Help Defeat Roberts's Nomination

As Reuters was the first to report tonight, President Bush's nominee to replace the retiring Sandra Day O'Connor on the Supreme Court is conservative appeals court judge John Roberts.

Liberal groups immediately sounded the alarm, citing Roberts' positions in cases involving free speech and religious liberty and especially a brief he co-wrote in 1990 that suggested the Supreme Court overturn Roe v. Wade, the landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion. ("The court's conclusion in Roe that there is a fundamental right to an abortion ... finds no support in the text, structure or history of the Constitution," the brief said.)

Moreover, as the Alliance for Justice noted in a report prepared in 2003 after Roberts' last court appointment, he "has a record of hostility to the rights of minorities and women. He has also taken controversial positions in favor of weakening the separation of church and state and limiting the permissible role of the federal courts in protecting the environment. Although Mr. Roberts is indisputably a very capable lawyer, that alone does not qualify him for such a prestigious and critical post."

This is a real in-your-face selection by the president, and the Dems' response remains to be seen. Stalwart senators like Edward Kennedy, Chuck Schumer and Dick Durbin can be expected to respond in kind but the Senate leader Harry Reid sounded an alarmingly cautious note when he told the New York Times, "The president has chosen someone with suitable legal credentials." Fortunately this fight should energize some potentially very large segments of society which would be affected by a Court that will threaten the future of legal abortions, affirmative action for minority groups, and other issues that many Americans have long taken for granted.

Watch The Nation online for commentary on John Roberts and watch this space for info on how you can help oppose his ascension to the nation's highest court. And in the meantime, click here to implore your senator to oppose Roberts and click here to check out NARAL Pro-Choice America's Supreme Court Action Kit.

The Alliance for Justice and the People for the American Way are two more important groups working to rally opposition to a nominee far to the right of the judicial mainstream. Check out their websites (here and here) for info on what's expected next and what you can help do about it.

Another great resource for activists is the Moving Ideas Network's Supreme Court Action Guide which features a raft of useful educational and activist links. Click here to check it out.

Comments (157)

1. I am so proud of President Bush..He picked an outstanding man that you LIBS won't be able to knock down no matter how slimey you all get~!!!Hooray for our beloved president!!!

   Posted by aludra at 07/19/2005 @ 9:38pm

2. Aludra, amen! You have to once again admire our President's ability to hit home runs when they are badly needed. You might check my thread to Frangrits and others on the Corn blog.

   Posted by love liberty at 07/19/2005 @ 9:43pm

3. Well, it's an issue of what is and what is not law. Roe V wade was a law established in the courts. What we need is a law protecting reproductive rights. It's simple. We can get that no problem. The courts can't say what is law and what is not law in the context of an issue absent of a law, they can only uphold the law. If a law is drafted that is in conflict with the text of the constitution, then they can rule that the law is unconstitutional and have it be resent to the legislature that drafted it. Read a history book or take an 8th grade civ class. This guy looks good if he upholds the Constitution.

   Posted by whyme at 07/19/2005 @ 9:47pm

4. So really, are progressives happy with this nomination?

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/19/2005 @ 9:58pm

5. "Let me paint your first sign: "Stop Roberts and protect Democracy from the majority!"

   great line!

   How about "Act Now! Stop Roberts from allowing those innocent unborn the right to live!"

   Todd

   Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/19/2005 @ 10:05pm

6. Aludra, I'm proud of President Bush too. With supporters like yourself I know why he was elected. For those of us not in the "Prozac Nation", any nomination by this President merits a close examination. Speaking of presidential nominations, what ever happened to Bolton? Again, I'm so proud!

   Posted by Terry Day at 07/19/2005 @ 10:07pm

7. Whyme: Roe V. Wade is _not_ a law, but rather a ruling by the Court, and, while precedent is surely given a fair amount of weight when making a decision, it is not inviolate. If it were, Plessy v. Fergueson would still be the law of the land, not Brown v. Board, and the Dredd Scott decision would still have relevance. You can't pick and choose what precedents you like, and which you don't. That's why an Originalist interpreation of the Constitution is the only non-arbitrary way of determining whether or not a law should be permitted. I mean, you can say what you want about the idea of the "living Constitution", but what's the point of having a document that establishes the basis for your government if it becomes meaningless due to a change in popular opinion?

   We _don't_ need a law protecting "reproductive rights", which, I assume, is defined as "easy, unfettered, and government subsidized abortion". First off because there's no such thing if you agree (which is all you can do if you look at the abhorrent decision made in Roe v. Wade) that the right to privacy as invented in Griswold and extended to Roe doesn't exist anywhere in the Constitution. Second, even if Roe v. Wade were overturned today, it wouldn't mean that "reproductive rights" would suddenly cease to exist, they would just become an issue for each state to decide, individually. That was the whole point of having the system of federalism that we do, to allow the states to experiment and discover the best way of doing things instead of having a heavy-handed policy imposed by the Federal government.

   Too bad more people don't get this, and are just out to ensure not that the Constitution is upheld, but that their special interest is.

   Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 10:07pm

8. "You Libs?" ... "slimey?"... Ah, I guess we've heard from the "compassionate conservative." Thank you so very much Archie Bun...er, I mean aludra. Much appreciation for your kind, compassionate manner, and insightful prospective. Your comments were very informative, as well. Thanks for pointing out (or reaffirming) where the slime can be found.

   Posted by mcarlucci at 07/19/2005 @ 10:08pm

9. Hey Freiheit, Perhaps you haven't heard about these examples of liberal legislation: the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Family Medical Leave Act, etc.

   Are you really as ignorant of history as you seem by your post?

   Posted by Redleg at 07/19/2005 @ 10:10pm

10. Redleg, The National LAbor Relations Act, the Fair Labor Standards act, and the Family Medical Leave Act were all major blows to US competitiveness abroad, and the efficient use of labor at a market rate domestically.

    As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the Amendments in 68), those were passed by Republicans over STRONG Democratic opposition. Perhaps one who knows so little about history himself should not criticize the knowledge of others?

    Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 10:13pm

11. Schrios, the CRA of 1964 was championed by the Democratic presidents Kennedy and later Johnson. THe only "Dems" who rejected it were the Dixiecrats of the south (now the "Red States"), some of who left the Dem party shortly thereafter.

    As for your opinions on the NLRA and others- without them you and most of the people you know would be working 70 hours per week just to eke out a miserable living. You need to get some perspective.

    Posted by Redleg at 07/19/2005 @ 10:15pm

12. As with so many things George Bush says.. he does the exact opposite. I'm sure we'll be finding out in the next few days exactly how far right this particular gentleman is. Or is'nt, but Mr. Bush is nothing if not consistant. Regarding Freiheits sign.. I think democracy has had to be protected from the majority through out our history. Slavery comes to mind.. and I'm sure the MAJORITY of southerners were against freeing their slaves. Or in the following years.. giving blacks the right to vote, the right to an education etc, etc.

    Posted by Flipus at 07/19/2005 @ 10:19pm

13. Redleg: Johnson opposed the CRA, that's historical fact. He passed it because he needed to, to get votes. A number of Democrats, not just Dixiecrats, opposed the CRA. I'd be happy to provide you with the Congressional Record on the votes, but you're just as capable of doing a search on THOMAS as I am.

    Re: Socialist Labor laws.

    I wouldn't be working 70 hours a week, because there's no way that, especially in this age of technology, the market would demand it. The solution to not working a job that doesn't pay well and overworks you is to get a skill set and negotiate your contract well, not to force business to adhere to regulations that make them lose money compared to what they would make if market forces were truly in effect. I have the right not to work for a company that wants me to work 70 hours for a pittance, without the governments intervention, and a business that demanded that from its employees wouldn't survive long.

    I'll get a perspective as soon as you understand capitalism.

    Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 10:19pm

14. As for your opinions on the NLRA and others- without them you and most of the people you know would be working 70 hours per week just to eke out a miserable living. You need to get some perspective.

    Redleg, oh that I could average only 70 hours a week, have some one pay for my health care, give me paid vacations, contribute to my retirement...oh yeah no one does any of those things because I work for myself...I bear the burdens, the lack of pay when business doesn't come in, few vacations and most of all, I own my life and I love it...I and millions of others make our own way..not crying for someone to provide for us and give us all our wants

    Posted by love liberty at 07/19/2005 @ 10:20pm

15. Thank you so very much Archie Bunker...er, I mean aludra. Much appreciation for your kind, compassionate manner

    Yeah like "YOU LIBS" ever had a civil tongue in your lives..."YOU PEOPLE" are nothing but volcanos of CRAPOLA spewing at any direction the wind blows...But our BELOVED president once again outsmarted you so called intellectuals (which actually is not that hard to do) and picked a brillient judge that will eat the lunch of the CAPE COD ORCA, LITTLE DICK DURBIN, CHUCKY SCHMUCKY SHUMER, HILLERY ROTTON CLINTON and the rest of "YOU LIBS" . I cant wait till he is in front of you "SO-Called Intellectuals" and crushes all of your leaders like the grapes that they all are!!

    A GREAT DAY FOR AMERICA!!!!!!!!!!!

    Posted by aludra at 07/19/2005 @ 10:36pm

16. Frank you really seem off your game tonight and bitterness is driving your commentary...perhaps we on the right could echo the mood with comments like..maybe in the future murdering babies will actually be illegal? whether you use a Dr or a coat hanger

    Posted by love liberty at 07/19/2005 @ 10:38pm

17. You people are kidding me, right? Perhaps Johnson was opposed to the Civil Rights Act (he WAS a Texan, after all), but I'm pretty sure that he was not dead-set against it. Besides, LBJ ( a bigg ass in my opinion anyway) certainly did far less to oppose the Civil RIghts Act than your party's ridiculously oft-repeated claim that Reagan helped end South African apartheid, though he vetoed sanctions three times? Anyway, here are the voting statistics: while more Democrats opposed the bill than Republicans in raw numbers, of course this was largely due to the huge Democratic majority in both the Senate and House. Furthermore, it was obviously only southerners who voted against the CRA, except for Republicans, who made up 73% of the northern House opposition and 83% of the northern Senate opposition. In addition, you'll notice that 100% of the southern Republicans, House and Senate, voted against the bill, as opposed to the still-staggering, but slightly less offensive to humanity, 93% of southern Democrats. Under 5% of the entire northern Democratic delegation voted against the CRA. It is simply incorrect to say that strong Democratic opposition existed outside of the Dixiecrat (and Republican-bound) representatives and senators.

    Posted by Libertyman13 at 07/19/2005 @ 10:40pm

18. Freiheit wrote:

    -- Another sign: Stop Roberts! He actually BELIEVES in the Constitution!!! --

    And Bush apparently doesn't in light of his declaring war on Iraq when, constitutionally, only Congress can declare war.

    Cheers,

    J

    Posted by Kevin Collins at 07/19/2005 @ 10:42pm

19. Schiros said: "As for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (and the Amendments in 68), those were passed by Republicans over STRONG Democratic opposition. Perhaps one who knows so little about history himself should not criticize the knowledge of others?" I believe that someone named George H.W. Bush, running against Ralph Yarborough in 1964 for US representative, ran against the Civil Rights Act. http://www.alternet.org/story/21004

    Posted by texastrey at 07/19/2005 @ 10:42pm

20. Schiros, Sure you have the right to not work for a company if you don't want. And as you will discover in the near future, the company you work for has a right to no longer employ you when they find a way to economize on your labor- whether you truly believe you have a valuable "skill set" or not. This decade has seen a large number of professional and managerial employees displaced by outsourcing, downsizing, what have you.

    Don't reflexively spew out the approved right-wing mantra about markets and capitalism. The invisible hand is a hoax- as is the idea of "free markets." Perhaps you should really try reading Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations. Perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Stiglitz's work on information assymetries in markets, perhaps you should acquaint yourself with Pfeffer & Salanicik's work on resource dependency theory. Hell- maybe you should just read the newspaper with an open mind to see that some government intervention is necessary to maintain any semblance of a "fair marketplace."

