SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: tejek who wrote (268840)1/17/2006 12:41:55 AM
From: Elroy  Read Replies (1) of 1575184
 
Not necessarily. (Beuing against Roe vs. Wade) means you are against right to privacy as it extends to women and pregnancy.

Exactly. That's an impartial way of expressing it.

If you overthrow Roe vs Wade, then I believe the argument for abortion is lost. I don't think even states could resurrect the issue.

Huh? If you overthrow ("reverse" I think is the correct term) then the argument over abortion BEGINS. Each politician will be forced to put up their view on appropriate abortion policy in each election, and the voters in each state will decide what the abortion law should be. That's how its done in every other democracy in the world. Roe vs. Wade has prevented this argument from occurring in US society since it is legislation by SC fiat, rather than legislation by elected officials.

Being "not all that concerned with minority voting rights" means being equally concerned with everyone's voting rights, regardless of race/ethnicity.

Again, not necessarily.....it could well mean you are concerned only with the majority's concerns.

Not necessarily is right. Who knows? But the writer expresses this unclear position in a negative light due to the writer's bias. If I think voting rights of all races/ethnicities should be treated equally, am not all that concerned with minority voting rights?

They asked him if he was for or against abortion. From what I understand, he refused to answer the question.

Which seems reasonable. His job on the SC will be to determine constitutionality of legislation, not whether he would personally vote for that legislation. For example, I'm in favor of gun control, but as a SC judge I could still find a law banning personal ownership of any firearms to be unconstitutional. I support the law, but it's against the constitution.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News