Joe Scarborough: 'I Know' Chief Justice Roberts Will Never Overturn Roe

[catfish1957]

Seems Roberts screws us over every time it counts.  And toes the conservative line when it doesn't.

Hmmm......

[txradioguy]

A society that condones the systematic killing of human babies is standing on a shaky foundation. How long will it be before the ground crumbles beneath us and our society becomes unlivable?

In my opinion, we are there.

@aligncare

When you look at the ghoulish late term abortion laws that New York State...Virginia and now Illinois have passed it's hard to argue against what you said.  We are there.

[GrouchoTex]

@Bill Cipher

I would propose to you that Miranda has a firmer foundation in the Constitution, by way of the 5th amendment, than the leaps and bounds the Roe decision arrived at via the 14th amendment.

[Cyber Liberty]

Dickerson v. U.S.

Unless I missed it, you posted that twice and explained it zero.

[Bill Cipher]

Unless I missed it, you posted that twice and explained it zero.

It was explained in detail several times above.

In a nutshell, the case involved a direct challenge to Miranda v. Arizona, based on a federal statute enacted after that case, in which Congress specifically attempted to undo the requirement for Miranda warnings. 

In the course of deciding the case, the Supreme Court had to decide whether to overrule Miranda, particularly given that it wasn’t wholly based on the Constitution.  This the Court refused to do, and in the course of so holding, it set out several tests that a prior case, admitted not solely based on the Constitution, would have to fail before it would be overturned. These included whether the prior case was workable - could be applied to achieve its intended aim - and whether its doctrinal basis had been undercut.

This applies to cases such as Roe if one wants to take the position that it was not 100% constitutionally mandated.  On that basis, Roe passes with flying colors:  it is eminently workable - it can be applied with reasonable ease to accomplish its intended aim, notwithstanding the legislative attempts to frustrate it - and its doctrinal underpinning - the importance of individual liberty within the scope of the Constitution - has not been undercut. 

On this basis, it is highly unlikely that the Court would overturn Roe, with the sole exception of Justice Thomas, who would have also overturned Miranda.

[Hoodat]

So now we've gone from "won't" to "highly unlikely".  Btw, Dickerson can also be overturned, not that it has anything to do with Roe.

And Roe can be overturned just as readily as McConnell v. FEC.  And there is nothing in Dickerson that prevents that.

[Cyber Liberty]

So now we've gone from "won't" to "highly unlikely".  Btw, Dickerson can also be overturned, not that it has anything to do with Roe.

And Roe can be overturned just as readily as McConnell v. FEC.  And there is nothing in Dickerson that prevents that.

We also have the worship of precident. A SCOTUS  justice once said "I swore an oath to uphold the constitution, not other judges."

Delusional, no? Such radical musings.

[TomSea]

The amount of butt-hurt on this thread is amazing.  Sorry folks, Roe v. Wade isn’t going anywhere, no matter how badly you want it to just disappear.

Too bad, so sad. 

But y’all keep on trying; watching you marginalize yourselves, and then whine about being marginalized, and go on about the higher morality of your personal subjective beliefs, is a certain form of amusing comedy.

Real strong case, personal attacks, let's not go there again everyone.

Plus, you certainly have a lot of states going in the pro-life direction, MO, MS, AL, GA, TX, OH, ND, OK and I'm probably missing some.

As for pro-choice,  if NY and California are one's forte, go for it!

[Cyber Liberty]

Real strong case, personal attacks, let's not go there again everyone.

Plus, you certainly have a lot of states going in the pro-life direction, MO, MS, AL, GA, TX, OH, ND, OK and I'm probably missing some.

As for pro-choice,  if NY and California are one's forte, go for it!

Those are just a bunch of deep South redneck heathens in flyover country who refuse to kneel to their New York betters. They need to be called "butt-hurt" and crushed.

 

[mountaineer]

(Cuz I can never get enough of circular reasoning and boring repetition of debunked talking points.)

What he said.

[Bill Cipher]

So now we've gone from "won't" to "highly unlikely".  Btw, Dickerson can also be overturned, not that it has anything to do with Roe.

And Roe can be overturned just as readily as McConnell v. FEC.  And there is nothing in Dickerson that prevents that.

Ok.  Won’t. 

[Bill Cipher]

Real strong case, personal attacks, let's not go there again everyone.

Plus, you certainly have a lot of states going in the pro-life direction, MO, MS, AL, GA, TX, OH, ND, OK and I'm probably missing some.

