Why We Lose with John McCain
Planned Parenthood Action Fund has launched a fantastic new site called The Truth About John McCain which sheds light on his consistently hostile record on women's health. Many Republicans believe the Senator is weak on conservative reproductive issues, but in fact, he has received a zero rating from PPAF, the lowest rating in the U.S. Senate. Here are just a few areas that cause real concern and should help convince readers to choose an alternative candidate March 4th.
Pregnancy Prevention
McCain voted against $100 million to help prevent unintended and teen pregnancies in 2005; the funds would have paid for family planning services and teenage pregnancy prevention programs. It is precisely these programs that help educate young adults on planned pregnancies and help prevent abortion.
Sex Education
John McCain has agreed with and reinforced President Bush's failed abstinence-only sex education programs by opposing legislation that would require lessons to be medically accurate and scientifically-based. Over a billion dollars has been spent on abstinence-only programs under Bush's watch, though there is no evidence that they work and much of the information shared with teens is blatantly false. Moreover, the messages are often confusing to students, 70% of which have engaged in sexual relations by the time they are 18. Senator McCain showed his ignorance on the subject when asked his position on comprehensive sex ed:
- Q: "What about grants for sex education in the United States? Should they include instructions about using contraceptives? Or should it be Bush's policy, which is just abstinence?
- Senator McCain: (Long pause) "Ahhh. I think I support the president's policy."
- Q: "So no contraception, no counseling on contraception. Just abstinence. Do you think contraceptives help stop the spread of HIV?"
- Senator McCain: (Long pause) "You've stumped me."
Women's Health
Not only did Senator McCain vote against extending Title X which provides low income and uninsured women with access to healthcare and family planning services like breast and cervical cancer screenings, yearly exams, and birth control, but he opposed contraceptive equity legislation in 2003 that would have required insurance companies that already cover prescription drugs to also cover prescription contraceptives for insured women. When asked about government funding of contraceptives, McCain responded: "I don't know."
Choice
John McCain has repeatedly supported overturning Roe v. Wade and often touts his "pro-life" credentials: "My position has been consistently in my voting record, pro-life, and I continue to maintain that position and voting record." McCain even opposed repealing the global gag rule in 2006 which bars foreign NGOs from receiving U.S. family planning assistance if they advocate for pro-choice policies in their own countries.
It is clear that if elected, John McCain will continue to chip away at women's healthcare and the reproductive freedoms of all Americans. I strongly urge you to join the One Million Strong campaign and join in the grassroots effort to elect pro-choice candidates to office who respect reproductive freedom and choice, promote women's healthcare and equity, and understand the value of comprehensive, accurate sex education.
We cannot afford another eight years of backward thinking and failed policies when it comes to important issues like family planning and choice. Tuesday, choose a candidate that recognizes the importance of choice, but gives Americans the tools to avoid the need for it.
By Annie - 2/29/2008
70 Comments:
Great post, Annie. It's amazing how many subjects McCain, when pressed on, seems to shrug his shoulders and admit that he's no expert in that. Last time I saw him do it the subject was: the economy.
i shudder to think about the supreme court situation if obama or clinton don't win in november.
there is no guarantee on how a justice will end up ruling, but i think we are on a precipice. not only on abortion rights, but on so many other issues as well.
good post, annie.
peace.
when i get all pissed and say i will vote against hillary if the nominee, i pause and think about the Supreme Court.
great post.
One should shudder if they look at the Supreme Court activism of the 1960's, rulings which were politically motivated and made a mockery of the highest court in the land.
You stated that McCain will chip away at the "reproductive freedoms of all Americans."
If you cannot support the child then I do not believe you should have "reproductive freedom." I realize that mistakes may happen and that one or two children may come about. But when I see a single mother with numerous children all under the age of 10 it absolutely disgusts me.
I feel terrible for the children because the odds are they will amount to nothing and commit crimes. It is not their fault because they were brought up in an environment where this type of behavior runs rampant.
And while I feel absolutely terrible for the children, I have nothing but rage for the mother. To be so irresponsible that you subject an innocent child's life to absolute hell is despicable. That child never asked to be brought into an environment where there is no father and there is little chance of ever being a success.
