"Democrats are fighting against Alito in support of a position (abortion on demand) unsupported by the American people;"

The american people support abortion jurisprudence as it now stands post Casey: No restrictions in until viability, any restriction permitted post-viability. But with exceptions for the health and life of the mother. Any reduction of reproductive choice will be a reduction of that formula.

There is not one single Democrat "in support of a position asserting that the President can't gather intel on our armed enemies". Not one. Democrats, like many Republicans, want to make sure the Fourth Amendment still checks the president's power against abuse. The president can gather all the intel he wants on our armed enemies if he follows the law.

If you feel you have to distort the facts in order to rile the rubes like this, then you must be much further behind then you're letting on.

Thank you shortz, for making marks point crystal clear! It is rather hilarious Mark, and has pulled me back from the brink of jumping into the abyss of depression over the state of THEIR party! Then they open their mouths and I realize how rediculous it was for me to be depressed. I Laugh myself silly! Bwawawaaahahahahaaaaaaaaa Bwaahahahaaaaaaaahaaaaaaa!

*Chuckles*

Too true. Honestly does everything have to be "Leagleze" Shortz? I mean seriously that sounded quite a bit like a contract or something.

Why not make it simple, as it stands now a baby can be killed all the way up to just before birth. With very little restrictions.

If I read leagaleze correctly you're telling me the people are fine killing the baby as long as it doesn't have any chance to live on it's own, and past that point there can be some restrictions, do I have that clear?

Mark,

Most Americans have very different views than you. The majority of Americans are opposed to overturning “Roe vs. Wade” and the majority of Americans think that abortion laws in this country should be less strict or stay the same.

http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm

On the issue of the NSA spying on American citizens without a warrant, 52 percent of respondents agreed with the statement: "If President Bush wiretapped American citizens without the approval of a judge, do you agree or disagree that Congress should consider holding him accountable through impeachment."

http://www.zogby.com/Soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=12528

"Thank you shortz, for making marks point crystal clear!"

Mark's point is abortion on demand. That is not the position of our jurisprudence.

Anyone who has even a modest understanding of American history and the Constitution, not that taught by the current liberal education system, knows that abortion on demand would never have been imagined as a right or freedom protected under the Constitution. It is liberals, solely through activist courts and judges, who have forced this interpretation on the American people. America's founders could never have foreseen that activist judges would have been allowed to twist the meaning of the Constitution to guarantee such a "right".

Who, besides liberals, believes that those who wrote and ratified the Constitution would ever remotely have intended that parental approval would be needed for surgery to remove their child's appendix, but those parents would have no say whatsoever, or even be told, when their 14 year old daughter wanted an abortion!

Who, besides liberals, would have thought parental approval would be needed for a school to give their child an aspirin, but those parents would have no say if their child wants condoms or birth control pills!

If the American people want abortion on demand or abortion in a more limited form, then so be it, but it is up to Congress to pass such laws, not judges. If a Constitutional amendment is required, then the people must amend the Constitution through the process established in the Constitution. It is not for activist judges to "interpret" such an amendment into existence.

AAR

I thought it was telling that Kerry made his "call to action" from Switzerland.

:o)

http://rightonpeachtree.blogspot.com/2006/01/kerry-calls-for-alito-filibuster-from.html

Mark, the lib media is the only thing that keeps the dems on life support. Did you see President Bush's press conference today. With everything going on in the world, the lib press seemed to be obsessed with jack abramoff getting into a picture with President Bush. Can another howard dean scream be far away!

shortz,

But it is the ditch the Democrats are fighting to the last man in - if it weren't for a tiny set of special interests demanding it, the Democrats wouldn't be opposing Alito. Alito is being opposed because NARAL, Planned Parenthood, etc are worried that a Court with Alito just might allow American law to reflect American views on abortion...which, in 2006, are close to what you state. I put it slightly differently - people grudgingly agree to keep it legal, but they want tight restrictions upon it, especially in the latter stages of pregnancy...and they want parental consent, full disclosure, waiting periods, etc...

Stuck into your Democratic platform is the program of federally funded abortion on demand...and it is just killing you guys politically. This November will, hopefully, give you no end of a lesson on this score.

