What’s Wrong with the World

...And that is why we should leave Obama unopposed at the Polls (and every other Obama thereafter) -- his explicit comprehensive Pro-Abortionist agenda and staunch allegiance to the Culture of Death is hardly anything to balk at let alone voted against.

After all, this nation had already been ravaged by the likes of Roe v. Wade -- why not allow Obama and his vicious Pro-Abortionist platform to multiply its effects?

Let Obama and every unmistakably notorious Pro-Abortionist thereafter have the incontestable reign they so desire by handing to these the Highest Office of the Land to impose on it as they will by such acts as in FOCA as well as appoint minions who will preserve the Letter of the Rule in the form of Supreme Court Justices!

Aristocles! You didn't just commit irony, did you?

I'm still working on a good slogan for your write-in campaign. Like maybe "Zippy. Or else we're all screwed. Each and every one of us." Or if that one's a little too dark, how about, "If you can't trust a guy named Zippy, whom can you trust?"

To me it's just a question of how soon you should "go negative." I'm thinking right from the get-go.

You do know that if you vote for "Zippy", this is who you are actually voting for:

THIS is Zippy

Steve:

"Aristocles! You didn't just commit irony, did you?"

Guilty as charged.

I'm still working on a good slogan for your write-in campaign.

I'm Zippy and I approved this message.

Zippy,

How about "Just another sock puppet running for office; but at least he's honest about it." I'm Zippy and I approved this message.

Seriously though, did you really 'name' yourself after a BBC sock puppet?

Let's try this: Aristocles, are you or aren't you willing to say that there are certain things a candidate could stand for such that you would never vote for that candidate, even if the other one were worse? How about Obama? You are always telling us, rightly, how horrible Obama is. Yet I'm an imaginative person (sometimes too much so), and I can think of things some presidential candidate might stand for and do that would, in some sense or other (if we can compare these things), be worse than Obama. So, can we make Obama your line in the sand? You'd never vote for him? Why? What aspects of his position? Is it unqualified support for surgical abortion that turns on the red light for you?

Because if you won't even say that about _Obama_, then why do we keep hearing from you how bad he is? In that case, someone like me is in a better and more consistent position to talk about the evils of an Obama regime than someone who might someday vote for him or something just like him.

I think Zippy has a good point here. My suspicion is that McCain's supporters may not want to say anything about differences between embryo destruction and surgical abortion for fear of being taken to be saying that embryo destruction is not really murdering human beings, which would call their pro-life credentials into question. If I were to try to help them out by creating a line, I would say that they should take this tack:

It's easier to lie to oneself about the reality of embryo destruction, because the newly-conceived embryo does not visually appear human and does not engage human sympathies and emotions as the even somewhat more developed child does. McCain is therefore successfully deceiving himself about the reality of embryo destruction, which is very bad, but it is not as evil as condoning and seeking actively to keep legal the murder of children who are so obviously human that it is impossible to lie to oneself about their humanity and one must _suppress_ one's natural human emotions and reactions when one thinks about their deaths. Hence, my line in the sand is this [says the McCain supporter]: I will not vote for a candidate who is pro-choice about surgical abortion.

Now, _I_ don't think this is a good argument. It especially isn't a good argument given that John McCain is not some person with no knowledge of scientific reality regarding the newly-conceived embryo. And there are so many other reasons to doubt how deep McCain's opposition even to surgical abortion goes, not to mention all the other issues on which he is far from conservative. But at least it's a stab at saying, "This far and no farther."

Lydia,

Ok -- you've got me.

There's practically no difference between the 2 candidates.

I'll leave Obama (and every Obaman candidate thereafter) unopposed at the Polls and allow him (and his successors) the opportunity to engineer the type of Pro-Abortion Empire that the Pro-Choice folks so desire.

After all, Obama's Pro-Abortion policies (and the vast extent he will impose them) couldn't possibly be any worse.

Aristocles:
Do you ever plan to actually answer Lydia's question? Did you even understand Lydia's question?

Let me phrase the question more bluntly.

Suppose in 2012 the two viable candidates were Barack Obama and Bob Asmodey. Bob Asmodey advocates all the bad things Obama advocates plus concentration camps for Christians, regular public Eucharistic desecrations, spitting on a crucifix as prerequisite to holding any form of employment, and removing all the protections of law from people with brown hair.

In that situation, would you vote for Obama, Asmodey, or neither?

Zippy,

In that hypothetical situation, none of the candidates.

