General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPlease answer this question "yes" or "no."
No prevarication, no "weasel words," no justification, no "no, but's," just a single word response "yes" or "no."
Would you tolerate a Democratic nominee for the Supreme Court who said in a confirmation hearing that "there is no Federal Constitutional right to an abortion"?
One word only: yes or no.
| 44 votes, 2 passes | Time left: Unlimited | |
| Yes | |
10 (23%) |
|
| No | |
34 (77%) |
|
| 2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided. | |
| Show usernames
Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll |
|
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
TeamPooka
(25,345 posts)No means no.
Aristus
(68,526 posts)n/t
AJTheMan
(288 posts)Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)As you know, DU'ers are expected to be supportive of choice, which suggests an impure motive for your poll.
As tempting as it is to take your bait, some words need to be defined, such as "tolerate".
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Yes or no?
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Does that work for you?
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)So you now have no right to criticize me for being offended when my rights are trampled upon for expediency's sake when others' rights should automatically disqualify a nominee.
lumberjack_jeff
(33,224 posts)Fine.
So are you saying we should vote Republican instead?
Door #1 or door #2. Pick only one.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)I am not saying we should vote Republican. I'm saying that voting Democratic did not keep an anti-gay jurist off the bench.
SidDithers
(44,273 posts)Sid
ProSense
(116,464 posts)"I am not saying we should vote Republican. I'm saying that voting Democratic did not keep an anti-gay jurist off the bench. "
...you just decided to mount a bogus campaign against Kagan by asking a trick question about abortion?
HubertHeaver
(2,526 posts)It is a medical procedure and its use comes under patient-doctor privilege. It is none of the states' business.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Answer the question yes or no.
HubertHeaver
(2,526 posts)The right to abortion exists under the right to privacy. Defend the right to privacy.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)"There is no Federal Constitutional right to privacy?"
Yes or no.
HubertHeaver
(2,526 posts)The right to privacy is in the federal constitution. A nominee who would state otherwise would be wholly unqualified to sit as a judge at any level.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)The right to privacy is derived from the Court the same way the right to marry was derived. The right of privacy through Roe v. Wade and the right to marriage through Loving v. Virginia.
So where do you come down on a nominee who says there is no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage?
HubertHeaver
(2,526 posts)your motives were indeed disingenuous.
As I pointed out before, there is not a constitutional right to abortion; rather a constitutional right to freedom of religion, speech, and assembly, the right to privacy, freedom from unlawful and unethical abuse of power by a governing body, freedom from violation of civil liberties and unlawful expansion of governmental power. The constitution also grants equal rights and protection under the law.
The law does not enumerate what you are allowed to do but does enumerate what you cannot do (and the penalties if you do).
Why did you ask about abortion when your real question was about the fourteenth amendment and same-gender marriage?
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)First, both abortion and same-sex marriage are extremely controversial issues in the political arena.
Second, the reasoning in Roe and in Loving are basically rooted in the same place: the Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments. Neither right (privacy nor marriage) is expressly stated in the Constitution but are recognized as fundamental rights which cannot be unduly restricted.
Third, the Democratic Party (although some refuse to admit it) have made abortion a litmus test. And rightly so. We wouldn't and shouldn't dream of nominating someone who did not believe in the Constitutional underpinnings of Roe.
Yet because it's politically expedient the right of LGBT*.* to equal protection under the law gets thrown under the bus by a Democratic appointment to the Court and a Democratic President does nothing.
When Bush nominated someone to the Court who turned out to be less than 1,275% against abortion and activists complained, he yanked her nomination quickly. When Obama nominated someone to the Court who disdained a fundamental right when applied to LGBT*.* she was lauded and confirmed.
I will never forgive Obama for not pulling her appointment, and I will never forgive my Senators for voting to confirm her. I won't necessarily vote against them but I will never be able to fully trust them again.
And for all of the people on here who voted "no," none of you have any right to ever tell me that we have to vote for Obama because otherwise the Supreme Court is lost for a generation. Thanks to Obama, the Court already is lost for at least a generation as far as LGBT*.* people are concerned. And the more you hammer away at the Court as an issue, the further you drive the wedge between the Party and a loyal part of its base who were gleefully discarded until they turned their back on the Party at the midterms.
