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

[Hoodat]

It is an interesting concept that the right to live is a function of technology.  That means ~24 weeks at the present time but used to mean 28 weeks and in the future may be 12 weeks or less.  Artificial wombs have already been developed and used with sheep.  It is only a matter of time until for humans.

No, no, no, that's not at all what he means.  By using the term "until viability" he gets to be the arbiter of what "viability" means.  He alone gets to define what States can do and when.  Actual viability has nothing to do with it.  Technology could advance to the point where viability is possible at 7 days, yet he would still be declaring that "abortion must remain legal" using some other bogus argument to deny my State its rights under the Constitution.

[Jazzhead]

Under the Constitution, the State of Georgia has the right to establish its own abortion laws.

It cannot deny the abortion right,  but can reasonably regulate it (by for example, restricting the practice after viability).   You keep pointing to the Tenth Amendment.   Fine.  So you agree the states can, under the Tenth,  require registration and insurance of firearms?   

[Cyber Liberty]

 

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

[Hoodat]

It cannot deny the abortion right

What abortion right?  Show me where in the Constitution I can find this "abortion right".

You keep pointing to the Tenth Amendment.

And you keep pointing to your personal moral code with zero regard to what the Constitution actually says.  Which of those two do you think is more Constitutional, the Tenth Amendment, or your own personal moral views?

You keep pointing to the Tenth Amendment.   Fine.  So you agree the states can, under the Tenth,  require registration and insurance of firearms?   

Registration?  No.  Insurance?  Yes.  Insurance infringes upon ownership rights by imposing a financial burden similar to forcing people to purchase state-issued ID in order to vote.  If you read the Bill of Rights, you will find the right to keep and bear arms specifically listed (unlike abortion).  And you may also notice that there were plenty of court cases pre-dating Heller that acknowledged this individual right separate from militia membership, some of which have been listed for you - all of which you chose to ignore.

[Jazzhead]

No, no, no, that's not at all what he means.  By using the term "until viability" he gets to be the arbiter of what "viability" means.  He alone gets to define what States can do and when.  Actual viability has nothing to do with it.  Technology could advance to the point where viability is possible at 7 days, yet he would still be declaring that "abortion must remain legal" using some other bogus argument to deny my State its rights under the Constitution.

In practice,  laws will set a finite time period - e.g., 20 or 24 weeks.   Enough time to permit a woman to make her choice.  Enough time to protect the life of a viable fetus.   

"Viability" is not intended be a fluid concept as a legal matter.  Rather, it is a rational justification for setting the line before and after which abortion may be restricted by a State.   The actual legal standard is that a woman must have a meaningful ability to exercise her choice.   That requires her to know the dividing line.    Hence a well-drafted law will set a finite limit (e.g., 20 weeks).    Yes, that more or less corresponds to current scientific views of viability,  but it is really intended to provide guidance to a woman regarding the deadline as of which she must make her choice.   

[Hoodat]

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

Sic semper tyrannis.

[Hoodat]

In practice,  laws will set a finite time period - e.g., 20 or 24 weeks.

Where can I find these laws that set a finite time period?

Enough time to permit a woman to make her choice.

The woman already made her choice.  That's how she got pregnant.

Enough time to protect the life of a viable fetus.

Let's say with technology, the fetus becomes viable at ten days.  How will your non-existent 20-24 week law deal with that?  Will States then be able to exercise their Tenth Amendment right to set their own viability time period?  Or must we continue to rely on the tyranny of the Court simply because, as you say, "abortion must remain legal"?

"Viability" is not intended be a fluid concept as a legal matter.

Yet you have been using it exactly that way though this whole argument.

Rather, it is a rational justification for setting the line before and after which abortion may be restricted by a State.

Well golly, by your own admission, it looks like the Constitution has nothing at all to do with it.  It all comes down to "a rational justification" - one based of course on your rationality, while denying the people of Georgia from applying their own rationality.  This is exactly what tyrants do.  They can rationalize anything, including the deaths of 6 million Jews, or 50 million babies for that matter.

[thackney]

In practice,  laws will set a finite time period - e.g., 20 or 24 weeks.   Enough time to permit a woman to make her choice.  Enough time to protect the life of a viable fetus.   

"Viability" is not intended be a fluid concept as a legal matter.  Rather, it is a rational justification for setting the line before and after which abortion may be restricted by a State.   The actual legal standard is that a woman must have a meaningful ability to exercise her choice.   That requires her to know the dividing line.    Hence a well-drafted law will set a finite limit (e.g., 20 weeks).    Yes, that more or less corresponds to current scientific views of viability,  but it is really intended to provide guidance to a woman regarding the deadline as of which she must make her choice.

Thank you for that.  We don't agree but I appreciate the description of how viable would translate into law/legal.

[TomSea]

Laws will not be set doing anything of the srot.

The left does not want any viability laws though. That won't happen, at least not in the current state of things and not into the foreseeable future.

