The Five Non-negotiables

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1673268' date='Oct 9 2008, 08:15 AM']It's Mother Teresa, actually.[/quote]
Thanks. It was a late night.

[philothea]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1673151' date='Oct 9 2008, 01:27 AM']Boo-ya! Sa-weet!
Who's it going to be? Bob Barr? Chuck Baldwin? Someone else? Or do you need to think on it?[/quote]
Need to do more research, honestly. The election was so disheartening I'd avoided even thinking about it.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673191' date='Oct 9 2008, 02:05 AM'][indent]QUOTE (Lounge Daddy @ Oct 8 2008, 11:30 PM) *
And what kind of judges will McCain appoint? McCain is a champion of anti-free speech "campaign reform" legislation. We know this because that legislation has his name on it. McCain will appoint liberal judges to protect that legislation and other legislation like it (think "Fairness Doctrine").
[/indent]

You have any support for these claims? Since when did free speech become more important than pro-life judges? And find some anti-free speech judges out there that are even possible to be nominated...

The National Right to Life committee says McCain is pro-life. Good enough for me.[/quote]

* Do I have any support for these claims? Sure.
McCain, who has never been an active supporter of the pro-life movement (quite the opposite), has been a champion of anti-free speech "campaign reform" legislation. That legislation has McCain's name on it; it is called [url="http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html"]McCain-Feingold[/url].

Among the other horrible things about McCain's legislation, it barred pro-life groups from actively supporting pro-life candidates. Pro-life groups, including Right to Life, had to spend time and money in court fighting John McCain's attempt to muzzle the pro-life movement.

Right to Life,[url="http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=44718"] in a letter to the U.S. Bishops, [/url]stated that John McCain's legislation is "devastating" and warned that McCain's actions will "harm our cause."

It is more than reasonable to expect a president to appoint justices that will support their legislative philosophy. McCain's legislative philosophy has never actively included defense of life. Quite the opposite.

* Since when did free speech become more important than pro-life judges? Ask McCain.
McCain's actions show where his convictions are, what he feels is a priority and a non-issue, and where his heart is. And he will make judicial appointments accordingly.

* The National Right to Life committee says McCain is pro-life.
All the National Right to Life committee says is that McCain *claims* to be pro-life, as opposed to Obama who openly says that he is pro-choice. McCain voted in favor of legislation that other congressmen wrote (McCain saying "me too!"), and McCain's website claims that he is pro-life. In both cases, it is only words. And this is to be expected, because they each have to pander to their base. And like on every other issue that McCain claims to champion, his words are totally at odds with his actions over the years.

As [url="http://www.lifenews.com/nat3612.html"]Sen. Santorum stated often[/url], ""I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things. But, I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s ... abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up,"

This is one reason why McCain has been fully endorsed [url="http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200802/CUL20080206a.html"]by a pro-choice group[/url]. Twice.

This is but one reason why McCain is going to lose. And a major reason why I cannot go over that cliff with either Obama or McCain---which is where they want to take us all.

[rkwright]

You're really stretching. I mean really stretching.

The idea that McCain would nominate a pro-choice justice is just absurd. It is 99.99% more likely he would appoint a pro-life justice. And based on what Obama has said it is nearly 100% he would strong pro-choice justices.

The worst McCain can be blamed for is being slow on the pro-life front - maybe even putting other things first. Even if we grant that to be true, you have to make the jump that he would find a justice that puts everything else first (which is really absurd considering the Supreme Court considers only 1 issue at time).

Lets say McCain finds this magical justice who puts free speech above the pro-life movement, as McCain's legislation proposes. Do you really think that while the rest of the court views the issue as Freedom of Choice vs. State's interest in people's lives, this McCain clone justice will say 'No its not that... the issue is between Free speech vs. States interest'. You realize thats what you're saying right?? Crazy...

None of your example translate to a Supreme Court case or how the justice's mind works.

Edited October 9, 2008 by rkwright

[rkwright]

Sorry if that last one was too abrasive... I'll give you a hypothetical, so that I may better understand your argument.

Lets assume McCain wins, and appoints the type of Justice you claim he will. Now assume some state bans abortion in order to bring the issue to light.

Case comes before the Supreme Court. 4 Justices go Pro-life (as they have) and 4 go pro-choice (as they always have). McCain's justice is the swing vote.

3 Questions.
1) How will this justice vote?
2) Why?
3) How do we know this?

I'll give my answers.

