Video: Fred Thompson on MTP, says he doesn’t support the Human Life Amendment
posted at 2:01 pm on November 4, 2007 by Bryan
Share on Facebook | regular view
Sen. Fred Thompson appeared on Meet the Press today and, Clintons take note, had to answer some tough questions asked by host Tim Russert. He discussed the crisis in Pakistan, his support for concealed carry laws on university campuses, and other issues. A little over midway through the interview, Russert queried Thompson on the Human Life Amendment and whether he supports it or not. He doesn’t. He favors letting states set abortion law. Around that nugget, though, Thompson touted his 100% pro-life voting record and ends this clip with his opinion on when life begins.
As David Brody says, Fred is falling back on federalist principles to arrive at the point of being pro-life but not supporting the HLA. The question is, will this become a problem with social conservatives?
Link: sevenload.com
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
Never left…Got stuck here during the whole fire…But yea, things are cool now…Water was off for a week and a half, that pretty much sucked.
doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 1:05 PM
Good for you. I lived for a while in Poway, on the Rancho Bernardo border, overlooking the old winery there. Do you happen to know what happened in that area?
JiangxiDad on November 5, 2007 at 1:10 PM
I’m not sure but that sounds like one of the areas that got hit pretty bad.
doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 1:31 PM
Thanks for the “What’s a dollar?” reference. I will add that I am glad Mr Thompson has moved away from that initial campaign video where he bobbed his head too much.
In regards to Rudy stating on believing that RvW should be overturned, he did say it some time earlier this year. I don’t remember the venue, but it was an interview not a debate. I am rather curious to know why he hasn’t repeated such sentiment recently, especially during the debates. Because of this, I agree with the sentiment that Rudy needs to clarify his position, once and for all.
I will state for the record I am not a Thompson supporter primarily for a superficial reason that I decided before he even announced. With that said, I believe Mr Thompson can legitimately hold both that life begins at conception and that abortion should be left to the states without being a walking contradiction. (I do fault Mr Thompson for having to wait until he saw his own son in a sonogram to decide that life begins at conception but at least he finally did it.) I do not object to those who find such a position that Fred holds contradictory, they are free to do so, I am merely asserting that people are capable of separating policy from their personal beliefs. (I will also say that the two are not necessarily exclusive either.) I know that I am capable of holding two or more opposing points of view in my mind at the same time.
A devoutly religious man can still be a soldier who does not-so-religious things in defense of freedom. Colonel Moore (the Colonel Mel Gibson played in “We Were Soldiers”) was such a soldier. The same goes for a doctor who needs to separate his emotions and beliefs when making critical medical decisions.
I understand the sentiment that murder is murder and giving states the power to abort is equivalent to letting a state decriminalize rape or other equally heinous crime. Many people understand this, which is why states should be given the choice. I believe that, for the most part, when the power is re-instated back to the states, a constitutional convention will be met and an amendment regarding abortion will be decided. Despite what the MSM has us believe, we are a religious, moral society who want to do the right thing.
Weebork on November 5, 2007 at 1:41 PM
I think Fred’s efforts to frame the debate in terms of “federalism” bely a gross misunderstanding of federalism, and just what the consitutional amendment process entails.
Amending the constitution is a legislative act by individual states. The federal government has nothing to do with it. Amendment is what happens when the people of the United States of America decide they are of unified-enough mind to change the very law on which the basis of our republic government rests.
Was the prohibition amendment a good idea? Not really. Was the amendment allowing for an income tax a good idea? Hell no! But at least we can look back and see why not; I don’t think it had anything to do with “constitutionality” or “federalism.” To say that any amendment violates the concept of federalism makes Fred Thompason suspect in my eyes as a chief executive — he’s gotta be smarter than that.
gryphon202 on November 5, 2007 at 2:42 PM
Thank you. It’s Boolean. Either you support the way the Founding Fathers set up the United States, or you do not. Period. The end. You cannot support it when it suits you, and not support it when it doesn’t. Objecting that the courts may strike a law down isn’t an argument, but a straw man; it is a wholly different problem.
rightwingprof on November 5, 2007 at 2:49 PM
Nice point. The constitution sets forth an amendment process. We the people are empowered to do what ever the hell we want with the Constitution so long as the amendment gets the support of two thirds of both houses or the legislatures of two thirds of the several states and then the amendment is ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states. The only limitations on this amendment process (after 1808) is: “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
So other than that we can pass amendments outlawing abortion, enshrining Roe, defining marriage, protecting the flag, whatever we want. Federalism concerns the division of authority between state and federal governments, but the amendment process is how we all agree what is the proper authority of the federal government.
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Damian G., supra:
Murder is left to the states.
paul006 on November 5, 2007 at 3:26 PM
I don’t understand. Why is this a problem? And why is this a problem for Fred? As far as I know, this is the most that any of us can hope for, i.e. Supreme Court overturns Roe v. Wade. What’s the end result of that? No abortions? No. Any of you lawyer types know that it’ll go to the states to decided unless there’s an amendment. Based on polling, that would mean a move to the right on this issue.