"they are fighting against the NSA in support of a position asserting that the President can't gather intel on our armed enemies..."

Wow, you've got to be kidding me. No one's saying he can't gather intelligence, but there's such a thing as doing it legally. Since he cares neither for legalities OR for national security, nor does any repukelican, how would he or you know the difference?
Repukelicans falsely claim the mantle of being tough on terrorism, when they a) failed to act on warning signs leading up to 9/11, b) can't catch one guy with a kidney condition who apparently has to haul around a lot of audio/video equipment, c) has done nothing to protect either our borders or our ports of entry, d) is running a free-for-all terrorist training ground in Iraq, e) doesn't give a shit about tons of loose nukes floating around the world, etc etc the list goes on and on...LETS GET ONE THING STRAIGHT RIGHT NOW. REPUBLICANS ARE A BUNCH OF PANTY-WAIST BLOWHARDS when it comes to the real defense of this country. Why do you think that 40, count 'em 40 returning soldiers are running for office as DEMOCRATS and 2 are running as REPUKELICANS?? So stick your self-righteous glowering up your fist-hole, Mark!

One thing I truly cannot understand is this. I constantly hear Conservatives opposed to birth control given out by the schools. Yet they consider abortion an abhoration. My question is this, if you refuse to teach kids about birth control, how can you then hate abortion. You see, birth control PREVENTS abortion. Many who have abortions were not ready to have kids, too young, raped, etc. In those instances where "accidents" happened, birth control used properly might have PREVENTED pregnancy, thus nullified the need for an abortion. Sure, you can talk about abstinence all you want, and I am all for abstinence, or at least being very smart and selective about sexual partners. However, for Conservative parents to rule out teaching about birth control is ASKING to increase the abortion rate. Can you not see that? Many people I know were confused and sheltered when it came to sex, and had parents that just told them that they would go to Hell if they had premarital sex (the fear of God as birth control instead of legitimite, REAL birth control)
Because of not being properly educated by their parents (who taught fear and superstition instead of intelligence), the kids rebelled and had sex with anyone they could find, using no thought and no birth control because they were not taught about sex, only to fear it. Now if any of these people had become pregnant, would they have told their parents? Probably not. They would be afraid to. They might have gone out and got abortions so they would not have to hear good little God fearing Mommy and Daddy sentence them to Hell for their mistake. You see my point? EDUCATION about sex, even at very early ages, is one big answer to the abortion problem. TEACH the kids about good sexual choices and birth control, even at 6 or 7 years old, and abortions will decrease dramatically. You see, sometimes Conservative thinking is actually INCREASING abortions. Understand the logic here? Think on these things....

Robert,

Kids are taught about sex regardless of what parents want - the popular culture tells them to have sex and precisely how to have sex all the time. But to pass out condoms in school is to tell the kids that teenage sexual activity is ok. Sorry, I'm not about to agree to that...I recall a couple years ago standing in line at the convenience store and there was this little girl - no more than 13 or 14 - buying a pack of condoms. She was getting "protection" in your view...while in mine the poor thing has been thrown to the wolves...a society which says "here ya go, little girl, put this on your boyfriend and hope that it works!...and don't worry, he'll certainly think your a classy lady after you put out for him...or maybe the 20th guy you do it for will....".

I remember quite clearly my 6th grade sex education class all those many years ago (about 1977): a little light came on and "oh, that's what ITS for!" came into the brain. That was back in a more innocent time - back when the popular culture wasn't entirely awash in rampant sexuality as it is today. These days, I doubt there's an 8 year old who doesn't know what ITS for. This is helpful? This makes a child's life better? Condom use at the age of 12 makes for a well-rounded young man or woman? Pre-marital sex is good training for marital fidelity?

No, Robert - the kids are having sex these days not because they just do, but because they've been told to. Kids aren't natural rebels...they are natural conformists. They want to do what is expected of them because their most desperate desire is to fit in...and we've told them that the best way to fit in is to have barnyard sexual morals. Putting out sex education as a means of controlling abortion is as absurd as putting out gun control to stop kids from shooting up their schools...once upon a time there was no sex education and kids were allowed to take guns to school...pregnancy was a rarity and it was unheard of for a kid to shoot anyone. It is all in how the kids are educated.