1) Justice votes pro-life (in turn votes pro-states).
2) The conservative justices believe that individual states should make the decision and there is no constitutional right to an abortion.
3) McCain has said that he favors justices like Scalia (in the saddleback debates). These justices view the abortion debate in this context. McCain favors states rights and would appoint accordingly.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673476' date='Oct 9 2008, 04:09 PM']3) McCain has said that he favors justices like Scalia (in the saddleback debates). These justices view the abortion debate in this context. McCain favors states rights and would appoint accordingly.[/quote]
McCain "said" that he favors justices like Scalia. McCain has said a lot of things in the desperate grubbing for votes. Just like Giuliani said he'd appoint justices such as Scalia or Thomas despite the fact that his record in public office and indeed in his private life gave the lie to that claim. McCain will *say* whatever he has to in order to win votes.

[rkwright]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1673483' date='Oct 9 2008, 03:16 PM']McCain "said" that he favors justices like Scalia. McCain has said a lot of things in the desperate grubbing for votes. Just like Giuliani said he'd appoint justices such as Scalia or Thomas despite the fact that his record in public office and indeed in his private life gave the lie to that claim. McCain will *say* whatever he has to in order to win votes.[/quote]

Give me some evidence that McCain does not support Scalia.

[qfnol31]

At least with McCain we won't gain a pro-abortion majority on the Supreme Court as we will with Obama.

However, preventing that loss doesn't seem to be a big enough factor for anyone to care.

When Obama wins the Oval Office, won't it bother you knowing that his "reforms" are going to destroy what good is left in our nation?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673486' date='Oct 9 2008, 04:22 PM']Give me some evidence that McCain does not support Scalia.[/quote]
Ok, I have shown how McCain has:

#1 - never once taken up the pro-life cause.
#2 - has in-fact championed liberalism and has...
#3 - only been a stumbling block to the pro-life cause.

And you argue that, what? You take McCain's word for it that he would appoint a strict pro-life constitutionalist?

[kamiller42]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1673447' date='Oct 9 2008, 03:15 PM']* Do I have any support for these claims? Sure.
McCain, who has never been an active supporter of the pro-life movement (quite the opposite), has been a champion of anti-free speech "campaign reform" legislation. That legislation has McCain's name on it; it is called [url="http://www.reason.com/news/show/34642.html"]McCain-Feingold[/url].

Among the other horrible things about McCain's legislation, it barred pro-life groups from actively supporting pro-life candidates. Pro-life groups, including Right to Life, had to spend time and money in court fighting John McCain's attempt to muzzle the pro-life movement.[/quote]
McCain-Feingold did not target pro-life groups. It affected all corporations. It places limits on ads and fund raising. Organizations can still support the candidate of their choice. Just look at the National Right to Life home page and see if McCain-Feingold has silenced NRL's active support as you say.

[quote]It is more than reasonable to expect a president to appoint justices that will support their legislative philosophy. McCain's legislative philosophy has never actively included defense of life. Quite the opposite.[/quote]
Maybe you should look at this [url="http://www.mccainprolife.org/"]NRL site[/url]. I thought about helping you out on this by using their "send a friend an email" feaure on that page.

[quote]* The National Right to Life committee says McCain is pro-life.
All the National Right to Life committee says is that McCain *claims* to be pro-life, as opposed to Obama who openly says that he is pro-choice. McCain voted in favor of legislation that other congressmen wrote (McCain saying "me too!"), and McCain's website claims that he is pro-life. In both cases, it is only words. And this is to be expected, because they each have to pander to their base. And like on every other issue that McCain claims to champion, his words are totally at odds with his actions over the years.[/quote]
You really should NRL's sites. Your facts are all wrong. "Senator John McCain has an exemplary voting record against abortion. [b]He has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997[/b]. " Maybe you know more than NRL about NRL and John McCain.

[quote]As [url="http://www.lifenews.com/nat3612.html"]Sen. Santorum stated often[/url], ""I mean, this is a guy who says he believes in these things. But, I can tell you, inside the room, when we were in these meetings, there was nobody who fought harder not to have these votes before the United States Senate on some of the most important social conservative issues, whether it’s ... abortion or the like. He always fought against us to even bring them up,"[/quote]
Which republican candidate was Santorum supporting at the time he made the statement? That might explain his motivation. In the same article, Brownback states McCain is pro-life. Brownback a liar or not pro-life enough either?

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1673807' date='Oct 9 2008, 10:43 PM']McCain-Feingold did not target pro-life groups. It affected all corporations.[/quote]

John McCain's affront to free speech did, in fact, target advocacy groups and organizations and individuals speaking on behalf of recognized interests. Including pro-life advocates. That's why Right to Life, and related pro-life groups spent the time and the money taking McCain's legislation to court. Wisconsin RTL headed up the lawsuit, and many of the details are archived at the [url="http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/WI/Index.html"]James Madison Center for Free Speech[/url].

