Finally, Pro-Life votes pay off! An Amendment protects the Sanctity of...the Flag?

[sup]This is a rant, & I’m sleep-deprived, which is a bad sign. Perhaps the Pit is best.[/sup]

You know, the next time some Christian Right type talks about how they vote for the GOP because of the sanctity of life, I’ll just point out that the jokers they elected went for a Constitutional Amendment defending the ostensible sanctity of a flag before they went for a human-life amendment.

Looks like it’ll only take 16, 17 years since the (in?)famous 1989 Supreme Court decision to outlaw flag-burning. But it’s 32 years & counting since Roe v. Wade. Anything? Anything? Stop being so one-issue!

. . .

Ah, but that’s the thing. They probably aren’t all that one-issue. They probably think that they still have to vote against the Democrats 'cos “the Democratic Party is full of godless gays,” & they’re just fine with flag-worship.

May be a lot of them go to the sort of churches with Old Glory in front of the pulpit. That, especially combined with an unbothered affiliation with political flag idolatry, gives my Fundamentalist-reared sensibilities a wee bit of unease; signs of political allegiance don’t belong in a sanctuary.

. . .

Ah, well. One day, I may just have had enough. Then I would give up on the lot of you & swim, if necessary, to elsewhere. Short of having to come back & lead a coup to stop bloody purges, I’d happily assimilate into that culture, & be happier.

Oh, who’m I kidding? The guilt would do me in. I can’t even get into the Christian idea of Heaven knowing others are burning in Hell. America & I may be stuck with each other. Blhargh!

. . .

And yes, I know that the flag-burning thing has some broader bipartisan support. This isn’t about the Democrats, it’s about the weird priorities of many Republicans. Why, I ask them, worry about what street protesters do (to keep flagmakers in business–heh) if you’re so concerned about all those dead babies? Totally, jaw-droppingly inappropriate lack of sense of proportion.

I mean, you got a thing against protesters? Or is this some weird psycho-fascist intimidation tactic from the 1930’s, to keep your own base in line somehow?

. . .

(For the record, I don’t support a Human Life Amendment. The law, as per Dickens, is a Ass, & it seems like such a thing would, in theory, let busybody magistrates comb through women’s medicine cabinets counting Progestin pills. But then, why vote pro-life?)

Um, politically I agree with you, but you need a cohesive argument here. I think both amendments are dumb, but because they do one thing does not necessarily mean they are ignoring the other.

Hey! The point is this:
32 years of pro-life activism, & all they can think to do is wait for Supreme Court justices to die? From a serious “look at all the dead babies” point of view, this is kind of pathetic, compared to…
“Oh, hey, let’s amend the Constitution to stop people from, oh I don’t know, flying a flag upside down! Yeah, that’s worthy of being in the Constitution of the United States alongside abolishing slavery & demanding due process! Let’s go for it!” And they will, it now seems, succeed, in about 16 years from the precipitating SC case. For what? Really? What, in the material universe, is affected? A piece of nylon touches the ground, or is held upside down, or maybe gets dirty or destroyed. Boo freaking hoo.

Again, think like a pro-lifer for a second. Millions & millions of dead babies, oh, it’s horrible! But you can’t stop it, you are too nice. But hey, we can rewrite the Constitution & throw you in jail for displaying an American flag in any manner someone else might find offensive. Which is what the new Amendment will amount to.

Why, with these results, would you base your vote on the pro-life movement? It’s pretty clear you’re not going to succeed, if after 32 years, you still are just sort of hoping that the left wing of the court will die at an opportune time.
OK, GOP. I’m going to give you a little hint. So listen up. You have a pro-life, GOP President. You have majorities in both houses of Congress. You can, constitutionally, impeach every pro-choice member of the Supreme Court. Right now. For approving the murder of countless Americans, if you need a reason. Better take this chance, 'cos it has an expiration date.

If you don’t, then you really are lying when you say you take human life as seriously as an anti-abortion voter, & you represent them.

Now, maybe it’s that the pro-lifers haven’t managed to take over the GOP yet. They’re playing a long game. But after this long, really, are they serious?

Maybe they know they can’t get the votes. So, why not vote for something where you can make a positive difference, like for social justice? Not saying the Democrats are really about social justice, but where’s your concern about issues that you might win on, eh?

It would be foolish to impeach the pro-life justices, because convicting them requires a two-thirds majority in the Senate, which the GOP does not have.

I’m sure the GOP could get a 2/3rds majority to impeach pro-life justices.

Not sure why they’d want to :stuck_out_tongue:

Wait, what now? Isn’t impeachment by simple majority?

