Log In | Register
During Meet The Press on Sunday morning, David Gregory asked Rick Santorum what he would do if the Supreme Court upholds the ruling made by the Ninth Circuit Court to strike down Prop 8, which had banned same-sex marriage. Santorum said he would overturn Roe v. Wade and any Supreme Court ruling that makes same-sex marriage legal.
“I would do the same thing I would with Roe v. Wade, which I would seek to try and overturn it. I think judicial tyranny is a serious issue in this race and this country. And we need judges who respect the people’s voice. Let the people decide with respect to what the constitution says, if in fact they would go through a constitutional amendment process.”
Here’s the video:
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
Santorum sounds a lot like Newt Gingrich on this issue. Like Gingrich, Santorum thinks he has the power to overrule Supreme Court decisions with which he takes exception. The only problem is, the President cannot overrule the Supreme Court. Only the American people can do that via constitutional amendment. That’s how basic checks and balances work. As an American, it’s embarrassing to hear a Presidential candidate assume that they have powers that they don’t actually have. But Rick Santorum is also crazy for suggesting that the people should be able to decide who has rights in this country. Last time I checked, the Constitution guarantees American citizens equality under the law, personal liberty, and privacy.
Rick Santorum Says He Will Overturn The Supreme Court on Roe v Wade and If Same-Sex Marriage Is Ruled Legal
Article Source: Is Rick Santorum The Second Coming Of Bush/Cheney? | Addicting Info
- Enjoy this article? Help vote it up the 'Vine.
- Public Discussion (57)
Maybe presidential candidates should be given basic civics tests. Reminds me of how Sarah Palin thought the Vice-President was 'in charge of the senate.' Maybe they had the same civics teacher -- it's more probable that they simply both flunked civics.
- 16 votes
Republicans believe in the unified Executive Branch of government where instead of being a coequal (as specified in the Consitution) the President is actually superior with dictatorial powers (as demonstrated by President Cheney.)
Of course that is only when a Republucan is President. If a Democrat is elected, the Executive Branch is supposed to kowtow to the whims of a minority Republican party in the Legislative Branch.
- 13 votes
Tappy, it sounds like you had that same civics teacher ;-)
- 8 votes
#1:Maybe they had the same civics teacher -- it's more probable that they simply both flunked civics.
They probably flunked civics-- and a lot more subjects too! Considering their intellect, I would be willing to bet on it!
- 6 votes
Santorum: the "OVERTURN- everything" Presidential Candidate...
Imagine this guy methodically rolling back the years to a country of limited opportunities and freedoms.
- 9 votes
Morning Carloz, and Hi Mary Ellen Fr sent,
Everybody has a opening to deliver waste and some like to dump it in our laps. I love these people who pop off and think they have the right to dump their religious ideology in our laps and change our lives to meet their selfish and screw you attitude, my my my way. Vote them back to the stone age.
- 7 votes
Top o' the mornin' to you, too, G StevG.
Vote them back to the stone age.
Before they try to take us back to the stone age.
- 8 votes
To be fair, Santorum isn't Gingrich. Santorum said he'd "overturn" things via due process of law, through the very respectable constitutional amendment process. That's fair. I can respect that even if I disagree with what they're doing by trying to overturn things.
- 5 votes
Santorum said he'd "overturn" things via due process of law, through the very respectable constitutional amendment process.
And the odds of that happening are pretty low. I think he's talking to the right-wing base again.
- 9 votes
Well, the "overturning" part, yes, but the things he'd do to "Try" to overturn are things - things that are almost surely going to be quite damaging to personal liberties and civil rights for non-Christians - that he can actually make headway on, if allowed to gain power.
- 8 votes
Santorum can try to overturn whatever he wants (not that he'll ever be POTUS to do it.) That means having the time and support to either get a Consitutional Amendment through, or finding enough tyrannical activist judges (remember, tyrannical activist judges are OK if they are on the conservative side of things, it's just the liberal ones that are bad) to stack the courts his way, and then bring another case through the system. We'll give him credit for recognizing, unlike Gingrich, that he couldn't do it by Presidential edict, and then we'll double down on our efforts to be sure that Santorum is never in a position to try to make good on his threats.
- 8 votes
And we need judges who respect the people’s voice. Let the people decide with respect to what the constitution says, if in fact they would go through a constitutional amendment process.
And Rick, as usual, is wrong. We need judges who respect the Constitution.