Mark, do you reallize how absurd you sound? Besides, I AM saying that kids should be educated. In fact, that is the entire POINT of my thought. Kids should be given good sexual education first and foremost above anything else. That means, the knowledge to make GOOD sexual choices. But, guess what, you are living in an utter dream world Mark, if you believe that FORCING the idea of abstinence down kids throats is going to work. You have to explain WHY it is important to make healthy sexual choices. ZIt is also paramount to show kids that they can also make SAFE choices as well. I don't know where you grew up, but most of the promiscuous people I ever knew were either raped (more than one, actually, by family members, one even by her father who was a MINISTER) or because they rebelled against people who were always telling them "no" about sex without explaining what sex was and how to make SAFE and INTELLIGENT sexual choices. The sexual revolution in the '60's was IN RESPONSE to the very, very puritan ways of looking at sex in the decades before. My point is this, SCARING kids about sex and withholding valuable information from them in an effort to "shelter the poor things from knowledge of sex" is to live in an absolute dream world and makes things worse. People need to be EDUCATED Mark!!! Education is NOT hiding kids from reality. It IS about teaching them how to make the best descisions they can on their own. Sheltering kids DOES NOT work. Why don't you ask a preacher's daughter I know who slept with tons of people before she got her head on straight. Why? Because she never knew what smart, intelligent sexuality was all about. She was taught only to fear sex, and when she started to finally experience it, she went nuts. Ask all the college freshmen who suddenly go from a shy bookworm to party hardy and the slut of the fraternity. People need EDUCATION, Mark, and people like you are KEEPING that education from kids, and keeping sex behind closed doors, confusing and mysterious and scary. You should probably truly reexamine your position and ask yourself this question - how many abortions might
have been avoided with just one properly used condom? Hmmmm...... think on these things....

Oh, one other quick thing I forgot to ask. "Kids were allowed to take guns to school?" When was this Mark? I have NEVER heard of such a thing. Unless you are talking about the 1800's maybe. That one really got me. No school I ever knew of permitted guns. Or knives, or any weapon. Doesn't mean they didn't exist in the schools, but to my knowledge, even in the 1940's, '50's, and '60's there were no weapons EVER allowed in schools. If you truly know of a REAL instance of this, please let me know, so I don't feel as if I'm going crazy when I hear you say there was....

Shortz, Longz, Robert, and Eddie D

Oh the pain you moonbats must feeel now that President Bush has placed another conservative on the SCOTUS. And having your failed presidential candidate John Fnn Kerry phone-in a filibuster...from Switzerland no less. Pure Schadenfreude baby!

You are right on target Mark...keep shooting.

For those who want a "swing Vote" on the Supreme Court - get a random number generator. Most real live people, even judges, don't sway back and forth on an issue.
For those who demand abortion on demand - tell congress to pass a law, don't leave it up to 'swing' judges.
To those who demand every person be considered innocent until proven guilty, don't offer that same standard to elected representatives of the other political party.
To those who have nothing to contribute to an open debate, don't let that stop vile personal attacks.
Following the threads of blogs is more entertaining than watching TV news and shouting back at the anchorman each time he presents his conclusions as facts. (and it's much cheaper than therapy)

AAR very good point.

it is up to Congress to pass such laws, not judges.

For those who demand abortion on demand - tell congress to pass a law, don't leave it up to 'swing' judges.

american people support abortion jurisprudence

The majority of Americans are opposed to overturning “Roe vs. Wade” and the majority of Americans think that abortion laws in this country should be less strict or stay the same.

Shortz, Brian why is it you think the courts should make laws instead of congress?

If you do a search in the constitution, abortion search in Constitution you will find our founding fathers did not use the word. Either asserting that "the constitution" or "the american people" want abortion does not make it so. Pass the law the legal way, via congress, or let states make their own laws.

"But it is the ditch the Democrats are fighting to the last man in - if it weren't for a tiny set of special interests demanding it, the Democrats wouldn't be opposing Alito."