However, you and Lydia would like to overlook the actual particulars -- the rather egregious difference -- of the 2 candidates before us.

Although, once Obama offers America as a serving tray to the Pro-Choice folks; you and Lydia might be comfortable with the fact that you allowed America to be served on a silver platter to the likes of such a person; for others, such a compromise to this grave extent cannot be had.

Aristocles:

In that hypothetical situation, none of the candidates.

However, you and Lydia would like to overlook the actual particulars -- the rather egregious difference -- of the 2 candidates before us.

Zippy,

You're neglecting the fact what an Obaman Win entails --

Do you really think that a McCain administration is just as bad as an Obaman administration with respect to Pro-Life issues?

Never mind the fact that an Obaman administration will serve at the very whims of the Pro-Choice constituency that brought him to power.

It is no surprise that he had vowed the presidential signing of the FOCA and made clear at various opportunities his staunch allegiance to the Pro-Choice Cause.

Do you really think you are not helping the Pro-Choice Crusade by your and Lydia's adamant refusal to oppose this man's rise to power?

You're neglecting the fact what an Obaman Win entails

Do you really think that a McCain administration is just as bad as an Obaman administration with respect to Pro-Life issues?

Do you really think you are not helping the Pro-Choice Crusade by your and Lydia's adamant refusal to oppose this man's rise to power?

Zippy,

I think people who voted for G.W. Bush in the last election helped the pro-choice cause long term

How can you deliberately lie like that?

Bush may have been terrible for the country for other reasons, but in spite of these, he made an adamant stand on stem cell research, appointed 2 Justices on the Supreme Court who came through on Partial Birth Abortion (and who may yet come through on other such matters); you're actually arguing that he helped the Pro-Choice cause?

How can you deliberately lie like that?

Do you think that Obama would be a viable candidate today if Bush hadn't been such a disaster?

...just that they did in fact help the pro-choice cause long-term.

How? Perhaps if, say, Obama were to win and elect his Justices to the Supreme Court (come that time) that would undo any of what good Bush actually intended with respect to the promotion of the Pro-Life agenda in judicial matters by way of Roberts and Alito...

Do you think that Obama would be a viable candidate today if Bush hadn't been such a disaster?

Again, as I had acknowledged in my previous comments, one cannot avoid the fact that Bush was a disaster to the country, all things considered.

However, that is more so due to his other failures.

How?

Though again (once again), my strategic assessment and my moral assessment each stand on their own. I wouldn't support McCain in any case, whatever my strategic assessment.

Zippy,

I warned people not to vote for him in the last two election cycles for precisely that reason: that his genuine but ineffectual piecemeal and unprincipled resistance to some parts of liberalism would result in a train wreck; and that social conservatives would be better off sitting things out, letting the other guys screw up and galvanize opposition. Few people were interested in listening to me then, and few are interested now, but I'll say it again anyway.

FWIW, though I did not know you then (and even now, I personally don't -- for all I know -- within the specifc context of the BBC "Zippy" -- I am either speaking to a kid in the guise of an adult or an adult with a strange affection for a sock puppet), I was actually one of those people who did not do so -- for either candidates.

And by the way, while Alito may be a solid pro-life supporter of social conservatism (I really don't know), the jury is still out on Roberts.

Beyond that, I'm a big skeptic of the "judicial positivism is going to save us" school of thought. My blog is filled with explanations why.

Are you aware that (as far as I know) Congress could undo Roe vs. Wade by passing a law - just a simple law - limiting the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? Few people are, because it doesn't fit either the Republican or Democrat narratives and political goals.

Even in the case of Roberts and Alito, we have some rather disturbing reason to doubt that they actually would overturn Roe. There was all that "settled law of the land" stuff, and Roberts and Alito _did not join_ Scalia and Thomas's separate concurring opinion in the recent PBA ruling in which Scalia and Thomas re-affirmed that Roe should be overturned. The main opinion made it sound like Roe is here to stay. Would pro-lifers have accepted some of the things Bush's appointees said in their confirmation hearings from a Bush, Sr., appointee? There would have been a much less muted outcry, but most people were too whupped by eight years of Clinton to do more than raise an eyebrow and hope for the best.

