| davethedope |
11-05-2012 11:21 AM |
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackmonsters
(Post 19294946)
The president can appoint supreme court justices and it is the supreme court that
decides if abortion is legal. A president that appointed judges that would over turn
Roe vs Wade would truly be holding society back.
For that last part of your question : Abortion is an issue of human rights. In America
our human rights are more important than who we sign a treaty with(since we don't honor them anyway) or who we decide to bomb.
|
You're just making a connection between the two when there really is none.
That's like saying somehow my belief in aliens has an effect on my ability to file your tax return.
The point is these philosophical issues, which the great majority of people aren't qualified to even ponder, stand in the way of pragmatism in government.
As for the abortion example, wouldn't the co-presidency or duumvirate prevent such an appointment? Meaning, you need both presidents to agree on the appointment.
Abortion is an excellent example of a non issue which was politicised.
It's just bullshit that furthers this imaginary divide between people who don't understand the issue to begin with.
It's like trying to legislate personal hygeine.
But anyway, what do you think of the co-presidents? |