    Posted by Redleg at 07/19/2005 @ 10:59pm

21. Orel Roberts for the Supreme Court! Isn't there a separation of church and state issue?

    Aren't there more qualified candidates?

    Like maybe Lester Maddox? - Oh, he's not available.

    Maybe Clarence Thomas? - Oh, he's already in.

    Rove, Libby, Cheney, W and Rummy? - Sheez, we could have a quorum at The Hague.

    Oh you mean John Roberts. - Never mind! His wife should file for asylum in Uzbekistan!.

    Posted by WaltThedeman at 07/19/2005 @ 11:06pm

22. sorry Frank but you will never get me to feel sorry for women who murdered their babies..

    Scenario 1--"oh how many months along are you? I'm 4 months and I allready feel my baby kicking at times. She's a girl and we've already named her Emily."

    Scenario 2-"4 months now I've been carrying this invasive foreign tissue..I can't wait to get rid of it so I can get on with my life"

    Same baby, only the attitude is different. So a woman's attitude and mood is all it takes to determine whether a baby lives or dies.

    I once was marrid for 3 months to a shallow woman like number 2...when she said she was getting an abortion because she didn't know if it was mine or her lovers and actually didn't really care,I begged her to let me adopt raise it no matter who the father was. She laughed and had the abortion anyway. I cried and mourned for that child for months.

    Yes I have strong feelings on the subject.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/19/2005 @ 11:06pm

23. Frank,Freinheit: Coathanger abortions are a myth. There's no record that any have _ever_ happened, outside the case of pure psychosis maybe. Pre Roe v. Wade, abortion wasn't uniformly illegal, and where it was, women who wanted to get them went to a doctor, not an alley. The myth of coat-hangers was raised by feminists during the 80's to scare the nation over the idea that Roe might be overturned. Don't buy into the hype.

    Additionally, isn't it a bit hypocritical of you to criticize Reagan for not imposing sanctions on South Africa, when I'm sure you oppose sanctions against Cuba and pre-war Iraq, two regimes which were much more brutal, and equaly as racist in Iraq's case?

    Libertyman: Johnson was absolutely opposed to the 1964 Civil RIghts Act, because it was unpopular in the South, where Democrats had most of their base. Signing it alienated a huge portion of the Democratic base, leading to the split off's into the Dixiecrats, which further heightened the problems after the '68 debacle when the Socialists, Communists, etc... split into their own groups.

    Also, you're factually false about the way the numbers fell.

    80% of Republicans voted for the first House vote. 61% of Democrats did.

    81% of Senate Republicans voted for their version. 67% of Senate Democrats did.

    62% of House Democrats voted for the final version. 80% of House Republicans did.

    At the time of the vote, Senate Republicans only held 33 seats. The Democrats held the others, and mananged to pull off a fillibuster against the bill.

    There were 11 Southern Republicans, 1 in the Senate, 10 in the house. In contrast, there were 116 Southern Democrats, over 10 times the number of Republicans. The level of support between Southern Democrats and Republicans could be identical, and we wouldn't be able to tell because the Republican sample size is too small.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

    Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 11:07pm

24. You know the best way to prevent abortions? Lock up the penises! Really, when you think about it, it's a great idea. Let the government have lock and key to some kind of chastity belts that we could place on male organs - but still let them urinate, of course - and when these fellas are ready to become daddies, the government can unlock them and let them reproduce away! That's right - you can only have sex when you're willing to become a parent!

    Or...how's this for an approach...outlaw abortion but give the moms legally greater parental rights than the dads. And, if a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she can sue the man for battery - and the man has the burden of showing he's NOT the dad. How bout that, folks? Oh, and the woman can sue the daddy for damages that her body had to undergo! Ain't it a thrill?

    And you folks that are so dead set against abortion, you have to take care of all the unwanted foster kids! That's right, you'll be bringing into your homes all those little brats that have been physically, emotionally and mentally abused. Since you care so much about the "unborn," shouldn't you care even more about those that have been born? Sho nuff.

    I wonder...if the majority of abortions were performed on minority girls and women, instead of on white chicks, would any of you even care? Really, be honest now.

    Posted by Pelle at 07/19/2005 @ 11:09pm

25. Pelle wrote:I wonder...if the majority of abortions were performed on minority girls and women, instead of on white chicks, would any of you even care? Really, be honest now.

    what juvenile stereotyping! how about this for your shallowness...I am a white Male conservative Christian married to a Latina/African American woman who is my equal in philosophy.. We raised 2 white sons and 3 African American/Latino sons...your have no idea about the reality of conservative attitudes. Race plays no part in the issue of the life of the born or unborn for genuine human beings no matter their political beliefs. Grow up!

    Posted by love liberty at 07/19/2005 @ 11:16pm

26. Red: I'm aware that a company can fire me at any time for any reason. I live in a at-will state, where employers can fire for reasons other than incompetence, harassment, etc... I'm fine with that. I've been laid off, and, while it's not pleasant in the short term, I benefit in the long term because that company is more profitable, producing better services, and at a cheaper price. So what if people are replaced by more efficient methods? They don't have a right to have a job just because they're capable of something. Where would you draw the line on that? Are you angry that the once noble trades of blacksmiths and bowyers are no more, and think that the government should intervene to provide them with jobs?

    I'mn not "reflexively spewing out the right-wing agenda". I happen to be able to read an economics book or two, and I can see economic trends. Per capita wealth is up, median wealth is up, every important statistic in an economy is light years better than it was, and part of that is because of the availability of cheap, foreign labor. And, even with that, unemployment is at a low 5%!

    I love how the left acts like they're the only ones who can truly believe what they say, and that any conservative is just parroting the party line. You aren't exactly unpredictable in your statements either.

    You want to talk about sources for vindication of the market? What about Friedman, who's been saying since the 60's that the more state involvement, the higher the taxes, the worse the economy? What about Dr. Laffer, who brilliantly produced the Laffer Curve, which is the basis for the proven theory of supply side economics (proven by the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, as well as the failures of the New Deal, the Great Society, and Clinton's tax hikes before the Internet boom)? What about von Mises, who, in the early days of Marxism, was a reliable, factual source of response to the lies of Marx?

    And I do read newspapers. I just read more than the New York Times.

    Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 11:16pm

27. I agree that the timing of this announcement is mainly an attempt to distract people from the fact that the Bush team has been caught red-handed breaking the law and ruining the career of a CIA operative because her spouse actually exposed that the administration was lying in the lead up to the Iraq War, which never had anything to do with terrorism.

    I also agree that the main ideological reason that Bush is nominating this man as justice is precisely because he's already argued before the Supreme Court that there is no federal right to privacy or to abortion. There's nothing ideologically neutral about Bush or the people he gives power. He doesn't want independent thinkers or even rational people in the Supreme Court any more than he wants them in the CIA or the U.S. military. He wants yes men. This nomination has nothing to do with the Constitution. It has to do with finding ideologues who've already made up their mind before they've even seen the case they're presented with.

    Speaking of yes men and their weird relationships with women (in this thread, their daughters), I also suspect that the right wing bloggers who obsess over shutting down rational discussion on openly lefty sites either have significant personality problems, are paid to be jerks when news breaks, or both. But there's nothing open or rational about their ideas. And the condescension and hate is palpable. Their posts are like men's bathroom grafitti. You read it with pity and a little amusement.

    Regardless, for those wanting to cut through the sound bites to get some historical context relating to one aspect of Bush and Co.'s court-stacking plan, the book to read is Leslie Reagan's When Abortion Was a Crime. Not happy reading. But it cuts through the spin to get a sense of the bad old days in ways neither the left or the right have the sophistication to wrestle with in much detail.

    Posted by trevorg at 07/19/2005 @ 11:17pm

28. Frank: I'm perfectly willing to admit that there might be single cases in isolated places around the country, as a result of psychopathy and mental instability. But it was not, ever, an epidemic.

    Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 11:19pm

29. Giggle, giggle, love & liberty. I noticed you said you were a White man. Have you worn a condom every time you have had sex? Oh, no probably not. Because most likely, being a good Christian and all, you probably just have sex when you want to reproduce!

    You said you "raised" sons - how many daughters have you raised? And, if those kiddos are now "raised" does that mean they're outta the house? If, so, there's no reason you can't take a heap of foster kiddos into your no doubt warm and loving home.

    My point was this: most abortions are performed on White women and girls. That's why so many GOPs are against abortions - they fear that whitey will lose the power over other races!

    Posted by Pelle at 07/19/2005 @ 11:21pm

30. Frank wrote:LL, For an intelligent man, you can sound so heartless at times. Maybe some of those young girls aren't blessed with the moral and ethical upbringing that you had. Maybe they actually had a chance at counciling before aborting their baby at a clinic that they will no longer have. But guess what, They'll still get pregnant. We're going back to the dark ages I'm afraid. This will be the Democrats revival.

    Frank, it is far from heartless to care about life..I have shared before all that I do for the needy and you know that. I will always work hard to protect the born and unborn.

    I know you think my war stance is a contradiction, but it is part of the tragedy of evil in the world. I wish no innocent man, woman or child died in war. I pray always that our troops would be led in a way to minimize this kind of sorrow.

    But there is a profound difference between that and the purposeful taking of the life of the unborn because it gets in the way of your life,or your education, or whatever else for an excuse you can drum up to murder and innocent child.

    If you think that abortion rights are a source of revival for Dems, think through that to it's logical conclusion, and if you are any kind of human being, you have to be deeply saddened at that prospect.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/19/2005 @ 11:23pm

31. Pelle: That's like, a joke, right? You know that the founder of Planned Parenthood was an open racist, and viewed abortion as a way of eliminating blacks? Margaret Sanger (the founder) said: "the most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their rebellious members."

    A much higher percentage of abortions are performed on black women, with an alarming increase in the number of black teenagers aborting their children. Yes, of course the raw numbers have more white women aborting children, but that's because blacks are only 13% of the country. That's to be expected.

    Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 11:25pm

32. Me, jokey? Nah...no jokey. Jokey is what I'd call that crook in the White House. But I digress.

    Hey, I wanna know though - how are all you dudes out there doing whatever is possible to prevent unwanted pregnancies? You tell your sons, no doubt, from the age of 3 that it's their responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies. I'm sure you all have done that.

    And, since y'all are such good, kind Christians, I'm assuming the foster population has decreased drastically in your area since you're quickly depleting those numbers by bringing those kiddos in your homes, right? God bless you all!

    Posted by Pelle at 07/19/2005 @ 11:29pm

33. Pelle wrote: "Giggle, giggle, love & liberty. I noticed you said you were a White man. Have you worn a condom every time you have had sex? Oh, no probably not. Because most likely, being a good Christian and all, you probably just have sex when you want to reproduce!

    You said you "raised" sons - how many daughters have you raised? And, if those kiddos are now "raised" does that mean they're outta the house? If, so, there's no reason you can't take a heap of foster kiddos into your no doubt warm and loving home.

    My point was this: most abortions are performed on White women and girls. That's why so many GOPs are against abortions - they fear that whitey will lose the power over other races!

    Pelle, you are almost too sick to respond to. But in your ignorance you have no idea what the thousands of conservatives like myself are doing in devoting our lives to helping the needy, here and overseas. I feed and clothe and educate more children than you would ever consider in your most human day...Why don't you step outside of all your bigotry towards those you disagree with an learn that the world is more complex than you have painted it.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/19/2005 @ 11:30pm

34. All I can say is I'm REALLY glad I live in an America hating Gun stealing Flag burnin' God killing midwestern collegetown with a median income of $160,000 per year! Good luck to you Red counties.

    Posted by oni at 07/19/2005 @ 11:34pm

35. Trevorg hit the nail right on the head, thank you for your post. And as far as abortions go. If you appose abortion.. support contraception. Whether you believe in or condone premarital sex or not.. the best way to prevent an abortion is to prevent conception. Though all contraception methods are not 100% effective, they are far more effective then abstinance only programs, despite all the new flawed and misleading studies the right have come out with in recent months/years.