Bush's very refusal, sometimes rather pointed, even to talk about abortion (very different from Reagan here, for example) has been bad for the pro-life cause. People call him the most pro-life president we've ever had, yet he never says boo about it. Won't even address the yearly March for Life in person, and continually talks about changing hearts and minds instead of about overturning Roe. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the rather cynical conclusion that overturning Roe is not at all important to Bush. This is all sad, and I'm not one of these mouth-foaming Bush haters, but I do think he is well-intentioned but lukewarm and has lowered our expectations rather significantly. Even the Aug. 9, 2001 compromise on ESCR for which he has been so much criticized on the left was a totally unnecessary compromise from the perspective of the pro-life movement. He could have just left the status quo in place, and it certainly didn't garner him any love on the left to allow that much experimentation. It was a sort of pathetic gesture, a pointless olive branch, which predictably only served to enrage the people it was meant to appease and which had a very strange and arbitrary feel to it from a pro-life perspective. These are just a few examples. I could give more. And the fact that pro-lifers took all of this and said pretty much nothing is itself harm to the pro-life movement.

Ah, but Zippy, what would happen if Congress passed that law and then the S.C. struck it down as unconstitutional? As they have recently done in another context, of course. Truth is, the other branches will never question the exclusive right of the federal court to interpret the constitution, and until they do, Roe can be overturned in the relevant sense--the sense that means that federal marshalls won't be sent to free abortionists if states pass and enforce restrictive laws--only by its being overturned by the Supreme Court.

Lydia:
I agree that Congress generally and Republicans lawmakers specifically are unlikely to confront the power usurpations of the Supreme Court, despite their clear Constitutional authorization to limit the Court's jurisdiction as a fundamental element of the separation of powers. That is because they are all (almost all -- I think bills have been proposed and killed in committee) unprincipled compromisers.

Lydia (wisely -- finally!) Wrote: "Ah, but Zippy, what would happen if Congress passed that law and then the S.C. struck it down as unconstitutional? Truth is, the other branches will never question the exclusive right of the federal court to interpret the constitution, and until they do, Roe can be overturned in the relevant sense -- only by its being overturned by the Supreme Court."

That is what makes the Obaman Administration all the more potent!

There is no way Congress would pass such a Law -- especially in our modern age where such a Law smells too much of the pejorative sentiments of mere "religion", automatically disqualifying it as any valid reason by which to even pass muster in the first place.

Should Obama appoint his Justices on the Supreme Court -- all bets are off!

Keep this in mind:

Unfortunately, even if both Chief Justice Roberts and Associate Justice Alito vote to overturn Roe v. Wade, without the nomination and confirmation of an additional pro-life justice, pro-abortion forces would still enjoy a pro-Roe majority on the Supreme Court.

While I can hope that a Republican president will follow the actions of Bush in this matter; I can be certain in the case of an Obama, a Justice (or justices) vehemently opposed to Pro-Life will be instead appointed.

what would happen if Congress passed that law and then the S.C. struck it down as unconstitutional?

I guess congress could impeach the judges. But your point is made.

Believe me, I didn't mean to support Aristocles's conclusions by my questions.

By the way, I hope this isn't too OT, but since you brought up the congressional action option, Zippy, here's a question I've had for a long time: I haven't read that article of the Constitution for a while, but as I recall, it talks only about limiting the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, not of all the federal courts. Wouldn't this leave the matter in the hands of the Circuit Courts? The Circuit Courts consider themselves bound to adhere to previous Supreme Court precedents, so I would think that the congressional action in question would leave the status quo in place anyway--that is, leave Roe in place--but simply move its application to future state laws down to the level of the federal Circuit Courts, who would be certain to apply Roe to strike down any new state laws not allowed by Roe.

"Believe me, I didn't mean to support Aristocles's conclusions by my questions."

Lydia,

Is this all it has become for you?

A matter of party lines or allegiances?

The fact of the matter is that what Obama has promised to do and will do have real consequences. It will have such repercussions most especially on how the Pro-Life Movement will from here on out be fought.

If you and your like are actually willing to serve the Pro-Choice Crusade by allowing Obama and his ilk to appoint Justices to the Supreme Court; then know well the ramifications of such action.

For such will inevitably result in losing strikingly substantial ground in the Pro-Life effort.

Supreme Court Justices serve for their entire life -- no terms are set.

No matter what Candidate in the future you deem worthy of the official Lydia "Pro-Life" pin, no such presidential candidate can undo what Obama will have done.

Lydia: here is the bit on original jurisdiction/appellate jurisdiction:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

It is entirely moot though since genuine separation of powers requires at least some small measure of testosterone.

"Even in the case of Roberts and Alito, we have some rather disturbing reason to doubt that they actually would overturn Roe."