Exit Question: How does this square with any of the other top tier candidates? Are any of them advocating for the HLA? And if the polling is correct, how is this worse than anything Rudy is proposing?
Sultry Beauty on November 5, 2007 at 4:30 PM
Because Rudy won’t say that Roe v Wade should be overturned, and his view of a constructionist judge includes one who’d alllow it to stand.
Hollowpoint on November 5, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Awesome! Glad to hear it. I hope your family and friends are doing OK also.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 5:05 PM
I certainly agree it should be overturned yes.
Gatordoug on November 5, 2007 at 6:08 PM
Yea, they’re all doing great, the fire just sort of went right around us this time. Last time it took out one of my brother’s houses and his sister-in-laws, so this time around we got pretty lucky. Also on the Friday night before the fire started I got rear ended.
Which was one of the things that made the fire pretty scary for me. Since my car car was in a towing yard 25 miles from my house I had to rely on my moms car. which broke down, leaving me stranded right in the middle of the fires path.
As soon as I get my car fixed I will feel a whole lot better. Only two weeks without my car and I am going through Corvette withdrawal pains…Now let me tell you, thats some pain and suffering right there.
doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 6:12 PM
Rear ended!?! Pain and suffering!?!
You need a lawyer?
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 6:39 PM
That was a joke… BTW
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 6:39 PM
Shhhhh…Already got one. For god’s sake you think I’m going to let some one screw up my Corvette and me not get all petty and vindictive like a liberal atheist accidentally overhearing a Christian prayer in a public place?
doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 6:48 PM
Sorry. Had to work out of town and couldn’t play all day. What an amazing coincidence, though, cs: I agree with nothing you just stated!
Your candidate (and, please stop trying to pretend it’s not Mitt) has the quick and slick soundbites (not that there’s anything wrong with that) but FDT actually takes some time to explain his thought process and how he stands. Another amazing coincidence: He has a very broad breadth of knowledge about the issues. He’s the only one to receive perfect marks in the debates for having his facts down absolutely rock solid.
Oh, well. You’re making bubbles that are too easy to burst. Try again later. Maybe something you sling will stick.
Tennman on November 5, 2007 at 6:53 PM
A judge that does not take into consideration stare decisis would be rated “Unqualified” by the ABA, because judicial nominees are judged on a candidate’s “deference to the law, constitution and established legal precedent.”
This is what Krauthammer had to say about Rudy’s abortion answer:
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 6:56 PM
LOL! You know, I don’t think the guy who wrote “Hell hath no fury…” ever saw a guy with a dented Corvette.
Tennman on November 5, 2007 at 7:03 PM
Heh heh heh, I only know two other Vette owners, and had they been rear ended, they might have ended up being charged with manslaughter for the way they would have reacted…
doriangrey on November 5, 2007 at 7:07 PM
You guys are as persnickety about your Vettes as we are about our MCS’s. If you have to ask…
Tennman on November 5, 2007 at 7:24 PM
CONSIDERATION of stare decisis (itself an artificial construct of the legal profession, not actual law) does not imply that rulings that have no legal basis should be upheld. One could view it as a “tie goes to the runner” theory rather than one that the arrogant notion that any and every ruling should stand for all time and still be one who considers stare decisis.
And as usual, I don’t give a rip what Krauthammer has to say.
Hollowpoint on November 5, 2007 at 7:30 PM
That response was as vacant of facts as Fred’s comments are.
Fred says he will look to soldiers on the ground to decide what to do in Iraq. If they think it’s going badly, then he does too. Source: The Hoover Institute video
Fred went meandering all over the place when pressed on social security and finally ended up talking about national forests. Source: His last debate
He lies about being with pro-lifers all along. He was pro-choice up through the third trimester. Source: A form HE SIGNED in 1994.
Fred says life begins at conception. That means abortion is murder. Fred wants to leave abortion to the states to decide. That means he is A-OK with any state legalizing the murder of unborn children.
People, you need to start really analyzing what Fred says. He likes to use folksy colloquialism to obfuscate his duplicitous personality. People like to listen to people talk that way, and most times those people are genuine. The only thing Fred is genuine about is his lying nature.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 7:32 PM
That response was as vacant of facts as Fred’s comments are.
Fred says he will look to soldiers on the ground to decide what to do in Iraq. If they think it’s going badly, then he does too. Source: The Hoover Institute video
Fred went meandering all over the place when pressed on social security and finally ended up talking about national forests. Source: His last debate
He lies about being with pro-lifers all along. He was pro-choice up through the third trimester. Source: A form HE SIGNED in 1994.
