Originally Posted by tonton
Roe V. Wade is absolutely better for the country if it stands.
I don't know about that. I'm not exactly a staunch pro-lifer, but I also have a problem with the federal government inventing "rights" that end up taking choice AWAY from state and local governments If it was on the ballot it in my state, I'd vote to keep it legal. But it likely won't be, because the USSC has decreed that it's everyone's "right."
Liberalization of LGBT rights, such as outlawing Texas' highly discriminatory sodomy law as well as anti-same sex marriage laws and DADT-like policies is way better for the country.
It might be better for those who are LGBT...I don't know if liberalization of said policies is better (or worse) for the country. The problem with the Texas sodomy thing is that here again, it's a state issue. I don't agree with the law, but I don't live in Texas. When the USSC decides you have a federal right to certain things because they occur in your home, you have a right to pretty much anything
, from polygamy to incest. And by extension, the court is now making it impossible for Texas to define sodomy at ALL.
(Incidentally, this is the same argument Senator Rick Santorum made at the time the case was heard. Of course, the media made it out to seem like he was comparing gay relations to the aforementioned crimes, which was not the point at all).
And on the politico-economic front, there's the horrid Citizens United decision.
I definitely don't agree there. Election laws such as McCain-Feingold (for example) are already
unconstitutional in my opinion, and have made things worse. This is a freedom of speech issue, and one that I think was decided correctly. Speaking of which, what about limits on speech within certain timeframes prior to an election? Is that something you support?