Gonna have to pull out the Constitution… Crap. You’re right. Well, there’s a campaign strategy for '06.

Why would they actually want to solve the problems they have found to effective both in drawing the votes of slope-headed meddlers and in providing a smokescreen for their true resumption-of-gilded-age agenda?

Well, yeah, that’s the real point.

I’m a liberal democrat, and I still don’t think you could even get two thirds of the Republicans in Congress to vote to impeach Supreme Court justices based on the fact that those justices are pro-choice. I mean, come on, they’re not that immoral. I hope.

I have no idea why I’m responding to such a blatantly stupid argument but I am. Here’s just a few of the dozens of reasons why this is dumb:

  1. Pro-choice people do not “approv(e) the murder of countless Americans”

  2. Roe v. Wade was decided in 1972. There is one and only one person on the bench today who ruled in that case: Rehnquist. The other eight have nothing whatsoever to do with its decision.

  3. The Supreme Court has had the opportunity to revisit this issue and it has chosen not to. Pro-life and pro-choice as one.

  4. As they have failed to revisit that specific issue, one is unable to draw a factual conclusion as to a) why they have not done so or b) how they would rule today

  5. So without actually doing anything, you would impeach someone for having an idea. An outlook. A line of reasoning. Not one that they’ve even had the opportunity to act upon, mind you, just something they’ve been kicking around in their head.

  6. And finally…“if you need a reason” If you need a reason? In what country that you call America do you live in where this is acceptable? Because in mine I sure as hell would hope that the reason something is done is the very first thing that comes up, not a justification afterwards.

Sorry, 1973. Heard in 72.

What? They’ve revisited it several times. Primarily related to how restrictive abortion laws can or cannot be, but you can’t say that they haven’t looked at it since '72.

Or maybe it would be foolish because justices shouldn’t be impeached for their point of view, but only for severe misconduct. I swear, Rick, sometimes you make it hard to be an admirer.

Of course, of course. But that observation wouldn’t really have been in keeping with the OP’s spirit, would it?

According to Thomas:

H.J.RES.10 - Latest Major Action: 6/22/2005 Passed/agreed to in House. Status: On passage Passed by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 286 - 130 (Roll no. 296).

S.J.RES.12 - Latest Major Action: 4/14/2005 Referred to Senate committee. Status: Read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

Unless one of the Resolutions is agreed to by both Houses or a conference committee irons out the details of the two, and the Senate agrees, the proposed amendment will not proceed to ratification by the States. While Arlen Spector is chair of the Committee on the Judiciary, and one of 56 co-sponsors to S.J.RES.12, he can prevent the Resolution from being reported out of committee.

Purely speculating but his position of Chair was challenged by the far right and he just might play his card and kill the Resolution as a response, more so now that a filling Supreme Court vacancy will take precedence.

Maybe I’m just being cynical but, if I’m understanding your question right, the reason is that it’s all political. If the GOP were to actually propose an anti-abortion amendment and it somehow was ratified, they would lose one of the most important issues for motivating their base. To a lesser degree the same is true of a flag burning amendment. Have you ever noticed that when things start to get hot for Republicans they often trot out a flag burning amendment?

Sorry, I was too vague. I didn’t mean specific abortion laws, I meant the overall question of abortion itself.

Okay, I’ll take this as me being whooshed.

I kind of thought that’s what you meant. I would still say though that they’ve essentially reconsidered it. Had they upheld the more severe restrictions and added some language into the opinion that reopened the issue, they’d have had a case in a New York minute. The fact that they haven’t chosen to show any encouragement effectively says that they agree with RvW as decided (as a body, not as individuals).

The difference is that there’s no major segment of the population that’s pro-flag-burning. It’s a safe measure that won’t cost you any votes while gaining you some support. But abortion? If anyone looked like they were actually going to really ban abortion, they’d face the wrath of millions of pro-choice voters. If the Republicans actually tried to pass a pro-life amendment, 95% of the women in this country would vote for Democrats in the next election and the Republicans would disappear like the Whigs. The Republican leadership knows this and has to maintain the delicate balance between promising pro-lifers just enough to keep them voting while never delivering enough to alienate all pro-choicers.

There’s a decent sized part of me that would LIKE to see RvW overturned and the decisions left to the states. That would put us on track to resolve the issue (politically) for all time.

Right, this is what I think when I decide how to vote. I am pro-life, but not just on abortion, but death penalty, euthanasia, war, capital punishment, social programs, etc. So while I would like to support an anti-abortion candidate, I know that the chances of them doing anything about Roe vs. Wade is virtually nothing, while the chances of them starting wars, cutting human services, etc., are a lot higher.