Fred says life begins at conception. That means abortion is murder. Fred wants to leave abortion to the states to decide. That means he is A-OK with any state legalizing the murder of unborn children. Source: Meet the Press
People, you need to start really analyzing what Fred says. He likes to use folksy colloquialism to obfuscate his duplicitous personality. People like to listen to people talk that way, and most times those people are genuine. The only thing Fred is genuine about is his lying nature. He has never run anything. Not a state, a city, a business. Not even a country store. He is the least qualified candidate. Even less so than Ron Paul. Fred is Ron Paul lite.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 7:33 PM
Ooops. Sorry for the double post. Delete the first one will you Bryan?
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Ahhh. A bunch of half truths, innuendo and pure speculation from the side of the evil empire.
Don’t worry. I know what the facts are. I also can draw my own conclusions.
OT/ Is the Idaho quarter the new quarter? I got two today with the inscription “Esto Perpetua.” Is that igpay atinlay for “Taters forever!”? ;-)
Tennman on November 5, 2007 at 8:10 PM
You have not been to law school have you. Stare decisis has been an integral part of English and American Common law longer than any statute or constitution. Precedents of earlier cases are our primary source of law. This principle distinguishes the common law from civil-law systems, which give great weight to codes of laws and the opinions of scholars explaining them. Under stare decisis, once a court has answered a question, the same question in other cases must elicit the same response from the same court or lower courts in that jurisdiction. It’s not “tie goes to the runner.” That’s nonsense. Our legal system requires predictable results. If the same facts can result in different ruling based upon who the judge is, then public confidence in the justice system is eroded. You have no idea how much bigger this concept is than the silly little issue of abortion. Your disdain for stare decisis is repugnant. If you don’t respect precedent go to someplace like France where you can disregard precedent all you want. I’m not saying that precedent cannot ever be overruled, just very very very rarely and only for a very good reason. Even bad decisions must make good law.
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 8:30 PM
No, I didn’t go to law school- I do have some self respect.
And yes, decisions from higher courts should be respected an followed- from the same court? Not if it was a faulty decision with little or no statutory justification, as was the case with Roe v Wade and the Connecticut case it was based on.
Bad decisions make bad law; the dogmatic over-reliance on stare decisis in the judiciary reflects little more than arrogance in the sense that any decision- no matter how absurd- should be held up now and forever without the facts and law getting in the way. It’s a major contributor to the judicial culture of legislating from the bench that we have today.
But I see that you’ve been properly indoctrinated by your law school to respect the whims of the self-important legal profession over the law itself.
Hollowpoint on November 5, 2007 at 9:06 PM
All people have to do is go to the sources I pointed out and research it themselves. You left nothing except vacuous rhetoric in defense. You clearly have not researched this. I’d think you’d WANT to know what Fred really is.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 10:04 PM
I think it is the new quarter. If it doesn’t mean that, it should. ;-)
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 10:06 PM
The term “Constitutional precident” is, of course, an oxymoron.
And if somebody has gone to law school and is still incapable of comprehending that ridiculously obvious fact, it doesn’t magically prove that he’s not an idiot. All it does is take away every possible excuse he ever had for looking like one.
logis on November 5, 2007 at 10:36 PM
And consider very well the sources and the reason for the so-called factual information.
No, cs. It won’t confuse those of us who can actually see without the lens of rancor clouding our vision.
Tennman on November 5, 2007 at 10:38 PM
PMJI, but wouldn’t you say that Stare decisis compounds problems instead of solving them? Does the term “fruit from the poisonous tree” sound familiar? It’s bad factual situations that make for most decisions. It’s bad facts that make bad law that make stare decisis so frightening.
Tennman on November 5, 2007 at 10:52 PM
Yes. It’s called an aside…
eanax on November 5, 2007 at 10:52 PM
The sources are clearly credible. The Hoover Institute is credible. MTP is credible. Fred’s own signature on his statement of position is credible.
Well, MTP was credible last week when Russert was skewering Hillary. But it doesn’t surprise me that you don’t agree when it’s Fred who is getting skewered.
You are spinning. You leave no links to support your denials. The group isn’t fooled by that.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:10 PM
Which begs the question. Why? He had some great points and I’d think you would address them instead of going off topic to discuss his personality and spelling errors. I knew what he meant, and apparently you did too, so what is the purpose to point it out?
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:14 PM
Typo, huh? Did you type your comments in the reply section directly? If you did, Tommy, then “principal” is hardly a typo of principle. Quite a difference in meaning and quite a difference when typing both terms.
:rolls eyes:
Oh, you’re so right! What massively thought-provoking question did I avoid answering?
There was no question directed to me. I was making observations about your comments in this thread. And sometimes pointing out such things is illustrative.
eanax on November 5, 2007 at 11:16 PM
You mean like Dred Scott?
jaime on November 5, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Of course I’m spinning. And that’s what we call argument.
Tennman on November 5, 2007 at 11:23 PM
Why not? I just pointed out above that what he made was more than a spelling/typo error.