Its not a tiny set of people who care about choice.

"Stuck into your Democratic platform is the program of federally funded abortion on demand"

That's really surprising. Do you have a link?

"Shortz, Brian why is it you think the courts should make laws instead of congress?"

Marbury v. Madison (1803): "It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases, must of necessity expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each."

shortz, and how did abortion become law? not by congress or the constitution, but only by the court. That is not allowed.

Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases

Mark,

Again you are right as usual!

Liberal educators dictate that children are taught about sex from their earliest years, about how to put on condoms, about where and how to use birth control pills, and all about the mechanics of sex. Schools are REQUIRED to teach our children how to have sex, but they are NOT PERMITTED to teach children about abstinence and marriage... except for Gay marriage of course!

It doesn't take much intelligence to know that when teachers casually talk about sex and matter-of-factly teach young impressionable children about how to have sex, children will believe that it must be fine for them to practice what they are taught. Too bad schools can't spend as much time on history and civics so that students understand more about our history and our Constitution! (Yet more justification for school vouchers!!!)

Liberals continually demand separation of church and state, but insist that this does not apply to sex and abortion. If a parent objects to sex education or unwanted sex questionnaires based on religious grounds, that's just too bad -- just as liberals insist that parents have no rights over their children when it relates to abortions!

The liberal film, television, book, and magazine media constantly portray and glorify sex as a recreational pastime, and much of this is directed specifically at and intended for children. Then we add to that the manner in which sex is casually portrayed and "taught" in our liberal public school system. All of this only serves to desensitize children to sex and "teach" them that casual sex really IS just another form of casual entertainment that "everyone" does.

If the liberal sex education system is so wonderful and successful, then why is teenage sex up, why are teenage pregnancies up, why are births to unwed mothers up, why are women and young teenage children having so many abortions, and why are so many single mothers on public welfare and with so many children for whom they may or may not know the fathers?!!!

True when I grew up, parents used more fear when it related to sex education. Mine taught me in no uncertain terms that sex is for adults and not children, and if I got anyone pregnant, I WOULD get married, and I WOULD support the child. And it worked too! We didn't have all of the abortions and unwed pregnancies then that we have today. Fear is still the greatest motivator and deterrent!

It's no wonder liberals are so "hung up" on and preoccupied with protecting abortion. Abortion is a key component of their liberal lifestyle and philosophy. After all, they must have abortion-on-demand to eliminate all of the unwanted children created by their casual recreational view of sex and their failed sex education system.

Unfortunately, liberals have and want to continue to make an abortion of our Constitution and laws through their activist judges and courts to force their views and lifestyles on the majority!

It's long past the time that we restore the Constitution, return the job of lawmaking to
Congress, and eliminate ALL activist judges from our judicial system, but most urgently, from the Supreme and appellate courts.

There are Constitutionally mandated procedures for amending the Constitution and making laws, and it does not involve liberal activist judges. If liberals want abortion to be a Constitutionally protected "right", then formally amend the Constitution to include it, but don't misuse the courts for that purpose!!!

AAR

Mark, do you reallize how absurd you sound? Besides, I AM saying that kids should be educated.

By their parents! If they have no parents, or their parent lack the courage to raise them well, then there should be an alternative. There is no way Robert, that educaters are going to teach my 8 year old sex education, prtoected sex, and that it's O.K. before marriage!

Oh, one other quick thing I forgot to ask. "Kids were allowed to take guns to school?" When was this Mark? I have NEVER heard of such a thing.

Posted by: Robert at January 27, 2006 06:33 AM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1989 Robert, I was a junior in high school. One elective class of mine was Law Enforcement. We spent threee days on the range at different times thru out the year. The teacher said "bring your guns, make sure you pack them legally". I brought 1 shotgun & two rifles with me on those trips. Had them locked separately from the ammunition & discreetly as possible covered up from the sight of the other kids. I brought them to & from school on the bus with no incidences. I guess kids back then could handle responsibility, and being discreet. To bad those days are gone. Where did you grow up? New York, L.A.?

