Obama running scare (radio) ad in VA

[MODU]

I will try to get the text of the ad, but it has a nurse practitioner saying that McCain will overturn Roe-v-Wade and will threaten the health of pregnant women.  You would think that if Bush couldn't 'overturn' Roe-v-Wade with a Republican Congress, what makes you think that McCain could do so with a Democratic Congress?

[elcorazon]

he'll fill another supreme court vacancy or 2.  you're aware of the fact that roe v. wade is a supreme court decision, not an act of congress, right?

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

he'll fill another supreme court vacancy or 2.  you're aware of the fact that roe v. wade is a supreme court decision, not an act of congress, right?

And you're aware that a Supreme Court nominee needs to be approved by an almost guaranteed Democratic Senate, right?

[elcorazon]

he'll fill another supreme court vacancy or 2.  you're aware of the fact that roe v. wade is a supreme court decision, not an act of congress, right?

And you're aware that a Supreme Court nominee needs to be approved by an almost guaranteed Democratic Senate, right?

well, the senate is in flux and cannot be relied upon to stop a decent mccain nominee from being approved.  the makeup of the senate changes every 2 years and the bush years have pushed the court even further to the right, paving the way for an eventual overturn of roe v. wade.

[Iosif]

he'll fill another supreme court vacancy or 2.  you're aware of the fact that roe v. wade is a supreme court decision, not an act of congress, right?

And you're aware that a Supreme Court nominee needs to be approved by an almost guaranteed Democratic Senate, right?

Roberts and Alito got through.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

he'll fill another supreme court vacancy or 2.  you're aware of the fact that roe v. wade is a supreme court decision, not an act of congress, right?

And you're aware that a Supreme Court nominee needs to be approved by an almost guaranteed Democratic Senate, right?

Roberts and Alito got through.

Roberts and Alito were approved by a Republican Senate, not the current Democratic one.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

OMGZ MCCAIN HATES WOMEN!!!!!

[J. J.]

he'll fill another supreme court vacancy or 2.  you're aware of the fact that roe v. wade is a supreme court decision, not an act of congress, right?

And you're aware that a Supreme Court nominee needs to be approved by an almost guaranteed Democratic Senate, right?

Roberts and Alito got through.

And they habve not overturned it.

Also, the longest, most bitter opponent of Roe v. Wade, when it was written.  Byron White, a Democrat appointed by JFK.

[Brittain33]

Also, the longest, most bitter opponent of Roe v. Wade, when it was written.  Byron White, a Democrat appointed by JFK.

Parties have become much more closely identified by allegiance to this issue since 1980.

[J. J.]

Also, the longest, most bitter opponent of Roe v. Wade, when it was written.  Byron White, a Democrat appointed by JFK.

Parties have become much more closely identified by allegiance to this issue since 1980.

Even there, you have Roberts stating he supports precedent and Souter.  When they put on the black robes, you have no idea what they'll do.

[Brittain33]

Also, the longest, most bitter opponent of Roe v. Wade, when it was written.  Byron White, a Democrat appointed by JFK.

Parties have become much more closely identified by allegiance to this issue since 1980.

Even there, you have Roberts stating he supports precedent and Souter.  When they put on the black robes, you have no idea what they'll do.

Souter, yeah, but that led to the reaction against appointing anyone who isn't clear about where he'd rule. Whatever Roberts said about precedent, it was kabuki theater. No one has any doubts how he'll rule.

[opebo]

he'll fill another supreme court vacancy or 2.  you're aware of the fact that roe v. wade is a supreme court decision, not an act of congress, right?

And you're aware that a Supreme Court nominee needs to be approved by an almost guaranteed Democratic Senate, right?

Roberts and Alito got through.

And they habve not overturned it.

Because there are not enough of them yet.  With a McCain presidency, there would be enough of these religious on the court.

[MODU]

The Politico is running an article on the ad:  (link)

[Lunar]

I think it's really interesting because normally Democrats don't talk about abortion unless:
A) They have to
B) They are speaking to Democratic activists

It's running in all of the swing states.  Obama wants to get people talking about McCain and abortion but doesn't want the media talking about him and abortion.  That's why he's running radio ads (the media doesn't like to replay radio ads) and has no official release to the media.