The US Supreme Court ruled [url="http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/390323488.html"]in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life just last year[/url]. Thus, RTL won against McCain's legislation; and just in time for RTL to endorse the so-called "lesser of two evils." Ironic, isn't it?

Even as far back as 1998, while addressing the US Bishops, [url="http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=44718"]National Right to Life said of McCain's legislative philosophy[/url]: "the harm to our cause would be devastating." Pro-life groups have been fighting McCain's liberalism for at least a decade.

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1673807' date='Oct 9 2008, 10:43 PM']You really should NRL's sites. Your facts are all wrong. "Senator John McCain has an exemplary voting record against abortion. [b]He has cast 31 pro-life votes since 1997[/b]. " Maybe you know more than NRL about NRL and John McCain.[/quote]
[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20060926070641/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html"]National Right to Life also said of John McCain in 1999[/url]:
[indent][b]John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause[/b]. ... McCain joined the House in 1983, and became a senator in 1987. During his 17 years in Congress, McCain has usually voted anti-abortion -- but for a presidential candidate, that is not the only important data. After all, Al Gore had an 84% pro-life voting record as a member of the House of Representatives (1977-84), but he embraced the entire pro-abortion agenda once he reached the Senate and began to run for president.[/indent]

After fighting McCain for some 10 years, the national RTL is only endorsing McCain because he is the so-called "lesser of two evils." But only barely. Obama is clearly stating that he supports abortion, while McCain is trying to paint himself a pro-life champion.

As for McCain's record, voting "yes" on other people's bills and claiming to be pro-life is just talk---mere words. I agree with Right to Life; a yes vote is just saying "me too" to other's legislation. It is only political posturing when there are no actions to back up the talk.

What has McCain actually done for the pro-life movement, other than say "me too" on the floor of the Senate and place the words "pro-life" on his campaign website? McCain hasn't written any pro-life legislation. He hasn't even been signatory to anything significantly pro-life.

However, John McCain did write legislation that pro-life groups had to fight in court. McCain did in fact block pro-life legislation from reaching the floor for a vote. And McCain also complained on Don Imus's radio program that the only reason he votes "yes" on other people's pro-life legislation is because that is the only way to get some "otherwise intelligent" people to re-elect him.

And btw, this is the first time that Right to Life has endorsed McCain. And it's only because they feel they have no other choice but to support the so-called lesser of two evils. However, a pro-choice group was more than happy to endorse McCain. Twice.

[quote name='kamiller42' post='1673807' date='Oct 9 2008, 10:43 PM']Which republican candidate was Santorum supporting at the time he made the statement? That might explain his motivation. In the same article, Brownback states McCain is pro-life. Brownback a liar or not pro-life enough either?[/quote]

When it became apparent that McCain was the Republican candidate, some folks like Sen. Brownback and the Catholic writer Deal Hudson went to try to sway John McCain in a more favorable direction on life issues, and help him to be more electable. Brownback has been busy "coaching" McCain to get him to come around on life issues such as human embryonic experimentation. That should be an indication on how strong McCain's convictions are; McCain needs to be told how to sound like he believes this stuff.

Rick Santorum was only asking that Republican voters support anyone but McCain, because McCain is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Also on the abortion issue, Santorum singled out McCain way more than Rudy Guiliani because at least Rudy is straight forward and honest about where his beliefs lay. Also Santorum isn't in congress and has no plans to seek office, so he isn't as "wedded" to the GOP as Brownback is.


Vote for the man that is very very slimly the "lesser of two evils." You can be on of the [url="http://web.archive.org/web/20060926070641/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html"]"otherwise intelligent people[/url]" that McCain complained to Don Imus about if you want.

I can't do it. It's still too much evil for me. And we gotta draw the line at some point or we are going right off the cliff.

Edited October 10, 2008 by Lounge Daddy

[rkwright]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1673502' date='Oct 9 2008, 03:46 PM']Ok, I have shown how McCain has:

#1 - never once taken up the pro-life cause.
#2 - has in-fact championed liberalism and has...
#3 - only been a stumbling block to the pro-life cause.

And you argue that, what? You take McCain's word for it that he would appoint a strict pro-life constitutionalist?[/quote]

LD my post #35 is directed to you.

You're going on conspiracy theories here. McCain is more likely to appoint strict constitutionalists and those tend to be pro-life.

But whatever, I guess no matter how much people show, you can always say 'no he's lying'.