    Posted by Flipus at 07/19/2005 @ 11:34pm

36. Pelle: What do you say to Republicans who aren't Christian? Are our arguments against abortion still valid?

    Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 11:35pm

37. "Todd, how about this for a sign or a bumper sticker: 'Get out your wire coat hangers girls'. Thanks Dubya."

    How about this, teach girls that don't want to be pregnant a new word called abstinence, that way the girl NEVER needs to worry about becoming pregnant and having to use a coat hanger, and MUCH more importantly we don't have to worry about more innocent babies being killed.

    Just a thought, from your local conservative.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/19/2005 @ 11:36pm

38. Filpus: Why does the government have a responsibility, or a right, to teach something in schools that goes against the morals of the parents, or the child? I don't support abstinence only education, but nor do I support sex ed in schools of any kind. That's an area that I think the state can do well to avoid.

    Posted by schiros at 07/19/2005 @ 11:37pm

39. Love and Liberty - guess what? I have foster kiddos living in my home. How many do you have?

    I think, Love and Liberty, that you are being what's called judgemental. Or maybe, just mental.

    You have no idea what my life is like. You have no idea what other non-conservatives' lives are like. I just love how you good ol' Christians preach values that are totally unlike the virtues Jesus espoused. Hate, intolerence and hypocrisy, baby. That's tha name of your game.

    My point was that you conservatives always are trying to make the woman the responsible party for preventing unwanted pregnancies. You totally missed my point. If men became pregnant - abortions would be free and on demand - constitutionally protected. Women are so abused worldwide by men. Why don't you try to prevent unwanted pregnancies by ensuring that penises don't run free? Or, if you can't handle that thought, then maybe men shouldn't have any parental rights. You can't have it both ways - you can't make the woman the more responsible party and not give her greater parental rights automatically. Think about that - if you can.

    Posted by Pelle at 07/19/2005 @ 11:37pm

40. If you dont support sex ed in school, nor abstinance only.. what exatly do you support in dealing with such problems as abortion and std's that are associated with sexually active people?

    Posted by Flipus at 07/19/2005 @ 11:39pm

41. Before you allow yourself to be provoked by the righties who lurk in The Nation's blogs, please remember that their main motivation is resentment. In the Sixties and early Seventies, they had to face the fact that they and their political ancestors were responsible for racism, ecological devastation, unbridled greed, gross oppression of women, etc. etc. They had no defense, no answers, just the deep resentment that poorly-reared children feel when confronted with the truth about their bad behavior. Since then, powered by spite and a clear sense of intellectual inferiority, they've fed off their resentment until they have pretty much nothing else to subsist upon. So before allowing yourself to be drawn into a debate which they quickly reduce to absurdity, reflect a moment on what it feels like to be them: always pissed off, always blaming this group or that, often yearning to be victimized, usually seeing complex issues as black and white, ever willing to demonize. If you still want to engage them, go right ahead. Just try to put yourself in their shoes before you do.

    Posted by bookmanjb at 07/19/2005 @ 11:39pm

42. Yee haw, Todd - whatcha teaching them boys? Are you teaching them that preventing unwanted pregnancy is THEIR responsibilty, too? How come you didn't mention boys in your reply to the bumpersticker comment? Why did you only mention the girls?

    Posted by Pelle at 07/19/2005 @ 11:41pm

43. Oh so happy to make your day Freiheit. So happy. Bush makes me giggle, too.

    Posted by Pelle at 07/19/2005 @ 11:43pm

44. Appreciate it Frankgrits. I sure wish that some of these boys would realize that it does take two persons - and both should be responsible. Perhaps if this was emphasized more instead of always making the woman the more responsible party, there would be fewer abortions, not to mention unwanted children. Radical thought, I know.

    Posted by Pelle at 07/19/2005 @ 11:47pm

45. I always believed the decision to have an abortion should be that of both parents. But on the other hand.. I'm not a woman either. And I give credit to pelle and Frankgrits to remind me that men dont bear the physical and emotional responsibility and pain to go through with a pregnancy.

    Posted by Flipus at 07/19/2005 @ 11:48pm

46. Flipus, you rock, man!

    Posted by Pelle at 07/19/2005 @ 11:49pm

47. I dont support abstinance only.. I dont know how you got that idea.. maybe you read something wrong, or more likely I worded something wrong. But I do not support abstinance only.. just for the record

    Posted by Flipus at 07/19/2005 @ 11:51pm

48. OK FREIHEIT, I'll keep it simple - The man Bush nominated would have had his mother executed if she opted for an abortion.

    Posted by WaltThedeman at 07/19/2005 @ 11:53pm

49. Do Americans think or read anymore? Or do you just pick a team and let the team do the thinking for them? You do nothing but scream at each other. You pick a side and that's that. You won't listen. You won't reason. You won't think. You only scream and yell in primary colors. And half the time, facts are irrelivant. It's sad. I've never seen such an inreasonable bunch in all my life. I imagine you will still be yelling and screaming at each other when China becomes the world's only superpower.

    Posted by Guy Incognito at 07/19/2005 @ 11:56pm

50. Why does everyone assume that just because a woman can't have an abortion that it will automatically become a foster child? Did you ever stop to think that after carrying a baby for 9 months, feeling it kick, seeing it on ultrasound, going through labor, and holding /seeing it for the first time that a woman might actually keep it?

    Posted by usc1 at 07/19/2005 @ 11:59pm

51. Im not screaming, nor yelling. And I'm not entirely sure I'm on a "side". Im just posting my opinion, as I'm sure all the other people are.

    Posted by Flipus at 07/20/2005 @ 12:00am

52. I thought it already had. I'm not screaming. I'm having fun sitting here laughing at all the idiots that populate this country. Slam the liberals if you must, folks, but where are the educational meccas in our country? They are in liberal or "blue" areas of the country. How many Ivy League colleges are found in the south? Uh, none. Isn't it just a little interesting, perhaps just a coincidence....but the south - almost totally red - has the worst schools in the country. Mississippi, Texas, Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Tennessee, Florida...compare the literacy level to these and other southern states to those in the crazy northeast and northwest - the liberal areas. Huh.

    Posted by Pelle at 07/20/2005 @ 12:01am

53. She might decide to keep it.. on the other hand maybe she would give it up for adoption. Thats her choice, as should be having an abortion.

    Posted by Flipus at 07/20/2005 @ 12:01am

54. I know the circle goes round and round, but I'll say it anyway. We always talk about the mother, but we never consider how the person most affected by the abortion might feel about it.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/20/2005 @ 12:04am

55. First of all Pelle, my main response to you was not to stereotype you but your excessive use of stereotype against Christians and especially white male Christians Pelle wrote: "Giggle, giggle, love & liberty. I noticed you said you were a White man. Have you worn a condom every time you have had sex? Oh, no probably not. Because most likely, being a good Christian and all, you probably just have sex when you want to reproduce!

    Secondly, just to satisfy your query, while we have gone through the approval process for Foster Parenting (and my wife works at a county childrens shelter for abused, and runaway children), we have had to pass because we constantly travel to our various ministry locations around the US and overseas. Therefore, it just doesn't work for us; so we invest in the children and help get children the love and care wherever we travel to.

    Third: you wroteYou have no idea what other non-conservatives' lives are like. I just love how you good ol' Christians preach values that are totally unlike the virtues Jesus espoused. Hate, intolerence and hypocrisy, baby. That's tha name of your game.

    I haven't seen you on the previous posts (and I acknowledge I haven't been posting here all that long) But, again you display and make assumptions without any basis of fact or knowledge about my life and how I live it out..So you demand and accuse me of stereotyping while doing the very thing you accuse...that I continue to maintain is what reduces your credibility.

    Unless you decide to be adult about it, I would rather continue with people like Frank who while we openly agree that we have serious differences, we have respect and don't presume the worst kind of stereotypes. I enjoy serious, healthy debate. I don't enjoy people who rely on dissmissive slanderous typecasting because of their inability to communicate their viewpoints. (and yes it goes for my right wing compatriots on these blogs also).

    Repartee is good, ridicule and bigotry are not.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/20/2005 @ 12:04am

56. Frankgrits, you're correct on all counts. You sound like a very good dad!

    And no one assumes that every unwanted pregnancy will become a foster child. One of my good friends just adopted a baby from a young mother. Unfortunately, most foster children were born to parents who were either not equipped to care for them or not willing to do so. If all the folks who were so anti-choice would spend as much energy helping children in the foster care system of this country as they do protesting the right to choose, I'm betting that this country would be a lot better off. Of course, I could be wrong. I mean, after all, I figured the Yankees would win the World Series last year and look what happened!

    Posted by Pelle at 07/20/2005 @ 12:05am

57. I dont know enough about him yet to have an opinion. But from what I've read in the few hours since the announcement, the odds are it wont be favorable. I'm a sceptic when it comes to George Bush.

    Posted by Flipus at 07/20/2005 @ 12:07am

58. Love and Liberty, you are very patronizing and supercillious in your replies. That type of attitude is very off-putting. Stop being so self-righteous dude. Go back and read your bible. And I am a child - of God. Maybe you are too.

    I'm going to bed, troops.

    Posted by Pelle at 07/20/2005 @ 12:08am

59. Frank: "FILPUS, Abstinence is a non-starter. Every human being is born with three basic biological drives, the will to survive, hunger, and sex. That's a fact. Tell me how in this century, abstinence is workable in solving the problem?"

    You're kidding Frank? Somehow conservative Jews, Christians and even people who not of faith but have strong morals have been able to raise kids with a right understanding that sex outside marriage only brings consequences. Does that mean 100% success? Of course not, but I prefer it to just telling people, "just go ahead if you feel like it because it's your natural desire, and oh, make sure you use protection." No wonder our country is so messed up! Not really digging directly at you Frank, but I get disappointed in what people will settle for.

    My Oldest son is getting married in September. He is 32 and a virgin..He told me recently that he is so glad he waited and that waiting for the absolute right person(and she really is!) has been completely worth it...

    Posted by love liberty at 07/20/2005 @ 12:11am

60. Pelle, try being a Cubs fan.

    I agree that there is difficulty in finding foster/adoptive parents, but you have to admit that some of that is due to so much red tape/bureacracy that prevents or discourages potential parents from jumping through the hoops.

    Posted by usc1 at 07/20/2005 @ 12:12am

61. um...pelle, the rate of abortions among blacks is double what it is among whites. I think the ratio for hispanics is right in the middle of the two. Proportionally, minorities are aborted at a much higher rate.

    Posted by anachronism at 07/20/2005 @ 12:15am

62. know what you mean frank..I'm worn...hope to chat another time.

    Posted by love liberty at 07/20/2005 @ 12:18am

63. This is the first thing Bush has done in years that I am pleased with. I still think Bush has done a hideously bad job as President, but on this decision I am ecstatic.

    For those on the left: My worst nightmare would be for Bush to put a Neocon on the Supreme Court. Not that he probably has the proper credentials for the federal bench, but imagine Richard Perle sitting on the Supreme Court! On at least that hopefully those on the left and populist centrists such as myself ought to be able to agree.

    Posted by lance_sjogren at 07/20/2005 @ 12:18am

64. If you oppose abortion, don't get one...done!

    Posted by pizzmoe at 07/20/2005 @ 12:19am

65. Yes, the guilt of KKK lifer, Robert Byrd. Ooops, he is a Democrat.

    Perhaps Republicans could learn a thing or two about ecology from the Democrat paradises of China, and the former USSR. The filthiest places on Earth are communist/socialist countries.

    Greed has ruined this country. Only greed could cause the poorest in our country to be the fattest. Where the parasites of this land have cable t.v., free health care, tax cuts even though they don't pay taxes, free housing, and free food. I guess greed is now defined as being the largest contributor of foreign aid and human lives to help people we will never know.

    Yes, a Republican of the 1960's and 1970's would never have been so helpful to a woman in need as Senator Kennedy was when he watched Mary Jo Kopechne gasping for air. An oppressive Republican might have forced this woman to safety.

    Having to reflect on the good times of 30 years ago, when everone was too doped up to think logically, has to be very depressing for someone who is part of an ever decreasing minority. Having my ideas continually rejected by the voters might cause me to harken back to a time when I wasn't considered a kook by a substantial majority.

