Schumer threatens filibuster if Trump doesn't pick 'mainstream' court candidate

[Jazzhead]

So be honest, Sgt. Bill, you're a judicial activist -  there's no difference between you and a typical liberal, except with respect to the particular things you'd rather see unelected courts decide rather than the peoples' representatives.   No thanks.

The role of the courts with respect to laws enacted by the peoples' representatives is to address bad legislation that denies individuals the protections of the Constitution.  Such role would encompass, for example, Brown v. Board of Education and Heller,  as well as the recent SCOTUS ruling respecting marriage equality.   Stare decisis should never be an excuse to validate a majority's action to deny rights to a minority or (as in the case of Heller) to permit the state to subvert a Constitutional right.   That's exactly the context where "judicial activism" may be appropriate.  But overturning Roe v. Wade?  No, that needs to be done by the Constitutional amendment process.   For an unelected court to take away the right of every woman in America  to control her own reproductive destiny would be an abomination.  Only the political process can take away long-held rights.     

[txradioguy]

For an unelected court to take away the right of every woman in America  to control her own reproductive destiny would be an abomination.  Only the political process can take away long-held rights.

Funny...I don't remember in any of the times I've read the Constitution...that there was a "right" to abortion.

Can you show me where that's at?


Kinda interesting that @Jazzhead you want to rail against " an unelected court" when they are taking away something they created out of whole cloth...but you have no problem with that same group of unelected jurists granting rights that were never in the Constitution to begin with.

[r9etb]

So be honest, Sgt. Bill, you're a judicial activist -  there's no difference between you and a typical liberal, except with respect to the particular things you'd rather see unelected courts decide rather than the peoples' representatives.   No thanks.

So.... Dred Scott decision: right or wrong?

[Sanguine]

So be honest, Sgt. Bill, you're a judicial activist -  there's no difference between you and a typical liberal, except with respect to the particular things you'd rather see unelected courts decide rather than the peoples' representatives.   No thanks.

The role of the courts with respect to laws enacted by the peoples' representatives is to address bad legislation that denies individuals the protections of the Constitution.  Such role would encompass, for example, Brown v. Board of Education and Heller,  as well as the recent SCOTUS ruling respecting marriage equality.   Stare decisis should never be an excuse to validate a majority's action to deny rights to a minority or (as in the case of Heller) to permit the state to subvert a Constitutional right.   That's exactly the context where "judicial activism" may be appropriate.  But overturning Roe v. Wade?  No, that needs to be done by the Constitutional amendment process.   For an unelected court to take away the right of every woman in America  to control her own reproductive destiny would be an abomination.  Only the political process can take away long-held rights.     

So, what about an unelected court taking away the right of people to be born?  Seems that would trump "controlling reproductive destiny" whatever that means.

[Jazzhead]

Kinda interesting that @Jazzhead you want to rail against " an unelected court" when they are taking away something they created out of whole cloth...but you have no problem with that same group of unelected jurists granting rights that were never in the Constitution to begin with.

The issue is one of reliance.  I don't disagree that Roe v. Wade found a right in the Constitution that wasn't there before.  But forty years later, pro-life conservatives are still hoping for a deus ex machina - for the Court to do the dirty work of depriving millions of women of rights that have come to rely on.   

Forty years is a long time.   The choice right is too firmly embedded to be taken away by unelected judges.  It must be addressed through the political process.   

[Rivergirl]

Here comes the nuclear option. 

[Jazzhead]

So, what about an unelected court taking away the right of people to be born?  Seems that would trump "controlling reproductive destiny" whatever that means.

There is no Constitutional right to be born.   A fetus has no rights under the Constitution vis a vis a born citizen. 

I understand that you feel that a fetus should have such rights.  Again, what is needed is a political solution - specifically, an amendment to the Constitution.  It is simply wrong for unelected judges to deprive millions of Americans of rights they have come to rely on.   It must be done by means of the political process.   

[Jazzhead]

So.... Dred Scott decision: right or wrong?

We fought a war over the issue in this case.   Is a slave the property of his master, or does he have rights of his own like any other citizen?   While that's an extreme example of the "political process", it was ultimately an issue decided by the people.   