It’s a matter of cognition.
eanax on November 5, 2007 at 11:24 PM
you are a coward. Come out and play with the big boys or go home.
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 11:33 PM
Spelling error? Why not just address the spirit of the comment instead of the commenter? It was clear what he meant because we had an entire sentence and topic to get the context from.
Cognition? For who? He knew what he meant. I knew what he meant. You knew what he meant. And the entire group knew what he meant.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:34 PM
A person can make an argument without spinning. All you have to do is site sources like I do.
csdeven on November 5, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Overturned by the 13th Amendment, not another SCOTUS decision. But Fred would probably leave slavery to the states as well. If he can’t be troubled to stop what he thinks is murder with an amendment why would he bother to stop slavery with an amendment.
Try again.
tommylotto on November 5, 2007 at 11:37 PM
Well that pretty much demands that you STFD and STFU.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 12:31 AM
The 13th Amendment required ratification by 27 State legislatures.
When the 39th Congress assembled on December 5, 1865, the senators and representatives from the 25 northern states voted to deny seats in both houses of Congress to anyone elected from the 11 southern states. The full complement of senators from the 36 states of the Union was 72, and the full membership in the House was 240. Since it requires only a majority vote (Article I, Section 5, Constitution of the United States) to refuse a seat in Congress, only the 50 senators and 182 congressmen from the North were seated. All of the 22 senators and 58 representatives from the southern states were denied seats.
So you’re saying, if a Constitutional amendment cannot be had by a straight up/down vote, we should fight a civil war, and, after we win (whoever “we” is), we deny seats in the U.S. Congress to States until they ratify the new Amendment.
You’re a sharp one, tommyboy.
jaime on November 6, 2007 at 12:32 AM
Until now you professed to be “big”, “smarter than other Southerners”, highly IQ’d, given your quick studies, a well paid lawyer,…I thought you were just an arrogant type.
Based on what you wrote, above, you are also mean.
Entelechy on November 6, 2007 at 12:44 AM
I am sorry but you must be on drugs, you have no train of thought. We were talking about precedent. I made a point that stare decisis is very important and cases should only very rarely be overturned. You made an asinine comment about Dred Scott (as if that was a horrible precedent that needed to be overturned). I pointed out that Dred Scott was not overturned by the Court but was overturned by the amendment process — the same process Fred refuses to employ to stop what he apparently thinks is murder. Everything was making sense, then all of a sudden you drone on about how the South was denied representation in the ratification of the 13th. I just don’t understand your point. Is your point that states in open rebellion should nevertheless be given representation? or is it that you still think we should be permitted to own slaves? What the hell is your point, and want does it have to do with what we were talking about?
tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 12:52 AM
I’m mean?
That guy refuses to address the issue being discussed, but rather attempts to insults me because I type “principal” when I mean “principle.” He is a child. He is below contempt.
tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 12:58 AM
My point is that supporting a Right To Life Amendment is just hot air since it has no chance of passing. Vacating Roe v. Wade and sending it to the States is the best that can be hoped for at this time.
Your point that Roe v. Wade is a precedent that should not be vacated, and that the Constitution should be amended at this time (which would require a civil war similar to the 13th Amendment) is, well, how do I say this, um … retarded.
jaime on November 6, 2007 at 1:14 AM
And you would know about being below contempt tommy.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 1:22 AM
Good zinger.
As far as stare decisis, it sounds a lot like the “infallibility” of the Catholic Church. Precedent established, then nothing can go against precedence, right? Anyone care to look up when the Catholic Church finally admitted it was wrong about Galileo Galilei (1564-1642)?
“Galileo died on January 8, 1642, and was buried the next day in his family grave in the Santa Croce basilica of Firenze. He was reburied on sacred ground after a monument was erected in his honor at Santa Croce in 1737. He was formally rehabilitated in 1741, when Pope Benedict XIV authorized the publication of Galileo’s complete scientific works (a censored edition had been published in 1718), and in 1758 the general prohibition against heliocentrism was removed from the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. On 31 October 1992, Pope John Paul II expressed regret for how the Galileo affair was handled, as the result of a study conducted by the Pontifical Council for Culture.”
Texas Nick 77 on November 6, 2007 at 5:31 AM
News Flash
Pigs that want to kill babies will find a way to do it. All Fred said was that Roe was bad law legislated from a branch of government that is not legally in the legislation business. Turn it over to the states. States that want to allow butchering of babies will allow it. States that do not, will not allow it. Pigs will cross state lines to kill their babies.
Your Sanctuary City Mayor-in-drag wants abortion legal and safe everywhere including my neighborhood and would prefer adoption for homosexual married people. Rudiani you liberal scum bag.
saved on November 6, 2007 at 6:57 AM
Come on, don’t hold it in… Tell us how you really think.
