Supreme Court blocks Louisiana abortion law as John Roberts joins liberal justices in 5-4 ruling

[Jazzhead]

Not gonna answer the question are you.  Not surprised!  The answer to my question is that neither the right to an Abortion or, for that matter, privacy is codified in the Constitution!

And BTW:  Marbury vs Madison is yet more judicial usurpation!

I'll give you credit for one thing only! YOU are a sophist of the first order!   

Well, OK then, brave Sir Robin,

But before you go, I am curious why you reject the natural right to privacy.   I'm trying to understand your mindset as a self-proclaimed "conservative".    Because you appear to favor the State's authority to police a marital bedroom.   

[Jazzhead]

@Smokin Joe

If not for that...then he should be removed for voting in the majority in Arizona v. United States.

It's the Constitution that provides for lifetime tenure.   Don't you think it is violative of both the letter and spirit of that document to call for removal of a Justice just because he didn't vote the way you favor in a particular case?   

[Bigun]

[Bigun]

It's the Constitution that provides for lifetime tenure.   Don't you think it is violative of both the letter and spirit of that document to call for removal of a Justice just because he didn't vote the way you favor in a particular case?

NO! I think they should be removed for violating their oath!  I.E. To uphold the Constitution and not anything else!

[Jazzhead]

NO! I think they should be removed for violating their oath!  I.E. To uphold the Constitution and not anything else!

Roberts was part of a majority.  So you are calling on all five to be removed?   Is that how you see the Constitution as working? 

What idiocy. 

[txradioguy]

It's the Constitution that provides for lifetime tenure.   Don't you think it is violative of both the letter and spirit of that document to call for removal of a Justice just because he didn't vote the way you favor in a particular case?

If he's clearly not voting within the guidelines of the Constitution...then proceeding need to begin for his or her removal.

Furthermore...idiotic rulings like the one about the Louisiana abortion law and Arizona v. United States are why there needs to be a Constitution amendment to end the lifetime appointments and put term limits on Federal Justices...to include the Supreme Court.

In the case of Arizona the state was merely trying to better enforce codified federal laws on immigration and Roberts voted in the majority to prevent that.  How idiotic is that? 

[txradioguy]

NO! I think they should be removed for violating their oath!  I.E. To uphold the Constitution and not anything else!

Exactly.

[Bigun]

Roberts was part of a majority.  So you are calling on all five to be removed?   Is that how you see the Constitution as working? 

What idiocy.

When they find crap in penumbras, or foreign law, or just make it up out of whole cloth, you're damned right I do!

[Jazzhead]

When they find crap in penumbras, or foreign law, or just make it up out of whole cloth, you're damned right I do!

Again, why do you reject the right to privacy?   Is it your view that Griswold was a usurpation of Connecticut's right to police the marital bedroom? 

[jmyrlefuller]

Again, why do you reject the right to privacy?   Is it your view that Griswold was a usurpation of Connecticut's right to police the marital bedroom?

Griswold was a usurpation of Connecticut's Tenth Amendment right to legislate medication sold within its state bounds.

[Bigun]

Griswold was a usurpation of Connecticut's Tenth Amendment right to legislate medication sold within its state bounds.

@Jazzhead will never understand that the federal government is only empowered to act in17 specific areas. Those specifically delineated in Article I SECTION 8:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards and other needful Buildings;-And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof. 

[240B]

Roberts is a lost cause. Not only is he consistently voting in favor of Democrat positions, he is also the main person behind covering for the fact that RBG is incapacitated. And he has the power to keep her position theoretically filled indefinitely to block out Trump. He will do this because with RBG gone the vote goes 5-4 to the Republicans. And Roberts will never allow that to happen.

[austingirl]

Roberts is a lost cause. Not only is he consistently voting in favor of Democrat positions, he is also the main person behind covering for the fact that RBG is incapacitated. And he has the power to keep her position theoretically filled indefinitely to block out Trump. He will do this because with RBG gone the vote goes 5-4 to the Republicans. And Roberts will never allow that to happen.

I agree. Roberts is lost. Probably blackmailed and too scared to stand up. He should be removed. Such a shame.

[Bigun]

I agree. Roberts is lost. Probably blackmailed and too scared to stand up. He should be removed. Such a shame.

Likely the same people who murdered Scalia have sent him a message.

[Smokin Joe]

This isn't a question of Republicans vs Democrats, although those Party alignments seem to be a predictive factor, more often than not. Party should be immaterial, irrelevant, moot.

It is a question of whether a ruling or piece of legislation is Constitutional or not.

Either the justices uphold the Constitution, as amended, or they do not.
In that context, case law may be a guide, but ultimately is irrelevant and insignificant compared to original intent as reflected in the letter of the law--in this case, the COnstitution. The latter is being ignored by half of the court, and often, one more.