Masking the fact that a majority of the underprivileged kids have no parental influence and commit a majority of the nation's violent crimes by using the term "reproductive freedom" will continue to perpetuate today's notion that not being able to provide for your child is acceptable.
Furthermore, I am not sure if you have ever read the Constitution, but nowhere does it read or imply that the government has a responsibility to enable the poor in continuing to have children even though they cannot be supported.
I agree that McCain's stances on abortion and abstinence teaching are ridiculous however.
But honestly, how can one not look at all of the judidcial and political activism of the 1960's and think that it deserves a lot of the blame for the immoral and disgusting culture we live in today. Ever since the 1960's, out of wedlock births and crime have sky-rocketed. There is an obvious correlation that cannot be denied.
we outta pay people on welfare more if they don't have kids.
Silent Majority--great post, great post
what do you think about the supreme court chuckers
Come on, we all know what Chuck is going to say..
"Well the 1960's activism was great for this country. It wasn't politically motivated (haha) at all."
Anyways, I COMPLETELY agree we should pay people who cannot afford kids to not have them. I do not care what color they are, white, beige, mahogany, black, or purple. If the rest of society is going to have to pick up the tab for your child and pay for all of these programs that don't work, then we should at least have the option of paying to prevent these hopeless children.
Understand this (Stephanie Tubbs-Jones initiated every statement with this the other morning on Scarborough), if these social welfare programs actually worked, I would be all for them. I fully realize it is not the child's fault in that he was born to a single mother and has no father in his life.
And when I say work, I mean that success stories are no longer the exception, but become the general rule.
So that when we stereotype welfare programs, we stereotype them in a positive sense. However, after nearly 40 years of these ridiculous programs, that obviously is not going to happen.
It is just so obvious. Jews, Italians, and Irish were discriminated against when they first arrived, yet they put their heads down and went to work. They had big families, but they did not rely on Uncle Sam to foot the bill.
Contrast that with today. While blacks faced a much more egrigious form of discrimination, what does that have to do with having such a perposterous rate of fatherlessness?
Plus, I am not sure if any of you are aware, but there was a great migration of southern blacks to the north in the early to mid 1900's. They came to the north for factory jobs and other work. I point this out because it shows, regardless of what people like Chuck think, that blacks are hard workers. However, people like Chuck like to give the down-trodden a crutch because they believe they are inherently inferior. They think that when the going gets tough, the poor defenseless black cannot bust his ass. Well thats a crock of bull shit, and if we quit enabling them, they would prove otherwise.
We have enacted so many social programs that the need to move up no longer exists. people know that the 1st of the month-the check comes, why bust your ass when you can "get shit for free."
Also paying people who are on the govt dole to not have kids would STOP the cycle of poverty. It really is the best way to go
I also believe in annual surprise audits of people who are receiving govt handouts-to include drug screenings and must show some form of personal betterment over the course of a year-whether it be a set number of verified applications put out, or enrollment and progression in some sort of education (GED, trade certifiction, hell I would even accept work towards a basic level of literacy as personal betterment). We have accepted excuses for far too long, it is time we, as a nation make it an up or out attitude. We should always strive to preserve the opportunities to move forward, limit barriers to advancement, but we should cease supporting people who are content to live in a constant dependent state awaiting their govt handout.
That is the american way--not monthly handouts
I wanted to mention one thing Obama is wrong about...
He wants to pull the troops out of Iraq now? After we have completely decimated the country and have left it in a complete state of ruin? And not to mention that the surge has acutally led to some success.
While it was a crime for us to enter Iraq, we would only compound the problem if we just picked up and left.
Regarding his ditch analogy, it would be like driving the bus into Billy's ditch and destroying Billy's property, like his sewer. But instead of repairing Billy's sewer and giving him compensation, we just get the bus out of the ditch and start heading down the road. That is wrong.
It is so refreshing to read posts on this blog that aren't the typical teenage angst of Blame it on the Man!! that is so prevalent around here. It is a constant cycle of victimization that is manufactured to reinforce the notion of fighting some oppressive evil to unite around, most people grow out of this once they start paying their own bills. Bravo to posters such as silent who truly understand things outside of mommy & daddy funded college and the constant parade of misdirected anger at successful segments of society. Never once questioning why just immediately blaming those who do succeed. I don't know whether it is jealousy or just stupidity/naivete but whatever it is I find it so common amongst those who have had so much given to them that they can never comprehend a way to earn things on their own or appreciate what they were given.
