Redstate

The Congress wasn't so principled when that was voted on.  As noted downthread, a substantial minority sees abortion as wayyyyyyy more important than federalism.  

I think your calculus is still pretty solid though: Congress won't want any further than they are compelled to by the staunchest pro-lifers.

I seem to recall a case about a slave who...

Look, if on top of being gay they are also kinky, we don't need to go into that.

First, I think the ratio of male flight attendants to female flight attendants is something like 1:3 or 1:4.

Second, I'm sure it's well assumed by many people that all these male flight attendants are gay, but that's probably a stereotype as much as anything.

Either way, I don't get the sense that airlines employ a very large number of gay men.

And then the feds will intervene.  Per current Commerce Clause jurisprudence, we could be looking at an outright federal ban.  I don't think that would happen, but it's just false to say a reversal of Roe would return abortion to the states.

Re; Marriage typically entails, for example, eligibility for dependent coverage in employer-provided health plans.

Employers can easily craft domestic partner benefits for people who cannot legally marry in the state where they reside. In fact this is already done by most large, and many smaller, employers. As far as pensions go, very few people have them nowadays.

they will accommodate them as necessary. If not the employee is free to go elsewhere.

The reason I say you are spinning is because you are telling me mitt's pro-abortion record doesn't matter and all that matters is that he'll elect "strict constructionists."  When I evaluate a candidate I like to look at their record too.  

When Bush ran for President he had a record as a governor.  He had already appointed judges, and was the only candidate on either side who had.  People didn't just have to take his word for things, they could look at his record.

What SlimJim seems to be saying is that he has looked at Romney's record, and doesn't like it.  I have not looked at it, so I won't comment.

that when the phrase "need to marry" was used it implied that the potential bride was pregnant.

Nowadays no one "needs" to marry. People marry because they want to.

and constitutional for Congress to craft a federal anti-abortion statute if Roe vs Wade were oveturned. But I'm betting that our Congress-critters will want to straddle the fence on the business, or better yet, ignore it outright as they ignore so many other issues that do not conduce easily to their reelection chances.

airlines, which employ a very large number of gay men

Says who?

I've never come across that "fact" before.

his judges ruled parental notifications unconstitutional.

His record is better than Romney's, this is actually one reason I would rather have everything out in the open. I don't want to just assume they are going to do what we expect them to, I want something to hold them to.

Employers can easily craft domestic partner benefits for people who cannot legally marry in the state where they reside.

So you'd agree, there is no reason that gay people need to marry.

Go through that opinion and replace "medical marijuana" with "abortion."  Same (terrible) reasoning.

Roe v. Wade says there is a federal constitutional right to an abortion. If it is overturned, it returns to the matter to the states. This is no a matter of debate, it is a matter of legal fact. For fun though, explain to me how the commerce clause would apply to abortion.

I can't say I have seen any surveys on the subject, but I thought it was well known that a significant proportion of male cabin crew are gay.

Take a look at some of the existing jurisprudence on the commerce clause.  It has been used to uphold some pretty astonishing misinterpretations in the past.  Granted, that would not oblige the current court to do the same.

For example, look at the rulings on medical marijuana.  No way is this interstate commerce, but the Court recently ruled that it was.  Furthermore, of the three dissenting justices, Rehnquist and O'Connor are no longer on the Court.  We don't know how Roberts or Alito would vote, but both have a history within the federal executive branch, which doesn't give me a good feeling.

Of course, on abortion it might be different.  Thomas has a very consistent record of supporting federalism, and there is a pro-abortion group of justices, who have no consistent line on federalism at all, but will uphold such laws as they agree with.

For the POTUS it comes down to judges, nothing else matters. No POTUS or candidate for that position will or should say they will only appoint "pro-life" judges. There are plenty of judges that would be pro-life but horrible at interpreting the Constitution.

I haven't found any of Bush's comments on Miers that say she is a constructionist. If he did then that further supports my point. If Bush had such a good pro-life record (as you assert) then why wasn't he more dependable in nominating a better judge?

