only way to change the ruling would be to have a law passed that would make that ruling illegal. No justice appointee can do anything about it.

Please...no one can appoint congress

[Geowhizzer]

I don't put it past Palin to do all she could do overturn Roe v. Wade. Sorry, she is too skeery like that. She could appoint those who WOULD work to overturn it.

And yes, SD, she said it herself:

It can NOT be overturned...the only way to change the ruling would be to have a law passed that would make that ruling illegal. No justice appointee can do anything about it.

Please...no one can appoint congress

Technically it wouldn't take Congress.  Just get a conservative state to pass a law, and if you have the Supreme Court justices, it would be upheld, effectively overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.

There is historical precedent of the Supreme Court overturning prior decisions.  Probably the most famous one is the Brown v. Board (1954), which effectively overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which had legalized segregation in schools under the "seperate but equal" doctrine.

Of course, a vice president doesn't appoint anyone, so Palin would become an issue only if McCain wins and then dies in office.

[Wingspan]

That would be a state government issue then, wouldnt it?

Has nothing to do with who the president or vice president is.

[PhillyGirl]

I don't put it past Palin to do all she could do overturn Roe v. Wade. Sorry, she is too skeery like that. She could appoint those who WOULD work to overturn it.

And yes, SD, she said it herself:

It can NOT be overturned...the only way to change the ruling would be to have a law passed that would make that ruling illegal. No justice appointee can do anything about it.

Please...no one can appoint congress

Technically it wouldn't take Congress.  Just get a conservative state to pass a law, and if you have the Supreme Court justices, it would be upheld, effectively overturning the Roe v. Wade decision.

There is historical precedent of the Supreme Court overturning prior decisions.  Probably the most famous one is the Brown v. Board (1954), which effectively overturned Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), which had legalized segregation in schools under the "seperate but equal" doctrine.

Of course, a vice president doesn't appoint anyone, so Palin would become an issue only if McCain wins and then dies in office.

Thanks, Geo.....someone on another forum I frequent mentioned Brown v. Board and that is what made both that and the fact that McCain is possibly not going to make it through all 4 years a very scary prospect for me. Not that I would have ever voted FOR McCain/Palin, but now it just flat out scares me. Like the way I felt when I saw all of those people vote for Mike Huckabee in the primaries.

[ice grillin you]

That would be a state government issue then, wouldnt it?

Has nothing to do with who the president or vice president is.

right and if you support choice the last thing you ever want if for rvw to be abolished and the states to take over...theres a whole lot more red states than blue

btw palin doesnt even want it to go to the states...she wants absolute abolition

I don't put it past Palin to do all she could do overturn Roe v. Wade. Sorry, she is too skeery like that. She could appoint those who WOULD work to overturn it.

And yes, SD, she said it herself:

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don’t be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it’s so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Saying 'teach both and let them debate about it' is different than the evangical nutjobs who think only Creationism should be taught. I have no problem with letting students chose which one they think is right. 

youre insane...you want some fable taught in schools as fact?...not to mention theres a little something in the constitution about seperation of church and state...

[Geowhizzer]

That would be a state government issue then, wouldnt it?

Has nothing to do with who the president or vice president is.

The President controls the appointments of future Supreme Court justices (with the check and balance that the Senate must approve them).  Right now, one justice is over 80 (John Paul Stevens, 88), and four are 70+ (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are each 72, and Stephen Breyer is 70).  It is probably that Stevens will need to be replaced in the next term, and certainly possible that the other four could be replaced within two terms.

Right now, the court is generally 5-4 in many close votes.  Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are consistent conservative votes.  Ginsberg, Stevens (ironically a Ford appointment) and Breyer are consistent liberal votes.  Kennedy and David Souter are swing votes.

So, it is conceivable that in the next two terms, 3 liberal seats, one conservative seat and one swing seat could be up for grabs (and the one liberal seat almost certainly will be).   The president in office could make a profound difference in the makeup of the Court for the next generation.