    Posted by BushIsRight at 07/20/2005 @ 12:28am

66. new to the blog...how does picking a man instead of a woman reflect the will of the american people ?...no affirmative action here

    Posted by egard at 07/20/2005 @ 12:37am

67. This fellow sounds like a good strategic choice for the Great White Father - subscribes to a similar, if not the same ideology as Bush, is implicitly, but not explicitly for overturning Roe v. Wade, implicitly for the merging of church and state, and has an apparently hostile record to minorities. I'm not sure how important to their agenda that last part is, but, honestly, Bush and his true base, I think, view us all as useless, irrelevant peasants regardless of our skin color.

    So, what to do now?

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/20/2005 @ 12:43am

68. I hate to throw gasoline on the fire of the abortion thread in this forum, because I don't think it is the only issue that this new configuration of the court is going to face (and even if Roe is overturned, I suspect that will not be the final word on the issue), but I have a relevant theological question:

    I believe there is some scriptural justification for the belief that life begins at conception in one of the psalms? Is that correct, and are there other passages, or just the one? I suppose if you believe such, the one would be well more than enough.

    Posted by sandalphon at 07/20/2005 @ 12:51am

69. What a bunch of rot.You bunch of sermonizing self rightseous bastards, I wish every one of you that opposes a womans right to own her body would wake up with a vagina in the morning.I am a man that has faith in women , unlike you sorry bunch of rubbish,no one on this earth is for abortion.

    Posted by tom kovis at 07/20/2005 @ 12:54am

70. All this discussion about Roe v Wade and abortion. Roe v. Wade is about freedom of women from the intrusion of the State. Privacy is an issue that is paramount in the constitution. There are many instances where abortion is necessary to save the life of the mother; that decision is between the doctor and the women, not the State and the women.

    I don't like abortion anymore than most liberals. So since I must respect the right of women to make that decision when apporpriate, then I believe it is the obligation of the State to help make unwanted pregnancies rare through publicly financed family planning and adoptions as feasible as possible, with the least stigma possible about unwed pregnancies.

    Posted by ksamuels at 07/20/2005 @ 12:55am

71. Posted by 4calbears at 07/20/2005 @ 12:59am

72. 4Calbears, hm I wonder if I know you

    Posted by ksamuels at 07/20/2005 @ 01:03am

73. no strong feelings about abortion. not inclined to ascribe more any more credibility to christian/muslim/etc mythologies than to their roman/greek/etc counterparts. anyone know of a scientific argument that life begins at conception? also, how about a definition of what constitutes "life", which varieties are "precious", and why?

    Posted by fgabriel at 07/20/2005 @ 01:30am

74. The issue isn't about Judge Roberts. It is about Bush. It makes no difference who Bush nominated, the outcry from the Left would have been the same. If it were possible and Bush could have nominated Jesus or the Buddha - the outcry would have been the same.

    Based on the information provided so far, Roberts looks pretty solid. The real fun will begin when the Chief Justice retires. If Bush were to nominate, for instance, a certain black, female, conservative judge to that position, wow! what a dog and pony show the Left would try to orchestrate over that one. The outcry then would be so intense that one would think that Bush intended to outlaw oxygen.

    It is hard sometimes for common sense to be heard over the self-absorbed yammerings and howls of the narcissistic, fundamentalist ideologues of the Left and the Right.

    Posted by JosephD at 07/20/2005 @ 01:34am

75. Zero's absolutely correct: all true Leftists should avoid voting for the Democrats. Third parties have a fantastic record in American history -- I see no reason believe otherwise. :)

    Posted by agathezol at 07/20/2005 @ 01:49am

76. Why is it that democrats support abortion but oppose the death penalty and war? And why is it that republicans decry abortion but support the death penalty and war?

    All three - abortion, the death penalty, and war - are killing. No one in this thread gives a damn about life.

    Posted by ghostman at 07/20/2005 @ 01:53am

77. Odd. The blog's instructions say "please refrain from…making personal attacks," but it's just too easy, isn't it?

    I just wonder if there's any real hope of blocking the nomination. Peter Rothberg calls Roberts an "in-your-face selection," but I just heard some TV talking head say that the next one will be even more unabashedly strident--like Bush is really gonna dial things up if he gets to replace Chief Justice Rehnquist. It's almost a given that Roberts is unsuitable--would any Bush nominee be suitable?--but my fear is that his relative inexperience on the bench will ensure a lot of ideological speculation, which is not good for the progressive cause. Maybe it's too early to tell, though.

    Posted by kelvinw at 07/20/2005 @ 02:23am

78. Ghostman - the types of killing that are represented in abortion, capital punishment, and war are all different kinds of killing. Murder is one kind. Suicide is another. Killing in self-defense is yet another. It's these distinctions that render blanket statements, such as yours, null and void. Each type of killing has its own context and it's these contexts that differentiate. It's analogous to the geometric concept that squares, trapezoids, parallelograms, and rhombuses are all types of quadrilaterals.

    Posted by agathezol at 07/20/2005 @ 03:15am

79. Kelvin: For the sake of clarity -- if someone disagrees with you, are they automatically insane/irrational/evil/unsuitable for anything more powerful than dogcatcher? Is it possible to have a good-faith ideological disagreement with you without being out of one's gourd? Are you THAT confident about the proximity between The Truth and your own beliefs?

    Posted by agathezol at 07/20/2005 @ 03:18am

80. Let's suggest to Katrina that she require an IQ test before anyone can comment on The Nation's website. I recommend we set the bar low, perhaps an IQ of 75. Then at least that would eliminate all the Bush Kool Aid drinkers.

    Posted by billsheasf at 07/20/2005 @ 03:58am

81. Bill: What I like about The Nation is despite the blatent bias, the vast majority of the people here who share that bias are actually reasonable, friendly, and thoughtful people. You are not one of them.

    Posted by agathezol at 07/20/2005 @ 04:24am

82. It's nice, agathezol, that you are able to compare killing to four-sided shapes. I see killing in a different, albeit no less mathematical light: each method of murder, whether you can justify it politically or not, equals the same thing: one dead body.

    But I do admit that if I lean any direction on this, I lean left. Though I am vehemently opposed to abortion, I can ultimately not require a woman by law to do or not do something to her own body. And anyway, if you outlaw abortion, where do you draw the line? When is a fetus a living thing? When it grows eyeballs? Before that? What about the sperm I ejaculate down the drain? Aren't they, too, alive? After all, put them inside a woman and they'll actively seek out her egg. They are by no means inanimate or lifeless, even swimming at the bottom of my bathtub. Will masturbation, too, be outlawed?

    Posted by ghostman at 07/20/2005 @ 04:46am

83. It's funny, but I thought this was about the nomination of Roberts to the Supreme Court. He may have a record against abortion rights but doesn't anyone see a correlation between the timing of the announcement and taking the heat off Karl Rove?

    The White House is well aware that Congress won't take up the issue of the nomination until after the August recess. Until then the right and left factions will be warring and maybe everybody will forget about Rove.

    I think it's unfortunate that President Bush chose now to make the announcement. While Congress is in recess the press and the internet blogs will be heating up over the nomination. By the time Congress re-convenes the polarization on both sides will be nearly complete and the Senate Judiciary Committee's work at investigating the nominee will be seen as strictly partisan.

    I see Karl Rove's hand in this. He's always been the great divider behind President Bush and this is just the latest example. The Bush Administration has been a supreme force to divide the American people. The extreme rhetoric in Washington is echoed throughout our nation to everyone's detriment.

    Bipartisanship should be the rule in Congress, not the exception. Compromise is a tool that has served our country well in the past but seems to be forgotten in todays' Congress. Exremism runs rampant, with both sides spewing vitriol at the other. If we ever hope to accomplish progress we need to elect uniters as our representatives and move forward with a moderate agenda that supports the rights of ALL Americans.

    The Bush Administration is the champion of the rich and corporate America. Hopefully, in the next Presidential election we'll be given a true choice in the direction of our country. Maybe the votes will actually be counted correctly.

    Posted by raschana at 07/20/2005 @ 07:57am

84. Hi All;

    Bringing an unwanted child into the world is a horrible thing to do. Unwanted children tend to be miserable, and are quite a lot more likely to become criminals than wanted children. States that legalized abortion experienced a drop in crime 15 or so years later (and states that legalized it a few years later had a drop in crime that started a few years later). That study was published in Scientific American a few years ago - can't remember exactly when or the title.

    Unless you believe that a fertalized egg has a "soul", then it's pretty easy to consider a small clump of a few million cells not to be human, but only potentially human. And that clump cannot surive without the woman's body - it is not yet an independent organism - it is not something that can be 'murdered'.

    Those of you that want to prevent other people from having an abortion are trying to force everyone to act as if they believe in souls. However deeply you might believe that, there is no objective evidence for it, and you cannot rightly impose that belief on other people.

    People that oppose abortion should stop trying to force everyone to believe as they do, and instead work for better education - and I don't mean pretending sex doesn't exist for anyone under 18. They should work for better foster care and adoption services (instead of trying to cut taxes to the bone all the time). I don't think a lot of abortion foes actually care much about the fetuses, or unwanted children and the misery they face - they just want to punish those women.

    Posted by atmur01 at 07/20/2005 @ 09:30am

85. Karl's behind everything Bush does. As the mayor of the Mayberry Machiavellis, Rove works the political angles for everything Bush does. Roberts' nomination will take the Rove scandal off the front page. Roberts' nomination is about more than abortion. He has said he is against Miranda warnings when people are arrested. Environmental regulation is unconstitutional in his view. Like Thomas, his record on the bench is short, so there's little to look at as far as judicial temperament and decisions. Be sure of this: if you are 12 years old and are caught eating on the DC Metro, you will be arrested and handcuffed and there will be no appeals for you. He's young, so he'd be on the court for at least 25 years, helping cement the GOP takeover in the Judicial branch. Sen. Santorum should be against him because he attended Harvard, which, according to recent statements by Santorum, is responsible for the "moral relativism" that led to child abuse by priests. Don't hold your breath on that one.

    Posted by proudlib at 07/20/2005 @ 09:45am

86. "Why did you only mention the girls?"

    Absolutely, teach boys abstinence too if they don't want their girl pregnant. The bottom line however, is the girl is the one that gets put in the bad position of carrying the unwanted child if she does end up pregnant.

    Teach them to wait until they are married, teach them if they do feel they must have relations before marriage to use protection, teach them however that if the protection fails they still are responsible for the life they created. The killing of the innocent life due to their choice to have relations is never the right answer.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 10:08am

87. "Why is it that democrats support abortion but oppose the death penalty and war? And why is it that republicans decry abortion but support the death penalty and war? "

    I can't speak for all republicans, I can speak for myself however; I don't support the death penalty. I believe abortions should be illegal as I support the right of all children to LIVE. I do support the war on terror because there is a time for all things, a time to sew, a time to reap, a time for peace and a time for war.

    This… is a time for war. We need to kill all of those radical Islamic terrorists before they kill all of us.

    Hope that wasn't too politically incorrect for The Nation readers.

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 10:21am

88. While everyone is bloviating about Roe v Wade, which will NOT be overruled, you're missing the big picture. Roe is a $$ issue for the right and overruling it would only shift political momentum to the left. Since 68% of Americans support reproductive freedom and privacy, the ultimate effect would be to take away a congealing issue for the right.

    THE REAL DANGER WITH A CHIMPY SCOTUS is that the Court is ONE VOTE AWAY from approving detentions without due process. Judge Roberts was ON THE D.C. PANEL THAT JUST UPHELD THE SHAM MILITARY TRIBUNALS instead of requiring all detainees to be provided access to the courts.

    We have already seen enough about just how much "justice"" is dispensed by the military. Haven't we?

    Anyone who thinks they will be immune from the wave of detentions that is yet to come, better think again.

    AMERICANS ARE IN DEEP, DEEP TROUBLE AND MANY OF US WILL SOON BE "DISAPPEARED" for no other reason than that we disagree with the extremists who have stolen our nation. The FBI is already spying on protestors and the ACLU under the guise of their "counterterrorism" activities.