And what happens if they did? The issue gets decided state by state. Given the aversion to actively working towards changing hearts and minds and all the heavy-lifting that requires, I think we'd lose at the local and state levels in a very big way. You can't win a moral argument by stealth.

"Won't even address the yearly March for Life in person."

Neither did Reagan.

"Would pro-lifers have accepted some of the things Bush's appointees said in their confirmation hearings from a Bush, Sr., appointee?"

Read the O'Connor and Souter hearings. The answer is yes.

"It doesn't take a rocket scientist to come to the rather cynical conclusion that overturning Roe is not at all important to Bush."

That is a political calculation many in the GOP establishment have made. They tremble at the thought of a 50 state referendum where the "right to abortion" is truly on the line. Plus, there is a conservative temperament that holds overturning RvW would create too great a social upheaval to pursue, a la the Casey decision.

Right now, the GOP gets a free ride; promise to appoint judges and garner the votes of a lot of Catholics in particular, who otherwise want no part of the Republican agenda. They can't ever quite get to the Magic Number of 5 - O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, its always someone who disappoints. But the whole thing works like a charm every election cycle. Do you think they really want to give that up?

Win the culture first. The lawmakers will follow.

Right now, the GOP gets a free ride; promise to appoint judges and garner the votes of a lot of Catholics in particular, who otherwise want no part of the Republican agenda. They can't ever quite get to the Magic Number of 5 - O'Connor, Souter, Kennedy, its always someone who disappoints. But the whole thing works like a charm every election cycle. Do you think they really want to give that up?

Win the culture first. The lawmakers will follow.

Kevin,

Don't worry -- with one fell swoop by the Obaman administration, you no longer need to worry; the choice will have been already made for you!

Once he appoints his Justices, nobody need worry about voting Republican or otherwise.

As I mentioned, there is no set term for Supreme Court Justices.

In such a case where Justices vehemently opposed to Pro-Life agenda are appointed, you need not bother with the whole Roe v. Wade or the worries about lawmakers.

For then, indeed, lawmakers and everybody else will follow -- the Law of the Land as set by the successful Pro-Choice Crusade as cemented by the appointment of such Justices for decades and decades here on out!

Ari,
Say. Something. New.

The president of the NARAL Pro-Choice America, Nancy Keenan, said in a press release that Bush appointees have moved the Supreme Court toward undermining Roe v. Wade. Pro-life lawmakers will now be emboldened to make further attacks on legal abortions, she said. "The bottom line is clear: elections matter," she added.

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/aprilweb-only/116-42.0.html

The Pro-Choice Crusaders know the latter fact.

Too bad the so-called Pro-Life folks here and elsewhere don't.

At any rate, once Obama appoints his Justices, the battle to overturn Roe v. Wade will ultimately have become lost.

These Pro-Choice Crusaders should be handing out "Thank-You" notes to the lot of you!

the Law of the Land as set by the successful Pro-Choice Crusade as cemented by the appointment of such Justices for decades and decades here on out!

Aristocles, my friend, you are missing the point--it's already done. There will be no SCOTUS overturning of RvW by the current court given the "conservative" justices appointed by our very own GWB. Re-read Lydia's note on Roberts and Alito. They won't vote to overturn, and they signaled that early on. Republican lawmakers have no incentive to get busy on the issue as long as they can continue on their present course of fleecing social conservatives every election cycle.

You do know that if you vote for "Zippy", this is who you are actually voting for:

THIS is Zippy

He'd get my vote. The appeal of a politician whose mouth can be zipped shut is ... well that's a darn refreshing thought, now, isn't it?

I'll stop hijacking threads

thebyronicman,

You didn't read my post -- read, please, the article from Christianity Today.

There is more than one way to beat Roe v. Wade.

Posted by NARAL Pro-Choice America Thanks You!

May suggest that to your list of non-tolerance of "truculent atheists, irascible Liberals, intransigent Islamists, ill- tempered radicals, petulant nihilists, brassbound freethinking polemicists, cantankerous evolutionists" that you add "anonymous brickbat-hurlers"?

Voting seems like an odd place to engage in line drawing. I suppose it is like the supposed prostitute's rule of not kissing on the lips. There is of course a reason why the Amish aren't accused of indifference towards the legality of abortion and why those who refuse to vote for McCain are, and I think that reason is that participation in the larger society creates an intrinsic relationship with the government of that society. Refusing to vote doesn't change that. This is also why finding people to participate in hypotheticals with worse candidates doesn't generate an excitement toward nonparticipation. If I lived in a society that was debating between having Hitler and Stalin lead it, voting would be the least of my concerns.

