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

[txradioguy]

The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Very few Americans are aware that Blackmun fabricated the so-called “trimester framework” in an attempt to justify early abortion as less consequential than abortion later in pregnancy. Although today we speak of trimesters as if they’re settled medical facts, they were invented by Blackmun and not based on a medical understanding of pregnancy or fetal development.

Roe V Wade will be challenged again, at some point.

The following quotes are from people on the left:

Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.
“One of the most curious things about  Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
“ Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations
“What I think is that it just doesn’t have the stable status of  Brown or  Miranda because it’s been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think  Roe was way overreached."

The rest of Cass Sunstein's quote that the Left is relying on:
"I wouldn’t vote to overturn it myself, but that’s because I think it’s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled.”



s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

@GrouchoTex

Ed Lazarus is credited with having been the one who wrote Roe for Justice Blackmun.

[Hoodat]

What is so mysterious about the right of privacy?

By "mysterious", do you mean that it is a mystery where it can be found?  Or is it simply a mystery how killing your unborn child is an exercise of privacy, as if "privacy" is an action, rather than a state or condition.

[Hoodat]

Countries like France, supposedly per abortion laws in France (or you can check any other country), has no abortions after 12 weeks, that's just double Alabama's law. One can read about their laws here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

Not that Europe, silly.  The other Europe.  The one that validates Jazzhead's moral code to supersede the Constitution.

[txradioguy]

What is so mysterious about the right of privacy?   Don't you have a problem with the State invading your privacy?

 


The ONLY time you have a problem with it is if it endangers one of your favorite Liberal causes.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

The ONLY time you have a problem with it is if it endangers one of your favorite Liberal causes.

I have the right to privately enjoy using my Sporting Rifle.  Two can play this game.

[txradioguy]

Your individual right to defend your home and family with a firearm,  without regard to your membership in a citizen militia,  is a court-created right.

[txradioguy]

I have the right to privately enjoy using my Sporting Rifle.  Two can play this game.

Indeed you do. Can't wait to get mine so I can enjoy that same right.

[Hoodat]

Sorry fellas, that's not how it works.  Jazzhead gets to determine where "privacy rights" apply and where they do not.  He bases this solely upon his own moral code.  Did you really expect it to be written down in the Constitution or something?

[txradioguy]

Sorry fellas, that's not how it works.  Jazzhead gets to determine where "privacy rights" apply and where they do not.  He bases this solely upon his own moral code.  Did you really expect it to be written down in the Constitution or something?

Nope.   

[GrouchoTex]

What is so mysterious about the right of privacy?   Don't you have a problem with the State invading your privacy?

You would have to determine that the fetus was not human, so as to not violate their rights, to give women this particular right to privacy.
Blackmun admitted it was a stretch, but you don't seem willing to admit as much.

[GrouchoTex]

@GrouchoTex

Ed Lazarus is credited with having been the one who wrote Roe for Justice Blackmun.

Correct, and even he knew it was on shaky ground.

[aligncare]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

It amuses me to hear folks who usually decry "judicial activism"  insist the Supreme Court deny the legal rights of 150 million American women.     Whatever one may think of the original Roe decision, it is one thing to recognize new rights, and quite another to take rights away.   

A woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child has been the law of the land for three generations of American women.   What @Bill Cipher is simply saying is that SCOTUS is not the one to put that genie back in the bottle.    If an established right is to be no longer protected by the Constitution,  it must be done by the peoples' elected representatives, by means of a Constitutional amendment.    But that's not going to happen,  because the people generally support a middle ground regarding abortion.   Safe, legal and rare.   

It almost amuses me to hear people babble about the rights of 150 million American women and ignore the rights of the 30 million very young ladies butchered at the alleged behest of the 150 million.

What other groups can we eliminate for the crime of inconvenience? All we need is a 5:1 ratio to make it perfectly legal?

For instance, could we just pop Cadillac drivers off the highway and squash them (with their vehicles)? After all, the ratio of chevys to caddys should be about right...

How about people who wear brown dress shoes? They're a minority.

The Constitution exists, in part to protect the Rights of those who are helpless, in the minority, who lack the means to defend themselves against the mob and the powerful. Yet this abortion of jurisprudence puts the most helpless among us, those who have no voice directly in the cross hairs.

It's wrong, on so many levels, and yet you continue to babble about it as if it was (a) right.

You remind me of the exact reason I chose not to become a lawyer.