Again silent and others continue posting on this blog, you are a voice of clarity in a chorus of confusion.
sm, you make some points to consider.
i got to thinking about it and want to add some stuff, for whatever it is worth.
first, poverty existed before the welfare programs were implimented. i don't really know what the birth rates were then compared to now, and i don't know what percentatge of them were single parent households.
i can tell you from doing a lot of genealogy in the last 15 years, that i have seen a great many records detailing a great many families with a great many children. this is going back into the 1800's.
sure, two parents were the norm. families with more than 6-10 kids were around, too.
we're they mostly poor? i don't know. i wasn't looking at that. but i kind of doubt that there was an overall relationship between increasing number of kids and increasing wealth, too.
so the relevant question for me becomes what was the poverty levels before the welfare era and what were they after?
here are some tables. lots and lots of tables.
it is almost too much to take in since there are so many different break downs of the data.
have a blast looking the over :)
just from scanning a few, things don't look so dire as you paint. but that is just a few since 1959. you can probably find others depending on the particular breakdown of the numbers.
but whatever. let's assume the poverty levels are about the same over all. the number of single parent households may be up. how does that relate to the welfare system? there may be a correspondence between the two, but i can't see how receiving welfare makes a parent more likely not to be there.
that seems to me more a societal issue. or a family values issue.
if it were a poverty issue or a number of kids issue, then i'd think that the numbers would have risen long long ago.
also, i am not saying that the welfare system doesn't have it's problems. i just don't think things are as open and shut as you portray them. i could be wrong, though. i stand to be corrected.
that's just my two cents. i haven't thought about it in these terms until brought up these particular points, sm. thanks for doing that. it's something to consider.
thoughts?
You never address the larger issue of providing incentive of people on govt handouts to better themselves AND not have children?
any thoughts?
also I feel the term welfare needs to be changed t govt handout. I am tired of euphemisms. I would also accept "the dole" or "govt dole"
i was only addressing the portrayed relationship between welfare and the increasing number of single parent households and increased poverty.
i have looked at some of the other tables. i saw number that indicated that the percentage of single parent households (no male present) has actually gone donw since the mid 60's.
as far as paying ppl not to have children, again, i haven't thought about it much but right off top of my head i don't see an issue with it.
it's all up for discussion. it's a good topic.
welfare...dole. what is the difference in meaning that so appeals to you?
Way to go Planned Parenthood for starting this now instead of 3 months before the election! I fully believe that this information needs to get out now, not right before the election. Great post!
Argh! Without taking a side, I suggest y'all read the SC decision in Roe v. Wade. It's a joke of a decision that sights "penumbras and emanations" of the Bill of Rights.
I also get confused when you look at the Laci and Connor Law, which resulted from the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child.
The law states that you will be charged with murder if a fetus is killed.
If the fetus was not viable, and permitted to be aborted under Roe v. Wade, then how can you be charged with murdering it?
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 states that a child in utero has constitutional rights, and is protected from over 60 acts of violence. Yet when you talk about abortion, the fetus has no rights.
It cannot be both ways. Our rights are unalienable, and cannot be taken away. A fetus either has the rights provided by the Constitution, or does not have any rights. And make no mistake...the newer laws do not address the rights of the mother...they address the constitutional rights of the fetus.
I'd like your opinions on this topic.
Very good reading here and excellent thoughts. Russ - you're are gettin better every day - my man
My 2 cents: The 60's "Supreme Court Activism" - this is nowhere to project all the blame for todays situation. The major 60's agenda was based in bringing the Blacks out of virtual slavery. If blame is to be projected, which I dont waste too much time on, project it onto marketeers who sell kids 100 dollar shoes and 391%APR "payday" loans.
When there is no reasonable expectation of making a living for any reason or by any legal means in a society - there is nothing left but crime, screwing and mayhem.