As for pro-choice,  if NY and California are one's forte, go for it!

Case already made; repeatedly.  Maybe if you didn’t cherry-pick from the end of the conversation you might have realized that. 

Roe isn’t going anywhere, and instead of coming to grips with that, and coming up with constructive legal ways to reduce abortion, folks seem to think that if they just double down on the anti-abortion laws, they’ll eventually ram it through.  And so, folks end up alienating the very people they need to persuade, and just end up tarring everyone who is right of center with the brush of religious bigotry.

[Bill Cipher]

We also have the worship of precident. A SCOTUS  justice once said "I swore an oath to uphold the constitution, not other judges."

Delusional, no? Such radical musings.

What you so thoughtlessly dismiss as worship of precedent (try spellcheck next time), is, in fact, one of the fundamental underpinnings of the common law legal system, and one of the things that makes the common law such a robust system, and one of the principles that ensures fair treatment by ensuring that like cases are treated alike. 

Without stare decisis, McDonald v. Chicago wouldn’t amount to a hill of beans when the next liberal Court considers the issue, and that time will come. 

[Cyber Liberty]

Attack the spelling. I surrender.

[Hoodat]

Case already made; repeatedly.

Not much of a case.  Other than tossing Dickerson at the wall hoping it will stick, your case has consisted solely of repetition of the original claim.

Roe isn’t going anywhere

QED

and instead of coming to grips with that, and coming up with constructive legal ways to reduce abortion,

Alabama, Georgia, et al, just did exactly that.  Their legislatures legislated the will of the people by enacting laws regulating abortion as outlined in Amendment X of the Constitution of the United States of America.

folks seem to think that if they just double down on the anti-abortion laws, they’ll eventually ram it through.

Folks seem to think that if a case comes before the Supreme Court again, that the Court will correct their prior mistake, as they have done numerous times before.

And so, folks end up alienating the very people they need to persuade

The very people they need to persuade?  This ought to be good.  Exactly what people are you referring to here, and why would they need to be persuaded?

and just end up tarring everyone who is right of center with the brush of religious bigotry.

Religious bigotry?  YOU are the one bringing up religion here, not me.  From the beginning, my argument has been strictly legal - my argument being that the people of Georgia have the right to establish their own marriage, abortion, murder, theft, fraud, etc. laws within the confines of the Constitution.  You clearly do not agree with that argument.  Yet so desperate for something of substance to bolster your case, you now toss religion into the mix?  Wow.

[Wingnut]

Can someone recap this thread.  Cliff note style.   Asking for a friend who doesn't give a shit

[Hoodat]

1989 - Stanford v. Kentucky.  Supreme Court rules that 16-year-old offenders could be executed.

2000 - Dickerson v. US.  Supreme Court rules that Congress cannot override a Supreme Court decision via legislation.

2005 - Roper v. Simmons.  Supreme Court overturns Stanford v. Kentucky.


Clearly, Dickerson didn't have a damn thing to do with the Roper decision, just as it won't have a damn thing to do with Roe being overturned.

[Cyber Liberty]

Can someone recap this thread.  Cliff note style.   Asking for a friend who doesn't give a shit

Good luck finding someone who GAS....

(Like the cricket?  I just added that.)

[Wingnut]

Good luck finding someone who GAS....

(Like the cricket?  I just added that.)

Well hell then.  This thing should just die a natural death.  Naturally? Right

[Smokin Joe]

That's a shame, because the courts could use people like you, @Smokin Joe.  I like plain talk.  But...we usually end up being Engineers instead because Mathematics is immutable.  Just the way we like it.

Well, I figured as a scientist, I'd get paid to call 'em as I see 'em, it is a field where integrity is worthwhile, and considered a valuable asset. To be a successful attorney, it seems one has to spend an awful lot of time saying things they don't really believe, and be convincing at that (or actually believe some of that crap). Yes, there are a few rare exceptions, but they sure seem to be darned few. At least this way I can look myself in the eye when I am shaving...

[Smokin Joe]

Can someone recap this thread.  Cliff note style.   Asking for a friend who doesn't give a shit

Have your friend drink a cup or two of olive oil. That should fix them right up.

[Bigun]

Can someone recap this thread.  Cliff note style.   Asking for a friend who doesn't give a shit

Sure!  Redux # 4265 of our two liberal members instructing the rest of us on things they know little to nothing about.