From: tierney@nevada.edu (TIM TIERNEY)
Subject: Re: Whether you like Clinton or not,...
Organization: University of Nevada System Computing Services
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 22:29:17 GMT

In article <LGOLD.92Jul20132648@cds8952.Cadence.COM> lgold@cds8952.Cadence.COM (Lynn Gold) writes:
>...there's a VERY good reason to vote for him:
>Harry Blackmun is 84.
 
 True.  The next president will likely be able to nominate a new justice.

>Blackmun is the guy who wrote the "Roe v. Wade" decision.

 Basically doesn't matter.  A good law that is not unconstitutional will
 by it's very nature support itself.

>Although he's a Nixon appointee, he's actually a moderate.

 True again.  And you should also note that a number of the so-called
 republican "conservatives" recently appointed to the court have proven
 to be far more moderate in their views than was expected of them when
 they were first appointed (by the people and the president).  3 of those
 appointed during the Reagan/Bush era.

>
>If Bush gets re-elected, he'll be able to topple a woman's right to
>have a safe and legal abortion.  (PLEASE, no pro-choice or pro-life
>flames here!)

 Not coming down on either side of the issue and without flaming, I hardly
 think this is true.  Note my comments above as to past appointees being
 more moderate than thought.  Politics definitely come into play when a
 nominee is chosen for the supreme court, and because of this the nominee
 has to "play the game" and say the things that the group in power want
 to hear in order to get nominated.  What they do once they are actually
 a member of the court can be vastly different as past history has shown.
 Since they serve for life and cannot be removed by any arm of government,
 they can basically rule on issues as they see fit, no matter who objects.

 On the matter of "a womans right" or "a mans right" to anything, the
 whole debate over these types of issues is ludicrous.  The framers of
 the constitution discussed only certain "natural" rights by which all
 other issues would be held up to.  This is abundantly clear as well if
 you read the Federalist Papers and take note of the way the thinking of
 the framers was elaborated by Publius.  The National Government was never
 supposed to issue laws and rules governing individuals unless it was in
 support of one of the powers provided for by the constitution.  Even the
 bill of rights was originally intended only to deal with how the national
 government would deal with individuals.  The individual states were not
 to be directly bound by the bill of rights, i.e. you had freedom of
 speech in dealings with the national government but your own state might
 have laws restricting your freedom of speech in other dealings.

 My point is this: The national government was only supposed to rule and
 make laws on the powers granted it by the constitution.  Individual states
 were to determine rules/laws/etc for their own citizens provided that
 such didn't violate the "natural" rights provided for by the constitution.
 Arguments as to whether someone has a right to an abortion, or a right to
 to make the choice to have an abortion should never have become national
 issues involving either the congress or the supreme court.  This debate
 as well as so many others the court has ruled on in recent (30-40) years
 should have been dealt with at the individual state level as they have
 absolutely nothing to do with the powers allowed and prevented in the
 original constitution.

>
>If you're pro-choice (I AM), no matter how low Clinton is on your
>totem pole, he's your ONLY electable choice.
>

Though I can see how supportive you are of this issue, a person cannot be
only pro-choice or pro-life or pro-any-single-issue.  You should look at
many things before deciding who to vote for, and the abortion issue should
only be one of them.  In order to put it more clearly with an example:
would you elect a president who is the only pro-choice candidate but who
has also stated that s/he would repeal all affirmative action plans based
on racial equality?  Or who has stated entitlement programs would not
benefit a single mother because they need a "traditional" family setting.
(I'm not saying Clinton or Bush would do any of the above, it is merely
an example of how single issue voting could elect an inappropriate person
for the job.)

My .02 worth.

Tim Tierney
tierney@nevada.edu


Newsgroups: alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.elections