    Color me a worried citizen of New Weimar, formerly known as the Republic of the United States of America.

    Posted by marblex at 07/20/2005 @ 10:44am

89. Yes, the Rove story will be put on hold for a bit, but I think it will be back. The administration is going to have a hard time spinning its way out of such a significant intelligence breach--hence Roberts. We may have caught a glimpse of one of the chinks in Rove's armor. He's used to playing--or should I say "owning"--domestic politics, but probably has a very parochial idea of how the work of intelligence/diplomatic operatives abroad impact the "homeland." It's just not his playground--nor is it the administration's, for that matter. Selecting Roberts most certainly is.

    Posted by kelvinw at 07/20/2005 @ 10:50am

90. I'm so proud of President Bush too! He does the things that America needs to do; he's a straight shooter who does what he thinks is right and to hell with the polls. He is a man of values, principles, and all the things we need to be!

    Let me tell you more about why I'm proud of him and his leadership:

    1) he told us that we were going to get the WMDs out of Iraq

    2) he told us that our soldiers would be warmly greeted and welcomed with open arms

    3) he told us that we would spread democracy in the Mideast

    4) he told us that he would dismiss anyone from his Administration who, now what was that he said? Oh yeah, committed a crime.

    Now, isn't that a list of accomplishments and positions we can all be proud of?

    Posted by Rene at 07/20/2005 @ 11:07am

91. Re. the issue of preventing unwanted pregancies via abstinence. Look at the data -- abstinence education works only in the minds of those folks that don't realize that our young people actually have sex. Thanks to the disinformation campaign that has been spread so effectively by folks that want to keep our young folks sex-free, our youth say they do not 'believe' that contraceptives are effective, so they often don't bother using them. If you look at the data, you'll see that here in the US, where abstinence education has trumped education about how to prevent unwanted preganancies, we actually have higher rates of teen preganancies (almost all unwanted pregnancies) than most of the industrialized nations. Why? Abstinence education's effectiveness!

    If you truly want to reduce abortions, then you must increase education about pregancies, contraception, and, most of all, not pretend that our young people do not have sex. Even many youth that agree to pledges of abstinence end up breaking their pledges. Unfortuately, when this happens they are ill-prepared to prevent unwanted pregancies because they don't know enough about it.

    In other countries (mostly developing), women say they WANT smaller family sizes but they don't know how. Again, thanks to our govt's policies concerning contraception education, information is not made available, and consequently, human population size continues to grow.

    The thing that bothers me the most about folks that are against abortion is that so many of them are also against the tools and knowledge that would help reduce abortions. No one "wants" abortions -- they just want them to be available when necessary. What I believe people should work towards is reducing unwanted pregancies across the board. Doing this would reduce abortions and the mental anguish that so many people go through when they have an unwanted pregnancy. The health of our societies and our planet is what's at stake.

    Posted by Rene at 07/20/2005 @ 11:17am

92. Rene

    "If you truly want to reduce abortions, then you must increase education about pregancies, contraception, and, most of all, not pretend that our young people do not have sex."

    You can make excuses for your kids to give the open door to have premarital sex if you want to Rene, but don't expect me to. My kids are taught that abstinance is the best policy. It's what Jesus would do. And more importantly it's what he did when he lived a sinless life on earth.

    If people that don't want to have a baby don't have sex or at least use protection and understand that if the protection fails they still are responsible for the child thier sex created, we won't have to worry about murdering kids.

    Todd

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 11:31am

93. I'm an African-American, feminist, education writer, since we all seem to be unveiling our credentials here.

    While I have concerns regarding abortion rights (that's the feminist in me), I agree with the folks that say the simple answer to the whole abortion question is to encourage contraception. Also, the whole question could be answered if we would just be honest with our kids about sex. When I was 10, and my sister had my nephew, she told me exactly where he came from, how he got there, and just how much fun (she meant that sarcastically) labor was. I waited for a good long time before I even considered having sex after that. It's amazing how demystifying the process does that.

    Also, when a woman does decide to have an abortion, most don't use it as a form of birth control. There's a lot of thought that goes into that decision and probably more than a little bit of fear. To the men on this blog that don't seem to understand that despite having daughters, you might try putting yourself in the shoes of a woman having to make that decision. You might decide to reserve your judgement, although for the more hardcore of you, I doubt it.

    As for John Roberts, which is supposed to be the subject at hand, my concern is less for his stance on woman's rights (any Bush nominee wouldn't find that a priority and I knew that going in) than is his stance on the First Amendment. I just want to have someone on the court that doesn't think that the First Amendment is something you should use to wipe your butt with. I'm also a little concerned about putting a guy on the court that thinks its okay to put a 12-year-old kid in handcuffs for eating a french fry on the Washington Metro.

    Posted by edwriter at 07/20/2005 @ 11:46am

94. Aludra

    "So called intellectuals" you mispelled brilliant.

    Posted by kimvic1 at 07/20/2005 @ 11:56am

95. "I'm an African-American, feminist, education writer, since we all seem to be unveiling our credentials here. "

    I'm just... me.

    Since we as Edwriter said, are all "unveiling" our credentials.

    todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 11:58am

96. Todd, to hear you now invoke the name of Jesus, after your numerous posts of "kill them before they kill us," is silly and hypocritical. I hope you don't think anyone will take you seriously on this new religious stance of yours.

    You suddenly finding value in the teachings of Jesus reminds me of how Bush, when his political career demanded it, suddenly found value in God. Of course, his admiration for Jesus, like yours, was brought up only every now and then, when it served a political purpose. He surely didn't invoke the peacenik Jew when he was putting to death more people than all the other governors put together.

    I am both surprised and glad to hear, however, that you oppose the death penalty. You weren't just pulling my leg, were you?

    Posted by ghostman at 07/20/2005 @ 12:00pm

97. Stop the holocaust! Male Masturbation is murder! With every ejaculation MILLIONS (!) of potential human beigns are murdered!

    Wanking is a crime.

    Posted by Mug at 07/20/2005 @ 12:11pm

98. "I am both surprised and glad to hear, however, that you oppose the death penalty. You weren't just pulling my leg, were you?"

    Jesus teaches us that forgiveness is key. I believe that, however for people that want to be forgiven, such as people in prisons. Terrorists that continue to kill and ask for no forgiveness, have no remorse, deserve to die a terrorists death.

    It's that simple...

    Todd

    Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 12:27pm

99. ...and what was that bit about the "skill set"...

    "I wouldn't be working 70 hours a week, because there's no way that, especially in this age of technology, the market would demand it. The solution to not working a job that doesn't pay well and overworks you is to get a skill set and negotiate your contract well,"

    A "skill set"... what a laugh.

    Right. And when your "skill set" becomes outsourceable you'll then have just about as much negotiating power as a 50 cents an hour Indonesian worker. Good luck with that...

    And the guy who has lunch once a month with the boyfriends of his demure daughters of purity... oh, for godsake... the Pastor's daughter in my evangellical church was the most sexually active of them all. And oh how she had everyone fooled. But you can bet, even if she weren't, even if she were as pure as the driven snow... at 15 after going a bit too far with her boyfriend in the sand dunes at the end of the church hayride... you can bet even that pastor would be seriously considering the "A" word in order to save his daughter's future and his own ministry from ruin. But maybe not. Maybe she would just mysteriously go live with her grandparents in North Carolina...

    Go figure.

    Posted by Mug at 07/20/2005 @ 12:43pm

100. Ghostman: You've distorted the analog I provided. I was not equating killing to "four-sided shapes" in some sort of moral/ethical sense. The analog is the "parent category" (killing, quadrilaterlas) and the respective "child categories." Murder is a type of killing. Killing in war is another type of killing. Capital punishment is another type of killing. Suicide is another type of killing. Killing in self-defense is another type of killing. All too often, people interchangably use the words "murder" and "killing." Murder is a TYPE of killing, but not all killing qualifies as murder. You may not support war or capital punishment, but do you support the right to kill someone who is about to kill you? And I'm not using this as some sort of defense of the "War on Terrorism" -- I mean literally, someone with a gun/knife/blunt object is standing in front of you and is about to take your life if you don't take his/hers first. Once you've granted a distinction between self-defense killing and another types of killing, logically you have to grant there may be other distinctions as well. Now, that doesn't mean you have to support ANY of those other types of killing -- but you need to recognize they are not all the same. Unless, of course, you don't support killing in self-defense (in which case, you'd be perfectly consistent in actively opposing ALL forms of killing).

     Posted by agathezol at 07/20/2005 @ 2:05pm

101. Posted by agathezol at 07/20/2005 @ 2:05pm

102. the problem with what's above is that a fetus is not a human life--all the forms of killing you speak of suggest a walkin' talkin', protected by the constitution, human life. if you want to live in a place where a fetus is afforded the same designation, um, perhaps the vatican would be a nice place for you to live? or some other theocracy? i suppose kansas would be another option, but them tornados suck.

     so, to youse medieval anti-choice cats: when they make it illegal in kansas, would you be comfortable executing the 17year old girl, raped by her father, who managed to find a way to terminate her pregnancy? or do you support going after the obgyn instead?

     Posted by dabar at 07/20/2005 @ 3:15pm

103. Dabar, your assumptions do nothing to further your point. In the posts I've contributed, I have not stated my position on abortion, nor have I listed it amongst the "types of killing." I've simply attempted to correct the misunderstanding Ghostman demonstrated regarding the different types of killing.

     Posted by agathezol at 07/20/2005 @ 3:23pm

104. Posted by agathezol at 07/20/2005 @ 3:23pm

105. ah. so what's your position on abortion? is it murder? or a health care decision that should be made between a patient, her doctor and (if she's got one) her god?

     Posted by dabar at 07/20/2005 @ 3:32pm

106. What America NEEDS IS NOT MORE YELLING ABOUT ONE'S OWN POSITION but civilized discussion on our issues. We need to come together to form a concensus on what we need to do to move forward instead of forming polarized "camps".

     Forward movement is the way to progress in our world in all areas of politics. The outer fringes need to be eliminated and the center needs to be found. The outragious fringe that the Bush Administration courts must be reigns in and reason must be established before our country can evolve into the true power it is.

     America has always been the "Land of the free and the Home of the Brave" and we're justifiedly proud of that legacy. If we want to retain that legacy we need to prove to the world that we deserve that consideration.

     Let us move forward on that agenda and not a partisan one. Let us join together rather than fall apart.

     Posted by raschana at 07/20/2005 @ 3:44pm

107. hey Schiros, and for you Wikipedians: "In 1930, Sanger opened a family planning clinic in Harlem that sought to enlist support for contraceptive use and to bring the benefits of family planning to women who were denied access to their city's health and social services. Staffed by a black physician and black social worker, the clinic was endorsed by The Amsterdam News (the powerful local newspaper), the Abyssinian Baptist Church, the Urban League, and the black community's elder statesman, W.E.B. DuBois."

     Posted by marissa21 at 07/20/2005 @ 3:59pm

108. DABAR, your comments re fetuses not being human life, etc, are in part what gives liberals a bad name. If an unborn child is not a human life, what sort of life is it? You trick yourself into believing the destuction of a fetus is not killing because of the way you chose to define your terms. I suppose if we defined Jews as not human it would be okay to kill them as well. After all, it's been done before. I imagine you also favor euthanasia since life that's not quality is no longer life either. There are rational reasons to keep abortion legal, but there are a lot more good reasons to work towards making them rare, and if we could ever get to an ideal point where no one ever needed or wanted one that would be perfect. But denegrating what constitutes life is just way of denying there are moral choices in the world - it's a complete cop out. Your attitude is one likely to increase the number of abortions rather than reduce them.

     Posted by jeck at 07/20/2005 @ 4:04pm

109. "Forward movement is the way to progress in our world in all areas of politics. "

     Hence the difference between progressives and conservatives. You are making an incorrect assumption that everyone agrees with you that we need to move "forward".