Earth to dems. We are at war. It is a shooting war. A war that was started not by us after we lost 3,000 americans. The President of the United States, the commander in chief, has the legal right and constitutional obligation, to intercept enemy communications, without a warrant. It has always been so in every war in american history.

BearmanUSMC,

Liberals of today can't comprehend such a thing!

I grew up and attended school in Texas. Because of our grades, some students were given a day off while others attended class. On one of those days, a friend and I walked across the school grounds with our guns in full view returning from hunting. No one thought anything of it and no one rushed out to arrest us. We were taught what guns were for, how to use them, and most importantly, taught responsibility and consequences of our actions. Never did we hear of any students killing fellow students or teachers!

Liberals should try an experiment. Lay an assortment of loaded guns, a knives, and other "dangerous" weapons on a table, but make sure no one is allowed to touch any of them. See how long it takes before one of those guns jumps up and shoots someone on it's own. What we need is more fear of the consequences for those who do use the guns to shoot other people! Too bad our liberal schools, courts, and ACLU aren't more concerned with instilling real fear in criminals.

And... I had my permanent drivers license when I was 14! I knew without doubt that if I didn't use the car in a responsible manner, my father would make judicious use of his belt and "revoke" my license, whether a judge did so or not!

AAR

"shortz, and how did abortion become law? not by congress or the constitution, but only by the court. That is not allowed."

Abortion laws existed before the court reviewed it.

"Under Marshall's conception of the judicial process in Marbury, judges themselves have no independent agency and can never take into account the consequences of their actions when deciding cases"

This makes my point.

Following the threads of blogs is more entertaining than watching TV news and shouting back at the anchorman each time he presents his conclusions as facts.

omapian, a while back I posted that I frequently lost my cool when listening to the idiocy coming from TV newscasters. I recalled some of my choice phrases altered with %$@#* and .... to protect the children. Lo and behold, a number of B4B regulars confessed to being closet cursers under the same circumstances. It was very soul cleansing and one of the funniest threads on B4B in the 2 years I've been a regular. I'm frequently tempted to respond the same way to shortz, renne P, DAV, and a few other irrational Libs, but I bite my tongue and try to be as civilized as possible.

Following the threads of blogs is more entertaining than watching TV news and shouting back at the anchorman each time he presents his conclusions as facts.

omapian, a while back I posted that I frequently lost my cool when listening to the idiocy coming from TV newscasters. I recalled some of my choice phrases altered with %$@#* and .... to protect the children. Lo and behold, a number of B4B regulars confessed to being closet cursers under the same circumstances. It was very soul cleansing and one of the funniest threads on B4B in the 2 years I've been a regular. I'm frequently tempted to respond the same way to shortz, renne P, DAV, and a few other irrational Libs, but I bite my tongue and try to be as civilized as possible.

I have to assume that the people who are talking about teaching our kids about safe sex are pro-choice. I remember when I had sex-ed in high school many years ago. In this class I was told the facts and the different types of birth-control methods (condoms,iud's,birth control pills,etc) and the fail rates of each of these. In recent years I changed my form of birth-control and in the doctor's office I was given information in the form of a video about my new choice including it's fail rate. So if a young girl or woman has this information and still has sex knowing that there is a possibility that the birth-control can fail hasn't she made her choice?

shortz

Justice White. "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

"Earth to dems. We are at war"

James, that's the problem, the defeatocrats, including those who frequent this site, do not believe we are at war. And they won't believe until there is another attack on US soil in which they personally lose a family member.

Then they'll be the ones screaming the loudest and demanding the action be taken or that Bush is not doing enough to protect their sorry arses.

I know I am a partisan but I can only hope that the 'Rats running for office later this year take the same kind of beating the Moonbats are absorbing in this thread.

This is almost as bad as the a** whipping Joel Stein took on Hewitt's show. http://www.radioblogger.com/ go down about half way. It is an eye opener.

"As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; "

Thank you.