I really don't appreciate your assertions that I am spinning things or not legitimately pro-life.

If you oppose abortion.  you say you are pro life, you vote as a pro life elected official.  and you make it clear that you will elect judges who will be pro-life.  Romney HAS NOT DONE THIS.  Enough already with the spin.

And yes, BUsh most certainly did say that miers would be a strict constructionist.  But when we looked at the woman's record that term didn't apply so we told Dubya to try again.  And to his credit he gave us alito.

Bush had a strong pro-life record coming into office and we have gotten two good judges as a result.  I plan on using the same criteria when judging his replacement.  I know you Romney guys want to pretend that a candidate's record on abortion should not matter, but guess what, for opponents of abortion IT DOES MATTER.

Finally, this quote is a real knee slapper:

"At least with a promise you have a strong direct commitment to the pro-life cause that can be used to hold them accountable."

Huh?  A promise?  What fantasy world do you live in where I should just accept some politician's promise at face value?  Especially from a politician who believed the exact opposite of what he is promising for his entire life prior to his brief desire to run for President?

I'm telling you Romney supporters right now, you had best really come clean on abortion. I mean this spin you are throwing out there is REALLY ANNOYING.  I'm a political junkie so I don't mind duking it out in cyberspace but I'm telling you now rank and file religious right pro-lifers will get tired of it real quickly.

...abortion will be for national Republicans as harmful an issue as gun control is for national Democrats...

Maybe not.  When it comes to polls, isn't a majority of the country in favor of restricting abortion to rape, incest, child deformities, and life of the mother?  

In any case, I don't see how it would change the way congress is elected...pro-life republicans are already doing pretty badly in CA, NY, etc.  Am I missing something?

If you oppose abortion.  you say you are pro life, you vote as a pro life elected official.  and you make it clear that you will elect judges who will be pro-life.  Romney HAS NOT DONE THIS.  Enough already with the spin.

Mitt HAS said he is pro-life, he HAS voted (vetoed, really) as a pro-life elected official, and he is one of the few candidates who advocate overturning Roe vs. Wade (something McCain, Allen, and Giuliani won't, while Romney, Newt, Brownback, Huckabee will).

Speaking of spin, your earlier posts contained a lot less of this.  Atleast then you acknowledged Romney's record since 2002.  You completely disregard his 2003-2006 record as "political pandering" (an arguable viewpoint) and then dress it up as if it were objective fact.  

to appoint a judge who'll be the next Warren Burger, despite all good intentions. It could happen to any executive.

I think they're in the minority in the party, and maybe even a minority of their faction, but a portion of the religious right cares no more about Constitutional limitations on federal power than the  mainstream left does.

My guess is, it's the same million or so people who want Big Government watching all television channels all the time for naughty words, who would want the same government to expand into matters like a national abortion ban.

But yeah, I don't think it'd pass, fortunately for the Republican party.  I say that because I think that when the courts finally relinquish the abortion issue, or have it wrested for them, abortion will be for national Republicans as harmful an issue as gun control is for national Democrats.

Where does the Constitution give Congress the right to legislate abortion? The Commerce Clause has been stretched to its breaking point. I could see how Congress would try it, but I too think they would straddle the fence.

The issue of abortion is deeply interlinked with the issue of Roe v Wade.  Many people see them as the same thing, but they are not, and Rudy is a lawyer, so maybe he does not.

If Roe v Wade were overturned, it would not outlaw abortion.  It would return the issue to the states.  At which point any two issue voter such as you, Slim Jim, might well think: "hey, this guy Rudy would be a great President.  Not only is he tough on national security, but let's keep him out of state politics where his views could be harmful".  Without Roe v Wade, the President's views on abortion are utterly irrelevant.  Go ask your governor, or your state legislator.  (Actually, don't, you live in NY, you wouldn't like what they would say).

To people who confuse Roe v Wade with abortion, Rudy will probably never be acceptable.  But to those who take a more discerning view of legal matters, all he has to do is say 'I oppose Roe v Wade; thus this is a matter for the states.  Now let's talk about matters which relate to the Presidency.

