A couple of links I enjoyed reading
I share the perspective of each of these writers and enjoyed these blog posts they made. They do discuss politics, and the second one has some religious discussion as well, so if you aren’t interested or are offended by that sort of thing, feel free to ignore them.
The first is one that many of my tech-world friends have likely read as it is from Linus Torvalds personal blog. http://torvalds-family.blogspot.com/2008/11/black-and-white.html In this post, he discusses his discomfort with one issue political activism, a discomfort that I share.
The second is from a Christian author who describes his journey from being a Reagan supporter (yes, I am that old too) to supporting Obama, in spite of opposition from some of his historical ties. I could have written this post after changing only a few details, like the specific Christian denomination I grew up in. http://donmilleris.com/2008/11/03/from-reagan-to-obama-a-brief-political-history/ In the post, he describes the well-intentioned, but obvious (in retrospect) lies and misinformation he heard, was taught, and that is/was prevalent in that realm.
Are you aware how much Obama supports abortion? Enough to support infanticide in case the victim of an abortion survives. (Google Born-Alive Infants Protection Act if you don’t believe me) That alone should IMHO be enough to make Christians fight him. But no. After you (plural you) found out that the Republicans have used you you reacted by letting the Democrats use you in the same way. Because supporting someone that actually shares Biblical values instead of a Republicrat that don’t would be to “throw your vote away”.
Sveinung, you are wrong. Neither candidate actually supports what you propose as a good thing, the idea that there will be justices nominated to the Supreme Court who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Furthermore, neither candidate supports abortion. The phrasing of that statement is absurd. In fact, both actually support the idea that abortion should be extremely rare, but also a decision best left to an individual and her doctor.
If you are using this issue as the basis for your vote, you should reconsider.
Here are my thoughts…
The problem with the “appoint justices who will…” argument is that these are intelligent and complex people. They are not going to automatically rubber stamp a vote. Furthermore, the overall politics, philosophies, the overall politics, philosophies, and perspectives on Constitutional law of judicial candidates must be taken as a whole. There isn’t any one, conservative or liberal, that is going to honestly say how they will rule in any case before they have heard all the details. Trying to predict and make cases for choosing justices using one-issue litmus tests (and both sides do it, and depending on the person, using different issues) is a fool’s errand. It has never worked. I don’t believe it ever will. I’m not convinced it should.
What I am saying is that I believe the very idea of a “pro-life” or “pro-choice” judge is fallacious. Now, as an individual, a person being considered for the position will probably have an opinion on the overall issue. That will not automatically translate into a vote on a specific case.
Why?
Cases are decided on their merits under existing law, with the guidance of prior history. At least, that is what the court has always said and how it has traditionally operated. Any justice who would defy that tradition would be dangerous to the stability and freedoms of this country in a hundred ways.
It is extremely rare that sitting justices will undo decisions of previous justices without a change in the underlying law or new evidence being presented.
From the October 15th debate:
Schieffer: All right. Let’s stop there and go to another question. And this one goes to Sen. McCain. Sen. McCain, you believe Roe v. Wade should be overturned. Sen. Obama, you believe it shouldn’t.
Could either of you ever nominate someone to the Supreme Court who disagrees with you on this issue? Sen. McCain?
McCain: I would never and have never in all the years I’ve been there imposed a litmus test on any nominee to the court. That’s not appropriate to do.
Schieffer: But even if it was someone — even someone who had a history of being for abortion rights, you would consider them?
McCain: I would consider anyone in their qualifications. I do not believe that someone who has supported Roe v. Wade that would be part of those qualifications. But I certainly would not impose any litmus test.
Schieffer: All right.
Obama: Well, I think it’s true that we shouldn’t apply a strict litmus test and the most important thing in any judge is their capacity to provide fairness and justice to the American people.
And it is true that this is going to be, I think, one of the most consequential decisions of the next president. It is very likely that one of us will be making at least one and probably more than one appointments and Roe versus Wade probably hangs in the balance.
Now I would not provide a litmus test. But I am somebody who believes that Roe versus Wade was rightly decided. I think that abortion is a very difficult issue and it is a moral issue and one that I think good people on both sides can disagree on.
But what ultimately I believe is that women in consultation with their families, their doctors, their religious advisers, are in the best position to make this decision. And I think that the Constitution has a right to privacy in it that shouldn’t be subject to state referendum, any more than our First Amendment rights are subject to state referendum, any more than many of the other rights that we have should be subject to popular vote.
So this is going to be an important issue. I will look for those judges who have an outstanding judicial record, who have the intellect, and who hopefully have a sense of what real-world folks are going through.
—
And there you go…no real difference on the bottom line.