SidDithers
(44,273 posts)It's about marriage equality.
Sid
kentuck
(112,895 posts)would be an incomplete response. Just because the Constitution does not state a " right to an abortion" does not mean it does not grant other rights that might include the right to privacy and the right to an abortion.
Unfortunately, does not serve a positive purpose by answering yes or no.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Would you tolerate it, yes or no?
kentuck
(112,895 posts)that clarifies very little.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Yes or no?
kentuck
(112,895 posts)Sorry.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Have a nice day. Good bye.
kentuck
(112,895 posts)It sounded sort of like, "Would you like to kiss my ass?" Answer yes or no!
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)prevarication means lying... which none of them are doing. Perhaps you were looking for "discussing" or "quibbling"?
Chiyo-chichi
(3,754 posts)Perhaps "equivocation" is the word the OP is looking for?
kdmorris
(5,649 posts)was attempting to come up with this morning LOL
SidDithers
(44,273 posts)is there a Federal Constitutional right to an abortion?
Sid
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Why would I have to justify my answer?
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Just answer yes or no.
Chorophyll
(5,179 posts)Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Thank you.
dsc
(52,668 posts)One, a person can be pro choice but not think there is a federal right to abortion embedded in the right to privacy. So one can answer the poll question yes and still be a member of DU in good standing.
Two, this poll is intended to be an analogy of Kagan's statement in regards to marriage equality.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)It's intended to show how some people's civil rights are seen as important enough to form litmus tests, and others are not.
Any Democratic nominee who would say that there is no right to abortion (or for the purists, a right to privacy) would have their nomination pulled so quickly that the Senators' heads would be forced back from the contrails.
But let someone say that there is no right to same-sex marriage, they not only don't get pulled but get praised and confirmed.
As far as I'm concerned, any nominee who is against anyone's civil rights not only doesn't deserve confirmation they don't deserve to be a Democrat.
And so far only three people on all of DU have a right to oppose me on that without being a hypocrite.
Update: Now it's four.
kelly1mm
(5,360 posts)here on DU all the time. Obviously, some peoples' civil rights are more worthy of protection is the eyes of many here. For some that is marriage equality, others privacy, others RKBA. I wish it would be ALL civil rights that were respected as you seem to call for.
Do you think that a nominee who is against the civil right to firearm ownership does not deserve confirmation or to be considered a Democrat?
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Yes.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)I'm not suggesting that people who answer "yes" don't belong on DU.
That's why I voted "yes".
clang1
(884 posts)It's a womans body. Period.
Gman
(24,780 posts)that means nothing.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Answer the question.
Gman
(24,780 posts)But I don't feed trolls.
Ikonoklast
(23,973 posts)"Equivocation" is a more correct word; you are asking people not to lie when asking them not to prevaricate in answering.
But, there is no specific Constitutional guarantee to an abortion, there is, however, a right to privacy specifically enumerated within that document under which right having an abortion is legally allowable.
Any jurist answering differently would be in error.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)and I chose it carefully.
SidDithers
(44,273 posts)"We commend the Senate for confirming Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. She has demonstrated a understanding of the need for equality for all Americans and her record indicates she may be more familiar with how laws and policies affect the LGBT community than any previously confirmed Justice," said HRC President Joe Solmonese
WASHINGTON - The Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights organization, today applauded the United States Senate for confirming Solicitor General Elena Kagan as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. The Senate voted 63-37 with 5 Republicans voting in favor of her confirmation and 1 Democrats voting against it.
"We commend the Senate for confirming Solicitor General Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court," said HRC President Joe Solmonese. "She has demonstrated an understanding of the need for equality for all Americans and her record indicates she may be more familiar with how laws and policies affect the LGBT community than any previously confirmed Justice."