This is also why finding people to participate in hypotheticals with worse candidates doesn't generate an excitement toward nonparticipation. If I lived in a society that was debating between having Hitler and Stalin lead it, voting would be the least of my concerns.

You don't have to draw it out that far. Obama and Giuliani will do just fine. As for the hypothetical scenario, that's for my own benefit. I'd like to see how far a person will go in the name of the "lesser of two evils" modus operandi.

Aristocles,

I think we were posting simultaneously. Of course liberal pro-choice activists won't stop campaigning and raising the alarm over every little twitch that a conservative makes in the direction of RvW and "reproductive rights." I don't think this really touches the argument, however. You feel as though partial, incremental victories are being won and that this is evidence that the culture is being reversed bit by bit. I think that's an illusion (a delusion?), because I believe that what is really happening is that we are merely settling into a trench war, and that the generals of the supposedly pro-life party do not have their hearts in the battle.

I see that Congress can greatly limit the power of the Supreme Court over types of cases. But they've already "ordained and established" the lower appellate courts, and they can't just "unestablish" them, as far as I know (at least, the constitution doesn't seem to be saying they can), so I'm afraid after an invocation of ARticle III we'd still be left with the 9th circuit court's opinion on the matter. But again, as you say, Zippy, it's moot, because Congress will never stick to any attempt to limit the powers of the courts. What's really strange and sad is that to many congressmen, this _is_ being principled. They think it's their duty. They call it the rule of law--yielding to whatever the courts say is the meaning of the laws and constitution. I wonder if anyone else has seen the clip Judge Moore shows of Pryor interviewing him and saying, "Will you continue to honor God if you are returned to the bench?" or words to that effect. To be fair, the reference to "honoring God" was taken from Judge Moore's own lips, and it was code for "leave that big rock with the 10 commandments on it in your courtroom," but it still makes a chilling video. And Pryor thought he was obligated to do that. In a sense, he doubtless considered himself a man refusing to compromise. One wonders if they had been friends before.

thebyronicman,

If the details in the Christianity Today article as well as other Pro-Life sites that continue to monitor the actions of the Court in this regard hold true, the perceived reversing of the tide that began with the Roberts & Alito, as even the NARAL Pro-Choice president herself acknowledged, should be only the beginning.

In light of all the abortion deaths that have occured since RvW, isn't this hope worth seeing fruition in the appointment of such a Justice?

All I'm saying is we give it a chance to happen rather than ultimately seal the fate of such a possibility by allowing the likes of Obama to forever (at least in our lifetime) prevent such a possibility from ever happening.

"All I'm saying is..."
Ari,
All you have ever said is; need to win this election. That is the sum total of your position.

You have never once offered any alternative to simply voting, nor have you even attempted to answer what we should do if somehow, one day Roe v Wade is overturned.

Why this weird, unrelenting obsession with electoral politics? After a couple of days it gets a little disconcerting.

Kevin,

All you have ever said is; need to win this election. That is the sum total of your position.

If that's all you got, I feel rather badly for you.

You have never once offered any alternative to simply voting, nor have you even attempted to answer what we should do if somehow, one day Roe v Wade is overturned.

How can the prospect of that day ever happen when folks like you would rather just abstain from the Polls and give folks like Obama the edge he needs?

Like I said, once he appoints his Justices, it's over -- at least, in our lifetime.

"Like I said, once he appoints his Justices, it's over -"

Maybe for you it is, but not for anyone who understands both the spiritual and practical dimensions of this struggle.

If the details in the Christianity Today article as well as other Pro-Life sites that continue to monitor the actions of the Court in this regard hold true, the perceived reversing of the tide that began with the Roberts & Alito, as even the NARAL Pro-Choice president herself acknowledged, should be only the beginning.

I'm not at all convinced, but I do hope that you turn out to be right. FWIW and my abstention notwithstanding, I believe McCain is going to win the election handily. If he does, in that strange way we humans have of being naturally self-contradictory, I will be pleased. I will be pleased with the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will ascend skyward from the Hills of Hollywood. I will be pleased with the cry of despair that will emanate from the Manhattan salons. I will be pleased with the downward cast of Oprah Winfrey's face as she sits on that studio couch, in a pile of ashes, scraping her boils with a sharp stone while she consoles her disconsolate audience, many of whom will actually have voted for the Senator from Arizona. I'll even take a very small bit of pleasure at the look of barely suppressed glee on Hilary Clinton's face when she gives her first interview after Obama's concession speech. This is the same as the sort of pleasure that I took when I watched Bill Buckley threaten to sock Gore Vidal in the g**d*mned face (no I'm not that old--I saw it on youtube)--not because I agree wholeheartedly with Buckley's politics, but because I have such such distaste for Gore Vidal. This pleasure will last for the whole of the first news cycle after the election is over. Then I'll come on here and wish you all Good Night and Good Luck.