Texas Nick 77 on November 6, 2007 at 7:02 AM
Fantastic post; you put it much better than I could have. Thank you. This is exactly how I feel about Rudy, and all the candidates who are “pro-choice.”
Me too. But I would have to add, I include all abortions, from the abortionist’s point of view, since he totally knows what he is doing. Women frequently do not, unfortunately. So I guess I’d call that manslaughter.
80-95% of abortion minded women (depending on the study) who view ultrasounds, decide strongly against abortion after seeing images of their children.
BTW, a simple way to start discussions with those who say they would allow abortion in the first trimester: you ask, “how many weeks is that?” and they say “up to twelve weeks” and then you ask, “twelve weeks from what?” Life begins at the beginning, not because we divide it into (in current science, medically arbitrary, according to Bernard Nathanson and other gynecologists) “trimesters.”
inviolet on November 6, 2007 at 7:49 AM
Uh, I meant obsolete, not arbitrary. *gets belated coffee*
inviolet on November 6, 2007 at 7:52 AM
What Fred said was that life begins at conception. That means abortion is murder. He believes abortion should be left to the states. Effectively he is saying that the murder of unborn children should be left to the states. All under the guise of federalism.
I am now waiting for Fred to stand up and demand that murder, burglary, rape, and every other crime should be left to the states and he would be perfectly fine with states that choose to make those crimes legal.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 8:49 AM
No, you can’t. Argument is spinning. Citing sources is called gathering of facts. Argument is persuasion plus conclusion.
IOW, spin.
Tennman on November 6, 2007 at 8:53 AM
Okay, now I think I follow you. Your point is that it took a civil war to overturn Dred Scott, because unless at the point of a bayonet there never would have been sufficient support for an amendment, Similarly, there will never be enough support for a constitutional amendment banning abortion and we would need to fight another civil war to impose such an amendment on the Godless blue states. It would be easier and less bloody to just overturn Roe than to fight the civil war that would be necessary. That is a very good point. I retract my denigration of you chain of thought. Sorry.
The only point on your comment that I would make is that the concept of slavery was not created by the SCOTUS in Dred Scott. Rather it was engrained in the constitution. A civil war was necessary.
The point I was making is that precedent is a bed rock principle of our legal system. It is why the British and Americans have always been through out history more orderly with more respect for the rule of law than other nations. In our legal system, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander. It doesn’t matter who you are or who the judge is. You will get the same result that the last guy in your position got. That consistency breeds respect for the rule of law. The idea that if you can just pack the court with “your” judges and get a better or different result breeds contempt for the rule of law (Exhibit A — hollowpoint).
I hate activist judges as much as the next guy. I want strict constructionist judges too, but that comes from my legal philosophy, not from a bind hatred of abortion. I think Roe was one of the worst reasoned opinions ever written. It was completely results oriented, but it is precedent. It has been precedent for 35 years. It has been upheld in Casey as being binding precedent. I am not saying that it cannot or should not be overruled, but any judge that would be willing to overturn it without serious contemplation of the issue of precedent would not have respect for our legal system and would in my book be considered an activist judge — a very dangerous thing indeed. It would be great if he is an activist for your issues, but then the court becomes a political football and the respect for the rule of law is lost. To a great extent the damage may already be done. The anti-abortion groups’ fixation on overturning Roe through packing the courts rather than following the proper legal process of amending the constitution (with or without a civil war) has already made the nomination process to the SCOTUS a very contentious affair. Everyone wants their judges in there so they can change things. That is contrary to how our legal system is supposed to work and undermines the rule of law.
tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 9:03 AM
My understanding of spin is the attempt to present the facts in a way that benefits the position you want regardless of the truth.
For instance: Fred’s comment about leaving abortion to the states after telling us all that life begins at conception. IOW, murder. The Fredheads get all excited that Fred is being a federalist. That is not factual. A federalist would never allow that murder can be left to individual states to decide. The reason why is found in the constitution.
But, you understand spin to be defined differently. Fine. The only other way I can describe it is by calling it lying or, intellectual dishonesty.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 9:20 AM
No, I’m just calling it what it is. One can spin honestly, one can spin dishonestly, one can lie, or one can persuade based on logic after gathering factual information. Or illogically reaching an erroneous conclusion.
It’s all spin.
Your philosophical spin on Fred is he’s dishonest. No matter what you see, you are able to find a way to spin it to that dark corner of the soul.
My spin on it is that Fred is who he is. I believe (my spin) that he is what he seems. That there are no more dark corners or fewer dark corners that exist in any man. I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. You’re not.
Spin.
Tennman on November 6, 2007 at 9:30 AM
Well, now that I see that you call everything spin, I will avoid the term with you. Many of your views of Fred are intellectually dishonest.
You can give him the benefit of the doubt that you perceive he is entitled to. I would rather look at his history and judge it against his current rhetoric.
Fred claimed he has always been with the pro-life crowd.