[shorebird]

You know you have been dissed when you are dissed about your investigative rigor by the National Enquirer:

"The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy. Following our John Edwards' exclusives, our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign's vetting process. Despite the McCain camp's attempts to control press coverage they find unfavorable, The Enquirer will continue to pursue news on both sides of the political spectrum."

Your quoting the National Enquirer now?

[SD_Eagle5]

I don't put it past Palin to do all she could do overturn Roe v. Wade. Sorry, she is too skeery like that. She could appoint those who WOULD work to overturn it.

And yes, SD, she said it herself:

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Saying 'teach both and let them debate about it' is different than the evangical nutjobs who think only Creationism should be taught. I have no problem with letting students chose which one they think is right. 

youre insane...you want some fable taught in schools as fact?...not to mention theres a little something in the constitution about seperation of church and state...

How is it being taught as 'fact' if you're letting a student decide for themselves which one is correct? Again, she's not taking the lunacy evangilical stance by saying you're basically going against god if you don't teach creationism, she's for letting students decide.

[PhillyGirl]

I don't put it past Palin to do all she could do overturn Roe v. Wade. Sorry, she is too skeery like that. She could appoint those who WOULD work to overturn it.

And yes, SD, she said it herself:

Republican vice-presidential candidate sarah palin wants creationism taught in science classes.

In a 2006 gubernatorial debate, the soon-to-be governor of Alaska said of evolution and creation education, "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of education. Healthy debate is so important, and it's so valuable in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both."

Saying 'teach both and let them debate about it' is different than the evangical nutjobs who think only Creationism should be taught. I have no problem with letting students chose which one they think is right. 

youre insane...you want some fable taught in schools as fact?...not to mention theres a little something in the constitution about seperation of church and state...

How is it being taught as 'fact' if you're letting a student decide for themselves which one is correct?

Mike, what you're taught in school is supposed to be considered "fact".

[PhillyGirl]

You know you have been dissed when you are dissed about your investigative rigor by the National Enquirer:

"The National Enquirer's coverage of a vicious war within Sarah Palin's extended family includes several newsworthy revelations, including the resulting incredible charge of an affair plus details of family strife when the Governor's daughter revealed her pregnancy. Following our John Edwards' exclusives, our political reporting has obviously proven to be more detail-oriented than the McCain campaign's vetting process. Despite the McCain camp's attempts to control press coverage they find unfavorable, The Enquirer will continue to pursue news on both sides of the political spectrum."

Your quoting the National Enquirer now?

What? Its only accurate and legitimate when its talking about a Democrat's illegal affairs/offspring?

[SD_Eagle5]

Mike, what you're taught in school is supposed to be considered "fact".

Since when? My 8th grade English teacher used to tell our class that all men should be born with a block that allows them from having children until they can prove they're responsible.

[SD_Eagle5]

That would be a state government issue then, wouldnt it?

Has nothing to do with who the president or vice president is.

The President controls the appointments of future Supreme Court justices (with the check and balance that the Senate must approve them).  Right now, one justice is over 80 (John Paul Stevens, 88), and four are 70+ (Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 75, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy are each 72, and Stephen Breyer is 70).  It is probably that Stevens will need to be replaced in the next term, and certainly possible that the other four could be replaced within two terms.

Right now, the court is generally 5-4 in many close votes.  Scalia, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito are consistent conservative votes.  Ginsberg, Stevens (ironically a Ford appointment) and Breyer are consistent liberal votes.  Kennedy and David Souter are swing votes.

So, it is conceivable that in the next two terms, 3 liberal seats, one conservative seat and one swing seat could be up for grabs (and the one liberal seat almost certainly will be).   The president in office could make a profound difference in the makeup of the Court for the next generation.

A whole lot of 'ifs' there, but like I said I believe checks and balances would veto any chance of such a radical idea getting passed.

[MDS]

so who wants to see sarah palin naked?