This guy deserves consideration;

"Had John McCain and his fellow Republicans truly wanted to end legal abortion, they could have passed Congressman Ron Paul's Sanctity of Life Act. Year after year, Dr. Paul introduced this bill, and year after year, it sat and collected dust in the document room on Capitol Hill.

What would Congressman Paul's bill do? It would do two things: 1) It would define life as beginning at conception and, thus, declare the personhood of every pre-born child. 2) Under Article. III. Section. 2. of the U.S. Constitution, it would remove abortion from the jurisdiction of the Court. In practical terms, Dr. Paul's bill would overturn Roe v. Wade and end legal abortion-on-demand. So, where was John McCain?"
http://www.chuckbaldwinlive.com/c2008/cbarchive_20080822.html

You do know that if you vote for "Zippy", this is who you are actually voting for:

THIS is Zippy

"Zippy. He may not look like it, but he's your last line of defense against the Grim Reaper."

I'm wondering if Aristocles and those who share his perspective could appeal to the principle of double-effect to justify a vote for McCain. One might hold that McCain's presidential support of embryo destruction (under certain circumstances) is a foreseen yet unintended consequence of a vote for McCain, from the standpoint of the pro-life voter. This would be held in concert with the claim that, given available evidence, it is likely that McCain will do more good and far less evil than Obama. Any thoughts?

Michael,

I gave one answer to the appeal to licit remote material cooperation with evil (double effect) here, among other places.

Kevin,

Maybe for you it is, but not for anyone who understands both the spiritual and practical dimensions of this struggle.

You understand the practical dimensions?

And what exactly are those?

Hoping that a magical Bill gets passed in Congress whereupon somehow Roe v. Wade gets overturned?

Or is your "practical" solution nothing more than chalking it up to mere prayer while several thousands of babies continue to die and even more to come by way of FOCA?

Sorry, but the prospect of the appointment of a Pro-Life Supreme Court Justice in order to achieve a majority decision on the Supreme Court that seeks to reverse the tide of RvW (as seen in Partial Birth Abortion due to the Alito/Roberts team wherein such was only made possible by the morally ambiguous Kennedy) is a real solution -- one that even the NARAL Pro-Choice folks fear so much, they want Obama to prevent this from ever happening by an appointment of their own Justices, which Obama has promised to do come that time.

Too bad supposedly "Pro-Life" folks as yourselves don't understand that fact but would rather risk sealing the fate of such a prospect -- not to mention, that of the very prospect of reversing RvW on the Supreme Court by a Pro-Life majority delivering similar judicial decisions after that of PBA!

You see, this isn't about the "elections", as you so pejoratively put it; it's about a real solution to end the Holocaust by winning the War itself by fighting it on a more decisive plane -- whereas your solution is nothing more but an acquiescence to the inimical Pro-Choice leadership under whom we're merely to do nothing more but pray and conduct vigils while thousands of babies continue to get murdered at an even more alarming rate under the Obaman Pro-Choice empire!

So it seems - at least prima facie - that Congress formally has discretion to limit the Supreme Court's powers quite extensively by statute.

Section 2, Clause 2. In all cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be a party, the Supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction.

The problem I see with the Congressional limitation approach is that the Supreme Court retains original jursidiction in all cases affecting public ministers and in which the state is party. Congress can only limit the appellate review in other cases. So, as most abortion cases come up, the plaintiff is either suing the State or one of its public ministers (eg, the attorney general as in Casey). The Constitution does not give Congress the power to limit that type of jurisdiction.

I think (but I wish we had somebody with more knowledge here) that "public ministers" does not mean state officials but rather federal officials. Actually suits are _not_ usually pressed against states qua states. In fact, I cannot think of a single one. They select an officer of the state to sue instead. This is because of a weird combination of the 11th Amendment and the strange and largely incoherent jurisprudence that has been used to enforce the 14th Amendment.

Do you really think that a McCain administration is just as bad as an Obaman administration with respect to Pro-Life issues?