I but the scenerio about the hard worker and upstanding American succeeding. But- bear in mind that today the deck is heavily stacked and there is much that needs done to relieve this situation.
It was once said that whatever the government SUBSIDIZES - we get MORE of....so how about a trend toeward sponsoring some of the fundamental items like education and job creation?
Individual responsibility is just fine but it behooves Govt to encourage it by all means even if theat means throwing some bones.
Incidentally Russ, I read the const. as guaranteeing rights regardless of the citizen's age. Unfortunately, its anyone's guess or viewpoint as to exactly when from conception to nine months later that those rights kick in.
I remember my attorney telling me the the Roe v Wade controversy has the potential to destroy the Nation.
This was at the time that the SC had just decided the case.
Maybe the real lesson is to have sex responsibly or not at all.
First, I want to state that I think all of these points are well thought out and raise important questions.
Ada,
You noted that poverty existed before the welfare programs. I agree with you 100% (see jews, irish, and italians). However, there was a different progression back then. When the immigrants came here, the first generation might have been poor, but succeessive generations flourished. Both parents busted their ass to ensure that their kids got an education. The successive generations left the "cycle of poverty". What is most impressive, is that these families did it WITHOUT the welfare programs.
Now contrast that with what goes on today. Today, the "cycle of poverty" is accepted as if it is inevitable. I firmly believe this is so because of all of the enabling welfare programs of the 1960's created a mentality of dependency and entitlement. These programs eradicated the immigrant mentality that while one or two generations may have to toil in factory work, etc, future generations get out (once again, see Jews, Irish, Italians).
And as for the rate of single mothers, in the 1920's blacks had fewer children out of wedlock than whites. Now no one can dispute that the racism of the 1920's was 50000000x worse than that of today. But regardless, what does racism have to do with fatherlessness?
Petey, you rail against the corporations who are selling shoes for $100. All I can say is that if no one bought the damn shoes they would not be able to sell them for such an astronomical price. And while I have sympathy for those who got tricked into the mortgage crisis, I have no sympathy for some moron who spends $100 on shoes when they are receiving welfare benefits. At the very least, reading a mortgage can be confusing.
Russ,
The best part of Roe v. Wade is Justice Goldberg's use of the 9th amendment...what a joke.
I am not even a pro-lifer, but how they manipulated the constitution was absolutely scary.
some of our readers must stay awake at night getting so worked up about me, a guy in his 20s with no real influence. funny to me.
anyway, for all those (SM, anonymous, others) living in some fantasy land about "judicial activism", i submit the following examples of Conservative Judicial Activism:
- recent Roberts Court decision to strike down Seattle school boards laws on school integration
- the SC constantly overriding the will over juries in settlement awards
- of course, the supremes overriding the will of Florida law and demanding GW Bush be named president in 2000
- when employee safety and other rights laws are struck down, that is judicial activism
The examples go on.
But that is to be ignored.
When Scalia goes outside the text of the Constitution, its okay. When Thomas upholds racial preferences for historically black colleges (because they supported his appointment), that is okay. When the Roberts Court has "actively" struck down more laws passed by lawmakers than any time in recent history, this is all okay.
Just realize this everyone:
when the conservative/strict constructionists justices that SM and other anonymous conservatives support act like hypocrites and bend the constitution, its okay.
(my point, which i have given dozens of times, is that all judges are activists that interpret the constitution to support their goals. they are all activists. its just that the liberals have the honesty to admit their activism....the conservatives like Scalia/Thomas are frauds that purport to never bend their views, but they have in the past, so they are frauds....and anyone that espouses such love for them, or hate for the libera justices, are simply living in a fantasy land)
"activists that interpret the constitution to support their goals"
do you really believe that
i figured that the term "judicial activists" meant judges that ruled in a way that the conservative talking heads didn't like. those talking heads and others of their ilk are the only ones i have ever heard use the term.
the constitution is finite. does anyone really believe that it is possible, over 200 years later, to strictly apply the words to every aspect of our society?
not being a scholar, i am just making noise i suppose, but wasn't it purposely vague in some/many aspects exactly for the reason of making it a living, growing thing?
doesn't that force, then, "judicial activism" regardless of the political persuasion?
sm, good points. it's something to digest. i don't really have a response. i have to think about it :)
my shoes cost $40. i still wear chucks. that they are made in china bothers me a lot.