From my understanding, the Alabama law doesn't allow abortions after six weeks,  so, there still exists a threshold.

[Hoodat]

The left does not want any viability laws though. That won't happen, at least not in the current state of things and not into the foreseeable future.

You got that right.   Alabama and Georgia just imposed their own viability laws, let the Left is going ballistic over it.  Which is why the Left prefers the tyranny of the Courts.

[Jazzhead]

You got that right.   Alabama and Georgia just imposed their own viability laws, let the Left is going ballistic over it.  Which is why the Left prefers the tyranny of the Courts.

Those aren't viability laws.  They outlaw abortion long before viability.   They are Constitutionally defective because they provide no meaningful opportunity for a woman to exercise her Constitutional right.   Just like the D.C. handgun ban invalidated in Heller provided an individual with no meaningful means for protecting himself in his own home.   

[Cyber Liberty]

You got that right.   Alabama and Georgia just imposed their own viability laws, let the Left is going ballistic over it.  Which is why the Left prefers the tyranny of the Courts.

Especially fruitful when Federal Judges at the lowest level can veto any Executive action they don't like.  Used to be a tyranny of the nine, but is now the tyranny of scores.

[Jazzhead]

Let's say with technology, the fetus becomes viable at ten days.  How will your non-existent 20-24 week law deal with that?  Will States then be able to exercise their Tenth Amendment right to set their own viability time period?  Or must we continue to rely on the tyranny of the Court simply because, as you say, "abortion must remain legal"?

That was addressed in my post above.   As for the right to choose whether to bear a child,  of course it must remain legal.   I am far more concerned with the tyranny of the majority in Alabama and Georgia that would deny such right, than I am of the "tyranny" of a court telling your state that it must recognize a woman's liberty under the Constitution.   

[Jazzhead]

Where can I find these laws that set a finite time period?

Look it up.   Check out abortion laws as they've developed in Europe.   

[Hoodat]

Look it up.   Check out abortion laws as they've developed in Europe.

Europe?  lol

[Jazzhead]

Especially fruitful when Federal Judges at the lowest level can veto any Executive action they don't like.  Used to be a tyranny of the nine, but is now the tyranny of scores.

And those same Federal laws will knock out these "heartbeat" bills so fast it'll make your head spin.   It's the tyranny of the majority you should, as a conservative, be concerned about.   

[Cyber Liberty]

And those same Federal laws will knock out these "heartbeat" bills so fast it'll make your head spin.   It's the tyranny of the majority you should, as a conservative, be concerned about.

Are you lecturing Briefers about what it means to be a "conservative" again?

[truth_seeker]

My mother reached 94 1/2 a few days ago. She is completely bedridden, at receiving home-hospice care.

She is in diapers, in bed 24/7. As such she is "viable" provided she gets food and water.

Should my sister, her caregiver, fail to feed and dydrate her, she will die.

Under the laws, does my sister have a legal responibility to keep her alive?


It is very inconvenient to keep giving the care.




 

[Absalom]

Joe doesn't "know" his butt from a hole in the ground.  Does anyone watch this dope's show?

-------------------------
The Man who watches all of us knows and its
certainly not Scarburrow, another mouthy jackass.

[TomSea]

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

So, I don't expect any semblance of a serious discussion on viability, the left and the Dems at this point in discussion want the full nine months and as we have heard in the news, there have been accusations of infanticide. Maybe "viability" will be talked about in 2050 or something. It's not on the road map as of now.

[Cyber Liberty]

My mother reached 94 1/2 a few days ago. She is completely bedridden, at receiving home-hospice care.

She is in diapers, in bed 24/7. As such she is "viable" provided she gets food and water.

Should my sister, her caregiver, fail to feed and dydrate her, she will die.

Under the laws, does my sister have a legal responibility to keep her alive?


It is very inconvenient to keep giving the care.

To complete the analogy, it should be euthanasia by saline injection, followed by dismemberment.

[GrouchoTex]

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.”

I think it will be challenged

[Jazzhead]

Are you lecturing Briefers about what it means to be a "conservative" again?

It is hardly controversial that the usual conservative position is to oppose the denial of natural, individual rights by the tyranny of the majority.   The Constitution's brilliant design is intended to curb the tyranny of the majority.   I am hardly "lecturing" Briefers about the nature of conservatism.   I am, however, pointing out the hypocrisy in supporting rights for me but not for thee.   

[Jazzhead]

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,

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

[Cyber Liberty]

It is hardly controversial that the usual conservative position is to oppose the denial of natural, individual rights by the tyranny of the majority.   The Constitution's brilliant design is intended to curb the tyranny of the majority.   I am hardly "lecturing" Briefers about the nature of conservatism.   I am, however, pointing out the hypocrisy in supporting rights for me but not for thee.

Your declaration of hypocrisy has been effectively deflected by just anybody who's replied to it.  This is why most have given up arguing over it. 

Frankly, your repetition of the charge is a bit insulting.