[Sanguine]

There is no Constitutional right to be born.   A fetus has no rights under the Constitution vis a vis a born citizen. 

I understand that you feel that a fetus should have such rights.  Again, what is needed is a political solution - specifically, an amendment to the Constitution.  It is simply wrong for unelected judges to deprive millions of Americans of rights they have come to rely on.   It must be done by means of the political process.

I'm not arguing for or against abortion, but the lack of logic called out for a response.

Yes, the Constitution is based on the assumption that people have a right to life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) as stated in the Declaration.

And, as for reproductive destiny, one has a large number of choices to do so without bringing abortion into the mix.

[Hoodat]

Jazzhead,

There is absolutely NOTHING that is Constitutional about Roe.  It is pure fiat through and through.

It relieves the federal legislature from its Constitutionally given right to regulate abortion.
It prohibits states from regulating abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy.
It arrogantly grants states the right to regulate abortion - a right already granted under the Bill of Rights - after the 24th week.
And it violates equal protection by denying men abortion rights.

[Hoodat]

Again, what is needed is a political solution - specifically, an amendment to the Constitution. 

What good will amending the Constitution do when the current Constitution is already being ignored?

[Jazzhead]

Jazzhead,

There is absolutely NOTHING that is Constitutional about Roe.  It is pure fiat through and through.

It relieves the federal legislature from its Constitutionally given right to regulate abortion.
It prohibits states from regulating abortion up to the 24th week of pregnancy.
It arrogantly grants states the right to regulate abortion - a right already granted under the Bill of Rights - after the 24th week.
And it violates equal protection by denying men abortion rights.

Those are all excellent arguments -  but are being made 40 years too late.   What's at stake here is forty years' of reliance by millions of women.  You want to stuff a genie back into a bottle.  Don't expect a court to do it -  it will require the VERY heavy lifting of the Constitutional amendment process. 

[Jazzhead]

I'm not arguing for or against abortion, but the lack of logic called out for a response.

Yes, the Constitution is based on the assumption that people have a right to life (liberty and the pursuit of happiness) as stated in the Declaration.

And, as for reproductive destiny, one has a large number of choices to do so without bringing abortion into the mix.

I understand the Declaration's statement about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  But I ask you to provide any evidence whatsoever that the Founders were speaking of fetuses.   "Life" in the context of the Declaration likely means the right of a (born) citizen to self-determination/self-actualization.   And the Constitution itself, although informed by the Declaration, actually only guarantees that a citizen can only be deprived of life and liberty through the due process of law.

I strongly oppose abortion on moral grounds,  and urge that abortion be made as rare as possible by means of persuasion and support for women who do the right thing (and, last by not least, by support for family planning.)   

[Sanguine]

I understand the Declaration's statement about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  But I ask you to provide any evidence whatsoever that the Founders were speaking of fetuses.   "Life" in the context of the Declaration likely means the right of a (born) citizen to self-determination/self-actualization.   And the Constitution itself, although informed by the Declaration, actually only guarantees that a citizen can only be deprived of life and liberty through the due process of law.

I strongly oppose abortion on moral grounds,  and urge that abortion be made as rare as possible by means of persuasion and support for women who do the right thing (and, last by not least, by support for family planning.)

I would assume that they were including unborn children.  Why would you think otherwise?

[Right_in_Virginia]

Chuck can stuff it. He's playing for the losing team and he knows it.

 :thumbsup2:

 

[libertybele]

Chuckie isn't stupid, but he's certainly going to look like it if he overplays his hand.  Push it too far, and not even McConnell will be able to resist getting rid of the filibuster.

I'm not so sure; we still have a Senate filled with RINO's.

[r9etb]

We fought a war over the issue in this case.   Is a slave the property of his master, or does he have rights of his own like any other citizen?   While that's an extreme example of the "political process", it was ultimately an issue decided by the people.

You're dodging the question.  By your standard, Dred Scott was "right," regardless of the fact that it treated certain people as property, to be used according to their owners' discretion.

Of course it was wrong on moral grounds.

[Hoodat]

Those are all excellent arguments -  but are being made 40 years too late.   What's at stake here is forty years' of reliance by millions of women.  You want to stuff a genie back into a bottle.

You sound like Jefferson arguing for doing nothing about slavery.