Find another issue to vote on, please, for the sake of our country and the world. The candidates do not differ on the issue, except in their rhetoric.
Angry? Here’s the other side, where Obama responds to the accusation of voting to withhold assistance for children of failed abortions.
Obama: Yes, let me respond to this. If it sounds incredible that I would vote to withhold lifesaving treatment from an infant, that’s because it’s not true. The — here are the facts.
There was a bill that was put forward before the Illinois Senate that said you have to provide lifesaving treatment and that would have helped to undermine Roe v. Wade. The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment, which is why not only myself but pro-choice Republicans and Democrats voted against it.
And the Illinois Medical Society, the organization of doctors in Illinois, voted against it. Their Hippocratic Oath would have required them to provide care, and there was already a law in the books.
With respect to partial-birth abortion, I am completely supportive of a ban on late-term abortions, partial-birth or otherwise, as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.
And I attempted, as many have in the past, of including that so that it is constitutional. And that was rejected, and that’s why I voted present, because I’m willing to support a ban on late-term abortions as long as we have that exception.
The last point I want to make on the issue of abortion. This is an issue that — look, it divides us. And in some ways, it may be difficult to — to reconcile the two views.
But there surely is some common ground when both those who believe in choice and those who are opposed to abortion can come together and say, “We should try to prevent… Read More unintended pregnancies by providing appropriate education to our youth, communicating that sexuality is sacred and that they should not be engaged in cavalier activity, and providing options for adoption, and helping single mothers if they want to choose to keep the baby.”
Those are all things that we put in the Democratic platform for the first time this year, and I think that’s where we can find some common ground, because nobody’s pro-abortion. I think it’s always a tragic situation.
We should try to reduce these circumstances.
—
http://fightthesmears.com/articles/15/wildaccusations
With references…
So, at least judge the guy on his actual words and statements, instead of all the silly accusations, the fear, uncertainty, and doubt-peddling.
I’m done addressing this issue in any way, shape, or form during the duration of this campaign.
I would like to see people vote on the entire package, with a realization that there is much more at stake than their one pet issue, especially when the candidates are identical in practice with regards to that issue.
Both McCain and Palin are also abortion supporters as well. Neither is the candidate for a strict anti-abortion platform.
In fairness, Palin does not support abortion (for any reason whatsoever, including rape, incest and the health of the mother, which is far more extreme than anyone else in her party).
She has enough other things to make people uncomfortable to make this trivial.
Again, elections are about more than one issue.
Oh! Take a look at this…
http://www.beliefnet.com/section/quiz/index.asp?sectionID=&surveyID=471
[...] to Don Miller via Matthew Helmke. Colophone Author: Erigami Scholey-Fuller Categories: Applied Politics, Bad, Links, Ottawa, [...]
matthew: I hope it was just a language problem that made you assume those things about me because I was quite insulted when I read them. Now that I have calmed down enough to assume that it was my English and you head also hopefully are cooler sine the election is over I will make a try to get rid of the misunderstandings:
1) I didn’t say that I supported McCain. If I was American I would probably have voted for Chuck Baldwin (or, if only McCain and Obama was on ballot, voted blank to show them that I didn’t like any of them) and “thrown my vote away”.
2) I’m no fan of overturning Roe vs Wade by adding new judges to federal supreme court. It’s to slow. What should be done is a constitutional amendment that defines life as starting when the sperm cell meets the egg cell and also remove authority over the issue of abortion (and other forms of murder) from the federal government.
3) There are a lot of issues that, even alone, would be enough to make me fight (McCain and) Obama.
Just so those misunderstandings are cleared up.
> Furthermore, neither candidate supports abortion.
So if I say that shooting random democrats just because they are democrats should be extremely rare but that it’s a decision that should be left to a man and his militia commander I would not support shooting random democrats? (For the record: I don’t support shooting random democrats just because they are democrats)
> The fact is that there was already a law on the books in Illinois that required providing lifesaving treatment,
In that case: Was those that did it punished?
> as long as there’s an exception for the mother’s health and life, and this did not contain that exception.
How on earth can saving the life of a child already outside the womb in any way be a danger to the mothers health and life? (Is the child born fully armed and thirsting for revenge?)
See http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/legisnet92/status/920SB1095.html to read a law Obama voted against yourself.
Just so you don’t misunderstand:
> (For the record: I don’t support shooting random democrats just because they are democrats)
That is: I’m against killing people based only on their political ideas, and want it to be illegal to do so. Just like I want it to be illegal to kill people based on their age. It’s not only an issue between a man and his militia commander.
Sveinung: you come across as a very angry man, and your points are not very clear. That could simply be a result of language difficulties. Either way, I had no intent to offend, so for that I apologize.