General Discussion

Pab Sungenis

(9,612 posts) Sun Jun 24, 2012, 10:36 PM Jun 2012

Please answer this question "yes" or "no." [View all]

No prevarication, no "weasel words," no justification, no "no, but's," just a single word response "yes" or "no."

Would you tolerate a Democratic nominee for the Supreme Court who said in a confirmation hearing that "there is no Federal Constitutional right to an abortion"?

One word only: yes or no.

44 votes, 2 passes \| Time left: Unlimited
	Yes
	10 (23%)
	No
	34 (77%)
	2 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

85 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Please answer this question "yes" or "no." [View all] Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 OP

No TeamPooka Jun 2012 #1

No. Aristus Jun 2012 #2

Yes. nt AJTheMan Jun 2012 #3

Thank you for your honesty. (nt) Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #4

Don't feed the trolls lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #5

Answer the question. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #8

No. Meaning "no, I won't answer your question." lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #9

Okay. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #10

So you don't like Kagan. lumberjack_jeff Jun 2012 #14

Fallacy. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #17

The jurist is not anti-gay...nt SidDithers Jun 2012 #28

So ProSense Jun 2012 #51

It's not a "right to abortion" but a "right to privacy" HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #6

No prevarication. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #7

You are barking up the wrong tree. HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #12

Then would you tolerate a Democratic nominee who would say Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #13

Now you are changing the original statement. HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #22

Thank you. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #31

I took your bait. As someone up-thread implied, HubertHeaver Jun 2012 #47

Three reasons. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #61

This poll isn't about abortion at all... SidDithers Jun 2012 #26

A simple yes or no answer... kentuck Jun 2012 #16

No prevarication. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #18

I would not tolerate such a divisive question... kentuck Jun 2012 #24

Answer the question. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #34

Your question is not worthy of a yes or no answer. kentuck Jun 2012 #35

Then you have no right to discuss Elena Kagan. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #36

That is not what you asked in your poll. kentuck Jun 2012 #37

I don't think that word means what you think it means kdmorris Jun 2012 #48

I was about to post the same thing. Chiyo-chichi Jun 2012 #56

I think that was what my caffeine deprived brain kdmorris Jun 2012 #57

Answer this question first... SidDithers Jun 2012 #11

No. Chorophyll Jun 2012 #15

You don't. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #19

I believe I just did that. Chorophyll Jun 2012 #21

My apologies. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #23

A couple of things dsc Jun 2012 #20

Not entirely. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #29

The civil right of a person to own and posses a firearm for self defense (per Heller) is attacked kelly1mm Jun 2012 #43

To be honest? Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #60

And to clarify and emphasize: Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #33

I agree GCP Jun 2012 #52

Nope. And I find the entire idea absurd that they would need say anything... clang1 Jun 2012 #25

Pass.... this is a moot and irrelevant question Gman Jun 2012 #27

No prevarication. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #30

Sorry to disrupt your black and white world Gman Jun 2012 #42

That word does not mean what you think it does. Ikonoklast Jun 2012 #50

I know which word I used Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #58

HRC on Elena Kagen... SidDithers Jun 2012 #32

+100 n/t Tx4obama Jun 2012 #39

The HRC does not speak for the majority of LGBT Americans n/t FreeState Jun 2012 #41

Neither does Pab...nt SidDithers Jun 2012 #55

The Beatles! TlalocW Jun 2012 #38

No. EFerrari Jun 2012 #40

Yes. Nye Bevan Jun 2012 #44

You're good Brother Buzz Jun 2012 #46

Thank you. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #59

The question is ambiguous. geek tragedy Jun 2012 #45

I agree with that Douglas Carpenter Jun 2012 #66

This is like ProSense Jun 2012 #49

Not every good thing is a Constitutional right Macoy51 Jun 2012 #54

I voted 'no' but obviously it is not for me to 'tolerate' another country's judges or otherwise LeftishBrit Jun 2012 #53

No nominee would say it to begin with... cynatnite Jun 2012 #62

Yet, a nominee DID say that Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #63

That's disingenuous... cynatnite Jun 2012 #64

Civil rights are civil rights Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #65

You are still being disingenuous... cynatnite Jun 2012 #79

I can see there is no discussing things logically with you. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #82

That is not true... cynatnite Jun 2012 #84

No Bettie Jun 2012 #67

No JonLP24 Jun 2012 #68

This is sort of a trick question, I think. I voted 'no' then realized coalition_unwilling Jun 2012 #69

As you doubtless know, you give too little info for a rational choice to be made dmallind Jun 2012 #70

Just answer the question. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #71

Just ask a question that makes sense dmallind Jun 2012 #76

It makes sense. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #78

No, but the Supremes don't usually check with me. Vidar Jun 2012 #72

Yes One_Life_To_Give Jun 2012 #73

Yes sarisataka Jun 2012 #74

Kick for Elena Kagen... SidDithers Jun 2012 #75

It depends. AngryAmish Jun 2012 #77

This is really about gay marriage... cynatnite Jun 2012 #80

Not at all. Pab Sungenis Jun 2012 #81

You cannot expect to get the answer you want when you are being so disingenuous. n/t cynatnite Jun 2012 #83

I have no idea whether or not abortion is a constitutional right RZM Jun 2012 #85