Robertson endorses Giuliani

Hawk likes hawk.

If Roe v Wade were reversible, Bush Jr would have done so during the last 7 years when he also enjoyed a Republican Congress.

Invoking Roe v Wade is just a means of dividing the public and a pandering opportunity for politicians. No POTUS can reverse it so why make it a condition of support?

Renee didn't say that a POTUS couldn't influence or work towards it... she said "reverse it" which is stronger than what you said. 

Ok, I'll play.

a) What has the Republican President Bush done to influence or work towards overturning RvW? He's had a very friendly and cooperative Congress for 7 years so... ? What's changed with RvW during this time? If he's done nothing, is that due to lack of interest? Lack of motivation? Did he misrepresent his views on RvW? Or could it be the POTUS is ineffectual when it comes to overturning RvW?

b) If SCOTUS grossly overstepped, why haven't subsequent SCOTUS rectified the situation?

We have this thing called Checks & Balances written into our Constitution. So, while you don't think the Courts should nullify laws which are contrary to the Constitution, the Founding Fathers thought otherwise. The Founding Fathers had some notions about protecting minority rights and avoiding mob/majority rule through the use of these Checks & Balances. Sorry, your idea doesn't wash with our system of government.

Yes, that's correct. It's a moot point, so why make it a condition of support? I think politicians should get real about the issue instead of making their RvW views a make/break issue. It's like saying "Vote for me because I promise I won't support any attempt to annex Mexico!"

We're always choosing between the lesser of two evils at the polls. Why is it a surprise when prominent citizens do likewise?

Good point, Opus, but which convictions are more important to Robertson? Methinks Giuliani's saber rattling appeals to Robertson. Perhaps they share the same world view and hostility towards the Muslim world?

I think Brad has it exactly correct.

The questions of abortion, the death penalty, definition of marriage, ect. belong in the state legislatures. The SCOTUS overreached in Roe. It was a bad decision on strictly legal terms. The SCOTUS wanted abortion to be legal and then went and tried to find a way to justify it. They got the process backwards.

This POTUS has been a great help to the pro-life movement. He appointed Roberts and Alito. He signed the partial-birth abortion ban.

Justice Scalia was recently here at Villanova giving a talk. At the end he said that in his view the constitution neither protects nor prohibits legal abortion. Of course, his personal opinion is that abortion is morally wrong. Yet he can find nothing in the constitution that would prohibit legal abortion. He also can find nothing in the constitution that protects abortion laws.

As far as Giulliani goes, if I were a Republican voting in the primary I would support Romney. If it comes down to a general election between Giuliani and Clinton or Obama, I'll have to study and see if I can vote for him in good conscience given his pro-choice position. Several factors to consider. If it turns out that I can't, I'll either sit this one out or vote third party.

RvW was handed down in 1973. How many Republican Presidents have we had since then? Nixon, Ford, Reagan, Reagan, Bush, Bush Jr, Bush Jr. (and, according to Greenspan, Clinton). In over 30 years, nothing significant has changed. So, your hypothetical 'adequate test case' position is interesting but I'm wondering why no adequate test case has not been brought to SCOTUS in over 30 years.

Or maybe it's the settled law of the land and politicians use RvW to score easy points.

OK, I'll play back at you.  The counter argument is that because of the nature of the decision( the actual vote) in Roe v. Wade, and the basis for that decision, coupled with the importance that the Roe Court placed on fetal viability in the original decision and as that idea relates to increased improvements and innovations in medical technologies, the Presidents Constitutional power to nominate Supreme Court Justices and thereby shape the perceived make-up of the Court could result in the Supreme Court receeding from Roe.  That's the argument.

Often over looked in discussions of Roe, abortions and privacy rights is some of the actual language in Roe dealing with notions of fetal viability.  (But I wouldn't want to urge anyone to actually do something as radical as reading the actual Roe decision rather than just relying what they think the COurt said or relying on what others tell them the Court said.  Interestingly you can actually find out what Roe stands for by reading it.)