Ada,
Maybe you should spend a little more time researching the facts. Before the war on poverty there was a direct correlation betwen single family households and the economy.Patrick Monehyaen(sp) tried to point out the unintended consequences of the govenrment programs that he was instrumental in designing but what was blasted as a racist etc. The lesson learned there is the facts dont matter and if you think they do you are a racist.
SM: Who is "railing" - I was just stating a reality and also making a point about the whole marketing mechanism that produces the peer pressure and the 100 dollar shoes. KeY word in my statement was MARKETEERS.
Do you really believe that all the responsibility for the consumer cult of late goes to the juvenile consumer?
History: My family originated as well off immigrants (Irish) in the Pittsburgh area circa 1800. They worked hard as in your model and prospered - owning some prime land near downtown Pittsburgh today. Two major events intervened: Th Civil War and the Great Depression. The GDP left the family, along with a mass murder in which 5 of my cousins and my aunt were murdered, destitute and on "relief" We started over at my parents level and are generally doing fine today.
Point is: Without New Deal Relief and the GI Bill of Rights the family may have died out. You should search your own family past and you may discover that a handout was proffered.
And: You should have large concern and even sympathy for the extent that our you are being "marketed" by comsuption/cult marketeers.
Note : My examples of predatory lending (Check Cashing Rackets) and predatory marketeering (Peer pressure marketing to juveniles) are one and the same beast.
Other than that, I think we are all on about the same page and its quite refreshing to witness right-moderate-left coming so close on issues that would surely harm the Nation
In General: ITS way too late for finger pointing on most major issues. As Fred, I believe, pointed out - what is gravely needed is an affirmative effort to CORRECT major problems.
that is: Its TIme for ACTION
Just Curious: Why do these threads (most threads) always include a Chuck Bashing?
I have been reading him for yrs and doesnt anyone other than me see that he is a chain yanker?
Blogon Chuck
anonymous, in Bush v. Gore, every justice went against their supposed views on State's rights. so yes, all of them push their agenda.....maybe i should say "at times", instead of always. but when you are willing to compromise your principle at times, you don't actually have principles.
thanks petey. good times
"If one candidate's trying to scare you and the other one's trying to get you to think; if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better vote for the person who wants you to think and hope" -Bill Clinton
fred, with all respect, i have no idea what you said.
you say i should research facts, but then "the facts dont matter and if you think they do you are a racist".
i should research them, but with the mindset that they don't matter? i know this isn't what you meant, but i can't figure it out.
regardless, i supplied a link to lots of census data about poverty. i looked over a few of them generally. all i can tell you is this:
from what i looked at, generally, since 1959, the percentage of ppl below the poverty line has dropped for the listed callsifications. right through the war on poverty of the 60's.
from what i read, the percentage of single parent homes (no males) dropped since the mid 60's for all listed classifications.
not in every case for both of these, but overall that is the trend.
the discussion here, in part, went along the lines of the welfare system has produced more welfare recipients and a cycle of dependancy. sm brought up some interesting points about this.
i suppose i could could go back to school and take course on it, or immerse myself in the many facets involved.
but, in effect, i did exactly as you recommended. i researched and posted. i backed off at interpreting the data since that's tricky and a whole other area.
what do you want? i went to the census!
"Convictions can change but fear remains"
Stalin
SM,
The Irish, Jewish, etc... families were never broken up and sold at the whim of a "master." Imagine what that would do you your family values if you came home from work to discover that your wife and son had been sold to two different owners becuase your boss was having a bad year and needed extra money, and there was nothing you could do about it. Granted it was a long time ago, but it was white people who started the tradion of breaking up black families.
Or if the Jews, Irish, Italians, Germans, Pols, Slovacs were all lumped together as being the same because they all had white skin. If their skin color is white they all must have the same sense of values, tradition and famliy.
We wouldn't need social welware programs if people who were better off went out of their way to help the less fortunate i.e. mentoring, volunteering, tutoring instead of out of their way to avoid them. I understand I'm a huge hypocrite because I don't do any of these things, but there's always tomorrow.