If Rick wants the "the people" to decide how to interpret the Constitution, he has to rewrite our whole system of government first. Apparently he has no idea of how long and arduous a process proposing and ratifying a constitutional amendment is.
BTW, some Congressmen have made several attempts to get a Family Marriage Amendment (or whatever they have called it) proposed and ratified, with decreasing success each time. I wonder how Ricky thinks he would be able to prevail where they have not?
- 8 votes
#1.9:Maybe you're right, Severed -- it's only words.
What amazes me is what these nincompoops think THEY can do! They have no idea about the Constitution- and what it allows or doesn't allow- at all; where did they go to school? Or did they?
I have become increasingly more and more amazed at how little any of these "leaders" actually know. Perhaps they should be mandated take a competency test before they can run for ANY OFFICE. That should thin out the crowd- real good!
Geez
- 5 votes
Sometimes, though, they don't actually believe what they're saying - they know that it is incorrect - but they say it anyway because the negative aspects of saying something incorrect don't outweigh the positive aspects of having your audience hear you say it. Some would say that balancing aspects such as those is the essence of politics these days.
- 5 votes
#1.5:Morning Carloz, and Hi Mary Ellen Fr sent,
Thanks for the FR, G steveG.
Received and accepted. Look forward to sharing dialogue.
- 2 votes
Perhaps they should be mandated take a competency test before they can run for ANY OFFICE. That should thin out the crowd- real good
If the GOP field got much thinner this year they wouldn't have much of anything left
Sometimes, though, they don't actually believe what they're saying - they know that it is incorrect - but they say it anyway because the negative aspects of saying something incorrect don't outweigh the positive aspects of having your audience hear you say it.
Which is lying, basically.
Or they believe what they say, and then find out from their handlers they are wrong, but they don't really care.
Either way, it's awful.
- 5 votes
Sort of disproves that constant claim they want state's rights
"We want states rights!!..wait, that state voted to give gays rights? FEDERAL GOV MUST CRUSH THEM!! RAAA!!"
- 13 votes
#2 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 5:52 AM ESTIt's usually state's rights when they think it suits them -- otherwise, it's whatever works to achieve their goal.
- 10 votes
It is that way with all the candidates who are running in the presidential race. Romney used the word constutional over 15 times was it in a 30 minute speech? Talk about going overboard, feeling on a little shaky ground now, as the run gets further along and you are questioned more and more on things? I do not agree with Santorum on Roe v. Wade as that would seem to be taking away all of the rights and freedoms that women fought hard for. Mr. Santorum, I think would lose a lot of female votes if this information came out in the news and not just here on facebook, where not everyone can see it or has an account.
- 4 votes
Santorum, I think would lose a lot of female votes if this information came out in the news and not just here on facebook, where not everyone can see it or has an account.
And this information does need to be spread -- on the news, Facebook, Twitter, etc. In fact, when he is next on an interview program, or in a debate, I hope someone asks him about this. Of course, by then his handlers might have given him some lines that make some sort of sense about how government works, but he'll still have to keep defending his wanting to deny choice to women and civil rights to lesbians and gays -- and explaining how he would do that. Lots more foot in mouth opportunities.
- 7 votes
Just more gop pandering to there base who they no never did well in civics if they took at all. The sad part is they no that there social agenda works for there base but moves this country backward.
Can they do it if they became President "NO." They no that more people have excepted that Gays are going to get equal rights to serve in the Military and get Married and that you can not put Women back in the kitchen.
Most people are some where in the middle not to far to the left or right on where to move this Country forward not backward.
- 5 votes
#3 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:52 AM ESTSantorum is speaking to a very narrow (in every way) audience. If he is successful, keep you passport at the ready.
- 5 votes
#4 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:11 AM ESTSantorum is speaking to a very narrow (in every way) audience. If he is successful, keep you passport at the ready
Exactly he is pandering to his base like preaching to the choir...but in this case the choir has suffered the indignity of being sexually abused by the ones that were thought to be trusted.
Passport ready!!! Direct deposit my SS check in the Los Bancos Nationale de Costa Rica...
- 7 votes
Nice birding in Costa Rica. I was thinking Provence with a small lavender field to play in.
- 3 votes
#4.2:Nice birding in Costa Rica. I was thinking Provence with a small lavender field to play in.
Oops, Hi amb, I thought you and Wize were talking about a place for santorum to retire! Weren't you?
- 2 votes
I would seek to try and overturn it.
That seems a little different than what the headline suggests he said. If he thought (as most of you assume or at least want to spin) that he could do it with purely presidential power, he would not need to SEEK or TRY.
