How do I address this so-called Kerry flip-flops?

[slinkerwink]

— Referring to Republicans’ push for pro-life judges on the federal bench, you lamented, “the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …”

But according to The Associated Press, you said in a speech last January, “If you believe that choice is a constitutional right, and I do, and if you believe that Roe v. Wade is the embodiment of that right ... I will not appoint a justice to the Supreme Court of the United States who will undo that.”

Isn’t that a litmus test? Or does the phrase “litmus test” only apply to opponents of abortion?

--------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve demagogued the outsourcing issue throughout the primaries and so far in the general election. You’ve said corporate executives who export manufacturing jobs overseas are “Benedict Arnold CEOs.” But you and your wife still own 4 percent of the H.J. Heinz Corporation, which operates 57 factories overseas, but just 22 here in the United States. The Hill newspaper reports that your campaign has accepted $370,000 from the CEOs of companies that heavily outsource jobs to other countries.

Given your vigorous opposition to outsourcing, are you prepared to ask Heinz to close all of those overseas factories, or to sell off your stake in Heinz if it doesn't? Will you give back campaign contributions from corporate executives whose companies outsource?

[slinkerwink]

1. kick

[shoelace414]

2. "Are you seriously asking the question"

would you ever vote for John Kerry? Are you just coming up with anything trying to look for a reason to vote against him? isn't your canidate good enough to vote for?

[slinkerwink]

3. no....I need to debunk this one

[slinkerwink]

5. I need something better than that, please

[library_max]

4. Roe is the law of the land.

There's a difference between preferring judges who respect the law as it stands and casting around for judges who are determined to change it.

[jayavarman]

8. Word

Judges are duty-bound to uphold the law. Ipso facto ANY judge must follow & uphold current laws regarding abortion. Regardless of how they view the subjest personally.

Judges, like soldiers, diplomats & several other types of public servants must swear to do their duty regardless of personal beliefs- You can see this in action in the angst many judges feel in following the laws where mandatory minimum sentencing is involved, as well as in the resignations of some of our diplomats when they felt they could not accomplish this goal vis-a-vis Iraq.

I probably am guilty of putting too much faith in peoples' integrity at times, but I truly believe that the vast majority of our judges do their duty to uphold the law without regard to their personal belief system . . .

[slinkerwink]

14. what about Kerry's quote though?

— Referring to Republicans’ push for pro-life judges on the federal bench, you lamented, “the systematic targeting of any judicial nominee who does not meet the rigid requirements of litmus tests imposed …”

[lapfog_1]

24. It's not a flip flop - it's simply a double standard.

Happens all the time. My party is right to do X, but if your party
does X, it must be wrong. Everybody in politics is guilty of this.
It's second nature (or even first nature) to a rethuglican.

They will excuse ANY behavior or statement by a fellow rethuglican,
but let a democrat say the same thing and *&^% hits the rotating
cooling device.

But it's not a flipflop.

Kerry has been consistent in his support of abortion rights, and
consistent in his opposition to those that would overturn.

BTW, for the other replies on the thread... Roe V. Wade is not a
"law" but an interpretation of a part of the constitution (right
to privacy)... and interpretations are changed all the time by
courts. Precedent (meaning a previous decision by another court)
is ALL the Roe V. Wade hangs on.

Having congress write a law (or an amendment to the constitution)
which garuntees the right to an abortion is the only way to preserve
this right to privacy. And with our political climate the way
it is, that ain't going to happen.

[library_max]

26. There's a difference

between a "litmus test" requiring judges to respect the law and a "litmus test" requiring judges to oppose the law.

Are you looking for an answer or an argument? Are you trying to find a response to what the other person said, or are you trying to argue here that the other person was right?

[baldguy]

6. It is a litmus test.

But, I think that a basic requirnment for a JUDGE is that the candidate accepts the Constitution as written. The Right to Privacy is in the Constitution.

Would you accept someone who thought that slavery was still legal, no matter what the Thirteenth Amendment says?

[Alpha Wolf]

11. Not so fast...

You said:

But, I think that a basic requirnment for a JUDGE is that the candidate accepts the Constitution as written. The Right to Privacy is in the Constitution.

As it is written, or as it is interpreted? That's the Supreme Court's job-- to interpret what it believes the written Constitution means. Roe vs. Wade gave a certain interpretation of the Constitution which said the right to privacy ought to encompass the right to terminate a pregnancy via abortion. Obviously, not all people, and not all judges, agree with this interpretation-- just as not all people, and not all judges, agreed with the Supreme Court's interpretation in the Dread Scott case.

