Why vote Democrat?

Nothing is ever a "settled issue". Is the "Dred Scott" decision still the law of the land?

 

No, it was changed by the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution!
That was the point that I made.

Do you see any Constitutional Amendment banning abortion coming from the Republicans in our lifetime?
Do you see any Constitutional Amendment banning equal rights for homosexuals (the foundation of gay marriage court decisions) coming from the Republicans in our lifetime?

If not, then neither are an issue that Congress will solve.

 

No, this is not how I justify voting Democrat. How I vote is none of your business.
This is how I point out the flaw in using Judicial Activism to demonize Christians who support other traditional Democrat issues like Education and access to Heath Care and more progressive taxes to pay for social programs.

Let's check out the facts on this plan to recapture the Supreme Court for Conservative Republicans ...

In November 1980 (the first election I voted in) there were 7 supreme court justices appointed by Republicans (1xFord, 3xNixon, 2xEisenhower) and 2 supreme court justices appointed by Democrats (1xKennedy, 1xJohnson). So why wasn't Roe v. Wade overturned in 1980?

By November 1988, Ronald Reagan had replaced 3 Republican appointed justices with 3 new Republican appointed justices maintaining the ratio of 7 supreme court justices appointed by Republicans to 2 supreme court justices appointed by Democrats. So why wasn't Roe v. Wade overturned in 1988?

By November 1992, George H.W. Bush had replaced 1 Republican appointed justice and 1 Democrat appointed justice with 2 new Republican appointed justices increasing the ratio to 8 supreme court justices appointed by Republicans to 1 supreme court justice appointed by Democrats. So why wasn't Roe v. Wade overturned in 1992?

By November 1996, Bill Clinton had replaced 1 Republican appointed justice and 1 Democrat appointed justice with 2 new Democrat appointed justices restoring the old ratio of 7 supreme court justices appointed by Republicans to 2 supreme court justices appointed by Democrats. So why wasn't Roe v. Wade overturned in 1996?

By November 2008, George W. Bush had replaced 2 Republican appointed justices with 2 new Republican appointed justices maintaining the ratio of 7 supreme court justices appointed by Republicans to 2 supreme court justices appointed by Democrats. So why wasn't Roe v. Wade overturned in 2008?


In October 2018, the ratio stands at 5 supreme court justices appointed by Republicans to 4 supreme court justices appointed by Democrats.

So please explain to me what difference republican appointed justices will make and why that is the only issue to consider?

 

Perhaps because no court cases challenging Roe v. Wade made it to the Supreme Court in those years?

Maybe look up the number of cases related to Roe v. Wade that were passed on to the Supreme Court...

 

Of course it can. Only God knows if it ever will. However a 7:2 Republican appointed majority in the Supreme Court has prevented none of your angst with abortion or gay rights, so why should it matter for any of your other rights?

The "solution" you are placing your hope in (a Republican appointed Supreme Court) has been a reality and failed to deliver results for decade after decade. Why will the next decade be any different than the last three?

 

If there have been no challenges to Roe v. Wade and abortion in the last three decades, then what difference will it make in the next decade that I should ignore personal character, moral integrity and corporate greed and support any Republican for Congress because nothing matters more than appointing Republican Justices to a Supreme Court to stop abortion?

That is the flaw that I see with those making this a one issue argument all Christians must vote Republican.
If "pro-life" is the litmus test for being a 'true Republican' then the entire Republican Party is a R.I.N.O. ... they could not even care enough about this "most important issue" to defund abortions with Federal Tax Dollars.

 

I would like to try. Perhaps an analogy might help.

In 1980, I hired a painter to repaint my house because the old paint was faded and it needed repainting. He promised that he would get the job done, but it would take time and I needed to trust him and make a down payment on having my house painted. So I made a small, regular payment every two years. I paid him in 1982. I paid him in 1984. I paid him in 1986. I paid him in 1988. I paid him in 1990. I paid him in 1992. I paid him in 1994. I paid him in 1996. I paid him in 1998. I paid him in 2000. I paid him in 2002. I paid him in 2004. I paid him in 2006. I paid him in 2008. I paid him in 2010. I paid him in 2012. I paid him in 2014. I paid him in 2016.

Each and every time I paid him, he promised me that this was it, they would start to paint my house. During that time, one painter ran off with his secretary, but his cousin took over and told me that everything was still going according to schedule. Later, another painter went to jail for embezzling funds, but a new painter took over the contract and said I just needed to stay the course. Then he lost everything in a ponzi scheme, but told me it was all ... well I'm not quite sure whose fault they said it was. I just remember that it wasn't his fault. Just two years ago, I was heard that there was a big proxy fight for control of the painting company and the new painter was going to "drain the swamp" and make everything different.