Incidentally, I don't agree with you on abortion, but I do agree with you on Roe v Wade.  

with this analysis.  I think Rudy will be a federalist when it comes to the issue of abortion. He will oppose Roe v. Wade and advocate returning the matter to the states.

Even if he does not take this position, the president has very little influence outside of appointing justices. The litmus test for a president should not be their position on abortion but what type of justices s/he will appoint. You hint at the fact that Rudy is a tough crime fighter, and from what I know about him he is a strong federalist, so I am sure a pro-lifer would be happy with his selection of justices.

On a side, I too oppose your view of abortion. While I think Roe v. Wade is bad law, I would hope that the representatives in my state would legalize it, at a bare minimum in instances of rape, incest, and health of the mother. Anyhow, from your post, I think somewhere you know Rudy would be a great president. With all that is going on in the world, we need a leader and fighter like Rudy to guide this country. He will keep us secure and appoint justices that want to return power on the issue of abortion back to the states, which is the best a pro-lifer can ask for from any president.

the president has very little influence (over the issue of abortion) outside of appointing justices.

The exact reason that Romney's past abortion positions matter so little. I support him 100% as long as he promises to give us conservative/constructionist judges.

(Sorry, didn't want to make it about Romney but I'm kind of sick of the bantering)

The problem is Rudy has said he supports not only abortion, but Roe vs. Wade as well.  I don't buy the argument that just because a candidate will elect "constructionist" judges that by default that candidate will elect pro-life judges.  That term is a political term used by Bush to confuse moderate soccer moms as to the kind of judges he would appoint while hinting to pro-lifers he would appoint scalias.  Had it not been for the base of the Republican Party screaming bloody murder at Bush when Harriet Miers was nominated we would have a "constructionist" judge now on the bench who basically would have supported roe vs. wade.  

You guys may be pro-abortion.  But the fact is the base of the Republican Party is not.  And the base of the Republican Party will not tolerate any deviancy on this issue in regards to the White House.  Does that mean Rudy and pro-abortion Republicans should be expelled from the party? Of course not.  Hell, we're not Democrats.  We are far more tolerant than the liberals who claim to be so accepting of "diversity" (witness the current lynching of Joe Lieberman.)  Pro and anti-abortion can work well together in the GOP on many issues, especially the war on terror.  But it does mean that the pro candidate basically gets vetoed for the White House.  And as for Romney, as I demonstrated earlier, he isn't in much better shape than Rudy either.  

I've always thought the same thing as far as Roe V. Wade. I think the decision is poor law but overturning it definitly would not make abortion illegal. It would just turn it to the states to determine. Which in my opinoin is where it belongs.

That being said, aside from appointing judges who who are strict constructionist the president does have other avenues in the the abortion fight. One big one is the bully pullpit. Depending on alot of factors that could be a strong tool or a weak tool.

I didn't realise he had said he supported Roe v Wade.  That being so, I agree he has a major problem with the base, and it is a policy problem as well as an emotional one.

Gay issues could also be a problem for him.  Again, he could argue that it is a matter of federalism, but McCain and others have tried this, and many people will not accept it.

that most people, even most (or at least a plurality of) Republicans, accept the federalist position on gay marriage too. At least that's my impression from the debates on these boards. (Yes I know I should not confuse the "net roots" with the party as a whole.) In fact on both abortion and gay marriage the primary opposition in so far as national politics is involved is against having courts impose a national policy. People do not want gay marriage imposed by the courts nor do support the dreadful logic of Roe. If both issues are safely and securely remanded to the states the opinion of the president will not much matter on either issue.

I'm not sure "leaving it to the states" is possible. Marriage typically entails, for example, eligibility for dependent coverage in employer-provided health plans. There may be pension implications.

Tens of millions of people work for national, even multi-national corporations. They move around from state to state. It is impossible to contain the practical effects of marriage within a state's boundaries.

This is eventually going to require a uniform national solution.