[Cyber Liberty]

You remind me of the exact reason I chose not to become a lawyer.

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.

[Hoodat]

But...we usually end up being Engineers instead because Mathematics is immutable.  Just the way we like it.

Math will never lie to you.

[Sanguine]

Math will never lie to you.

True. 

[GrouchoTex]

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.

I cannot help but to agree with you.
I wished it were not so, but here we are.

[Jazzhead]

Sorry fellas, that's not how it works.  Jazzhead gets to determine where "privacy rights" apply and where they do not.  He bases this solely upon his own moral code.  Did you really expect it to be written down in the Constitution or something?

My "moral code" is respect for individual liberty - including respect for the privacy and self-determination of the individual.

The Constitution protects such liberty.   I support the Constitution.   As for abortion itself, as I've said before I believe it to be, in most cases, morally wrong.   But I am not so arrogant as to insist imposing my morality on women at the point of a government gun.  Or to insist that their Constitutionally protected rights be taken away.   

And, finally,  ardent pro-lifers don't really believe what they say.   Most claim abortion to be "murder",  but don't say they are willing to put tens of millions of women in jail for it.   

[Bill Cipher]

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. 

[Hoodat]

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.

The same thing was said about Plessy, Furman, Durham, etc.  Yet all were overturned by the Supreme Court.  Go figure.

[Hoodat]

My "moral code" is respect for individual liberty - including respect for the privacy and self-determination of the individual.

Except when it comes to the freedom to mold and shape society.  In that regard, the individual has no rights at all.

The Constitution protects such liberty.   I support the Constitution.

The Constitution protects the liberty of the people of each State to shape the society of their State through their legislatures.  It's specifically what the Constitution says, and in no way whatsoever do you support that.

As for abortion itself, as I've said before I believe it to be, in most cases, morally wrong.

Your moral opinion on abortion, or mine for that matter, are exercised as individual voices through our State legislators.  That is what our Founding Fathers intended when the States ratified Amendment X.  As a resident of Georgia, I respect your voice as well as any decision our State society chooses to make through the exercise of our legislature.  But as a resident of Pennsylvania, I really don't give a damn what your opinion is since it has no bearing on what the residents of Georgia choose to do.  Stop acting like a tyrant.  No one here is demanding what your State does.

[Cyber Liberty]

And, finally,  ardent pro-lifers don't really believe what they say.   Most claim abortion to be "murder",  but don't say they are willing to put tens of millions of women in jail for it.

Ardent pro-lifers don't want to put the women in jail because, technically, they aren't the ones doing the murders.  That would be Doctors.  I suppose you could make a case for conspiracy to murder, though, but only as an adjunct to jailing killer Docs. 

I notice you still define "morality" as your morality, not the morality of others.  Morality for thee but not for me.  That's where the tyranny comes in.

[GrouchoTex]

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.

Showing the flaws in the Roe v Wade decision amounts to "Butt-hurt"?

Who came up with that lame saying anyway?

Probably some one as TOS, I suspect.

Who's doing the whining?
Just who is feeling marginalized now?

Seems Hollywood won't produce a movie the state of Georgia now, for one.
No one's stopping them, of course.
Georgia isn't.

I guess it's about the higher morality of their personal subjective beliefs, forcing then to behave emotionally.

I think it has a certain form of amusing comedy, as well.





 

[Bill Cipher]

The same thing was said about Plessy, Furman, Durham, etc.  Yet all were overturned by the Supreme Court.  Go figure.

Nope.  The same cannot be said for them.  Dickerson v. U.S.

Roe will not be overturned, because it does not fail any of the criteria the Court applies to determine when it will overturn one of its own precedents. 

Plessy, in particular, of which you seem to be enamored, miserably failed those very same criteria. 

Too bad you’re less interested in understanding Constitutional law than in pretending that the Constitution enacted all and only your own personal religious predilections.

[Bill Cipher]

Showing the flaws in the Roe v Wade decision amounts to "Butt-hurt"?

Who came up with that lame saying anyway?

Probably some one as TOS, I suspect.

Who's doing the whining?
Just who is feeling marginalized now?

Seems Hollywood won't produce a movie the state of Georgia now, for one.
No one's stopping them, of course.
Georgia isn't.

I guess it's about the higher morality of their personal subjective beliefs, forcing then to behave emotionally.

I think it has a certain form of amusing comedy, as well.





 

Dickerson v. U.S.