Pro choice woman, did you know that the next president will appoint,new Supreme Court Justices that could tip the Abortion vote balance. that has been 5-4 in the last vote.
Stevens is 87 years of age (Ford).Ginsburg 74 years of age (Clinton)
These two Justices have been firm pro Choice voters and may possibly retire in the next 4 years. (age/ health)
2007-09-25 20:59:21 · 8 answers · asked by Anonymous in Social Science ➔ Gender Studies
Thoughts!!
2007-09-25 21:00:40 · update #1
Thank you Mr. Daniel I didn't know that the Supreme Court justices and abortion were voting balanced like that. That is very serious.
It is also very sad that abortion rights is still such a major issue for American politics and elections when there are other issues that seriously need attention that affect the US and the rest of the world.
I can't vote for America's president and I shouldn't but if I could than abortion rights would be a go/no for a candidate..
2007-09-26 06:53:55 · answer #1 · answered by ♥ ~Sigy the Arctic Kitty~♥ 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I see the 2000 vote as being the main mandatory vote of the last decade. right it is why... - As George W Bush states, his presidency would be debated for many some destiny years. - From the way he gained the electoral vote and not the uncomplicated vote - From the way he replied to 9/11 as a president. - the way he attacked Iraq unilaterally without the united statesapproval - the way we did not discover any WMDs in Iraq and killed Suddam - the way we did not get the organizer of 9/11...Osama Bin encumbered - the way he took the excess to a deficit and killed the financial gadget All of this became right into a results of the election of 2000. the main important value of the election of 2008 is that the recent president would have the freshen up the mess from G W Bush. Which originate from the election of 2000. So the election of 2000 became into the main mandatory of the last decade.
2016-12-17 10:38:44 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i want someone who can win in the general election and I do not think Sens. Clinton or Obama can, so I am backing Gov. Richardson (who also happens to be the most qualified).
But you're absolutely right. In fact, the court could overturn Roe in part or in toto even now. they have the votes. I suspect that there's actually pressure for them to hold off on this because it would produce a huge turn out for the Dems next time.
2007-09-25 21:26:03 · answer #3 · answered by Gnu Diddy! 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
To take away such a right is political suicide. The right may talk the talk about being against it, but they realize that in this new millenium, they cannot possibly take away this particular right from women (and men).
EVERY election is an important one for EVERYONE - not just women.
2007-09-25 22:16:13 · answer #4 · answered by Super Ruper 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I was thinking about that yesterday. We definitely need more liberal justices — if the GOP has their way, we might end up with two new Alitos.
2007-09-26 01:49:03 · answer #5 · answered by Rio Madeira 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
I generally don't take much interest in US domestic politics but since the US appointed itself as the world ruler it is inevitable that it has knock-on effects worldwide.
If I were American I certainly would have nothing to do with husband-beating crypto-communist Hillary Clinton, she is deranged.
2007-09-26 01:17:48 · answer #6 · answered by celtish 3 · 1⤊ 4⤋
Important for the woman, because a woman might get elected president of the USA.
Is our country ready for this yet: YES!!!
2007-09-25 21:04:31 · answer #7 · answered by cmira4 4 · 3⤊ 2⤋
One more good reason to vote for Hillary!
2007-09-25 21:03:25 · answer #8 · answered by It's Ms. Fusion if you're Nasty! 7 · 4⤊ 2⤋