On July 1, after thoroughly reviewing her record and her responses to questions posed by the Senate Judiciary Committee, HRC formally announced its endorsement of Kagan. In her testimony before the Committee, she indicated an understanding of the important issues facing many Americans, including those who are LGBT. Her opening statement pointed out what she saw as the command to every justice - the pursuit of Equal Justice Under Law - and argued for a "fair shake for every American." She also took the opportunity to clarify a statement from her Solicitor General confirmation regarding the lack of a constitutional right to marry for same-sex couples as simply an assessment of where the law currently stands.
Kagan's record shows she has worked on LGBT issues during many phases of her career. While in the Clinton White House, she was involved in LGBT issues ranging from expanding hate crimes legislation to preventing employment discrimination to increasing funding for HIV and AIDS prevention and treatment. As Dean of Harvard Law School, Kagan supported the LGBT community and passionately defended the school's sexual orientation anti-discrimination policy when it conflicted with the discriminatory "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" law - a law she called "a profound wrong - a moral injustice of the first order."
HRC is particularly pleased to see the fourth woman to serve on our nation's highest court and the third woman sitting on the current Supreme Court, marking the highest representation of women on the Court in its history. In addition, she will be the only member of the current Court to have not previously served as a judge - which ends the recent historical anomaly of having a Court comprised entirely of justices that entered the Court from the bench. This increased diversity will help provide greater perspectives to the Court, particularly regarding how the law affects everyday people, including LGBT Americans.
Learn more about federal judicial nominations and follow our work on these crucial issues on HRC's Equality in the Courts by visiting: www.HRC.org/EqualityInTheCourts.
The Human Rights Campaign is America's largest civil rights organization working to achieve lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender equality. By inspiring and engaging all Americans, HRC strives to end discrimination against LGBT citizens and realize a nation that achieves fundamental fairness and equality for all.
Sid
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)
FreeState
(10,696 posts)SidDithers
(44,273 posts)Sid
TlalocW
(15,631 posts)I suck at tests.
TlalocW
EFerrari
(163,986 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)Roe versus Wade does not establish a constitutional right to an abortion. It does provide that there is a right to an abortion prior to the fetus being viable (able to live independently).
So a nominee could state unequivocally that they support Roe v Wade and would vote to uphold it, while still not accepting that there is a Federal Constitutional right to abortion.
Oh, and BTW, in 2008 we "tolerated" a Democratic Presidential candidate who, at the time, believed that "marriage is between a man and a woman..... God is in the mix".
Brother Buzz
(37,960 posts)I was going to respond that this was a trick question and the correct answer was yes AND no.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)You helped make my point. Some rights are more equal than others with our party, sadly.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)1). It could be interpreted as "what do you believe the law should be" vs " what is the current state of the law.".
2). There is no constitutional right to a lot of things that wind up covered by the right to privacy.
3). Legal interpretation is not the same as political agenda or values.
Douglas Carpenter
(20,226 posts)There is no constitutional right to quality healthcare for all citizens. But I think there should be.
ProSense
(116,464 posts)a RW dishonest poll. Death Panels!
Clearly most people don't have a clue that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion.
So are you attempting to trap people into supporting a POV by asking a trick question?
Disingenuous at best.
Macoy51
(239 posts)“Clearly most people don't have a clue that there is no Constitutional right to an abortion.”
Not every good thing is a Constitutional right. Every issue is not a binary, constitutional right vs. unconstitutional. Can you imagine a nation that only allowed things listed? A poll asking if single player health care is a Constitutional right is not the same as asking if I support it.
Macoy
LeftishBrit
(41,307 posts)However, I would be deeply suspicious of such a person, in any country.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)For another thing, this subject is not a black and white issue. Also, it's not just about abortion. It's also about the right to privacy.
I am as big of a supporter of abortion rights as anyone here, but this kind of absolutism is not realistic.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)except she said it about gay marriage.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)Marriage equality and abortion are 2 completely seperate things.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)And attitudes like yours are the problem, and what keeps LGBT*.* second class citizens in society and fifth-class citizens in our party.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)If you had stated honestly that Justice Kagan said it in regards to marriage equality, you wouldn't be getting so much grief as you are now.