The pro-life crowd does not believe that abortion should be legal for any reason during any trimester.
So that is a bald faced lie by Fred. He is trying to fool the people. What he should have said is that he is a federalist who pro-choice during the first trimester, but after that abortion should be illegal. But if he did that, he would never get their support.
You call that “spin” to try and give it credibility. It really is bald face lying and you are being intellectually dishonest by trying to legitimizing his lying by calling it “spin”.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 10:18 AM
Now, now, cs. Let’s not spin our knickers into a twist, shall we?
I’ve never been intellectually dishonest. Well, once I was when I thought I could prove to the world that cold fusion happens between two ice cubes…
Anyway, if you listen — and you don’t really have to — you’ll hear Fred say that he’s always been pro life. 100 percent voting record. He says Roe v. Wade is wrongly decided. Because it used judicial activism to create a law that didn’t exist before. He said he wants the states to control the abortion question, because it always had until Roe. Coincidentally, states are historically very restrictive where abortion is concerned.
I don’t know why you can’t get your head around an entire idea. One can be pro life and also anti criminalizing. Once can also state that his public view and treatment of abortion is 100 percent pro life. One can also place the decision back where it belongs: in the hands of the people.
It’s not that you’re wrong about all of this, it’s that your logic. isn’t. logical.
Do I call you a lying liar? Nah. I’d rather just call it mistaken and obstinately obtuse.
Tennman on November 6, 2007 at 10:56 AM
“My” judges are those who rule based on the law, not on their personal politics.
But apparently you’d have us believe that putting more emphasis on the rule of law than the whims of an activist judge is “contempt for the rule of law”.
Perhaps you can point me to the article of the Constitution that codifies stare decisis as overruling the actual content of the Constitution.
Again, you took to your indoctrination well- you’re a lawyer who’s been convinced that rule of law is unimportant compared to the belevolent rule of those at the top of the legal profession.
Hollowpoint on November 6, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Now this is genuine intellectual dishonesty. The US Constitution does not define murder, not does it specifically make it illegal. What the Constitution does do is assure that no citizen can be charged with a capitol crime without certain due process.
The definition of exactly what constitutes murder is in fact a states rights issue as is the prescribed remedy. A perfect example of the states right to make that definition is the contrast between Texas’ Castle laws and Oregon’s disavowal of the “Stand to the Wall” precedent.
Suck it up cs, you are spinning faster than the Tasmanian Devil trying to catch Bugs Bunny.
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 11:25 AM
That position is.not.pro-life. Period. Those are the facts and you are being intellectually dishonest to try and justify his lying.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 11:25 AM
And I say it is, semicolon; and in my voting booth, I’m the only one who matters. :)
Tennman on November 6, 2007 at 11:40 AM
OH COME ON!
Bill of rights: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
5th amendment: nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
14th amendment: No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
According to Fred, abortion is murder and he is advocating that the states can make murder legal.
The fact is the US Constitution prohibits murder and a state couldn’t make abortion legal if it wanted to.
It’s a straw man argument you guys. Wise up.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 11:45 AM
You can say what you want but the pro-life groups will not accept your position as pro-life. They are the ones who define it and you claiming otherwise is intellectual dishonesty. What you are advocating is moral relativity. You get to decide the definition of all things yourself and others are allowed the same.
Fred has to adhere to the standards of normalcy, or suffer the consequences of being call a liar. Fred is clearly pro-choice and he is a dang liar to say he is 100% pro-life.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 11:50 AM
And I say they will. Do you accept the National Right to Life organization as a pro-life group, one which is representative of the right-to-life movement? Here’s a comparison they make of all presidential candidates.
You’re just plain wrong on your assumption, my friend.
Tennman on November 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM
It is funny watching Fredheads zealously advocating the same reasoning that Rudy supporters were using just a few months ago….
tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 12:08 PM
Oh, and cs, how do you explain NARAL, Pro-Choice America lists Fred as Anti choice?
Seems to me even his enemies know where he stands. How come you can’t? Are you claiming to be the only one with superpowers who can reach into his mind and declare his intentions for him? That’s intelekchewly dishonest.
Tennman on November 6, 2007 at 12:14 PM
It’s not hard, tommylotto. You can say it’s funny when Tennman is zelously advocating blah blah blah. I’m actually in the room and can see what you’re saying.
That’s the strawman argument. Take the one perceived flaw, misrepresent my argument and trivialize it. Salute. Nice rhetorical style!
Tennman on November 6, 2007 at 12:17 PM
Because he wants to limit their choice to the first trimester and they want to kill babies as they are exiting the womb.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 12:28 PM
Unless you have something else, the NRLO did not call him pro-life. They simple stated where the candidates stand on pro-life issues. Notice they did not mention his position on allowing abortion in the first trimester. Which is in fact the position he holds. Heck, according to his discussion on MTP, he wants to turn over ALL abortion over to the states with no restrictions.