I don't think "just as bad as" is the issue, at least as posed by the hypothetical question. The issue is would a McCain administration be bad enough for the Pro-life position that you shouldn't vote for him? The problem with the lesser of two evils approach is the "evil drift" that occurs. You can see defeating Obama as a "victory" for pro-life forces, but it seems that the price of that "victory" is a McCain administrtaion that also has some serious pro-life deficiencies. What ends up happening is "winning" gets re-defined as "not losing as much as we would have otherwise". And each successive cycle, we accept that "not losing as much" is ok. To put it in battle metaphors, by accepting McCain as a viable choice we only give up one mile of ground (ESCR) rather than two (ESCR + Abortion). But if we keep agreeing that such a result is acceptable (by continuing to vote for the lesser evil) we still end up losing, only a little more slowly.

There are a few occasions where States sue (or are sued) as States (eg, boundary disputes, water rights) but not often. If "public ministers" does not include state officials, that is encouraging. But, for the political reasons outlined above, I agree that the likelihood of such limitations getting enacted are, as they say, slim and none and slim left town.

c matt: Once Obama appoints his Justices to the Supreme Court, how do you suppose to reverse the RvW tide once a Pro-Choice majority is established on the Supreme Court considering that the terms of a Justice is practically for life?

The Alito/Roberts appointments would then have been rendered null.

"c matt: Once Obama appoints his Justices to the Supreme Court, how do you suppose to reverse the RvW tide once a Pro-Choice majority is established on the Supreme Court considering that the terms of a Justice is practically for life?"

aristocles, after your interlocutors have repeatedly stated that they see a vote for McCain as a form of consequentialism, do you really think you are changing any minds when you keep highlighting the benefits of a McCain vote (or the harm done by not voting for him) instead of actually addressing their concerns? Everyone here can all see that you are speaking with every intention of promoting a cause that we all care about. However, as long as you never actually explain why your position is not consequentialist, all your opposition is hearing you say is, "people, it's okay to offer support to an evil as long as the benefits are REEEEALLY good."

If you want to make any headway, you need to attack the actual premises of their arguments. For example, tell Lydia that her "line" is too strict, and she needs to move it a bit because all politics involves some sort of compromise; come up with some actual argument (rather than just asserting it) that actually demonstrates that a failure to vote is really a vote for Obama (thus showing them to be "closet" consequentialists). Note that I personally would find neither of these lines of attack very persuasive, but at the very least they address the actual concerns of your opposition.

Well, at this point, we don't even know that the Alito/Roberts appointments are going to reverse RvW. We also don't know that McCain would even appoint anti-RvW justices.

The way I expect RvW to get reversed is that those who support such things eventually die off, and leave fewer offspring, ultimately resulting in a pro-life populace. In a sense, anti-life attitudes present a self-correcting mechanism. The best strategy seems to be to raise pro-life offspring, and plenty of them. It may take several generations, though. Roe has been on the books for 35 years, scarcely one full generation.

Sure, I would prefer a much quicker way, but I don't see the quality of our politicians changing any time in the near future to the point of having confidence that they will appoint true anti-Roe justices (even some of Reagan's appointments were "dissappointing").

And in the meantime, we are asked to compromise a little here, compromise a little there, until we end up giving away the whole enchilada. This time, its "ignore the ESCR McCain supports." Next time, it might be early term, or RU-486, or who knows what.

If you think that, by refusing to vote for their opponents, you can turn back the political and judicial machinations of leftists who know The Prince better than did Machiavelli, you are beyond the pale of sensible political discourse.

(following was posted on the wrong thread...)

c matt: So the Partial Birth Abortion Supreme Court decision, as well as other decisions that would similarly restrict abortions, by the Alito/Roberts team would not actually reverse the tide of RvW?

Sorry -- I beg to differ.

The more restrictions placed on abortion, the more ineffective RvW becomes.

But how can that ever happen should Obama undo the work that had begun with PBA?

Oh yeah -- for what's it worth, McCain's VP is: Sarah Palin, distinctly Pro-Life.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25970882/

Palin has a strong anti-abortion record, and her selection was praised warmly by social conservatives whose support McCain needs to prevail in the campaign for the White House.

...

[C]onservatives praised her anti-abortion credentials.

"Sarah Palin is a pleasant surprise for those of us who had hoped that Senator McCain would pick a principled and authentic conservative pro-life leader," former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said.