You said it was about abortion. Abortion is a complicated subject and not black and white.
Your intention was to put people in a corner and when you saw them equivocate on abortion, you jumped on them saying it was in fact about marriage equality.
In other words, if we aren't in lockstep with your less than honest approach on this, you are saying we're bigots.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)I want to know whether people on DU put up with what Kagan said because they don't believe in litmus tests, or because they don't care about gay rights.
I've found it's the latter.
Right to choice? Important to Democrats. Marriage equality? Not so much.
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)They are different subjects. You cannot reasonably expect people to react the same when you are not being honest with them about the subject. Abortion is a complicated issue and the Dem party is filled with pro-life people who support marriage equality.
Bettie
(17,288 posts)Non-negotiable
JonLP24
(29,354 posts)if he/she said that during a confirmation hearing. I don't want Justices deciding cases in confirmation hearings.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)I actually meant to vote 'yes.' Why 'yes'? Because there is no Federal Constitutional right to an abortion. There is a Federal Constitutional right to privacy, first articulated in Griswold v. New Hampshire (1964), which revolved around access to birth control and became part of the precedent for Roe v. Wade, IIRC.
So if a SC nominee said there were no Constitutional right to abortion, he or she would nominally be correct and so, yes, I could support him or her. Now if said nominee said there were no constitutional right to privacy, why that's a whole different ballgame.
dmallind
(10,437 posts)The only thing an answer here shows is that a "yes" indicates an absolute litmus test not even for being pro-choice, but for insisting that abortion in and of itself is constitutionally guaranteed. There is both a basic and an auxiliiary problem with that.
Basic: the right to an abortion is not per se guaranteed by the constitution. It is instead a right which is in reality outside it (like the right to have a tooth pulled) and in case law inherent in the right to privacy (you can have whatever bona fide medical procedure you want without the government sticking its nose in).
Auxilliary: litmus tests on single issues that are tangential to jurisprudence (as opposed to an overall approach) are a sign of shallow thinking. I would certainly expect any nominee I'd support to resist any erosion to choice, but not because they think abortion is in the constitution itself; rather I would prefer one who thought the two had almost nothing to do with each other.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Yes or no.
If you're against litmus tests just say "yes."
dmallind
(10,437 posts)It's not difficult. Yours is like asking "would you support a vegetarian president".
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Read it carefully. As a Democrat, would you tolerate a Democratic Supreme Court nominee who said that at a hearing?
Vidar
(18,335 posts)
One_Life_To_Give
(6,036 posts)As is pointed out up-thread. The technical language says nothing about abortion.
On edit I don't recall is using the word marriage, orientation or gender either.
sarisataka
(21,221 posts)Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 11:59 AM - Edit history (1)
because I do not believe in any one make-or-break issue.
It would raise a flag but not immediately disqualify.
SidDithers
(44,273 posts)A most excellent selection for the Supreme Court. 
Sid
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)cynatnite
(31,011 posts)The OP is being patently disingenuous.
Pab Sungenis
(9,612 posts)Our party not only tolerated by lauded an anti-gay nominee who said that there was no Constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
I want to know if they would tolerate a nominee who said the exact same thing about abortion.
Or is it another case of "my rights are sacrosanct, yours are politically inconvenient at the moment?"
cynatnite
(31,011 posts)RZM
(8,556 posts)From what I do know, legal opinions vary about that. Isn't this why the holy grail of the anti-abortion movement is a constitutional amendment banning abortion? That would put abortion in the constitution and settle the argument once and for all.
So I honestly don't know. It's possible a nominee could believe it's technically not a constitutional right, but still be 100 percent supportive of choice anyway and vote on the right side every time such a case came before the court.
Maybe I'm wrong about how the SCOTUS works. I'm certainly not an expert on the subject. But isn't possible that a justice could make an argument that abortion isn't guaranteed in the constitution but still has to be legal anyway? Are 'legal rights' exactly the same as 'constitutional rights?'
I don't know. What I do know is that I'd want a justice supportive of choice. I'll leave the interpretation of how they arrive at that position to the them and the legal scholars.