[rkwright]

[quote name='Lounge Daddy' post='1673946' date='Oct 9 2008, 11:23 PM']John McCain's affront to free speech did, in fact, target advocacy groups and organizations and individuals speaking on behalf of recognized interests. Including pro-life advocates. That's why Right to Life, and related pro-life groups spent the time and the money taking McCain's legislation to court. Wisconsin RTL headed up the lawsuit, and many of the details are archived at the [url="http://www.jamesmadisoncenter.org/WI/Index.html"]James Madison Center for Free Speech[/url].

The US Supreme Court ruled [url="http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/390323488.html"]in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life just last year[/url]. Thus, RTL won against McCain's legislation; and just in time for RTL to endorse the so-called "lesser of two evils." Ironic, isn't it?

Even as far back as 1998, while addressing the US Bishops, [url="http://www.catholiccitizens.org/press/contentview.asp?c=44718"]National Right to Life said of McCain's legislative philosophy[/url]: "the harm to our cause would be devastating." Pro-life groups have been fighting McCain's liberalism for at least a decade.


[url="http://web.archive.org/web/20060926070641/http://www.nrlc.org/news/2000/NRL02/doug.html"]National Right to Life also said of John McCain in 1999[/url]:
[indent][b]John McCain Threatens the Pro-Life Cause[/b]. ... McCain joined the House in 1983, and became a senator in 1987. During his 17 years in Congress, McCain has usually voted anti-abortion -- but for a presidential candidate, that is not the only important data. After all, Al Gore had an 84% pro-life voting record as a member of the House of Representatives (1977-84), but he embraced the entire pro-abortion agenda once he reached the Senate and began to run for president.[/indent]

After fighting McCain for some 10 years, the national RTL is only endorsing McCain because he is the so-called "lesser of two evils." But only barely. Obama is clearly stating that he supports abortion, while McCain is trying to paint himself a pro-life champion.

As for McCain's record, voting "yes" on other people's bills and claiming to be pro-life is just talk---mere words. I agree with Right to Life; a yes vote is just saying "me too" to other's legislation. It is only political posturing when there are no actions to back up the talk.

What has McCain actually done for the pro-life movement other than say "me too" on the floor of the Senate, and place the words "pro-life" on his campaign website? McCain hasn't written any pro-life legislation. He hasn't been so signatory to anything significantly pro-life.

McCain did write legislation that pro-life groups had to fight in court. McCain did in fact block pro-life legislation from reaching the floor for a vote. And McCain did in fact complain on Don Imus's radio program that the only reason he votes "yes" on other people's pro-life legislation is because that is the only way to get some "otherwise intelligent" people to re-elect him.

And btw, this is the first time that Right to Life has endorsed McCain. And it's only because they feel they have no other choice but to support the so-called lesser of two evils. However, a pro-choice group was more than happy to endorse McCain. Twice.



When it became apparent that McCain was the Republican canidate, some folks like Sen. Brownback and the Catholic writer Deal Hudson went to try to sway John McCain in a more favorable direction on life issues, and help him to be more electable. Brownback has been busy "coaching" McCain to get him to come around on life issues such as human embryonic experimentation. That should be an indication on how strong McCain's convictions are; McCain needs to be told how to sound like he believes this stuff.

Rick Santorum was only asking that Republican voters support anyone but McCain, because McCain is a wolf in sheep's clothing. Also on the abortion issue, Santorum singled out McCain way more than Rudy Guiliani because at least Rudy is straight forward and honest about where his beliefs lay. Also Santorum isn't in congress and has no plans to seek office, so he isn't as "wedded" to the GOP as Brownback is.[/quote]

You are missing the single biggest element in this. Judges. Who cares about legislative philosophies, its all about judges.

And there is 0 evidence that McCain would nominate anything other than pro-life justices. None at all.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673953' date='Oct 10 2008, 12:26 AM']You are missing the single biggest element in this. Judges. Who cares about legislative philosophies, its all about judges.

And there is 0 evidence that McCain would nominate anything other than pro-life justices. None at all.[/quote]
I'm sorry. You don't seem to understand. One's legislative philosophy guids one's selection of judges.

[Lounge Daddy]

[quote name='rkwright' post='1673476' date='Oct 9 2008, 04:09 PM']1) Justice votes pro-life (in turn votes pro-states).
2) The conservative justices believe that individual states should make the decision and there is no constitutional right to an abortion.
3) McCain has said that he favors justices like Scalia (in the saddleback debates). These justices view the abortion debate in this context. McCain favors states rights and would appoint accordingly.[/quote]

Again, you are going by what McCain's words. I chose to look at McCain's actions. His words and his actions are often at odds.