Bearman, AAR,
As for the guns in school. I grew up in a VERY small town in Hicksville USA, Southwestern Pennsylvania. Around here is as country as you come, except for maybe West Virginia. We ALWAYS got the first day of deer season off school. I also grew up ON A FARM and my father and uncle hunted regularly. However, I still NEVER heard of such a thing as guns being allowed in school. And I graduated high school in 1993, so 1989 would have been my prime junior high years. Even that year I remember NOTHING about guns EVER being allowed in school. In fact, somewhere around 1989 I got detention for bringing a knife to school to protect myself from bullies. Imagine if I would have had a gun? I would have been suspended, probably expelled. And I was an honor student, too, and this was my first offense. What if I would have brought an Uzi, huh? You people really crack me up - where did YOU go to school, that they allowed guns? Texas?

As for sex education - Bearman, parents SHOULD be doing the educating. But guess what, in my experience, most parents are too f&$#ed up themselves to EVER teach their kids good morals. So who is left to do it? The schools. Sometimes teachers may be a kid's only hope when their parents are drug addicts, alcoholics, and religious nuts who teach only fear of sex. And in many cases, it is the PARENTS who teach the kids the WORST things about sex - you know, fathers raping their daughters and such. It DOES happen. Quite a lot more than most people would like to admit, in fact. Statistically, 1 in 4 women have been raped or molested. (Maybe not by their father, but still)I have met many of these women. Their sexual idenitiy and choices have been forever warped by this act.
My point is this - good sexual education from an early age might solve many of the problems facing our society - including abortion. If parents did THEIR JOB, teaching good morals and common sense, then maybe all would be well. But sometimes the only hope a kid has is if the school and dedicated and caring teachers take over where the parents have FAILED. This also applies to the "God-fearing" parents who only want to shelter their children from the "bad, bad, world" and have not educated them properly about the REAL WORLD, instead of the fictional one they have built in their heads. (Sigh, you know, anything that is not Christian is bad - All Liberals are destroying the country at any cost, etc...) *Sigh*, when will we ever learn.......

Robert,

My schooling was 30 years before your time, but we had a different attitude toward guns where I lived. I was taught to respect guns, and I was hunting alone at the age of 12. Also, I didn't say I took the gun into the school, but rather, walked across the school grounds. I also walked through town with it and wasn't stopped by a single policeman! On the other hand, I don't think it would have been any big deal if someone had brought a gun, especially a black powder version to their agriculture, mechanics, history, or other class with the teacher's approval, if it had been for a valid educational purpose.

I routinely carried a small pocket knife to school to use for cutting things like fruit, paper, string, and whatever, but not people. I would never have thought about carrying a pocket knife to school to protect myself from bullies, of which we had our share! It wasn't any big deal to carry a small pocket knife, as I still do (although not now on airlines), and I don't recall anyone ever getting in a knife fight at our school. Unfortunately, that's not the case in today's schools!

Would I or could I do either of these things today in that same school. No, nor would I even try. Do I think kids should be permitted to bring guns and knives to school today? No. Times have changed and there are too many kids today who would just as soon kill you as not. Guess our liberal education system hasn't taught kids the same things we learned.

As for sex education, why is it that the liberal view is the only "correct" view? And I don't see that today's schools routinely teach our children good morals; although, I'm sure some teachers and some schools still do, but then who's to define what that may be... a liberal educator? I certainly wouldn't want schools and today's liberal teachers teaching my kids their liberal values and morals!

It makes one wonder how the world, society, and America ever survived before the liberal educators took over our schools!!! As for me; however, bring back the conservative teachers I had. We didn't have a liberal mandated "cucumber curriculum", and I actually learned things like history, civics, math, and English; although, I do wish I had learned more!

Yes, I do agree with you that many, perhaps most of today's parents aren't capable of teaching their kids much of anything! In fact, many of them should not even have kids, because it becomes the taxpayer's responsibility to do for them what parents should do! But is the answer wholesale abortion-on-demand? I think not. If the schools are so hip on teaching sex education, maybe they should spend more time teaching individual responsibility and parenting skills too!

But, sex education and abortion aren't the real issues. The real issue, and the one that must be fixed, is activist judges who legislate from the bench, and that must be stopped!!! Most Conservatives want judges who will interpret the Constitution and laws the way they were written and intended, whichever way that may be. Most liberals on the other hand, want to force their views and values on the majority through the courts, circumventing our Constitution.