     Not everyone agrees. I personally feel the country was on a better path, socially, politically and in other areas in the past. Back when prayer was allowed and the scriptures of Bible were taught in school. Back before we had the rash of the aids epidemics, the kids on drugs, the gangs, rap music and all of the social decay that our society is seeing currently.

     So although you may want to move forward, don't have the audacity to think that everyone agrees that that's what America HAS to do.

     I for one most definitely disagree.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 4:11pm

110. I never participate in these forums because for some reason there are tons of right wingers spewing hate here. A person can't even read their news magazine of choice without being bombarded with nastiness. I'd like to suggest that if we ignore trolls like Aludra and Freiheit, they will get bored and go away. (Calling them trolls is not a personal attack; it's a term used to describe peole who post inflammatory comments on message boards to try to get rises out of other people.) Responding to them just baits them into writing more. We can try all we want to explain our point of view to them, but they will never understand. People like that don't want to understand. It is easier to be closedminded and attack the other side than to make any attempt to understand where the opposition is coming from.

     Posted by KMR at 07/20/2005 @ 4:25pm

111. Roberts is the end of the Court as a block on unbridled power by arch-conservative extremists. Dubya has proven once again to be a paragon of religious extremism and corporate boot licking. Our only hope for the country is the investigations into the Plame leaks with the hopes that Dubya and Cheney were stupid enough to have okayed the leaks. With any luck Fitzgerald's investigation will lead to the White House Iraq Group (WHIG) and show the lengths to which this immoral administration went to drag us into an illegal war. If the Dems can push hard to retake the House in 2006 then impeachment hearings won't be far behind. ANY conservative who supports Bush shows themselves to be a hypocrite as this administration will do ANYTHING to get and hold power.

     Posted by Exhoosier24 at 07/20/2005 @ 4:31pm

112. By the way, oksportsguy with No Brain, polls consistently show that a MAJORITY of Americans wish to RETAIN Roe v. Wade.

     Posted by Exhoosier24 at 07/20/2005 @ 4:33pm

113. Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 4:56pm

114. "By the way, oksportsguy with No Brain, polls consistently show that a MAJORITY of Americans wish to RETAIN Roe v. Wade."

     Good for them, but not my family.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 4:56pm

115. Nobody says that anyone in your family has to have an abortion. Just don't foist your beliefs on everyone else.

     Posted by Exhoosier24 at 07/20/2005 @ 5:08pm

116. "Nobody says that anyone in your family has to have an abortion. Just don't foist your beliefs on everyone else. "

     No, I'm sorry, I will vote for people who place judges in place that I think will uphold the values that I believe in. Progressives have been doing the same for years. The only difference is our values are vastly different.

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 5:12pm

117. As soon as all you right wing wackos and rich gated community Republicans start adopting all the unwanted children in our orphanages, then maybe just maybe I'll start listening to your argument on abortion.

     Posted by Sticks at 07/20/2005 @ 5:15pm

118. Do any "Moderates" or "Centrists" ever post on here. Man, the stuff you people are spouting off is so far to one side or the other. I think the reason or system works is because our Founding Fathers knew there is always a way to meet in the middle. The problem with our Great Nation today is too many are out to forcibly impose their beliefs on others, whether it is via special interest in government or via a group like moveon.org, instead of taking time to offer productive dialogue and mutual respect for differences of opinion and beliefs in order to come to a workable viable plan and solution that makes the majority somewhat happy. It would be nice to see posts of that nature on here instead on one so far one direction or the other seemingly trying to "one up" or belittle the other.

     Posted by thewebstar at 07/20/2005 @ 5:18pm

119. You're right, our values ARE vastly different. I value truth, honesty, fairness, and integrity. NONE of these exist in the current administration or the judges they have nominated.

     Posted by Exhoosier24 at 07/20/2005 @ 5:18pm

120. Agathezol. As I read the right wing rants above, the words "reasonable, friendly and thoughtful" sure don't pop into my mind. Perhaps they do yours because either you're in agreement with what they have to say or perhaps you're a "roll over and play dead" Democrat that doesn't want to offend anyone. Whatever.

     Posted by billsheasf at 07/20/2005 @ 5:26pm

121. RASCHANA,

     the "center" is just as ideological as left or right. although it can be argued that it's the result of compromise, as sometimes it is, it can also be that the center is just doing what expedient...rather than right.

     Posted by dabar at 07/20/2005 @ 5:54pm

122. jeck, all i can say is that i don't know when life begins. but that's cool 'cause no one else does either--that is, KNOW with scientific certainty as to the begining of human life...with all of it's attributes. in DEMOCRACIES we don't make law based on what is supposed or believed by articles of faith....can you dig it baby?

     so, your homework tonight will be to construct a legally sound, scientific argument that proves when the beginning moment of capital L life is. remember, you must make a LEGAL argument--and there better be some high end biological research and ethical philosophy provided as evidence to back up your argument.

     now stop reading these idiotic blogs and get to work. you may need to pull an all-nighter!

     Posted by dabar at 07/20/2005 @ 6:06pm

123. Dabar,

     "in DEMOCRACIES we don't make law based on what is supposed or believed by articles of faith....can you dig it baby?"

     Actually, I will have to prove you wrong here.

     The state of Oklahoma is part of the "democracy" as you call it, although technically the United States form of government is a representative republic not a democracy, although I digress; anyway we here in Oklahoma CHANGED our state constitution based on our religious beliefs that marriage is a union of one man and one woman under God's eyes, so that now our state constitution clearly identifies this as such.

     Therefore we in fact DID make a law based on what our articles of faith and our beliefs are.

     Can YOU dig it baby?

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 6:15pm

124. guess what sugar? we don't live in a democracy! sorry that i had to be the one to break the bad news to ya. we certainly have aspects of democratic institutions, processes, etc. but democracy? you must be referring to another u.s. of america.

     so in oklahoma, when they decide that it's actually ok to segregate based on race...WAIT! better; based on sexual orientation (you guys force them all into a homoghetto) that will represent a "democratic" social and political order?

     that the law you speak of was able to get past judges is proof that we don't have a democratic republic. try to keep this in mind:

     a democracy is not qualified by majority rule--it is qualified by the protection of the rights of minorities. can you dig that?

     i hope this helps

     Posted by dabar at 07/20/2005 @ 6:28pm

125. "a democracy is not qualified by majority rule"

     That was my point, we DON'T live in a "democracy". Our nation was established as a representative republic. Which represents the wants/needs of the MAJORITY of the electorate, which by the way they must do if they expect to get re-elected.

     OUR representatives in Oklahoma, had a ballot initiative based on representing the people of Oklahoma who overwhelmingly want marriage to be defined as a union of a man and a woman.

     You worry about your protection of the minorities, we all know that the last bastion for progressives and thier cuases for minorities lies in the court system. And guess what? You just lost a huge round there with the nomination of Roberts. I'll worry about voting for people that represent my interests.

     Our representitive republic worked just fine, thank you very much!

     Love ya "sugar" !

     Todd

     Posted by Oksportsguy at 07/20/2005 @ 6:45pm

126. "Our representitive republic worked just fine, thank you very much!"

     ask the gay oklahomans if they feel the same way.

     the representative republic was the vehicle by which democracy was to be actualized.

     but don't be so psyched about not living in a democracy...it could happen that you and yours will be looked at as you view the gays citizens in your midst. they might vote to take away your minivan with the #3/halo bumper sticker. what goes around comes around...buttercup.

     Posted by dabar at 07/20/2005 @ 7:09pm

127. If you want to have reproductive rights then pass a law that establishes reproductive rights into law. Oh wait, we have done that but the courts will not let it exist. The problem the left has is it does not want elected members of our republic that represent the people to draft law. They want to be ruled by the unelected few. They want communism, and socialism and tyranny. They don't want anything ruled by people elected by the people to draft law. If it's an issue of it not passing muster in the Const Constitution, then add an amendment to the Constitution. The ability to add amendments was provided to us by our founding fathers. They never wanted the courts to make up law. Look at what the courts did to the little guy with eminent domain; look at what the courts have done with the ability to own fire arms. If you don't want people to own fire arms then pass an amendment and have that be the new law then.

     Posted by whyme at 07/20/2005 @ 7:14pm

128. I agree with zero, as a first time blogger, I thought there would be more intellectual input, not insults and the like.... Hope I can find a forum that deals with something other than the abortion issue.... it is most likely that the abortion issue will be left to the individual states . Try to look at this appointment to the with a realistic eye. Did you think Bush would appoint a liberal?Be real, I am out of this talk fest.

     Posted by egard at 07/20/2005 @ 9:57pm

129. Why are there so many right wing nut cases on The Nation's blog? Is this a Rovian Infiltration Strategy? Where do Progressives go for some peace and quiet and intelligent discussion? Perhaps to www.kill_US_soldiers_and_Iraqi_civilians_instead_of_fetuses.com.

     Posted by billsheasf at 07/20/2005 @ 10:33pm

130. DABAR, so you want a sound legal and scientific argument for when life begins? Gosh, what a challenging homework assignment. I can't thank you enough, teach. But Dabar, if I presented such an argument would you be convinced? I fear you would be more like the Christian fundamentalists who, no matter what the evidence, will never believe in evolution. No, honestly, I don't think you would want to know. Even so, let me point you toward the path to enlightenement. First, you ask for a "legal" argument. My question to you is, why on earth would a legal argument be important to such a question? I will assume you were only saying the first thing that came into your head and dismiss that one outright. But as for the second request, from a scientific (really logical) standpoint, a human life obviously begins at conception. Any other point would be completely arbitrary. At conception, all the ingredients for a new human combine and the new individual begins to grow. At various stages along its life path, new things happen. The brain forms, the heart starts beating, the fetus attains "viability". Eventually, the baby is born and starts breathing on its own. But growth doesn't end there, nor does its dependency on others to maintain its existence. The child learns to walk, learns to talk, and eventually reaches sexual maturity. Somewhere in there I like to think it attains consciousness, a sense of self. Would you pick sexual maturity as the point when "life" begins? Or when the child old enough to fend for itself? When the child is born? When the heart starts beating? Those points are all arbitrary. Growth clearly begins at conception, even you must accept that. And from that point on, life begins to unfold as it was meant to and will unless prevented from doing so. Succesive stages to life are just that, stages. Development is a continuous process. If you abort a fetus, does it not die? But how can it be said to die if has no life? You see, Dabar, I know this is not what you want to hear. You will protest now that, well, gosh darn it, that's just not an iron clad case. You will remain unconvinced because in your heart you really don't want to know. You want to pretend life begins later at a time more convenient to you. If you did want to know you could have easily answered the question yourself - it's not that much of a challenge. In some more primitive societies, a child is not considered a human being until it has a name and often the naming ceremony doesn't happen for at least several weeks. That way if the child dies, one doesn't have to feel too bad about it - it wasn't a human yet anyway. I guess those primitives aren't so different after all.

     Posted by jeck at 07/21/2005 @ 12:03am

131. jeck, you asked:

     "My question to you is, why on earth would a legal argument be important to such a question?"

     because law applies to all, not just to christians.

     "But as for the second request, from a scientific (really logical) standpoint, a human life obviously begins at conception. Any other point would be completely arbitrary."

     this is the main point; it is arbitrary. too bad we can't have life's great mysteries solved in neat little packages. sometimes, and certainly in the case of the issue of the begining of life, it's not known with certainty. therefore the law is a toe-drawn line in the sand. bummer.

     you may want to consider: st. augustine, the father of modern catholicism, beleived that the soul enters the fetus @ 14 weeks. abortion to him was ok prior to that point. why did he believe this? who the hell knows? but the better question is; who is it for a man or woman to impose this guess on others? the answer is either a) a theocrat b) an authoritarian c) a little of both.

     i think c sums it up.

     if you guys want to prevent/reduce unwanted pregnancies and thus abortion (as every sane person does), why not team up with planned parenthood and educate your neighborhoods about contraception and other family planning techniques. make sure your kids know their anatomy with respect to reproductive process. and, finally make sure that the educators in you local schools are teaching all of this stuff and that it's mandatory.

     that would be a start, no?

