"SCOTUS overturns 'Roe', eliminates right of privacy"

[babylonsister]

"SCOTUS overturns 'Roe', eliminates right of privacy"

by clammyc
Tue Jun 3rd, 2008 at 02:06:56 PM EST
You can expect to see that headline if John McCain wins the Presidency.



It is no secret that the non-”activist judges” on the Supreme Court are the older ones, and it is no secret that there could be two, maybe even three appointments over the next 4 years. And it is also no secret that McCain has been pandering to those who want to erode the Constitution further - ironically in the name of “strictly interpreting it”.

One of the more difficult things that face Democrats and progressives is to undo the “maverick” and “moderate” brand that McCain has spent decades building and crafting. There are mountains of evidence, hundreds of votes, countless comments, actions and people that he has closely aligned himself with - yet he is STILL though of as more likely to reach across the aisle and more likely to effectively work with the other party than Obama.

There are millions of independent or moderate voters who don’t know The real McCain and are unable to or unwilling to accept the cold hard reality that he is precisely the opposite of the carefully crafted persona that he is perceived to have.

I’ve been doing a lot of opposition research and writing about McCain over the past few months, and have been trying to figure out (as have many others) what the best way to rebrand him, convince uninformed voters about, and get information out regarding him. There are a lot of ways - there is the ties to lobbyists, there is the “double talk”, there is the “bomb bomb bomb Iran”, the “100 years in Iraq”, the Hagee endorsement, the “angry and unstable” approach, the “third Bush term” approach and there is the approach of using his words and votes against him.

As we all know, McCain is a highly flawed candidate in so many ways. And while some of these are better than others to convince people of just what John McCain is all about, there hasn’t been nearly enough focus on what he would do with the Supreme Court and how drastically his preferred choices would restrict personal privacy and freedoms as well as expand corporate secrecy, executive power and erode the Church/State separation.

more...

http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2008/6/3/14656/92625

[Amy6627]

1. Right on! K&R n/t

[DangerDave921]

2. part of the problem

is that there are visible and identifiable pieces of legislation -- bi-partisan legislation -- that has McCain's name attached to it. So the media picks up on him doing that.

Does Obama have any bi-partisan legislation to point to that has his name on it? If he wants to be known as the cooperative, bi-partisan guy, then he has to get back to work in the senate and DO THAT. Just saying it is not enough.

[babylonsister]

5. I hope you will read this article from 2006; it's very informative:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

[DangerDave921]

19. I did read. Thanks

A lot of that was news to me, and would be news to about 95% of the public. The media sure hasn't addressed it.

Obama needs to point out with detail his bi-partisan work. Because the RW'ers will label him as a 1960's liberal.

[babylonsister]

21. I'm glad you did! I've provided that to many people and mostly

get ignored. Hopefully now he'll be able to address what he's done more specifically now that this primary is a done deal.

[zorahopkins]

3. Rebellion Is This Comes To Pass!

I, for one, will not sit idly by and let some old men take away MY reproductive rights -- and the reproductive rights of my daughter -- and of ALL the other women in this country!!

It would cause me to join other like-minded people in outright rebellion against the government!

[blondeatlast]

4. They've effectively overturned Brown vs. BOE to little fanfare;

this time, I really believe they'll overturn Roe v. Wade.

[babylonsister]

7. Not if we can vote in an overwhelming majority of Dems, including

the president.

[blondeatlast]

12. At EVERY level of government, this is the most important election most of us will see

in our lifetimes.

Who ever thought "mine inspector" would be an office we should concern ourselves with, before Crandall Canyon?

[jody]

6. I don't agree if we Dems have a clear majority in the Senate. n/t

[babylonsister]

8. Good point, but there's that 'if'. I am hopeful we'll have a majority

come November, too.

[jody]

11. I hope we have a veto proof majority, i.e. 66 Dem senators. n/t

[babylonsister]

15. Wow, you're more optimistic than even I am! Good for you! I'll hope

that, too! :toast:

[hokies4ever]

24. 66 Dem Senators is very unlikely

You have to expect at least a couple Dem senators will be in Obama's administration, so 66 Dem Senators won't be a lock.

[blondeatlast]

9. Edit: I'm mistaken. nt

[eallen]

18. There's a high bar to rejecting judicial appointees & some socially conservative Dems in the Senate.

Yes, we should hope a Democratic Senate will deter the most radically conservative appointees. But we shouldn't pin our bets on this.

:hippie:

[Thothmes]

23. The Dems controlled the Senate when Scalia was confirmed.

[krispos42]

10. Dear die-hard Hillary supporters,

That little twinge in your stomach that you felt when you saw that headline? That gut warning? That brief moment of panic?

That is why staying home is unacceptable.

That is why voting for McCain is unacceptable.

That is why voting for Nader is unacceptable.

That is why voting for Ron Paul is unacceptable.

That is why a write-in vote for Hillary is unacceptable.

That is why continuing to pick at old wounds in unacceptable.


You fell in love during the primaries. Now it's time to fall in line for the general election. Not just vote in November, but to show some optimism and enthusiasm for Obama and some dislike and distrust for McCain.

Thank you.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

13. Wish I could nominate an individual post. Well said.

[jody]

14. Excellent point but I wonder how many BO supporters would vote for HC if she were the candidate?

[babylonsister]

16. GREAT post, needs its own thread, krispos42! nt

[Raster]

17. Three decades ago the GOP sold their souls for the theo-fascist vote.

The theo-fascists have been VERY disappointed in cheney*/busy*. They have gotten some return on their investment these past 7 years, but dealing with the devil is oh-so-inconvenient. Especially if you're the pulpit and preacher crowd. It's been very difficult to overlook their downright unChristian antics. Lies, greed, theft, torture, murder. John McBush will do everything he can to mend the fences with the evangelicals--he desperately needs their vote to get the election with stealing range. I guarantee you the bait on the hook will be finally a SCOTUS that more reflects the conservative, fascist, theocratic end of the political spectrum.

I grew up in Arizona and still have close family there. I was back in Arizona recently and the subject turned to politics. I ask my father, a long-time Arizona Raygun Democrat, if he would be voting for John McCain. He replied vehemently: "hell no, he's been running for President for the last thirty years." And he has. There isn't anything John McCain wouldn't do to be elected President. Anything.

[Fox Mulder]

20. You should post this in GDP.

So some Hillary supporters can read this.

[babylonsister]

22. I'm saving my precious posts, but if anyone feels like doing that,

I'm fine with it.