[Dan the Roman]

he'll fill another supreme court vacancy or 2.  you're aware of the fact that roe v. wade is a supreme court decision, not an act of congress, right?

And you're aware that a Supreme Court nominee needs to be approved by an almost guaranteed Democratic Senate, right?

Roberts and Alito got through.

Roberts and Alito were approved by a Republican Senate, not the current Democratic one.

I hear this fallacy everywhere. Its frankly not true. Ever since we stopped treating the supreme court as a political entity in favor of pretending it was based on qualifications it became almost impossible to vote down a nominee. Clarence Thomas passed in a 58-42 Democratic senate. Alito might not get through, but there is absolutely no way a Michael McConnell could be blocked

Roe is 90% sure to be overturned if McCain wins. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional and there is nothing that angers me more than running into people who believe a senate with 55 Democrats or even 60 would be an effective bulwark to getting an anti-roe justice. An anti-Roe justice who is not a robot like Alito? Sure. But McConnell is perfectly qualified and probaly belongs on the bench as does Posner or Wilkinson. Both are independent(both thought Bush v. Gore was wrongly decided), and both believe Roe was a travesty.

Alito was confirmed 58-42.  Tell me what Senators will vote down a highly qualified nominee who opposed Bush v. Gore.

Also, vetting is now done by the Federalist society, a precedent McCain has pledged to follow. Read Jeffrey Toobin's "The Nine"
There is no room for error anymore with conservatives, they have gotten that good.

[Lunar]

OBAMA: I'm Barack Obama, candidate for president, and I approved this message.

VAL BARON: As a nurse practitioner with Planned Parenthood, I know abortion is one of the most difficult decisions a woman will ever make. I'm Val Baron. Let me tell you: If Roe v Wade is overturned, the lives and health of women will be put at risk.  That's why this election is so important.  John McCain's out of touch with women today. McCain wants to take away our right to choose. That's what women need to understand. That's how high the stakes are.

ANNCR: As president, John McCain will make abortion illegal.  McCain says quote, "I do not support Roe v. Wade. It should be overturned." And listen to McCain's answer on Meet the Press:

RUSSERT: "A constitutional amendment to ban all abortions. You're for that?"
McCAIN: "Yes, sir."
VAL BARON: We can't let John McCain take away our right to choose. We can't let him take us back.

ANNCR: Paid for by Obama for America.

[Dan the Roman]

What I can't figure out is why people don't take McCain at face value.

He said he is going to appoint hard right judges, yet people assume he won't.

He has a 0% lifetime voting record from Planned Parenthood, opposes contraception, yet people assume he is a moderate on the issue.

He is in favor of a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage if it looks like a court might require other states to recognize it if it is performed in another state, and backed an amendment that would have outlawed civil unions and even partnership benefits passed by towns and cities in Arizona yet people think he is a moderate.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Scare ad?

This is scary

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What I can't figure out is why people don't take McCain at face value.

Well, to begin with, there's the fact that there is zero chance of any of those constitutional amendments passing during a McCain presidency.

Then there's the fact that if Roe v. Wade were simply overturned, it would not make abortion constitutionally impermissible, but would return the question to the State governments to decide.

In short, electing McCain will not result in making abortion illegal all across the United States.  (Though it may it possible for a few States to ban the procedure.)  The probable result of overturning Roe v. Wade is that abortion law in the United States would become more like that of most of Europe, where abortions are generally permitted without restriction in the first 10 to 12 weeks and heavily restricted thereafter.

[Dan the Roman]

What I can't figure out is why people don't take McCain at face value.

Well, to begin with, there's the fact that there is zero chance of any of those constitutional amendments passing during a McCain presidency.

Then there's the fact that if Roe v. Wade were simply overturned, it would not make abortion constitutionally impermissible, but would return the question to the State governments to decide.

In short, electing McCain will not result in making abortion illegal all across the United States.  (Though it may it possible for a few States to ban the procedure.)  The probable result of overturning Roe v. Wade is that abortion law in the United States would become more like that of most of Europe, where abortions are generally permitted without restriction in the first 10 to 12 weeks and heavily restricted thereafter.