Another false headline taking words out of context... and you people b!tch about Fox...
#5 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:14 AM ESTHe can try all he wants -- a president cannot do it. And if he wants to amend the Constitution, as mentioned, then a president can't do that either, as that takes a super-majority of both houses of Congress followed bu the approval of three-quarters of state legislatures. Amendments don't require a presidential signature, so the executive branch has nothing to do with it. The man is stupid and arrogant to even say he'd try to overturn a supreme court ruling -- and the headline points out his stupidity and arrogance.
- 7 votes
And just as ignorant was his comment about 'judicial tyranny' -- if we had one court in the land that decided everything, that might make some kind of sense, but what we have (in addition to two other branches of government) is a complex judicial process and system, in which all citizens are free to challenge laws.
- 7 votes
He can try all he wants -- a president cannot do it.
Again it's in context and comprehension. He said he would... QUOTE, "Seek to Try". Not that he would, could, or that he thought he had the power to do it alone. What the President DOES have is the power to appoint federal judges including Supreme Court Justices with senate approval which is one way. Another is attempting to work with congress for a joint resolution to amend the constitution. I'm sure he understands that. Too bad people don't understand the English language any more or the importance of context.
The headline is wrong. Period. It is NOT what he said.
Mike, Santorum set the tone for context and comprehension in his own claims about 'judicial tyranny'. He claims the right to "Seek to Try" as per the powers granted to him (and really all people) by the Constitution, yet refers to the judiciary doing what it does as per the powers granted to it in an indefensibly deceptive, prejudicial manner. While I wouldn't have headlined the article such, for the reasons you outlined, the headline does nothing more than mirror the type of rhetoric Santorum himself used during the interview.
"If you live by the sword..."
"What's good for the goose..."
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
- 6 votes
QUOTE, "Seek to Try".
Preceded by, 'I would' -- the thing is a president can't overrule the SCOTUS nor amend the Constitution. No way at all. And the fact that he even said he would try to overturn speaks volumes about what he believes.
I'm sure he understands that.
I'm sure he does now that this has blown up in his face. I doubt that he did before.
Too bad people don't understand the English language any more or the importance of context.
Yes, I want a president who does exactly that. If he meant, 'I would encourage Congress and the States to amend the Constitution' he should have said that -- and additional statement that until something is overturned it is the law of the land and needs to be observed.
And if he meant that he would try to appoint anti-choice judges to the SCOTUS in order that the court itself might one day eventually overturn decisions, then he should have said that.
- 6 votes
'I would encourage Congress and the States to amend the Constitution"
But that's not inflammatory enough rhetoric for his core followers; they actually believe he can do this by decree.
One thing I've noticed about hard-core fanatics from both the left and the right is that they actually think that believing something strongly enough will make it come true.
- 4 votes
Ah, so, Severed, maybe instead of...
it's only words.
...'it's only code words,' might apply.
- 4 votes
If he meant, 'I would encourage Congress and the States to amend the Constitution' he should have said that
Of course he's not going to say that because congress can't amend it either. What they CAN do is offer a joint resolution and PROPOSE an amendment to the states. Unfortunately talk shows rarely give enough time for guests to spell out the entire procedure for people who can't read between the lines and in proper context...
- 2 votes
Rick Santorum Says He Will Overturn The Supreme Court on Roe v Wade Which is why President Obama will go right past a "beer summit" and throw a White House Kegger if Santorum somehow wins the Republican nomination !! Santorum's positions will cost the votes of Independents, conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans, votes the Republicans won't have to spare if they want to defeat President Obama !!
- 3 votes
#6 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:32 AM ESTSantorum is a nobody. He is obviously delusional and doesn't understand that - A) he won't be elected king and B) he won't be elected anything. He's just the opposite end of the stick from far left wing fanatical loons, Santorum is just a far right wing religious nut job. Same mold, different cheap plastic.
- 4 votes
#7 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:49 AM ESTIf only he would get some therapy and come out of the closet. I'm sure his wife could use a rest.
- 5 votes
#7.1:I'm sure his wife could use a rest.
I laugh when I am reminded of one of my favorite people, Judge Judy, who is known to often say: "you picked him"!
It fits. I see in another article here on NV that santorum is "blaming his wife" for something or the other; I did not read the article, only the headlines.
He's all hers, no one else wants this bozo-santorum!
- 5 votes
I see in another article here on NV that santorum is "blaming his wife" for something or the other; I did not read the article, only the headlines.
