I don’t think Obama has ever said anything about banning guns. Whereas, Romney says he thinks Roe should be overturned. I don’t see how your example is comparable in any way.
Well, you could point to all the Democrat pushed anti-gun agendas in the state legislatures. Or maybe to all the anti-gun efforts pressed by the Democrats in the House. Or the insane proscriptions and regulations of service providers with the clear intent on pushing gun shops out of existence. Or the mind-bogglingly stupid pronouncements of prominent Democrats about gun control…
Really, take your pick, or all of them!
Are you saying that Casey was muddy enough that it made pro-choice advocates realize that pushing any further would risk clarity going against them or that Casey effectively overturned Roe?
Democratic senators might have something to say about taht.
Alito is firmly in the overturn Roe camp. Roberts is probably in that camp if for no other reason than because it is a horribly reasoned opinion.
I support abortion rights during the first trimester but I think the opinion is poorly reasoned and very results oriented.
What do the words mean? That it has been settled by the courts, and that’s where it will continue to be settled, so if Roe will be overturned, it will be done by the courts? Or, it’s settled law and can’t or shouldn’t be overturned?
It simply means Roe has been challenged and stood up in the Supreme Court. It doesn’t have any more specific meaning, nor was it intended to. It’s a way of brushing off the question.
So, when his campaign site says:
[QUOTE=Romney’s Campaign Site]
But while the nation remains so divided, he believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade…
[/QUOTE]
From here: http://www.mittromney.com/issues/values
It means what?
I believe it’s true in your case. I’m not so sure about Romney. His statement contains some strange tenses in referring to a law that was supposedly settled in 1973.
It will be made by the Supreme Court not it was made by the Supreme Court? It is a matter in the courts not it was a matter in the courts? It has been settled for some time by the courts not it was settled some time ago by the courts?
Romney isn’t saying that the final decision that abortions were legal was made. He’s saying that it’s still being decided. And the decision will be made by the Supreme Court not Congress or other legislative bodies. The Burger court said abortions were legal in 1973. The Roberts court might say abortions aren’t legal in 2013.
This isn’t that difficult. It’s a politician speaking. “Settled law” is code. It’s just a way of avoiding the traditional questions about Roe v Wade. It doesn’t mean anything else. He can say that it should be overturned or anything else he wants.
“I like bananas on my breakfast cereal. Tomorrow I plan to use blueberries.”
There’s no meaning to interpret there. I do like bananas on my cereal, and if I happen to use blueberries tomorrow it has no bearing on my previous statement.
It’s a waste of time looking for specific meaning in a politician’s words.
Well, then I think you should take that up with Rand Rover, whose post was the one I responded to. He says they mean what they mean. In this thread, there are at least two clear conflicting meanings. You say that looking for meaning in a politician’s words don’t make sense, even though you earlier came up with a meaning of the words.
Sure he has.
“What works in Chicago may not work in Cheyenne.” Well, what “worked” in Chicago when he said that was essentially a ban on legal handguns. That voiced support for the city of Chicago’s – and, by analogy, any other city that wishes to – to impose similar legislation.
Mr. Fantastic would be impressed by that stretch.
Well, you’re right. I don’t know why he thinks there’s a specific meaning to the words, unless it’s just the empty definition of ‘settled law’.
This isn’t unheard of. IIRC, Roe v Wade applies only to second-trimester abortions (although I don’t see how anyone could subsequently make first-trimester abortions illegal); Romney can still take a stand against late-term (e.g. partial-birth) abortions.
What, in your view, was “working” in Chicago with respect to gun regulation when Mr. Obama made his comment?
I think it’s more that Obama specifically saying he wouldn’t ban guns in Wyoming is what you use to say that he’s looking to ban guns. That’s the stretch, in my view anyway. In any case, it’s a silly example – there are plenty of pro-gun Democrats (jeez, even Chuck Schumer went out hunting). Would it take more than one hand to count the number of prominent pro-choice Republicans?
In summary:
- There are lots of pro-gun Democrats, few pro-choice Republicans
- Obama says he wouldn’t ban guns in, for example, Wyoming
- Romney says he wants to overturn Roe
Well you could take it at face value.
A megalopolis and rural prarielands probably have different gun needs.
If you want to insert the meaning you suggest, then you have to ignore what his staff said when asked:
If you still want to insist that your reading is the correct one, then all he was saying is that different cities can have their own laws, within the bounds of the constitution. Since at the law hadn’t been found unconstitutional at the time.
In other words, you’re not presenting an actual equivalence, you’re stretching the concept.
So you’re saying there’s a hidden meaning behind Obama’s statement? Then why can’t there be a hidden meaning behind Romney’s statement?
And being as the topic of this thread is Romney’s statement, it seems we should focus on that hidden meaning rather than diverting the debate to something Obama said.
I suppose there could be. I choose to believe there was no hidden meaning in either statement.
Finding a hidden meaning in one, but not the other, is what I object to.
Did Obama feel that Chicago’s laws were constitutional?
I think you might need a heavy dose of reality. Judging from those results, you can say just who abortion is really a litmus test for and-- newsflash-- it ain’t Republicans. But, hey, reality has a heavy conservative bias 