Thank BJ, that about sums it up....Incidentally, many groups of "white" persons were enslaved throughout history- not too distant history and pert of American History- ask the Irish about indentured servitude
Heres your chance to do some charity work:
Operation Seabee CARE Packages
Chuck, you point to the sct decision in Seattle as an example of judicial activism and I completely disagree with you. All the justices did was restore the constitution and overturn some of the activist decisions of the 1960's.
I say the decisions of the 1960's were activist because they were establishing new found rights that are nowhere to be found in the constitution. A judges job is to interpret the constitution. While I realize there is more than one way to skin a cat, establishing completely new rights that are nowhere to be found is not one of them. That is what I mean by activism.
I mean Brown v. Board was activist in the sense that it overturned Plessy. But the Brown decision, establishing equal protection, could easily be deciphered from the 14th. It did not just come out of nowhere.
You point to Roberts striking down the most state legislation. Well there is a very simple response: if the legislation conflicts with the constitution, there is a little thing called the Supremacy Clause, which means that the Constitution reigns supreme. Therefore, if these state laws violated the constitution, they should be struck down. You can distort the word "activism" if you want, but that is not activism.
Petey, there is a huge difference between FDR's New Deal and the GI Bill. The GI Bill was used to reward men for their service to this country. In other words, the men actually earned it.
The New Deal was enacted to stop the country from entering economic ruin and revolution (see Germany 1930's). These were necessary laws that created jobs and protected workers.
These two enactments were completely different from the welfare programs of today and the 1960's. The welfare programs of today reward you for not earning money and having children you cannot support.
Another key point is that the GI Bill and the New Deal actually worked. Today's programs do not work. Can you see the difference.
BJ,
When the Irish, Italians, and Jews came, frequently only one member of the family came over at a time and thus there was separation.
"Granted it was a long time ago, but it was white people who started the tradion of breaking up black families." ~ BJ
As I noted earlier, blacks had a lower rate of divorce and out of wedlock births than whites in the 1920's, when racism was 500000x worse. So my question is, if they were able to keep the family unit together in the 1920's, but cannot do it now, how can you go back to the 1700's as an excuse?
"We wouldn't need social welware programs if people who were better off went out of their way to help the less fortunate i.e. mentoring, volunteering, tutoring instead of out of their way to avoid them."
I do not understand this. Are you saying that there were more volunteers and more programs for the poor back in the early 1900's? I would disagree.
"I understand I'm a huge hypocrite because I don't do any of these things, but there's always tomorrow."
A perfect example of why your idealism does not work.
Furthermore BJ, Jews were almost wiped off the face of this earth just 60 years ago. Following your logic, you would have thought their culture would have gone to hell. But no, because they understand the importance of family and education, they have flourished.
Paternalistic Chuck,
The Supreme Court decision in Bush v. Gore was a disgusting decision of judicial activism and one would be hard-pressed to disagree.
However, that does not mean that the decisions of the 1960s, decisions that said criminals have "fundamental rights" that must be protected in state and federal courts, weren't absurd. Decisions that enforced busing black kids with white kids...where is that in the constitution?
And while I believe the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a very moral enactment, it should have been struck down. Even you cannot say that the federal government can use the commerce clause to tell a private individual they are not allowed to discriminate. A man should be able to do whatever he wants with his property.
And while I know it's a funny thought, I really don't stay up all night thinking of these things. Your arguments are generally based on passion and are quite simplistic, and thus it does not take much thought to disprove them.
sm, i know all about your views that they are just "restoring" the constitution. however, conservatives have constantly labeled any judge that interferes as an "activist" (schiavo judges, federal judges telling that goof in alabama to take out the 10 commandments, etc). Ronald Reagan railed against judges that "short-circuiting the electoral process" - that is another example of the conservatives saying: DONT MESS WITH THE LAW.
Add to that, Roberts, when sworn in talked all about keeping "precedent" being the judiciary roll - umm, when they overturn all sorts of past precedents, then Roberts, by his own definition, is being an activist.
And without Marbury v. Madison, we would not have a functioning democracy. So thank god the "activist" judges did not listen to you!