Santorum's blaming his wife for anti-feminist statements in his book -- he had never before claimed that she had helped write the book -- not even in the intro of the book where he thanked several people for their help.
- 6 votes
#7.3:Santorum's blaming his wife for anti-feminist statements in his book -- he had never before claimed that she had helped write the book -- not even in the intro of the book where he thanked several people for their help.
Thanks Carloz for the clarifing info.
I have since commented on that very seed.
I rememembered seeing something about this creep blaming his wife for "something" when I first wrote this comment and I wanted to comment; it does show a pattern!
- 4 votes
Now, now. Let's be fair. He did say he would TRY to overturn the law of the land. We should expect that he meant using the legal process he (and every other inhabitant of Rightwingistan) loathes. Little Ricky has many more problems than this. Just remember, he thinks gay sex is the same as pedophilia (he should check with Rushbo on that) and the all forms of contraception should be illegal.
- 5 votes
#8 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:18 AM ESTYou're being too kind, Grae -- the president doesn't have anything to do with the process of amending the constitution. Of course, one could be even kinder and say he meant he'd try to overrule it by appointing more Right wing SCOTUS judges, since other than a constitutional amendment the only way a supreme court decision can be overturned is for the court to overrule itself.
- 3 votes
he meant he'd try to overrule it by appointing more Right wing SCOTUS judges
I'm sure that that is indeed what Santorum did mean, and arresting the nation's regression back into the dark ages, though its stacking of the courts with right-wing reactionaries, is the most important reason to vote Democrat this fall.
- 5 votes
You're being too kind, Grae
Just trying to be fair. He did say try and not insinuate he would try to rule by fiat.
- 2 votes
Well, I doubt he would think of it, or even call it, ruling by fiat. He'd just think of it as being the president.
But this whole thing brings up for me something else -- how David Gregory just does not challenge people when they say ridiculous things like this. He just let it lie and went on to the subject of women in combat, instead of saying, "Uhm, Mr. S. a president cannot overrule the Supreme Court." Or if that's too 'rude' ask for clarification, "Exactly how would you do that?"
Gregory is terrible.
- 5 votes
David Gregory was great as the WH Correspondent. He's not a good fit for MTP, though.
Comparisons to Tim Russert are unfair, perhaps, but the position requires an interviewer (and analyst) such as he was.
- 3 votes
Hey ladies - sharpen up your coat hangers - King Frothy has it out for you.
- 4 votes
#9 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 10:07 AM ESTSaint "tricky Ricky" Santorum will be a friend to everyone until the moment of birth, at which time he'll look down at you, look at the spoon in your mouth, and if its not silver, give you the bum's rush. Feudilism will return under his administration.
- 4 votes
#10 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:32 AM ESTCain, Perry, Gingrich ... and now Santorum. Each has vowed to declare war on the separation of powers.
So to demonstrate his commitment to our sacred U.S. Constitution, Santorum -- yet another tea party brown-nosing nitwit -- strives to eliminate those Amendments that conflict with his ideology, simply ignore other sections that he finds inconvenient to honor, and to pick and choose which SCOTUS rulings he deems worthy to uphold.
The call for a constitutional amendment is simple campaign rhetoric. There is a reason why there have relatively few amendments added to our Constitution. The task is, by design, extremely formidable and the odds of garnering enough support in either the U.S. Congress or the state legislatures for such a prejudicial amendment is extremely remote.
- 3 votes
#11 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 11:50 AM ESTI wonder... seems to me that only one constitutional amendment was ever reactionary in nature (and it was repealed). All the others were either progressive or neutral. So I don't think it is a matter of whether or not the task is formidable or not, but rather that it is designed to support progress not regression.
- 5 votes
Valid point. But the fact that the process is not trivial makes it extremely difficult for a reactionary, socially regressive minority to impose their religious intolerance and dogmatic self-righteousness onto the populace via constitutional amendment.
- 5 votes
Well the new GOP has said they want to "Take the Country Back".....
Who would have thought they were talking about taking it back to the 50's....the 1850's!
- 4 votes
#12 - Mon Feb 13, 2012 12:37 PM ESTAnd if we get down to it, what Santorum basically wants to overturn is the 20th century.
- 5 votes
We've moved into the 21st century, and it seems that we've done it without him.
Perhaps someone should buy him a calendar?
- 2 votes
You're in Easy Mode. If you prefer, you can use XHTML Mode instead. |
