Rachel Madow had a great point on Unfiltered. Re: Bush and Dred Scott

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

Here's a transcript:

"MICHAELSON: Mr. President, if there were a vacancy in the Supreme Court and you had the opportunity to fill that position today, who would you choose and why?

BUSH: I'm not telling.

(LAUGHTER)

I really don't have -- haven't picked anybody yet. Plus, I want them all voting for me.

(LAUGHTER)

I would pick somebody who would not allow their personal opinion to get in the way of the law. I would pick somebody who would strictly interpret the Constitution of the United States.

Let me give you a couple of examples, I guess, of the kind of person I wouldn't pick. 

I wouldn't pick a judge who said that the Pledge of Allegiance couldn't be said in a school because it had the words "under God" in it. I think that's an example of a judge allowing personal opinion to enter into the decision-making process as opposed to a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

BUSH: Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights. 

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America. 

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution. 

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution. 

Thank you. "

Stupid and insulting humor aside. Rachel mentioned something I hadn't thought of. I thought Bush wandered into some new vacuous room in his flawed psyche when he started this train of thought. Now to liberals that sounds insane but to his base they talk about this all the time. "Its Bush speaking in code to his base" Rachel said. They equate being unborn with being a slave - making the abortion issue a civil rights issue. This is religious ideology driving his political rhetoric. It is just ridiculous.

And frankly its insulting.

[unblock]

1. interesting that fundies equate "unborn" to "slave". it's the MOTHER ...

whose will be enslaved if she is forced to carry an unwanted baby to term.

[Brotherjohn]

5. As a strongly Pro-Choice person, I must say this.

And let me preface it by saying I am speaking only of consenting adults who fail to use birth control, and NOT of children (who are usually not mature enough to make good decisions) or anyone who is pregnant as a result of rape.

I have a hard time defining as "enslaved" someone who engages in such careless behavior without considering the consequences (that they may bring a child into the world). No, we should not force them to carry and have the child. But if they do, they are not "enslaved". They made a decision and are living up to the consequences.

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

6. Absolutely - and how about the descendants of actual slaves?

Is this not a bitter slap in the face?

[unblock]

10. would you feel happier if we called them "indendured servants"?

[Brotherjohn]

11. Being Pro-Choice doesn't mean you're "Anti-Responsibility".

Consenting adults who have sex using no birth control know damn well that there is a very distinct possibility that the woman will end up pregnant.

For you to compare such utter, and knowing, lack of responsibility to slavery, or to indentured servitude, is more than a stretch (and that's putting it mildly).

As I said, I am Pro-Choice, and in no way should anyone EVER try to tell any person that they legally HAVE to carry any child to term. But you seem to be saying that it's perfectly fine for someone to blow off contraception, and if they or their partner get pregnant, then "what the hell", they'll just have an abortion!

That feeds into the worst stereotypes anti-choice people have about those of us who are pro-choice.

[unblock]

13. you lie about my statements to make me sound bad. when did i say

anything about condoning, morally, irresponsibility?

of course it's irresponsible to have sex without considering the consequences, which may include, but are hardly limited to, pregnancy.

duh.

but why focus in on the republican talking point of those who opt for abortions as a first choice form of birth control? these are the exceptions, not at all the rule.

the vast amount of abortions are for women who tried birth control that failed (whether just the odds or defective products), unintentionally used birth control improperly, or other categories such as underage, rape, or incest.

also a very large category is when the woman, and possibly even the man, actually were willing to have a kid, but later, the relationship soured, many times because the man runs off. yes, you can certainly paint many of those cases as irresponsibility on the part of the man, but the woman was often acting responsibly, merely misled by an irresponsible man.

in all these cases, i don't think it's much of a stretch to call it indentured servitude when the GOVERNMENT FORCES a woman to carry the fetus to term when she doesn't want it, even if she originally DID want it but her circumstances changed.

[Brotherjohn]

14. I am not putting words in your mouth, only making a point. I agree with..

... most everything you said in your last post.

That's why I qualified my initial response by saying "consenting adults" who knowingly did not use birth control. I didn't bring up the other, obvious (duh) consequences, because the thread is about abortion.

You didn't explicitly condone irresponsibility, but your blanket statement equating someone being "forced to carry an unwanted baby to term" with being "enslaved" was just too broad and I felt merited a response. I don't know the exact numbers, but I agree that a large number of abortions result from the causes you mention above. And of course, in those types of cases, it's understandable (and I don't think irresponsible) for someone to seek an abortion.

I also think, however, that a large number of them result from casual sex, where neither partner makes a real effort at birth control. Again, that's why I qualified in my initial response.

I can agree that, yes, forcing someone to carry an unwanted child to term when they fit any of the cases you laid out just now IS equatable with indentured servitude. But forcing someone to carry an unwanted child to term when they completely disregarded the consequences... no, I don't equate that with indentured servitude. They made a choice and have some responsibility in the matter.

I guess it boils down to what we each feel most cases result from. in my experience (people I have known or heard about), many (if not most) situations have arisen where neither partner was being responsible. That may not be the case with your experience, nor the actual numbers. I think this has influenced each of our responses, though.

I did not intend to put words in your mouth or "make you sound bad". I was not pretending to re-say what you said, only to make my own point. I'm sorry if I offended you.

[Fenris]

2. One should never underestimate the power of the religiously insane.

The Republican mantra continues to be "Right to life! Until you're born! Then it's fair game!"

[coalition_unwilling]

3. Does anyone doubt that Lincoln would vote against Bush?

Bush would have appointed judges who upheld Dred Scott, b/c the pre-Civil War constitution mandated slaves as 3/5 of a freedman for purposes of determining the number of congressional representatives. Since Bush is a 'constructionist', he would have appointed judges who did not try to see beyond the 'letter of the law,' meaning he would have appointed judges who upheld slavery.

William Lloyd Garrison, the noted abolitionist, burned a copy of the U.S. Constitution in the 1830's precisely because it encoded slavery.

[ant]

4. Roe v Wade

Is Dred Scott II in the eyes of the pro-life movement. Just google "dred scott abortion" and see what you get.

He was very clearly speaking to his hard-core pro-life base when he made those comments.

[lawladyprof]

7. This connection is made in Christian sch. textbooks

And your tax dollars are paying for it.

[CityHall]

8. So southern right-wingers are suddenly anti-slavery?

Didn't they start a war over that a while back?

[ChavezSpeakstheTruth]

9. Their from the party of Lincolm remember

silly rabbit

[JPJones]

12. Wrong. It's simpler than that. To them, Dred Scott = Roe v. Wade

from the standpoint of strict contructionism. Google "Dred scott roe wade".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/10/9/16460/5820

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1020746