     Posted by dabar at 07/21/2005 @ 01:41am

132. Dabar, I am afraid you are copping out again. I gave an argument as to why I think life begins at conception. You, however, fail to offer a reasonable counter argument, but simply repeat no one knows. Tell me exactly where you think your uncertainty lies. Ironically, I don't believe abortion should be outlawed, but I do believe we need to ackowledge the sometimes necessary horror, like war, we commit. It's the only way to ultimately reduce the incidence of such things. Again, a legal argument or definition for where life begins might be something a majority of people could agree on, but truth ought not be subject to mere popular opinion. That law applies to all might be true, but laws change and truth doesn't. As far as St. Augustine goes, so what? I'm sure all sorts of wierd opinions exist. And as far as life's mysteries being wrapped up in neat packages, I don't consider the point in time where a human organism begins to form much of a mystery any more than "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step" is a mystery. That is in no way arbitrary. What would be arbitrary would be to say "a journey of a thousand miles begins after the first mile marker."

     Posted by jeck at 07/21/2005 @ 08:18am

133. It seems to me that the fundamentalists of both the Left and the Right tend to miss the point. Both liberalism and conservatism are necessary components in the human dynamic. Working together they provide a balancing and moderating check upon extremism from either side. This does lead to moderation and mutual compromise. Zealots don't like that, I know. They prefer an uncompromising "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" approach. Zealots tend to think that they have a lock on Truth, on what is Right.

     Essentially, the fundmentalists of both the Left and the Right strike me as being very fear-based, very insecure. Change terrifies them. But, without the dynamic of change, life itself is impossible. They just don't seem to understand that we are all in this together, we all have something to contribute, and the best way to muddle our way through is to, on occasion, compromise. Compromise allows some measure of control over change; it just avoids the hubris of attempting total control over change. Total control is not possible, anyway, and usually the attempt is a deadly mistake.

     This does not mean that everything is open to compromise. You cannot meet a Hitler or a Stalin halfway. But those two represent lifeboat scenarios, exceptions, anomalies. Most of the issues we face, day to day, are simply not that extreme.

     If Bush does appoint a few conservatives to The Court, it will not end life as we know it. The pendulum may be swinging to the Right a bit now but it will swing back. While the fundmentalist zealots of the Left are getting hysterical now, claiming that the sky is falling, the fundamentlist zealots of the Right will be just as apoplectic in a few years. It has happened before and it will happen again.

     The only real danger would come if the extremists of either side fully got their way. Both Nazi Germany and Communist Russia are clear, horrific examples of what happens when the extremists of either the Right or the Left actually come to power.

     Posted by JosephD at 07/21/2005 @ 11:04am

134. freiheit, i doubt orwell ever thought that mandatory science classes or sex ed is on par with life in an totalitarian state.

     jose, and you? a fundamentalist of the intellectually vapid center. what's the big deal with more conservatives? the big deal will be, for you, when the state comes (with the conservative court's say-so) to you door, drags you out and dissappears (i guess the new parlance is renditions) your azz. who cares? you'll care. the left will care and fight to get your moderate butt out. we'll lose and you'll be tortured. that's the "so what".

     jeck, you're exactly right about st augustine, and sort of make my point. it's indistinct and the position has varied over time. and i said it before: law in a democracy is not imosed on everyone when the evidence is vague...or in this case based in the interpretation of scripture.

     Posted by dabar at 07/21/2005 @ 11:26am

135. John Roberts will be confirmed. I think this is one of those times democrats need to be pragmatic and really ask themselves if they can stop a guy like Roberts. They will be able to raise red flags, but top democrats have already signaled that a filibuster is not in store, so why not focus on something that we have a lot more chance of being successful on, like the Rove scandal. There is mounting evidence against Karl Rove and Scooter Libby, and showing these politcal hacks for what they are will give American's a chance to see the true character of Bush and his administration, which will help us in 2008.

     Any nominee that Bush puts up is going to be A) Anti-Abortion B) Pro-Corporate C) For the reduction of the barrier between separation of church and state D) Anti-Environemntal. Those are his beliefs. Protest all you want, but eventually he is going to get a judge with similar beliefs on the court. It can't actually be stopped.

     Posted by bean at 07/21/2005 @ 12:29pm

136. freiheit

     "I think, Dabar, that less government is better. I'm not implying that sex-ed is on a par with life in a totalitarian state."

     my line is that less govt intervention in people's lives noble aspiration...but that rap, as it's used these days, really only means less intervention in the business of capital--and more in the daily lives of the majority of people. the role of govt as i see it is to help make things better, not ignore social problems. from seat belts to defining when you are abusing your child--the state (us actually) has an interest in intervention because if it did not, our right to l,l, and the pursuit of happiness would be infringed. the infringement on your rights will be because that abused kid will grow up to steal your car and kill your dog.

     "I simply believe that responsibility for "morality training" belongs to the parents. Unfortunately, parents in droves are turning their backs on their responsibility to their children, therefore the State needs to step in to save them from themselves."

     yes to a large degree. but i think we pay teachers (not enough) to educate the young-n's. education and ethical/moral behavior go hand in hand. (see kohlberg) manners, washing behind ones ears and other related issuses should probably be left to ma and pa...but what if ma and pa have no manners and poor hygiene?

     "There are many who believe with a progressive compass, government should be powerful over the lives of the people. Healthcare and other "rights" should be free. The living wage argument [sigh]... I fear the big government of socialism. Socialism = more government intervention, less self reliance. Capitalism = less government intervention, more self reliance."

     what's the problem with state socialism? we have it now for the wealthy and corporate. laws that grant subsidies, tax breaks...laws that allow them to pollute, keep wages and benefits down, even the interest rate deduction on mortgages is a state regulated/granted profit for those with means. i say we switch the target of state subsidy..what's lost in "productivity" we'll gain in social justice. the people who scream the loudest for free markets are the first one's to extnd their paws for handouts--promising all the great things one would expect from solvent companies (JOBS)...and then they pick up and move to bangladesh. they're worse than single uneducated mothers with their paws out, dontcha think?

     "I'm a capitalist."

     me too.

     But, I hope we can both agree that the right spot lies in the middle? Or, am I just wrong?

     it all depends on the specific issue/legislation.

     Posted by dabar at 07/21/2005 @ 1:21pm

137. Oh, Dabar, don't be so silly. There are no monsters under your bed. The conservatives are not going to come kicking down my door or yours. Why? That sort of action has, historically, been the modus operandi of the fundamentalists of the Left and the Right. In this country the give and take between liberal and conservative over what The Constitution means produces a centrism that does a pretty good job of protecting and slowly advancing individual liberties. This advancement is too slow for some, too fast for others but the alternative, in either case, would indeed be the destruction of the liberties we have. Compromise isn't easy but it is the only way that works to protect liberty overall. I give a little, you get a little and vice versa. It isn't perfect but who has the omnipotence to say what perfection is?

     Posted by JosephD at 07/21/2005 @ 2:09pm

138. DABAR, you say to me: "you're exactly right about st augustine, and sort of make my point. it's indistinct and the position has varied over time. and i said it before: law in a democracy is not imosed on everyone when the evidence is vague...or in this case based in the interpretation of scripture." What I say does about augustine does not make your point at all. You continue to ignore the point I do make, which makes MY point. So, since you do, I'll quit this topic.

     But I will agree with JOSEPHD that your paranoid fantasies about conservatives are completely over the top. The left has been using this scare tactic for a long, long time - in fact, it was own my personal discovery that such fantasies were exactly that that was a major step along the road to my finally rejecting modern day liberalism. I know you really believe what you say, but that's just another way you tend to not ask yourself the tough questions that might lead to the discovery that you could be wrong about something. By the way, JOSEPHD, in an earlier post you talked about totalitarian coming from both the right and left, citing Nazis and Communists as example. Now I know a lot of people believe Nazis and Fascists were right wingers, but that's not exactly true. Both Hilter and Mussolini began their political careers more on the left (especially Mussolini who began his political life as a die-hard socialist, and said at the end of his life he still was one, but Hitler was no slouch either: he despised religion, capitalism, and mistrusted the military leaders just like modern leftists) and only in their efforts to gain power did they find it necessary to co-opt the forces of the right. Neither Nazis nor Fascists were completely left nor right in the sense we know it. As DABAR so aptly put it, some mysteries of life defy easy categorization. By the way, I don't make this point to imply right wingers can't be totalitarians. Obviously, if left-wingers can be totalitarians, anyone can.

     Posted by jeck at 07/21/2005 @ 3:18pm

139. JECK, I see your point. I separate the communists and the Nazis into Left versus Right on the basis of the attempt to either claim a universal appeal or a xenophobic, "race"-based appeal. The communists promised an earthly paradise for everyone; the Nazis promised paradise for Aryans.

     I do agree that our present day understanding of the terms Left, Right, liberal, conservative are not an exact fit in describing communism or Nazism. While I do see Nazism as pathology of the Right and communism as a pathology of the Left, in practice both ended up at much the same place. The biggest difference I see is that the communists killed a lot more people and maintained a much larger group of apologists over time.

     Actually, there is no consensus view even amongst ourselves as to what the terms liberal or conservative actually mean. The terms have evolved greatly just in my lifetime. John Stuart Mill, one of the fathers of liberalism, would not be widely accepted as a liberal today, I suspect. I think he would be called a libertarian.

     Posted by JosephD at 07/21/2005 @ 3:55pm

140. I like to simplify things and on the definitions of conservative and liberal, this is how I do it. A conservative politician will always come down on the side of big business and the wealthy, whereas a liberal politician will always come down on the side of the people. Granted there are occasional surprises but the surprises tend to be exceptions to my basic rule. Please note that my definition refers to individual politicians and not philosophies or political parties.

     Posted by billsheasf at 07/21/2005 @ 8:05pm

141. I like to simplify things and on the definitions of conservative and liberal, this is how I do it. A conservative politician will always come down on the side of big business and the wealthy, whereas a liberal politician will always come down on the side of the people. Granted there are occasional surprises but the surprises tend to be exceptions to my basic rule. Please note that my definition refers to individual politicians and not philosophies or political parties.

     Not true. Liberal politicians will side with government in an effort to aid what they feel are the little people. But this never works out as in the case of the eminent domain ruling that proved the socialist intent of the left. Let's take houses from hard working little people and give them to the government because they know what's best. Conservatives side with big business because its big business that creates jobs and gives people the ability to provide for themselves without dependence on the government. Look at how great our economy is right now. It's the strongest in the world even when the left tried to say it was a mess just two years ago. We have the lowest unemployment rate of any other free nation in the world. I say that because here you don't go to prison if you don't want to work as in the case of China or North Korea. Say want you want about how big business does not do this or do that for its people. The fact of the matter is, without them you do not have jobs. What the left does not believe in is the ability of people to provide for them selves. The left thinks it a right to own DVD players and nice clothes and it's a right to have health care and have a job, when in fact a job is a privilege not a right. You have to compete for a job and earn your position in your workplace. This is hard for some because they want things given to them and don't want to work for it. Go ahead and pull the "Roger and Me" fraud out of your hat. That has been proven wrong over and over again. The truth is we have the highest population of employed people in the world per capita. We also have the best health care in the world like it or not it's true.

     Posted by whyme at 07/21/2005 @ 10:47pm

142. BILLSHEASF: This is how I've simplified the differences between the two sides:

     Liberals believe it is the responsibility of society to remove the "burden of living" from the individual, while conservatives believe it is the responsibility of the individual to remove that burden from society.

     Posted by usc1 at 07/21/2005 @ 11:06pm

143. Re: big business. I would give this to the liberals regarding this subject: while I believe big business has it's place in the economic scheme of things (economies of scale are only possible with bigger businesses), there is always the danger in concentrating too much wealth and power in the hands of a few. I also believe larger business have more power to exploit workers (and here I mean mainly economic exploitation where lower level workers tend to be paid less than their labor is worth in terms of their productivity as opposed to "what the market will bear" while higher level executives tend to be overpaid) and to eliminate competition from smaller busnesses. It is right to be wary of such things which is why we need laws to protect us from run-away capitalism. Just let us not be pathologically obsessed about it.