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 12:36 PM
Because he wants to, huh? Give me a quote where he says, “I want to limit the choice of a woman to the first trimester.”
Not something he said in 1194 where it should be legal. Tell me where he says he wants to.
You keep inferring his desire and his wanting in every post you write about it. That’s dishonest. You can no more know that than you can know what your wife wants you to say when she asks you if this dress makes her look frumpy.
Tennman on November 6, 2007 at 12:38 PM
Article III, Section 2 states:
It was modified by the 11th Amendment in matters not relevant to this discussion. The reference to “Cases in Law and Equity” is the formal adoption of the Common Law system that our forefather brought over from England. Also note that this description of judicial power actually defines the allocation of cases arising under the Constitution or the laws of the US. The Constitution clearly authorized the SCOTUS to employ Common Law principles to determine Constitutional and US law issues.
I hate to tell you, but you want an activist judge. You want a judge selected because of his political position on abortion to be appointed to the SCOTUS for the singular purpose of accomplishing a political goal — overturning Roe. But why stop there? As csdeven stated above a judge could look at the Constitution and the founding documents, and come to the interpretation that life starts at conception and abortion is depriving the fetus of life without due process. So, if we can just pack the Court with judges with this philosophy we can avoid the amendment process altogether.
You claim that you advocate the rule of law, but you actually advocate the opposite — lawless and activist judges, but just ones that agree with you. Our legal system, as founded by our ancestors, whether we agree or disagree, made a decision. That decision is part of the law and our acceptance of that decision is essential for the rule of law.
Now precedents can be overruled on occasion (particularly in areas on Constitutional interpretation where the SCOTUS has made over 100 about faces), but any change must take into consideration precedent which weighs heavily against overruling. That is how any conservative justice would approach it — thus Rudy’s position is consistent with Fred’s, but with a better understanding of the nuances of Constitutional Law.
tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 12:51 PM
So which one of those actually makes murder a crime? Or defines what murder is? Oh yea, thats right, none of them. Like I said you are spinning faster than Taz…..
doriangrey on November 6, 2007 at 1:19 PM
Would my argument be constitutional or am I missing something?
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 1:21 PM
Why am I not surprised that you’d dishonestly invent a strawman as the basis of your argument?
I want a judge who will overturn any and all rulings which do not adhere to rule of law laid out in the Constitution- not their political beliefs, even if it goes against an otherwise furthering of the conservative agenda. As I’ve said well before the primary race started, I’d be against a federal law banning abortion on the same Constitutional grounds- the Constitution doesn’t grant the federal government that authority.
The torture of logic employed by you and too many members of the legal profession is astounding- adhering to the law is far less significant than adhering to unwritten constructs of the legal profession, such that a judge who rules based on text and intent of the law is an activist if he doesn’t slavishly defer to an obviously dishonest ruling by a predecessor.
Note that I’ve never suggested that stare decisis has no basis at all, but rather it is heavily overemphasised. The modern overweighting of stare decisis has led to less predicatability, not more as you’ve suggested. No longer can the clear intent of the law be relied on as an indication of how a court will rule- thanks to the arrogance of the legal profession, one can only guess whether the law will be followed, or a judge will ignore the law and rule on whim knowing full well that his peers will be unlikely to overturn a bad ruling thanks to the artificial sanctity given to stare decisis.
Rudy simply refuses to give a clear opinion on whether Roe v Wade was wrongly decided or if it should be overturned- he wants wiggle room so he can appoint judges that don’t interfere with his pro-choice stance. Fred has made his position clear, hence their stances are not at all the same.
Hollowpoint on November 6, 2007 at 1:42 PM
It depends on your judicial philosophy. Before deciding Roe, the Court could have said that due to the 5th and 14th, abortion is unconstitutional because it would deprive the baby of life without due process. But those amendments were designed with criminal/administrative law and state action in mind, not murder or abortion by a doctor. It would also require the court to reach the conclusion that life begins at conception or where ever they decided to draw the line. Such a decision would make more sense than the “right to privacy.” But it would require a results oriented decision by an activist court. It would be expanding the 5th and 14th beyond its original intent and would involve deciding the issue of the start of life without any real Constitutional guidance. It would be legislating on the bench. If I were a judge on the SCOTUS addressed on the Roe case I would have punted. Sorry, the Constitution gives no guidance on this issue. Talk to your legislature.
tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 1:55 PM
So what part of the constitution protects us from being murdered?