Here it is in 2018 and I see the same old painter making the same old promise I heard in 1980. The paint on my house has gone from faded to badly peeling. I still see no evidence of anyone with a paint brush planning on actually painting any part of my house any time soon.

Perhaps it might be time to question the honesty of that painter before I hand him any more money.
Are there any other painters in town?

 

No Constitutional Amendment is needed to get rid of abortion nationwide. All that is needed is another abortion case to come before the court and they could rule that such a thing is not an inherent constitutional right and it would revert back to the individual states and then decided by the legislatures of said states. There is no spelled out specific right to an abortion in the Federal Constitution, it was allowed only on the specious premise of a "privacy" right.

The same thing applies to gay marriage. The issue of marriage, gay or otherwise, is nowhere to be found in the Federal Constitution. It is another of those things that falls under the 10th Amendment and as such it belongs to the individual state legislatures to decide. And don't bring up the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution as an argument either. My concealed weapons permit is not required to be recognized by other states, so abortion and marriage should be treated in the same manner.

 

1. We are no closer on the Wall than when he started and his Republican Congress has TWICE refused to fund it.
2. We are no closer to ending abortion than we were in 1980 and his Republican Congress has TWICE refused to defund Tax Dollars for Abortion.

I have not paid close attention to Trump's specific promises ... I voted for someone else in the primary and against Hillary in the election ... but here are the issues that I care about. Has Trump done anything on any of these:

1. Balance the Federal Budget
2. Invest in infrastructure (in the US, not Iraq)
3. Reduce the Military budget, size of the military and projection of power
   1. we are not the world's policeman
   2. we do not need to spend 40% of the total defense spending of the planet Earth (more than Russia and China and India and Pakistan and the Eu combined).
   3. US Military is for defense of the US
4. Invest in Education (particularly retraining workers from failing industries)

To the credit of Trump, he has been dealing with the trade imbalance and unfair trade practices that would otherwise be on my list. I 100% support him on that, but I doubt that most Big Business feels the same. My employer provides literature on the Auto Industry (that impacts us) and they oppose all protectionism because exploiting workers (everywhere) maximizes Corporate Sales and Profits. I doubt most of the Republican Congress we are electing supports Trump's trade war.

Trump is not running for re-election. The corrupt Congress-critters that make "the swamp" the swamp are running for re-election. The last three years have shown that Congress is no friend of Trump and the sooner he leaves office, the sooner the swamp can return to business as usual.

 

One last time, then I throw up my hands and walk away.

Everything you say is correct but irrelevant.

The SUPREME COURT hears cases and makes Judicial interpretation to overturn "abortion". Republican appointed justices have outnumbered Democrat appointed justices by at least 7:2 from at least President Ford until President Obama and they did not overturn abortion in all those decades that they had to do so. Congress cannot make a Judicial interpretation to overturn abortion, so who anyone votes for for congress will not change the Supreme Court interpretation.

The CONGRESS has the power to overturn a Judicial interpretation through a Constitutional Amendment. The only way that Congress can eliminate abortion is by passing a Constitutional Amendment.

***

The SUPREME COURT has been Republican majority since before Roe v Wade and has NEVER been Democrat majority. In spite of the fact that they could have reversed the decision on abortion at any time, the Supreme Court has chosen not to. There is no indication that electing more Republicans to appoint more justices will change this. There are already 7 Republican appointed justices to 2 Democrat appointed justices.

The CONGRESS has made no effort to pass a Constitutional Amendment, which is the only way that Congress can change Roe v Wade. There is no indication that electing more Republicans to Congress will change that.

***

As far as electing people to Congress, abortion is a non-issue. Who you elect will not impact abortion.

 

Now that is irrelevant because as we have seen Justices like David Souter and John Roberts were/are RINO's. I do agree however, that no constitutional amendment will ever be passed to end things like abortion and gay marriage - it would be much to difficult to get the required consent from the Congress and then the states.

 

I think that Greece said exactly the same thing.

Each and every member of your family currently owes $700,000 with compounding interest. When you die, that debt is passed on to the next generation. The percentage of our taxes that go to pay the interest has been steadily growing.

The debt is sustainable ... right up until it suddenly isn’t. Then the only option is to monetize the debt and bankrupt the economy with hyperinflation. Lots of countries have done it. We can to.

(I hear dog is actually quite tasty.)

 

I stand corrected.

It is an easy mistake to make given the general “every Christian must vote Republican” tone of the majority of this topic. However, you are probably correct that I have falsely placed words in YOUR mouth.

For that I ask your forgiveness. It was wrong and careless of me.

 

Technically, the point of the Second Amendment is that taking away YOUR right to a gun requires acquiescence on your part. You may be powerless to stop some stranger from getting an abortion or marrying someone they should not, but the founding fathers gave you an option if they come to take your gun away ...

... a “Constitutional Convention” to change how things are done.

 

Why will future appointees not continue to be RINO’s?