Roberts' decisions, and those of the justices who voted to uphold Obamacare, through the most obscene contortions of jurisprudence, did not uphold the Constitution. Rewriting law in order to rule it Constitutional is not the purview of the SCOTUS, that duty is confined to the Congress. This was an egregious violation of their oaths of office.

Any who voted that abortion of an opinion to be Constitutional violated their oaths as well.

[Bigun]

This isn't a question of Republicans vs Democrats, although those Party alignments seem to be a predictive factor, more often than not. Party should be immaterial, irrelevant, moot.

It is a question of whether a ruling or piece of legislation is Constitutional or not.

Either the justices uphold the Constitution, as amended, or they do not.
In that context, case law may be a guide, but ultimately is irrelevant and insignificant compared to original intent as reflected in the letter of the law--in this case, the COnstitution. The latter is being ignored by half of the court, and often, one more.

Roberts' decisions, and those of the justices who voted to uphold Obamacare, through the most obscene contortions of jurisprudence, did not uphold the Constitution. Rewriting law in order to rule it Constitutional is not the purview of the SCOTUS, that duty is confined to the Congress. This was an egregious violation of their oaths of office.

Any who voted that abortion of an opinion to be Constitutional violated their oaths as well.

 

  and, as usual, very well said!

Congress is collectively violating their oaths as well when they fail to address this!

[GrouchoTex]

Wouldn't abortion fall under and outpatient procedure?
Aren't clinics/day hospitals who perform outpatient procedures required by law to have someone on staff who has admitting privileges, should something go wrong?
Why wouldn't an abortion provider be held under the same standard as any of these other places?
It's about women's "health" care, right?
At least, this is what we are being told it is about.

[Smokin Joe]

Wouldn't abortion fall under and outpatient procedure?
Aren't clinics/day hospitals who perform outpatient procedures required by law to have someone on staff who has admitting privileges, should something go wrong?
Why wouldn't an abortion provider be held under the same standard as any of these other places?
It's about women's "health" care, right?
At least, this is what we are being told it is about.

Women have died when these 'safe' procedures went awry, either directly from injury, or later from 'complications'.

I must note that in the 'ideal procedure' at least one human being is killed. 

[Bigun]

The central issue here is whether or not the federal government has ANY jurisdiction in this matter at all.  I say NO! 

I cannot find anything in our Constitution that would grant it.

 

[Smokin Joe]

 

  and, as usual, very well said!

Congress is collectively violating their oaths as well when they fail to address this!

Congress' oaths would be worth more written in longhand on toilet paper.
At least someone would get some utility of them.

When some don't even know the three branches of government, it is obvious they are oblivious to the nature and scope of their duties, and what's worse, they don't appear to care. They are the very sort of intellectually inbred oligarchy intoxicated on their power and self-importance the Founders sought to avoid.

[GrouchoTex]

Women have died when these 'safe' procedures went awry, either directly from injury, or later from 'complications'.

I must note that in the 'ideal procedure' at least one human being is killed. 

True, at least one.

I heard a statistic on twitter a few days ago from a pro-abortion doctor (her claim, not verified, as an Ob/Gyn), claiming 1 in 4 (25%) of women in the US have had abortions.
I replied that this number seemed awfully high.
The responses to me were typical, the US sucks in Sex Ed, the world is not family friendly, etc, blah, blah,.

One response was a bit striking.
It was that women were shamed into silence, and everyone knows someone, whether revealed or not, that has had an abortion.
Therefore, they were agreeing the 25% was an accurate number.

If that number is true, that's amazing, and sorrowful to me,


 

[sneakypete]

Right! That's why they are so busy harvesting their body parts!

Can a monkey have sex with a woman and produce a fetus?

@Bigun

Is a red bus faster than a blue bus,and which stops better than the green bus?

BTW,been shopping at Wal-Mart recently?

[sneakypete]

Sure! And one can make a hell of a lot of decisions not to reproduce BEFORE another human life becomes involved!

@Bigun

I would pay cash money to hear you explain that to a woman who has been raped,or to the father of a 13 year old girl that has been raped.

[sneakypete]

Spoken like a man.  Just point and shoot, and leave the woman to deal with the problem.   

During the first trimester,  the choice whether to reproduce is solely that of the woman.   

@Jazzhead

Unless the "woman" is a minor,and then it is the choice of her parents or guardians. A situation pretty much no one wants to find themselves ever facing.

[sneakypete]

Yet another punt avoiding the question!  Which was @Jazzhead

Can you show me the language in the Constitution that guarantees a right to an abortion? Or even privacy for that matter? I'll wait!

@Bigun

Are you SERIOUSLY trying to claim there is no mention of the right of privacy in the Bill of Rights?

BTW,it sure sounds like you not only think that,but approve of it. Do you?