The Constitutional process (which was written intentionally by our forefathers to be somewhat slow and conservative) and legislative process aren't fast enough for liberals and doesn't provide the instant gratification they desire! If the Constitution had been amended through the process established in the Constitution, and laws had been changed by the people through Congress and their legislatures rather than by activist judges, I don't think we would have the same divisiveness and animosity that we have today.

Have activist judges made some good rulings. Yes, but that in itself doesn't make those rulings right or valid. Formally amending the Constitution or formally changing the laws makes them valid. Until and unless that is done, any good decision by an activist judge legislating from the bench is a very bad ruling and a threat to the Constitution and our democracy!!!

Either you believe in the Constitution and that the people through their Congressional representatives make the laws or you believe that activist judges should be permitted to make the law under the concept of a "living" Constitution. If you believe in the latter, however, there really are no Constitutional protections, and you (we) live or die (figuratively speaking) by whichever party is in power and by the individual values and philosophy of those few appointed judges... and that's not a democracy, or even a republic!!!

And yes, I do firmly believe that liberals are destroying this country, its values, morals, work ethics, individual initiative and responsibility, and educational system, to name only a few!!!

AAR

AAR,

You know, I can actually agree with some of your points. However, I must say that the thought of "fear as the best motivator" is in many ways quite out of touch and bordering very close to what so many Conservatives are up in arms against. You see, you say that your father would "use judicious use of a belt" on you if you did wrong. My question is this, how much farther do you have to go from that concept, beating the living s%&t out of your kids for infractions to the Muslim rules that Conservatives hate so much? In many countries, fear is used to prevent crime and wrongdoing - you know, like cutting someone's hand off for stealing, etc.. By punishing kids for mistakes by abusing them is kinda in the same ballpark, don't you think? As I said before, EDUCATION about the smartest way to act and WHY it is important to act appropriately is much more effective than fear. Fear only breeds violence, can you not see that. And violence begets more violence. Liberals are FAR from perfect, but the are ABSOLUTELY NOT the evil that you people claim them to be. Conservatives are not perfect either, but nowhere have I said that Conservatives are bringing down the country. You people constantly bash liberals, but never seem to acknowledge the mistakes of Conservatives. How NARROW-MINDED and shallow and hypocritical is that? That is what bothers me most - this High and Mighty attitude. EVERYONE makes mistakes, Conservative or Liberal, and it is high time that you people stopped bashing Liberals and started admitting with HUMILITY (a trait that Jesus Christ taught) that Conservatives can also be wrong. To defend without question your own political party can be quite erroneous, for you refuse to see that other people are not really so bad after all, once you get to know them. I have both Conservative and Liberal friends, and although we sometimes disagree, we usually get along. This "moonbat" business, the BABIFIED insults that Conservatives use, are VERY counter-productive, breed more hostility, and that attitude, from either side, is what is bringing down the country. If we spent less time blaming people for the problems, and more time trying to fix the problems, together, we would be much happier. But I guess you would rather live in your little dream world, spreading hatred for others that are different from you, than actually trying to solve the problem. In the instance of sex-education, at least the teachers that DO give a damn are trying to help kids, trying to give them a better chance at a better future. Instilling fear in them will not give them that chance, it will only serve to hurt them more. Can you not see that, or are you to arrogant to try? Think on these things.....

Mark,

You’re unable to understand that your views on abortion represent only a small minority of people in this country. There are only a small percentage of people who will vote against a candidate because they support abortion rights. President Bush, who is very strongly opposed to abortion rights, was only able to win 51 percent of the vote against a very weak and inept candidate that supported abortion rights. Throughout the campaign, President Bush rarely even brought up the issue.

The only reason the Republicans have done well in the last two elections is because of the attacks on September 11. The Democrats are weak on security issues and President Bush and the Republicans did everything they could to politicize the attacks on the United States.

The Democrats gained seats in both houses in the 1998 and 2000 elections. If we were not attacked on September 11, the Republicans probably would have lost their majority by now and President Bush probably would have lost the election, even against a candidate as weak as John Kerry. About the only accomplishment President Bush can claim from his first term is that we weren’t attacked a second time.