Which ironically is not something I oppose. I actually think it would be beneficial to have a real debate. I do think you are wrong on the likely consequence. I think you would have a bunch of states with onerous restrictions and in reaction you would have another ten or twelve with no restrictions with everyone else in between. The big issues would be the laws dealing with crossing state lines for an abortion.

Anyway  my real concerns with McCain's court picks are more in the sphere of an increasing tendency of the conservative wing of the court to cede enormous powers to the Presidency, many of which are disturbingly circular(ie. We need to do this to protect the country, Why, because we say so). My other concern is the status of something like Romer v. Evens in 1994, which is probably more important than Roe in the sense that getting it overturned would likely have far more far reaching results for millions of people.

The reason for my annoyance here though is the number of social liberals who in my view have deluded themselves into thinking that McCain is either a moderate or will be gutted by a Democratic senate. If you support returning abortion to the states by all means vote for him. If you think experience in foreign affairs trumps these issues vote for him. Up until Palin I was starting to lean towards doing so as much as I have concerns about his views on everything else. But do not vote for him because you have convinced yourself that McCain is not what he is, and that everything he has said for his entire career with the exception of 18 months in 1999-2001 is a lie. Or because you think he will be gutted with court appointments. Court vacancies have to be filled, and they will be filled, the senate can only hold up the most odious nominees.

There are legitimate reasons to vote for McCain. If you care about Roe, or for that matter oppose Roe but want a working judicial branch there is no good or even rational reason to vote for him.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

There are legitimate reasons to vote for McCain. If you care about Roe, or for that matter oppose Roe but want a working judicial branch there is no good or even rational reason to vote for him.

I want a working judicial branch in place of the second legislative branch it all too often has acted like.  The legality of abortion is an issue that the judiciary should have left to the legislative branch to decide, and preferably at the State level.  The underlying issue of when does a human life begin that the state would have a compelling reason to protect is inherently subjective, which even Blackmun himself recognized in Roe v. Wade.  That didn't prevent him from substituting his subjective judgement in the form of the trimester system, though he spent many words trying to pretend he was doing no such thing.

[Person Man]

What I can't figure out is why people don't take McCain at face value.

Well, to begin with, there's the fact that there is zero chance of any of those constitutional amendments passing during a McCain presidency.

Then there's the fact that if Roe v. Wade were simply overturned, it would not make abortion constitutionally impermissible, but would return the question to the State governments to decide.

In short, electing McCain will not result in making abortion illegal all across the United States.  (Though it may it possible for a few States to ban the procedure.)  The probable result of overturning Roe v. Wade is that abortion law in the United States would become more like that of most of Europe, where abortions are generally permitted without restriction in the first 10 to 12 weeks and heavily restricted thereafter.

Which ironically is not something I oppose. I actually think it would be beneficial to have a real debate. I do think you are wrong on the likely consequence. I think you would have a bunch of states with onerous restrictions and in reaction you would have another ten or twelve with no restrictions with everyone else in between. The big issues would be the laws dealing with crossing state lines for an abortion.

Anyway  my real concerns with McCain's court picks are more in the sphere of an increasing tendency of the conservative wing of the court to cede enormous powers to the Presidency, many of which are disturbingly circular(ie. We need to do this to protect the country, Why, because we say so). My other concern is the status of something like Romer v. Evens in 1994, which is probably more important than Roe in the sense that getting it overturned would likely have far more far reaching results for millions of people.

The reason for my annoyance here though is the number of social liberals who in my view have deluded themselves into thinking that McCain is either a moderate or will be gutted by a Democratic senate. If you support returning abortion to the states by all means vote for him. If you think experience in foreign affairs trumps these issues vote for him. Up until Palin I was starting to lean towards doing so as much as I have concerns about his views on everything else. But do not vote for him because you have convinced yourself that McCain is not what he is, and that everything he has said for his entire career with the exception of 18 months in 1999-2001 is a lie. Or because you think he will be gutted with court appointments. Court vacancies have to be filled, and they will be filled, the senate can only hold up the most odious nominees.

There are legitimate reasons to vote for McCain. If you care about Roe, or for that matter oppose Roe but want a working judicial branch there is no good or even rational reason to vote for him.

What we will get with a McCain packed court will either be a judiciary system that outright refuses to do its job, or a court that will simply become a court that will supplant the legislature, like it did between 1906 and 1937.