And the larger point is ignored, they are all hypocrites. Like I said, if you are willing to break principle at times, you have no principles. Accordingly, there is not one single SC Justice that fits the mold of what you desire.
SM
Why are there so many falling through the cracks and into the social safety net?
The BIG picture needs "fixed" - like I have said, that includes jobs, education and inhibiting all the present predatory menaces that contribute to our youth falling into the safety net.
Would you endorse an expansion of social programs modeled upon programs that have historically worked such as the GI Bill, the CCC, You tell me?
I have a feeling that you are a rightist who opposes same.
There is a monumental problem evidenced by large amounts of Non-Productive Americans...difference that i perceive between you and me is that I place less of the responsibility upon the citizen than I do on other ambient causes. My moderate position also holds that a person with absolutely NO initiative to succeed deserves about nothing. This may be where "education" coes into the equation.
Tell me that we agree on most of this
The American ethic, the idea that one can pull themselves up by the boot straps, created the strongest and most innovative country in modern history.
Obviously the government needs to provide education, defense, and must interfere in the economy at times of potential economic ruin.
But I believe the government has no right in creating social programs that do not work. They have created programs that have retarded the American ideal and, in its place, brought about dependency and lack of drive.
However, my number one culprit is the family. The family as we once knew it, has been eroded and castigated. No government program can ever replace or supplant the family, as the family is instrumental in the development of a child. This is where the focus needs to turn.
"I place less of the responsibility upon the citizen than I do on other ambient causes."
What are the ambient causes?
While the Roberts court has been activist in the sense that they have overturned precedent, they have not been activist in the sense of creating rights that never existed. You are a lawyer, can you not understand the difference?
1. Warren creates rights with penumbras, bloated definitions of "liberty"; these rights are not implied nor stated in the constitution.
2. Roberts overturning of precedent was an attempt to restore the constitution to the days pre Warren. There is a big difference. He is not creating rights out of thin air.
It is silly to get into an argument about semantics. But if your definition of "activist" is overturning precedent, then I suppose every court has been activist. But your definition is ridiculously broad and relegates the word to no meaning.
i understand the difference!
however, that is not how the public debate has been framed by Republicans - do you understand the difference!
"activist judges" did not kill Schaivo, nor take the 10 commandments out of the courts.....but those are examples of what the conservatives yell loudest about.
and you still ignore the ultimate reality: THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A TRULY PRINCIPLED "STRICT CONTSTRUCTIONIST" because even the heroes like Scalia and Thomas have whored out their supposed dying principles.
accordingly, the idea of a strict constructionist judge is a myth. they allow the constitution to live and breath - only the liberals admit it, and the conservatives lie and live in fantasy land.
and your fantasy ignores Marbury vs. Madison, which was activism. the very activism that has held our democracy together.
but go ahead and keep complaining about activism, as if there is some magical alternative.
SM, the big picture of shitty education, predatory lending/marketing, no jobs, and consequently family breakdow are the ambient elements
Incidentally, on the radio today Republican SC Judge Clarence Thomas has been rated by the AP as doing absolutely NOTHING - he has not even asked ONE question in ONE Case for TWO whole years.
OORAH Clarence Baby!
Hey dip shit Chuck, can you understand that I am not a Republican. I could care less the way they frame the issue, for that has nothing to do with me.
You're like a McCarthyite. Anyone who has a view remotely differnt from yours you call a Republican or some nonsense.
Petey, what the hell are you talking about? Who cares if he doesn't ask questions? Should he do it merely so people like you quit ridiculing him?
Who cares what how the AP rates him? Do you care that Obama was rated the most liberal senator? Point is, these polls mean very little.
"I place less of the responsibility upon the citizen than I do on other ambient causes."
"...shitty education, predatory lending/marketing, no jobs, and consequently family breakdow."
That makes no sense Petey. You don't blame citizens, but instead you blame the family breakdown?? You fool, a family is comprised of citizens. God you make no sense.
