Billionaire Koch Brothers Have Given More Than $100 Million to right wing causes...

[broncofan]

I agree with you on abortion. It's mostly noise now because it's settled law.

The longer the Court's precedent stands the less likely they are to disrupt it. But they have in the past altered the way they interpreted Constitutional issues, the one that comes to mind most is the commerce clause.

It's conceivable that the Supreme Court could at least alter their rulings. Right now, states can pass laws to regulate abortion as long as they are not an undue burden on a woman's right to have an abortion. There is a lot of disagreement over what regulations are unduly burdensome. I can't remember some of them...waiting periods, notifying parents, notifying father of the child, counseling prior to getting the abortion, and some apparently aimed at discouraging at least some women from having an abortion. It's unlikely that the Court ever overturns Roe v. Wade, but I think at least Scalia believes that the right to privacy underpinning the decision is a made up right.

But I agree with you that it's mostly a talking point for their respective bases. The only reason it's not more contested though is because it's been taken out of the political realm and decided by the judiciary (which is more stable and unelected).

[broncofan]

I want to point out though that dreamon's point was that the party's differences are insignificant. But had there never been an ideological split on abortion, there would not have been a Roe v. Wade. The split continues, but because of the Court's holding it is now only fought at the margins. There are people who stridently oppose the right of women to have an abortion under any circumstance and that is why we've seen laws aimed at curtailing the right (such as informed consent instructions that claim abortion can cause breast cancer).

[dreamon]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/theprotojou...the-difference

[dreamon]

http://www.salon.com/2013/01/09/5_wa...ushs_policies/

[trish]

The fact that Obama didn’t set out to dismantle everything George Bush ever done in his presidency goes not one iota toward demonstrating an equivalence between the Democratic and the Republican parties. In fact one may take that to be a significant distinction between the outlook of the two parties. Hell, the Republican Party would dismantle everything the Democrats accomplished going all the way back to and including the New Deal. That Republicans were able to use the filibuster (more times than any time it has ever been used in the past) to roadblock closing Guantanamo, roadblock campaign finance reform, tax reform etc. etc. is hardly evidence that Republicans have no political differences with Democrats. Listening to you one would think Republicans love both Obama and his policies. Tell us, do you think Rand Paul could have closed Guantanamo in 2009 were he president? Do you think McCain would even have wanted to?

Anyone with a brain can see there are deep seated political distinctions between the goals, outlooks and projects of the two major parties. Do you think the Koch brothers flipped a coin to decide which party they wanted to support with their billions?

The system of checks and balances is meant to force compromise, so that the country doesn’t dangerously swerve back and forth, each swing undoing the legislative projects of the prior administration. So yes, when things are well oiled, the actions of the Nation reflect on balance the ambitions of both parties. Inactions are indicators of disagreement. One can safely say there is a lot of disagreement in Washington these days: disagreement that belies the differences between the two major parties.

The current Republican Party (including their Tea Bagger elements--here’s your chance to exercise some PC outrage and downthumb this post) are for undoing The Affordable Care Act. They’re for the privatization of prisons, the privatization of social security, the privatization of public lands for lumbering, mining and fracking. They want to bomb Iranian nuclear power stations and send soldiers into the Ukraine. They’re against same sex marriage, the Dream Act, and Roe v Wade. These are not the deeply help convictions and aspirations of the Democratic party or very many of its subscribers.

[trish]

Abortion may be one issue where they differ. Congratulations on finding one minor social issue where they differ.

This from someone who seems to think the legalization of marihuana is a pressing issue.

[dreamon]

This from someone who seems to think the legalization of marihuana is a pressing issue.

When I have ever said that?

I don't smoke weed anymore, so while I do think it should be legal, it doesn't really matter all that much to me.

[trish]

When I have ever said that?

I don't smoke weed anymore, so while I do think it should be legal, it doesn't really matter all that much to me.

Didn't say it was a quote did I? But you did start a thread in the Politics/Religion Forum either on the topic of Nancy Grace or the legalization of marihuana. I gave you the benefit of the doubt and opted for the legalization issue.