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 4:06 PM
Murder is a Common Law crime. That’s is what I have been trying to explain to hollowpoint. Common Law is the ultimate source of the rule of law. Murder is what the courts have described as murder going way back into our history before there was a Constitution or other statutes. Most jurisdiction have codified the Common Law crime of murder into penal codes, however. Usually it is a state crime, but you could be tried for murder in federal court if for example you killed someone while robbing a bank.
tommylotto on November 6, 2007 at 5:06 PM
So, could we grandfather in the unborn to the ranks of those protected from murder? (If it was decided that birth begins at conception)
csdeven on November 6, 2007 at 5:18 PM
I agree with what you are saying. Especially this:
The Court has a duty to correct its mistakes. The key is to appoint judges who are willing to do it.
jaime on November 6, 2007 at 6:36 PM
And in what jurisdiction is murder not codified as a crime? Are you suggesting that one could be convicted for violating a non-existant law by citing unwritten common law?
Common Law might be the basis for the framework of our legal system, but the tradition does not override statute or remove the obligation to make judicial judgements based on written law.
Hollowpoint on November 6, 2007 at 7:02 PM
Correction US had common law crimes until 1812, then the SCOTUS required crimes to be codified (no ex post facto laws). Then the variuos states adopted the common law crimes into penal codes. There are still plenty of civil common law causes of action however.
tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 9:12 AM
It doesn’t, as Tommy quite correctly pointed out the Constitution never addressed this point because murder was already a de facto standard of common law. However what he was a little less clear about is that even under common law standards the actual definition of what constituted murder varied from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
What might have been defined as murder in one jurisdiction might easily be defined as self-defense of misadventure in another jurisdiction. Alexander Hamilton’s death for example was considered death by misadventure according to common law when then Vice President Aaron Burr shot and killed him in a duel.
This did not stop other jurisdictions within both New York and New Jersey from filing murder charges against Burr. Interestingly enough though the judiciary in Washington D.C. fully accepted the common law definition of death by misadventure and allowed him to finish out the remaining two years of his term as Vice President without incident.
Probably not in the grandfathering sense, since that would create a unacceptable ex post facto situation. It is conceivable however that should life be ruled to begin at conception that abortion could be ruled illegal under the DoI’s “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” clause. However since the DoI isn’t the constitution it could not be the basis for declaring abortion unconstitutional.
As Tommy said since the Constitution gives no guidance on this issue the subject is not going to be quickly or easily resolved. Other than a very loose interpretation of the DoI’s “life liberty and the pursuit of happiness” clause I really don’t see any way that a constitutional amendment could be justified. This would suffer pretty much from the same malady that Roe v Wade suffers from. In that it creates out of thin air a right not previously enumerated in the constitution.
There currently is no amendment that defines murder and any attempt to create a prohibition of abortion via constitutional amendment would be doing exactly that in direct violation of the “States Rights” clause.
doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 10:22 AM
If it were to be ruled that life begins at birth, is that really how it would play out? I know that lawyering is skill in nuancing interpretations, but wouldn’t there be a point in time that judges would just use common sense and rule that “Life, Liberty, etc” is all the constitution needs to rule abortion unconstitutional?
If not, I am sure many Americans, even those who are pro-choice, would be surprised at that rational.
Another twist to this……if a gene could be found that causes homosexuality, the gay community, who normally marches in the pro-choice marches, would suddenly become pro-life in the blink of an eye and would be marching hand in hand with the evangelicals. THAT would be a sight!
csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 11:24 AM
doriangrey, Thanks for the info and answers.
csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 11:25 AM
The problem of course is…that “Life, Liberty, etc” isn’t in the constitution and because it isn’t in the constitution it cannot be used to determine the constitutionality of any law.
The only possible way that the Declaration of Independence could in my opinion be used would be if (Tommy would really have a much better idea on this one) you could get a “priory” ruling that the DoI substituted as a rights guaranteeing document during the 12 or so years required to construct the US Constitution and get it ratified.
Quite honestly I don’t see that happening since I believe that the articles of confederation were employed during that time as the rights guaranteeing document.
doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 11:42 AM
Yeah, I knew that. I meant the 5th. Would that change anything?
csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 12:12 PM
I seriously doubt it, it would in my opinion still come down to being able to find something to base a “Priory” ruling on. Tommy is quite correct about the importance of “Priory rulings” in our legal system. They are not bullet proof involute statutes, but they do function as a guarantee that the same standard will be used for every citizen. Without the concept of “Priory rulings” virtually every judicial ruling becomes a new law, which would violate the concept of laws being enacted as the sole discretion of the legislative branch of government.
Furthermore the “Grandfathering” concept is extremely tricky because it has the very distinct possibility of violating the ex post facto rule. Basically our legal system says that you cannot charge an individual with a crime that was not a crime at the time of the action regardless of whether the law was changed at a later date.
doriangrey on November 7, 2007 at 1:00 PM
doriangrey,
It is shocking that a court would not just require that all state make abortion illegal.
csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 1:44 PM
Just as a clarification, both MCCL and NRLC count Fred Thompson as being pro-life.
coyoterex on November 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM
He isn’t 100% pro-life like he claims. He’s pro-life lite. A pro-choice federalist.
csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 3:55 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »