What Social Conservative issues are still viable in the year 2014?

I think even republicans are changing their views on Prohibition of Marijuana, no way they try to run on support of the war on drugs

 

I don't think McConnell and Co. should waver from their stated priority of limiting President Obama to a single term.

As for their social agenda, I would hope they would go on a jihad in opposition to gender equality in marriage law. If it's good enough for sharia law, it's good enough for the TPs!

 

As I remember, all those bills were some type of repeals for Obamcare..

 

And Obamacare has actually helped the economy somewhat. Admittedly not as much as, oh, repealing all the tax-breaks on the richest in society who say they're creating jobs when they're really doing nothing of the kind. But don't tell that to Taxcutter, he's happy with his delusions.

 

Taxcutter says:
Actually they were bills authorizing recission of job-killing regulations.

 

I disagree on Roe. Try getting an abortion in Mississippi, you can't. The state regulated it out of existance.

As for affirmative action, the angry white guy (or gal) is going to need a case that is a slam dunk that they were actually harmed. The white girl challenging the U of Texas might have a chance (haven't followed up on it so not sure where it is in the courts).

 

Let's see how the Asian-Americans do in California in blocking reinstatement of racial preferences in their universities.

The right case comes along and Roe can be reversed.

 

Why reverse Roe? Just do what Mississippi did and the providers left. You take it to the USSC you risk losing.

 

No it can't. There is no Constitutional basis for outlawing abortion.

Roe, a case that has been reaffirmed multiple times, will not be reversed. I'll let you in on a little secret, the trend of American history has been towards liberalization. Thus Roe, which was decided on the grounds of equal protection, will not be reversed.

It seems I have to explain the simplest things to you multiple times, so here I go. The only way to reverse a case that has been decided and reaffirmed multiple times is to get a Constitutional Amendment ratified to codify the exception. However, the last time a right was abridged by Amendment, it lasted less than fifteen years, caused more problems than it was worth, and is seen as one of the biggest mistakes in American history. There's also not enough public support for an amendment banning abortion outright, there's not even enough public support for banning some abortions.

The same thing with gay marriage, the tide of public opinion has turned to be in favor of gay marriage, because there are enough states that have gay marriage to say that there is no adverse consequences to having it. Even Pope Francis sees that it's the duty of a secular state to allow gay marriage.

 

Taxcutter says:
Plessy had been reaffirmed and even expanded upon (Lum v. Rice in 1927), but yet it was still reversed by a single decision.

Taxcutter says:
When you explain things wrong you'll just have to keep trying.

There really isn't enough political agreement on abortion to ratify an amendment one way or the other. This issue could alternate back and forth - depending on the vicissitudes of case law - for decades. Leaving it to the states is really the only way to settle the issue.

 

One big problem with both Lum and Plessy that you're leaving out, and the reason why both cases were later overturned by Brown....

Both cases relied on the justification that the facilities offered for minorities were in fact equal to those offered for white students. By 1951, the year in which Brown was filed, it was apparent that the separate facilities were unequal and thus, the states were not even honoring Plessy. The only rational remedy was then to eliminate the doctrine of separate but equal. Whoops, I used rationality..

The problem isn't at my end....

You're right.....for once. There isn't enough public support for an amendment one way or the other, thus the decisions must rely on the Fourteenth Amendment, which still requires equal protection. The precedent cases, of course, are for abortion. It is up to the states, and the roadblocks they have been putting up will not stand when they are put before the Supreme Court.

 

It's entirely possible Roe will be reversed - a trend you think you see is never absolute. The decision on Roe was not drawn from any hard principle or clear cut rule, it was a balancing act. Balancing acts aren't immutable in and of themselves

 

"America"? You mean the majority? It also doesn't want Obamacare, yet still we have it. He'll a majority doesn't want Nancy Pelosi, still we have her - what's your point? Because if it's as simple as what you said, it's entirely moot.

 

Balance tests at the Supreme Court usually seem to go more towards personal liberty. Until a fetus is considered the equivalent of an individual, there is no reason to grant that fetus the rights of an individual. There are very few still-standing precedents that say that personal liberty is trumped by government interest. The only ones i can think of off the top of my head deal with wartime situations, such as Korematsu and the Gitmo cases.

I do see Roe having some possibility to be reversed in time, but that will require significant future scientific expansion. If, for example, a pregnant woman does not want the child, it could be surgically removed and gestated in an artificial uterine environment until it is at full term and then able to live independently of the gestation device.

 

It sounds to me like you're talking about your opinion, not legal status. If the court is to overturn Roe, it's not going to be because we can remove the baby without harming him/her. That requires that it is agreed that the baby IS a him/her, which is not current legal status. If it's overturned, it's going to be because the court finds that, in light of medical evidence more recent than Roe, the unborn child at x. Point is a person.

 

Obamacare is a sore subject for me. I live it and breathe it 6 days a week, 10-12 hours a day. I work in a call center and take customer calls from new federal exchange members in a very red state.

You would be amazed how much better Obamacare works in states like California where the people aren't driven to the federal site and call center. The federal call center is a nightmare. California's isn't having trouble at all. The only trouble they have is getting contracts in place with providers fast enough to accomodate the new patients.

Red states are sabotaging Obamacare, to the detriment and danger of patients in those states. It's criminal.

 

What you're saying is basically what I was referring to. The only way Roe would be overturned is if it would be determined that a fetus at any stage of development would be viable. That does not need an accession that the fetus is, in fact, an individual.

I'm basing my opinion on the fact that several courts have refused to allow abortion bans with a limit on the age of the fetus. For example, I believe a sixteen-week limit was recently struck down.

They are morally culpable for every unnecessary death that occurred because they decided to be partisan. However, moral culpability and legal responsibility are different, and I fail to see how criminal charges could stick. They could conceivably face wrongful death civil suits though. For people like Scott Walker, the official decision to refuse Medicaid was predicated on a personal desire to advance to a higher office.

 

It also doesn't want to repeal Obamacare

 

The majority of Americans have an unfavorable view of the Tea Party the last time I checked. They also seem to be more in favor of Obamacare. As for the impact polls, the impact is not very noticeable this early on. Look at the Patriot Act. It had widespread support early on, and only now, over a decade after it was passed, do we see that it's got some serious drawbacks. The Social Security Act was another issue, you couldn't judge the law's impact in 1940 because it hadn't been in effect for very long. If you try to repeal the SSA without establishing a new system, it'd never fly because people realize having retirement benefits is a damn good thing.

As for Pelosi, whether she gets elected to Congress or not is not up to the entirety of the American public, it's up to the voters in her district.

 

You DO realize OTHER Tea Partyers claim the TP is NOT about abortion or social conservatism....but "only about fiscal conservatism".

Thank you for calling them liars.

 

Cite me the poll showing a majority of Americans want abortion made illegal...or even Roe overturned? Then talk "Duh...winning!"

Sarah Palin and her daughter Bristol...STILL go around advocating abstinence-only sex education.

61% of young REPUBLICANS support gay marriage. How bodes that for the future of opposition?

How many quotes about "easy divorce" from social conservatives do you want?

Hard to pull off...with Laura Ingraham filling in for Bill O'Reilly...isn't it?

How many public schools have classroom prayers in the US...as they did before 1962?

But you DO admit that social conservatives still dream of the 1962 ruling being overturned....don't you? My point too.

 

A MAJORITY of the US Supreme Court Justices TODAY were nomianted by "pro-life" Republican Presidents......where's the reversal of Roe???

 

42.3% support the tea party (this is assuming equal ratio of Dems, Reps, Independents, which isn't the case, but the round math makes for a ballpark figure).

Obama's latest approval rating is at 40%. (Gallup)

Support for Obamacare is at 40%. (Gallup)

No, apparently people aren't as upset with the Tea Party as you might think. The numbers that suggest it's weak are not 'support' or 'approval', but 'identification.' That only some ~23% identify as part of the Tea Party isn't it's "approval" rating. That'd be like saying the Democrats have a roughly 33% approval rating, because that's how many people self-identify.

your original point was busted and now you want to shift the point?

your original point was busted - if you understood the rebuttal, you would have realized that noting Palin's view on x doesn't mean squat.

As I've already shown no, that's not the case. The polls you're citing are inherently flawed, and most Americans do not support gay marriage - I've already given you a more comprehensive survey that busts your (unsourced) one apart. What's wrong with the one you want to cite? It doesn't differentiate between gay marriage and civil unions.

come on, mate. It's not that hard to understand. You can quote a handful of people from the fringe, it doesn't change the fact that they're the fringe and you're trying to employ dishonest and honestly downright pathetic tactics to paint the fringe as the norm. Grow up, Gorn. Discuss the issues like an adult. The fringe is the fringe - don't pretend like it's anything other than that.

oh look! another time that Gorn cites "this one guy said" as it's a proof of an entire movement. You're really not getting the point, dude.

you're not getting the point.

Wow. So you can't even dither on this one, and so you just try to change the subject? Dude, your argument has been busted left, right, and center - don't try to shift the discussion. It's sad.

 

clearly you don't understand how the courts work, nor the meaning of the word "possible." If we were to believe you, something is impossible if it hasn't happened.

 

You seem to think it is only Liberals that are spending money and borrowing from other Nations.