It is entirely up to private employers how they interpret their pension arrangements, and the same goes for pension providers.  They will probably need to find a solution if some state recognise gay marriage and others don't, but it is not a matter for government, federal or otherwise.

For example, airlines, which employ a very large number of gay men, have an employee benefit of cheap flights.  It is routinely made available to employees and one other person nominated by the employee.  Many single people nominate siblings.

Of course, the federal government is a major employer itself, and needs to decide its own policy on this, but it does not need to have a law.

It is entirely up to private employers how they interpret their pension arrangements

My point is that it may not be. Suppose a company limits dependent medical coverage to spouses, where "spouse" is defined to mean someone married to the employee. Gay couple A gets married in New York, but the employee subsequently transfers to South Carolina, where the marriage would be considered invalid. They do this as a condition of the employee getting a promotion to some new position. Is the spouse now not a spouse? Who decides? Don't tell me the company does, because we both know that's going to court if the company (or its insurance provider) decides "no." Before it's over it'll be in federal court. This is all a bunch of messy expense that no one needs.

If we don't have a law, we're going to have lawsuits. And then we'll have case law instead of any act by any legislature. That's exactly what people do not want.

Sure, you can give endless examples of how companies can choose to grant various benefits to unmarried gay couples. What you can't do is cite a believeable example where they could restrict such benefits once even a single state allows such marriages.

Pro-abortion? Where do you get that?

When I said "constructionist" I was specifically speaking of strict-constructionist, using only the words of the Constitution. This would mean an overturn of RvW, hopefully (It's not this simple). Also from what I remember, Harriet Myers wasn't considered a strict-constructionist.

I don't know who you are referring too when you say "we" in the second paragraph. I though you were pro-life? If you are pro-life and you know that Rudy supports RvW then how can you justify supporting him, assuming that he will appoint weak judges?

My point is that the only thing that a GOP candidate can control when it comes to abortion is appointing judges. Having a strict-constructionist intellectual judge would mean the disagree with the foundation of RvW and would likely vote to overturn. Hence as long as a GOP candidate makes a strong and direct campaign promise to appoint a strict-constructionist then I am satisfied with the abortion issue (being pro-life).

a case about a slave who went to a free state and returned to a slave state.  It caused a bit of unpleasantness.  And then there's all that full faith and credit stuff, though that path is more heavily trodden already with some states not recognizing some types of marriage from other states.  Had a nasty state SC case here some years ago over spousal benefit rights to a common law marriage recognized in LA but specifically not recognized in AK. Net result though is the courts are ultimately going to decide the issue.

that anyone who wants to restrict benefits from gay couples avoid the use of the word spouse.

Have you thought through the logic of what you are saying here.  Your argument applies just as logically internationally.  Many companies employ people internationally.  Substitute Holland for Massachusetts and the situation could arise tomorrow.

If the only solution to the fact that this can arise between states is to have a US-wide law defining marriage, what is the solution to the fact that this same issue can arise internationally?  The logic of your argument is world government.

Count me out.

I don't want to hear those political words.  When someone says they will appoint "stict constructionists" to the bench right off the bat they are making it clear they don't want to deal with abortion because they are hiding behind legalese BS.  Bush claimed that Miers was a "strict constructionalist" and then the base said oh ya? Let's take a look at her record and see if she really is.  Low and behold we looked at her record and she was the farthest thing from being a strict constructionist.

Washingtonian for Mitt you just completely PROVED MY POINT.  I don't care what kind of "promise" a candidate makes about the kind of judge he'll appoint.  What I care about is the nominee's record when dealing with the issue.  And Romney's record is very poor.

"they are making it clear they don't want to deal with abortion because they are hiding behind legalese BS"

What other (possible) way can a POTUS deal with abortion?

I'm not sure what or if Bush made judicial campaign promises but he never claimed that Myers was a strict-constructionist. I do remember Bush basically saying "trust me" she's golden. Bush had a record of being pro-life so everyone just assumed that he would appoint good judges. So, your emphasis on "record" is just as flawed.

At least with a promise you have a strong direct commitment to the pro-life cause that can be used to hold them accountable.