As Lawerence Tribe noted (Hardly a coservative legal theorist) "What of the day when even the youngest fetus can safely be removed to another woman's womb or to some artificial incubator by a procedure no more threatening to the pregnant woman's well-being that that used to accomplish an abortion?  In that instance, the woman's right to terminate her pregnancy and the fetus' right to life may be vindicated simultaneously.  But the woman would no longer have complete control over her reproductive destiny, since her body would be the source of a new life she may not have wished to come into being.  In order to vindicate that right, may a pregnant woman insist not only that the unwanted fetus be removed from her body, but also that it be killed?  Apart from the problematic character of any claim in behalf of such a right, it's recognition and enforcement would be indistinguishable from licensing infanticide."  Lawerence H. Tribe, "American Constitutional Law", Second Edition

As professor Tribe notes "The unique characteristic of fetal life justifies the line that the Supreme Court has drawn between a woman's freedom to abort and the state's authority to protect a fetus.  Until the fetus is viable, only the pregnant woman can respond to an support her fetus' right to life; during this period, the state cannot abridge the woman's autonomy.  But once the fetus 'has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womob'- that is, once the responsibility for the nurture that is essential to life can be assumed by others with the aid of medical technology-the state may limit abortions so long as it poses no danger to the woman's life or health."  Id.

I was speaking in the context of W. and his shaping of the court.

Now there's a concept.

Here it is .

Besides reading Blackmun's opinion of the Court, it's also worth reading Rehnquist's dissenting opinion.

Afterward, it would be an interesting discussion to see which opinion seems to be more in line with the constitution.

Ah. I was speaking within the broader context of the disingenuous and misleading argument that voting for an anti-abortion Presidential candidate would result in overturning RvW. Which hasn't happened in the 34 years of RvW. And that corollary argument that "stacking the SCOTUS" with Justices who are anti-abortion will change the law of the land.

I trust our system of government and I trust our SCOTUS to rule evenly and justly, even when I find individual Justices to be odious. I believe that, for the most part, the people who sit in those chairs cherish our Constitution and want to be faithful to it.

But I'm an idealist.

Hiccups!

Whoops again.

Whoops.

One other thought about the OP.

Rudy has said clearly that he will appoint justices like Roberts and Alito. Of course, that would seem to be good for the pro-life movement.

One commentator put it this was, "Giuliani is saying to the social conservatives, 'vote for me because I don't have the courage to follow my convictions.'"

I think that commentator got it partially right. Giuliani's position may be similar to Scalia's in the sense that Rudy believes abortion is morally acceptable, but doesn't think that abortion laws are protected by the constitution.

I agree with you that by-in-large the Justices show legal independence and demonstrate only an obligation to the law.  However, Supreme Court decisions have changed.  There have been in our nations history concepts that have once been Constitutional that have been struck down by subsequent Courts.  That's what anti-abortion activists argue, and it's not disengenious.  It may be a long shot, but it isn't without president, and therefore it is not disengenious. 

How is it ever disengenious for rational people to seek to over turn laws or Constitutional interpretations that they feel are morally unjust? 

Additionally, the idea that concepts espoused in the Roe decision are stagnant and unchanging and never changable is clearly wrong.

What if a subsequent Court receeded from Roe on Constitutional grounds.  Would you find that a political issue, a moral issue?  Would you be so supportive of the Supreme Court then?  Or does your support balance on your ultimate agreement with their rulings? 

Why is it that if the Supreme Court continues to uphold the concepts of Roe they are exercising legal independence, but if they receed from Roe or overturn Roe they are not independent?

Neither. I would find it a Constitutional issue. I don't look to SCOTUS for politically or morally rendered judgments. I also have more faith in SCOTUS than to assume low motives for their decisions.

In the interest of open dialogue, I'm going to assume you aren't being presumptuous and are asking questions for which you really do not have preconceived ideas, despite the cynicism belied in your line of questions.

I was pretty clear in my post. My support balances on my idealist belief that the Justices, for the most part, can be trusted to interpret the Constitution to the best of their abilities and good conscience. Let the Constitutional chips fall where they may. My faith and optimism lies in our system of government.

Um, are you making an argument or making one for me? Or maybe that's just a general question for anyone in the thread. I'll pass on that loaded question, thanks.