CHuck doesn't even know what he is talking about. He just pretty much accuses everyone else of doing it, so that makes it ok. Then he starts rambling about the ten commandments and Schiavo. It is like pulling the string on a betsy wetsy doll, no matter how many times you pull it you always get the same answer. Oh and if you disagree with him you are a Republican (which in his book is worse than the devil).
i never called you a republican. i just pointed out that the entire issue of "judicial activism" has been framed in a certain way by retarded conservative notions. i dispute the entire way the debate has been framed.
now if you have your own way of framing the issue fine. seems like you are framing it in the supposed textual/strict construction sense.
well, that has led to my 2nd point: there has never been a true textualist/strict constructionist in the history of the SC, so i don't really give any merit to those that pine for such a concept. those people that act like the scalia's of the world are on to something are living in a fantasy land and duped by hypocrites.
Chuck, is it possible that, although every judge has had moments of activism, some judges have these moments more than others?
I mean, I know Thomas ended up supporting affirmative action (he was kinda bullied into it during his confirmation hearings, though!) but seriously, when you compare him to the left wing of the court, his record of defended the constitution as written is just better.
SM: Is this perfectly clear?:
1.) You are a meathead - I am not a fool.
2.)Thomas is a yes man for those who appointed him. Other than that function-- he is as woothless as a foot long terd with all the shit scraped off.
3.) If you are unable to understand what I say - Get your sorry ass back to school.
Clear enough?
Have a Great Day!
Jeezuz Keeriste Chuck!!!:
DO NOT CALL THESE IDIOTS REPUBLICANS!
Give the IDIOTs some charitable consideration there fellow!
JEFF, sure. Thomas goes outside the text less. good for him. He still has gone outside, into a evolving constitution theory, which makes him and his entire claims of textualism is FRAUD. that is why i like the liberal judges better....they don't espouse themselves to some notion of their own grand theory. they admit they pick and choose interpretation.
The liberals are honest in their approach, generally admitting they will allow the constitution to adapt.
Meanwhile, those conservatives act like they done, but do when it suits them. So they are FRAUDS.
I just keep repeating myself, so i dont know the point anymore
Petey,
you calling SM a meathead makes me picture you as a 5th grader who just lost a game of teatherball on the playground and resorts to name calling.
Petey, you sound like an incoherent drunken uncle at a family party. Write some ideas.
Chuck:
So when liberal judges swear to uphold the constitution, and then don't, that isn't it's own kind of fraud?
Seriously, I think those on the progressive left will RUE the day when rightwing judges start going activist with their ideas. Big government is only good for ya'll if the people in charge think like you do. You are sacrificing the individual protections granted by that document in order to make it easier to advance an agenda. Shameful, and dangerous!
I know you keep repeating yourself, Chuck, and by now you should have realized how illogical your position is.
If I rob a store, and then i say I didn't do it, I'm being an asshole.
If you rob a store, and admit it, but say that you believe it is ok to rob a store, that doesn't make you any better.
There are many activist ruling that I agree with, chuck. Many of them actually give American's more rights than they had before. I like that. But I would rather the courts do their job, and interpret the document honestly. That constitution is all the protects us from a more authoritarian state, don't mess it up!
Petey, you sound like an incoherent drunken uncle at a family party. Write some ideas.
Chuck:
So when liberal judges swear to uphold the constitution, and then don't, that isn't it's own kind of fraud?
Seriously, I think those on the progressive left will RUE the day when rightwing judges start going activist with their ideas. Big government is only good for ya'll if the people in charge think like you do. You are sacrificing the individual protections granted by that document in order to make it easier to advance an agenda. Shameful, and dangerous!
I know you keep repeating yourself, Chuck, and by now you should have realized how illogical your position is.
If I rob a store, and then i say I didn't do it, I'm being an asshole.
If you rob a store, and admit it, but say that you believe it is ok to rob a store, that doesn't make you any better.
There are many activist ruling that I agree with, chuck. Many of them actually give American's more rights than they had before. I like that. But I would rather the courts do their job, and interpret the document honestly. That constitution is all the protects us from a more authoritarian state, don't mess it up!
jeff, here's the thing: i agree with the notion of an evolving constitution. so it doesn't bother me that justices also follow that.
what bothers me is that say 'we can't go outside the text' and then go outside the text.
Jeff- I did, you either didnt read them or ignored them. The Uncle thing is real cute