And you don’t see why a thread on the meaning of a Mitt Romney statement was legitimately focused on that statement?
I can’t speak to what Mr. Obama may have felt but the presumed constitutionality of law along with the dissent of 4 justices in Heller would certainly appear to show that it was not unreasonable to feel Chicago’s laws were constitutional.
What is Romney’s hidden meaning when he “believes that the right next step is for the Supreme Court to overturn Roe v. Wade”? It’s right from his website. I think he wants the Supreme Court to overturn it. What’s your read?
Obama’s opinion, pre-Heller, regarding the constitutionality of Chicago’s gun laws is relevant how?
Anyway, to the OP, having read Romney’s actual statement (“settled for some time in the courts”) rather than the thread title, and reading his statement on his campaign website has convinced me that he wants the Court to overturn Roe v. Wade and leave it up to the states.
Sure.
But turn your attention to the specific post I responded to:
I responded:
And then, lo and behold, I was asked for proof.
But the post I replied to? No such challenge, except by me.
I agree.
But I don’t agree that he intends to extract promises from potential nominees on the issue.
As relevant for divining Obama’s actual intent as Romney’s statements are to concluding that Romney will require promises from nominees on how they’ll rule.
That’s because Democrats generally, including Obama, aren’t radically anti-gun, so your statement didn’t make any sense. And, his statement regarding “what works for Wyoming” made pre-Heller backs up that sense that we all have.
Romney, however, seems to have meant exactly what BobLibDem assumed he meant, so his analysis was right on in this case. Romney really does want the Court to overturn Roe, exactly has BobLibDem stated.
Anyhoo, I’m sorry for continuing this ridiculous hijack, so I’ll stop there.
This is me not following this tangent about whether a hypothetical Romney presidency will extract promises from hypothetical Supreme Court nominees. This is quite the meandering road we’re on at this point.
Sorry, but I’m calling bullshit on this one.
The topic was “Romney again says Roe is “settled” law”. BobLibDem’s post was about Romney’s statement. Your post was not.
Just because somebody is making accusations against Romney doesn’t make counter-accusations against Obama relevant.
You’ve taken a thread about Romney’s statements on abortion and derailed it into a thread about Obama’s views on gun control.
Note that the change to no inspections took place when a pro-life Democrat (Casey) was replaced by a pro-choice Republican (Ridge). Later governors apparently weren’t sufficiently attentive to fix it, which is on them, but this policy apparently traces to–dun dun* dun*–GOP pennywise policies.
But hey, *they had their fun, let them risk death, *right? :rolleyes:
No. I offered an analogous line of reasoning, intended to show that the inference drawn from Romney’s actual statement was fallacious. I clearly said, “If I were…” to show that I wasn’t making the actual argument, but merely illustrating the fallacy of the BobLibDem conclusion.
Casey modified Roe by letting states regulate abortions pre-viability. But Roe was “effectively overturned” when W Bush was re-elected in 2004. Arguably Casey was as well. Roe and Casey set limits on how far states can regulate abortions. But with all the Bush appointments to the federal bench, including Alito and Roberts on the high court, it’s risky to sue when a state crosses those limits. At this point, pro-choice organizations are declining to sue lest they lose.
If you sue to get your state to comply with the standard in Casey as interpreted pre-Dubya, and the court says, no, the state is within its rights, you fail. What if that’s the best you can hope for? Better not to sue until enough liberal judges have been appointed to swing it back the other way. And during this time, states can pretty much regulate abortion as they please.
Neither the pro-life nor pro-choice activists want to admit it, but we are in a post-Roe era.
I can’t imagine it working, either. Every person in real life who has talked to me about why they vote Republican has always said it’s because of the pro-life foundation–that, if you are “murdering babies,” your platform is on a bedrock of death, and thus nothing else matters.
I was always the one saying that it shouldn’t be an issue, seeing as no Republican has any real intent to try and change anything.
I want to see Romney tell his base that what works for abortion in Utah won’t fly in New York.