Conservatives don’t understand that the Republicans didn’t gain control of Congress in 1994 because most Americans support their positions. The main reason why the Republicans gained control of Congress is because of dissatisfaction with the Democrat party. Whenever the Conservatives in Congress pushed their extreme views, the American people overwhelmingly sided against them, as they did in the government shutdown and the impeachment process.

Brian,

If that is the case, then you're headed for a certain win in November...on the other hand, if I'm right then things will be a bit different.

You forget that we gained seats in 2002...and unheard of event. You should also note that we have as many House seats as we did in 1995, and only one less Senate seat...we also control a majority of governorships and a majority of State legislatures...you should also note that the American people support tight restrictions on abortion.

We'll see how the votes come out in November - I'm confident of the result.

"You’re unable to understand that your views on abortion represent only a small minority of people in this country. There are only a small percentage of people who will vote against a candidate because they support abortion rights." Brian

If this is the case then why are your democrats so scared about Roe v wade being overturned. Based on the 10th Amendment to the Constitution..."The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people"...it is a matter which should be decided by the states.

Since as you say, the majority of the Americans support it, then legislation can be drafted which leagalizes it.

On the other hand, if you are not so confident that you have a majority opinion, then it is no wonder you fear to turn such a question over to the voters, otherwise known as THE PEOPLE.

The Bill of Rights is called that for a reason.

Mark,

The election in November isn’t primarily about the abortion issue. There are many other issues that voters will be basing their decision on. In the 2004 election, only one percent of voters considered abortion to be their primary concern. There are many people who support abortion rights but will vote Republican and there are also Republicans in Congress who support abortion rights.

As I said before, the main issue in the 2002 and 2004 elections was national security, which is why the Republicans did well. The country’s views on social issues didn’t dramatically change over a two-year period. You forget that the Democrats gained seats in 1998, an unheard of event.

If things don’t change much between now and November, I expect the Democrats to gain seats in Congress in the next election, but I think this will be because of issues other than abortion.

Phnxbmed,

First of all, I’m not a Democrat, I’m an independent.

Based on the first, fourth, and fourteenth amendment, abortion is protected by the Constitution. The main reason behind the move to outlaw abortion is to impose the Christian beliefs on others rather than any concern about human life. Many of the people who consider themselves to be pro-life because they are opposed to abortion are anti-life on many other issues.

You people really crack me up - where did YOU go to school, that they allowed guns? Texas?

1991' California(wow go figure) I'm sure there are no written rules in any school in the world(possibly), that say " You can bring a gun to school". However, since our school never has & hopefully never will have a gun incident, I hope they will continue to monitor the problem children and nuture & respect the child striving to be responsible and pleasing! What's the point of punishing the many for the few!

As for sex education - Bearman, parents SHOULD be doing the educating. But guess what, in my experience, most parents are too f&$#ed up themselves to EVER teach their kids good morals.

RE: My previous response to this! Once again if there are needs, let's meet them. But don't tell me as a responsible taxpaying, family raising, non Child molester, how my children are to be raised or taght about such things! I'm sure you counsel child molesters daily, so you really do know how often it is done, huh!

So who is left to do it? The schools. Sometimes teachers may be a kid's(not my kids, that's where the conflict is!) only hope when their parents are drug addicts, alcoholics, and religious nuts who teach only fear of sex. And in many cases, it is the PARENTS who teach the kids the WORST things about sex - you know, fathers raping their daughters and such. It DOES happen. (I'm sure it does and those men and women should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, but it is NOT happening to my children. So what gives you the right to take away my rights as a parent?)

Posted by: Robert at January 27, 2006 03:44 PM

(Sigh, you know, anything that is not Christian is bad - All Liberals are destroying the country at any cost, etc...) *Sigh*, when will we ever learn.......

Posted by: Robert at January 27, 2006 03:44 PM

Well, I am glad I didn't need to say it! My children are not sheltered from this world, tho they are taught right from wrong & good morals. They, all by themselves come up with the conclusions you just stated. Look in the mirror man, liberalism is hypocrisy at it's worst.