     Re: BILLSHEASF, that's a pretty good distinction and I think very accurate in simple terms. Personally while I believe that it is not only an individual's reponsibility to care for himself or herself, it is also his or her right - a whole different emphasis. Yet I also believe government has responsibilities too in terms of offering assitance to people in need, eg. in times of natural disaster which I think everyone (or most) could agree on . Note I say assitance and not care-taking and certainly nothing that would foster dependency. So again, I don't think liberals are entirely wrong on this score, they just want to do too much. Take health care for instance. Sure it would be lovely to have a national health insurance that covers everything but a program on that scale would sure to be chock full of unintended consequences not to mention unintended expenses. But a national health insurance that only covers catastophic illness? That might be feasible. Might even lower the costs of ordinary, private insurance for everything else.

     Posted by jeck at 07/22/2005 @ 08:47am

144. For a president (not mine mind you) that claims to be PRO-LIFE, (which translates roughly to denying women personal rights over their own bodies)I find it hard to rationalize the deaths of over 25915 Iraqi civilians. This ladies and gentlemen is NOT pro-life it is securing at least 10% of the worlds oil for big business! Bush is not a moral human being. He is a demented, war monger that caters only to the rich and powerful.

     Posted by glockh210 at 07/22/2005 @ 1:00pm

145. keep your damn dirty oil covered republican hands off my vagina! My first baby was aborted by Bush and Rumsfeld in the US occupancy of Iraq war at the age of 20 thanks for nothing haliburton! ;)

     Posted by glockh210 at 07/22/2005 @ 2:39pm

146. Well I feel better! I have written my Congressmen and requested that they totally ignore radicals like Peter Rothberg and his equals on both sides of the spectrum. I requested that they attempt to ensure that John Roberts will faithfully interpret the laws of the land as they were written by the only branch of government legally permitted to make laws, the legislative branch. If they feel he has the integrity to apply the law as it was written rather than as ;insert extreme group here; would like and will not attempt to play god by injecting his own idea of what the law SHOULD say rather than what the lawfully appointed representatives of the people wrote then they have an obligation to approve him. If not, they need to reject him. For those who have only read the "sound bites" provided by various web sites, I recommend a radical idea: actually reading his opinions. I know, it sounds extreme but if you do you will see that he was simply applying the law, even when he thought it was dumb. Surprisingly enough, this is what a judge is supposed to do. My guess is that radicals of whatever froth will be disappointed to find that Supreme Court Justice Roberts will interpret the Constitution as written rather than as they would like. Imagine! A judge who just judges! Pretty frightening to extremists but VERY comforting to those of us who believe that only Congress should make laws.

     Posted by theref at 07/22/2005 @ 11:12pm

147. GLOCKH210, No one made him join up. It was his call. You can say what you want, but he did what he wanted to do.

     Posted by whyme at 07/23/2005 @ 9:24pm

148. GLOCKH210 - If you lost a child in Iraq I am sorry for the loss. I appreciate the service they chose to give to their country. It seems from your rather crude post that you feel their life was given for wrong reasons. It may be no comfort to you but I believe they died in a noble cause, attempting to bring freedom to a part of the world sorely in need of it, We won't know for a number of years how successful the effort has been but I do believe it was right to try. We may disagree on many things but I hope we can agree that a life is not something anyone should use for personal advantage. There are far too many shallow, crass, people who don't think on both sides and I apologize for them since they don't have the decency to do it themselves. Again, I am sorry for your loss.

     Posted by theref at 07/23/2005 @ 11:16pm

149. GLOCKH210, perhaps I missed it but I cannot recall any republican political figure expressing any desire to place his or her hand upon your vagina. What are you talking about? How did your vagina become so universally significant? I do not understand the analogy. I like my pee pee, too, but I doubt that the world revolves around it.

     If one of your kids was killed, I am truly sorry, truly. I have had friends killed. It sucks. The fact of the matter is that me, my friends, and your kid asked to be there. Your wailing insults the human spirit of those who made up their own minds, idealistically, to try to help make a better world, whether they got zapped in the process or not, whether the civilian leaderhip had sense enough to get in out of the rain or not.

     Ranting about Bush or republicans helps nothing. The issues at hand are bigger than that. If Bush was impeached and the democrats took over the presidency, nothing of any significance would change. Democrat or republican, it just does not matter. All Kerry had to offer, for instance, was the promise to do exactly what we were already doing, only better, somehow.

     Posted by JosephD at 07/24/2005 @ 12:19am

150. GLOCKH210, perhaps I missed it but I cannot recall any republican political figure expressing any desire to place his or her hand upon your vagina. What are you talking about? How did your vagina become so universally significant? I do not understand the analogy. I like my pee pee, too, but I doubt that the world revolves around it.

     If one of your kids was killed, I am truly sorry, truly. I have had friends killed. It sucks. The fact of the matter is that me, my friends, and your kid asked to be there. Your wailing insults the human spirit of those who made up their own minds, idealistically, to try to help make a better world, whether they got zapped in the process or not, whether the civilian leaderhip had sense enough to get in out of the rain or not.

     Ranting about Bush or republicans helps nothing. The issues at hand are bigger than that. If Bush was impeached and the democrats took over the presidency, nothing of any significance would change. Democrat or republican, it just does not matter. All Kerry had to offer, for instance, was the promise to do exactly what we were already doing, only better, somehow.

     Posted by JosephD at 07/24/2005 @ 12:19am

151. GLOCKH210, perhaps I missed it but I cannot recall any republican political figure expressing any desire to place his or her hand upon your vagina. What are you talking about? How did your vagina become so universally significant? I do not understand the analogy. I like my pee pee, too, but I doubt that the world revolves around it.

     If one of your kids was killed, I am truly sorry, truly. I have had friends killed. It sucks. The fact of the matter is that me, my friends, and your kid asked to be there. Your wailing denouncements insult the human spirit of those who made up their own minds, idealistically, to try to help make a better world, whether they got zapped in the process or not, whether the civilian leaderhip had sense enough to get in out of the rain or not.

     Ranting about Bush or republicans helps nothing. The issues at hand are bigger than that. If Bush was impeached and the democrats took over the presidency, nothing of any significance would change. Democrat or republican, it just does not matter. All Kerry had to offer, for instance, was the promise to do exactly what we were already doing, only better, somehow.

     Neither side has offered much in the way of new ideas. If you genuinely want things to change, be careful what you ask for. Any change that has a hope of ratcheting us onto a new path is, indeed, a road less traveled. If you listen, it is clear that all the political leaders are bumfuzzled as to what the heck to do. They can recognize when a problem shows up but that is easy. None, as yet, have offered any guaranteed solutions but guaranteed solutions are tough. In fact, there are no guarantees.

     Bush has run into a wall, in some respects, over unexpected consequences. Well, yeah, what else is new? Unexpected consequences are about the only thing one can count on.

     This whole new reality of terrorism, Iraq, Patriot Act, etc, etc does have some solution but that solution does not lie within our conventional thinking, whether that thinking is Hurray for republicans, Hurray for democrats, Hurray for liberalism, or Hurray for conservatism. Those worldviews are creatures of the past. They are getting in the way because they act to channelize thinking into tribalistically preset boundaries of us against them. Tribalism and fear of the tribe on the other side of the hill has become a deadly mistaken worldview.

     In an interneted, globalized, interconnected world - with nukes - we have to let the tribalisms of the past go if we are to survive. We have to flush out our heads and let the previously unimaginable in. It isn't a matter of "them" changing or being defeated. We have to change ourselves. If we want a better world, we have to change ourselves in order to obtain it.

     Denouncing part of the status quo and advocating the empowerment of another part of the status quo will only empower the status quo. If one really wants to change things for the genuinely better, that will require thinking outside the box. That might well be a very lonely place to be. Acceptance might come only long after one is dead.

     If Judge Roberts is a conservative, so what? There is nothing wrong with being a conservative, anymore than with being a liberal. It takes all kinds. Variety is a key to humanity. In fact, variety is humanity's greatest strength and greatest hope.

     If you want a better world, do not rely upon the republicans, the democrats, the liberals, or the conservatives to tell you what that better world is. Those sorts of tribalisms are stuck in the past. If you want a better world, start thinking for yourself. And, oh yeah, do so accepting the fact that you might be wrong and that, even if you are right, there are always unexpected consequences.

     Posted by JosephD at 07/24/2005 @ 01:28am

152. FRANKGRITS - I would if I agreed with your conclusions. But I don't. I also disagree that it was in vain. Feel free to start one yourself if you think you should. I'll help defend your right to do it even though I disagree with you.

     Posted by theref at 07/24/2005 @ 02:49am

153. Frankgrits, From the news reports of bombings from Bali to London, I would say that the terrorists do not seem to be doing very much in Afghanistan these days.

     As far as our actions inspiring kids to swarm to protect the one true faith, well, yeah. Same thing happened with the Children's Crusade and the Counter Reformation. That reaction is not surprising. It is human nature.

     Certainly the administration did not plan well at all for the aftermath of the war in Iraq but opening up a second front there makes perfectly sound tactical sense - if you have a good plan for contingencies. We didn't plan well. The civilian command authority was way, way too naively optimistic and stupidly did not plan for what should have been obvious - the need for units like MPs and Civil Affairs. I do not understand why someone has not been dramatically fired/cashiered. It is so nice that Bush is loyal to subordinates but some of his subordinates have not served him or the country well at all. This is perhaps his major shortcoming; he is not ruthless enough with those who fail to deliver on their promises. On that score, his leadership is indeed questionable.

     However, the actions of people in both Afghanistan and Iraq to vote, when finally given the chance, has confirmed Bush's beliefs in the desire of people to have a say in their own destinies and suggests that, as screwed up as this affair has sometimes been on our part, it may yet be salvagable. Right now, it is simply too soon to tell. That will take, probably, a decade or two.

     Posted by JosephD at 07/25/2005 @ 01:13am

154. ((Sorry, but if SHE is voting for him....what chance is there???))

     HILLARY CLINTON TO SUPPORT BUSH COURT NOMINEE

     **Exclusive**

     Senator Hillary Clinton has confided to associates that she intends to vote FOR Bush Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

     Unless some unforeseen development occurs around Roberts, Clinton will throw her support behind confirmation, says a top source.

     "Look, we're not thrilled President Bush is in office and gets to make these choices," said a top Hillary source, "but we have to make the best of the situation until the next election!"

     With her support of Roberts, Clinton ignores pressure from the reactionary-activist wing of the Democrat party.

     "She is simply doing what is right for the country, not MOVEON.ORG," the Clinton insider explained.

     Developing...

     Posted by Mask at 07/25/2005 @ 06:55am

155. > New Orleans Times-Picayune

     What about the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act, Social Security, Medicare, Minimum Wage, the ban against Child Labor? These laws are also based on a post 1937 reading of the Commerce Clause. Why isn't the media mentioning these laws?

     Posted by wgilwood at 07/25/2005 @ 4:30pm

156. All Hillary Clinton is doing is picking her fights with an eye to her future. It is the same thing she has been doing with her reinvented position on abortion. Unless Roberts proves to have a mound of skeletons in his closet, he is a shoe-in.

     Like the old cynical saying goes, "If you can't beat 'em, join 'em." She is simply trying to jump in front of the parade already in progress, hollering, "Follow me!" Backing Roberts is for insurance and an increased, broader credibility for her future.

     Unlike Bush, she is slick. She knows how to argue a case round or flat. Bush does not. All we get from him is what he actually thinks. Probably she is not stating her own personal opinions about Roberts but, rather, those opinions she deems most likely to bring her a win over the long haul.

     When I was first thinking about law school, I took some paralegal courses to help me prepare for it. A professor noticed my competitiveness and warned me about something. She said, "Be careful, Joe. If you go into The Law, you could lose your soul."

     Posted by JosephD at 07/25/2005 @ 6:01pm

157. Additionally, she just became head of the DLC....and the DLC is already planning on 2008 (without, BTW, considering the "importance" of Dr. Dean or the liberals!

     Posted by Mask at 07/25/2005 @ 9:39pm