Ironically, this from Vox Nova:

http://vox-nova.com/2008/08/29/aks-palin/

EXCERPT:

My husband and I volunteered on Palin’s Alaska campaign when she ran for Governor. Here are a few of my thoughts:

First: I have known Sarah Palin for years. How? I met her through AK Right to Life. She always came to our fund-raising dinners, she always came to pro-life events (even when she took time off from politics to be home with her children), and one of her kids became AK RTL’s baby mascot for our stationery. She is the real deal when it comes to pro-life matters. This became even more clear when at the age of 44 of this year, she gave birth to a baby with Down’s Syndrome. BTW: No one knew she was pregnant until 1 month before giving birth!

Second: She worked under previous (Catholic-pro-life) Governor Frank Murkowski’s Admin and ended up resigning because the corruption was so blatant and so bad she could not effect change. She gave up her 6 figure income to do so. This catapulted her into stardom for Alaskans.

Third: When she ran for Governor, she was up against the incumbent Murkowski (the least popular Governor in the nation at the time) AND against two-time former super popula,r Governor Democrat Tony Knowles. Husband and I both had deep respect for her so we decided to join her campaign. We were not the only ones. I have worked many a campaign before and this was the first time in my experience where normal, average, nonpartisan types joined the campaign. When I decided to wave signs for her on street corners (with my baby strapped on my back), I was blown away by the hundreds of other Alaskans who had the same idea.

Fourth: When she ran for Governor, the AK Republican Party threw fundraisers for Palin’s Democratic rival!

No joke! They hated her because she was the one who blew the whistle on their corruption. Big Oil hates her because she refused and refuses to be bribed. She had very little campaign money and her very ew tv ads always said “Frugally paid for by the Palin Campaign.” Yet, she won, sweeping the State. Fifth: I worked the polls on voting day and Democrats, Independents and non-voters alike came to vote for her.

My advice: Don’t underestimate her, my friends. Last night my husband and I were convinced we would support Obama. Thanks to McCain’s VP choice, we don’t know now.

A Strong Pro-Life Gal that walks the talk and Good Looking, too!!! Not bad that!!!

If you think that, by refusing to vote for their opponents, you can turn back the political and judicial machinations of leftists who know The Prince better than did Machiavelli, you are beyond the pale of sensible political discourse.

If you think that it is always and necessarily a good idea, tactically and morally, to vote for one's lesser enemies as long as those lesser enemies are opposed to one's greater enemies, then I have a bridge to sell you.

"...then I have a bridge to sell you."

Is that a bridge to nowhere?

To give ari a little bit of credit, at least McCain does seem aware that he needs to make amends with social conservatives. I don't know if that is really going to change his personal positions, which seem to fluctuate with the wind these days, but the only reason I can see why Palin was nominated was to try to heal that rift in the party.

Step2,

Thanks -- I guess.

This selection of Palin has particular significance in that in that very act is the implicit acknowledgement that McCain must submit, if not, acquiesce to the very demands of a Pro-Life consitituency or else.

Thus, he is more beholden to Pro-Lifers whereas Obama is staunchly beholden to Pro-Choice, as manifested in FOCA, etc.

I'm coming late to this discussion, but my understanding was that Zippy took his name from the unshaven clown from the Bill Griffith comic, not the sock puppet. I've seen him ask if we were having fun yet, but I've never heard him play the violin.

Roe v. Wade makes campaign comeback
Democrats warn women that high court — and abortion rights — is at stake

DENVER - The refrain in many of the Democratic leaders’ responses to Sen. John McCain’s choice of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate: Roe v. Wade, Roe v. Wade.

The 1973 Supreme Court decision nationalizing a woman’s right to get an abortion was a top-of-mind issue for top Democrats.

Voters, beware, the Democrats' message seemed to be: Palin is not in favor of abortion rights.

The Democrats seemed to be concerned that some voters might be under the misapprehension that Palin was a pro-choice woman — or that because she is a woman, it might help McCain get the votes of pro-choice women.

The message echoed and re-echoed:

“Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton in a statement issued before McCain had stepped out on the stage in Dayton, Ohio, with Palin.

“She shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade,” agreed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi two hours later.

“Gov. Palin and John McCain are a good match because they both want to overturn Roe v. Wade,” chimed in Ellen Malcolm, a Hillary Clinton adviser and president of the Democratic group Emily’s List, which backs women abortion rights candidates.

“The last thing women need is a president — and vice president — who are prepared to turn back the clock on women's rights and repeal the protections of Roe v. Wade,” said Cecile Richards, the president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, which backs mostly Democratic candidates.

If McCain were to win the election but not serve out his term, it would be Palin nominating justices for any Supreme Court vacancies.