[tandot]

7. Kerry wants judges who UPHOLD our laws.

Bush wants to make sure that judges he appoints will change our laws to fit his religious beliefs. He has the right to believe whatever he wants to. But he has ZERO right to impose his religious beliefs on me and others who do not share it.

[blm]

9. Because Roe v Wade is SETTLED LAW.

ALL candidates for justice should uphold ANY law that has been settled.

It's the Republican wingnuts who keep trying to interfere with SETTLED LAW. They make it an issue. They can't move on. What else are we supposed to say and do when THEY refuse to move on?

[Alpha Wolf]

10. Slavery was "Settled Law" as you call it for a long time...

So was the Dread Scott ruling that made African Americans legally 3/5 of person. Yet people fought against it. Judges opposed it. New Amendments were added to the Constitution.

[blm]

19. YOU choose to equate the two.

I do not...but...since you piped up....you would prefer women NOT be covered by the right of privacy, including their reproductive and medical decisions?

[Jackpine Radical]

12. Oh, and about Heinz--

First, Teresa doesn't have an executive position with the company; and second, they make all the products they sell in the US in American factories. The stuff they make abroad is sold abroad.

[slinkerwink]

15. link?

[trotsky]

16. Good old Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/heinz.asp

A 4% stake in a company as large as Heinz still represents a considerable amount of money, but it isn't nearly large enough a share to give the holder any significant control or influence over the company's business decisions.

and

Currently, 60% of the sales of the H.J. Heinz Company are outside the United States and to accommodate those customers by providing facilities closer to those markets, the company maintains a number of overseas facilities that provide products for consumers in those markets. This allows Heinz to pack the freshest ingredients, tailor its recipes to local tastes and deliver the finished products in a timely and efficient manner. In the United States, Heinz makes its flagship ketchup in factories in Fremont, Ohio; Muscatine, Iowa; and Stockton, California.

[napi21]

20. Be careful on that one! I lived in Pgh. 42 years, and visitited the

Heinz factory and Home Office every day on my way to work. I only took the tour once, and it was many years ago...in the 50's. Even at that time, they said they processed and packaged a lot of their porducts CLOSE to where the crop grows, so they can get the freshest product without having to incurr shipping damage and cost.

You are correct that most items that are processed abroad are sold there as well, but some items are done to obtain the best finished product.

There is a big difference between first consideration being to make a good product, and outsourcing for ONLY financial benefit.

[slinkerwink]

13. kick

[cally]

17. I'll try

First, Kerry said he will not appoint Supreme Court judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade. In other words, they support current law.

He will not have a litmus test for other judges (I'm very disappointed by this decision.) I think his reasoning is that a litmus test is wrong and other judges do not have the power to overturn Roe v. Wade. I don't think it's a flip flop but rather a clarification of his position. Kerry believes life begins at conception but he is pro-choice. Many believe as he does.

On the Heinz thing..remember Theresa and her children own those. None of us know the details of their pre-nup but I've inferred that Kerry has no say over those assets. Remember the upheaval over not releasing the Heinz financial records? The major obstacle was that Theresa assets are completely tied to her sons. Kerry can't change that. Then there is the dumping assets issue. Any major financial holder is a financial fool if they dump assets quickly. You will lose your shirt if you put assets on the market too quickly. We don't know what they are pushing the company to do. If I owned that kind of share, I wouldn't sell it but would push the entire company to change their investment policy.

[tkmorris]

18. I think it's rather silly

A "litmus test" when choosing or rejecting a judge is just having some issue you won't budge on. Would you vote for a judge that believes that local animal shelters should sell unwanted animals to soup kitchens? If not, you have a litmus test. How about one who thinks that vagrancy is a capital offense? There you go. Another litmus test. It's political rhetoric, nothing more, to bitch that someone has a litmus test since we all have them. The issue becomes what criteria an individual applies when selecting or rejecting judges, not that they have criteria in the first place.

As for Heinz having factories outside of the United States, well, they sell product outside the United States don't they? Outsourcing is not the simple matter of employing people outside the United States, it's moving jobs from the United States to other countries for purposes of employing cheaper labor or avoiding US taxes.

What exactly is your agenda with this? I've seen you around Slinkerwink, you are anything but naive. You know this stuff as well as I do.

[slinkerwink]

21. My agenda is to debunk those lies, nothing more

:eyes:

[Bush was AWOL]

22. When a Rep. calls Kerry a flip flopper respond with this

http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=42263

[ClassWarrior]

23. http://flipfloppingbush.com/

[Zen Democrat]

25. I think we should change the lexicon. Pro-Freedom instead of Pro-Choice

I also think we should frame the argument this way ...

A government that can force a woman to have a baby could conversely have the right to force a woman NOT to have a baby. Bottom line, we can't give the government this kind of power.