The Briefing Room
General Category => National/Breaking News => SCOTUS News => Topic started by: mystery-ak on June 11, 2019, 04:31:18 pm
-
Joe Scarborough: 'I Know' Chief Justice Roberts Will Never Overturn Roe
By Mark Finkelstein | June 11, 2019 7:52 AM EDT
If Joe Scarborough is right, there is something seriously wrong with Chief Justice John Roberts and his Court. On today's Morning Joe, Scarborough claimed, "I know the Roberts Court is not going to overturn" Roe v. Wade because a recent poll shows only 13% of Americans want it overturned.
Refusing to apply the Constitution, bowing instead to the public sentiment of the day, would represent an appalling abdication of the Court's duty. That is particularly so regarding Roe, a decision that even many supporters of abortion rights, and an MSNBC legal analyst, recognize was decided on dubious-at-best constitutional grounds.
more
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2019/06/11/scarborough-i-know-roberts-scotus-bowing-poll-wont-overturn-roe (https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/mark-finkelstein/2019/06/11/scarborough-i-know-roberts-scotus-bowing-poll-wont-overturn-roe)
-
I can't wait for judge Amy Barrett to join the court. Hopefully to replace Ruth once she retires.
-
Joe doesn't "know" his butt from a hole in the ground. Does anyone watch this dope's show?
-
Roe will never be overturned.
-
rrthreek
Roe will never be overturned.
Sad to say, I believe you're right. My comment was a general criticism of Joe, more than a response to what he said about Justice Roberts.
-
rrthreekSad to say, I believe you're right. My comment was a general criticism of Joe, more than a response to what he said about Justice Roberts.
Understood. My comment wasn’t really addressed to anyone in particular, just to the article itself.
-
Roe will never be overturned.
Someone needs to tell the DNC that. They proclaim that every new Republican elected...every judge nominated to the bench puts America one step closer to Roe being overturned.
-
Someone needs to tell the DNC that. They proclaim that every new Republican elected...every judge nominated to the bench puts America one step closer to Roe being overturned.
Of course they do; that’s how they get the rank-and-file all fired up.
-
Of course they do; that’s how they get the rank-and-file all fired up.
True...but you can only cry wolf for so long.
-
True...but you can only cry wolf for so long.
One would think so, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in politics.
-
One would think so, but that doesn’t seem to be the case in politics.
Absolutely. How many decades was drilling in ANWR a fundraising cause for both sides?
-
Absolutely. How many decades was drilling in ANWR a fundraising cause for both sides?
Looked how well the "promise" of overturning Obamacare "root and branch" worked on firing up the Conservative base for a few elections.
-
I can't wait for judge Amy Barrett to join the court.
You and me both.
-
Roe will never be overturned.
They said the same thing about Plessy.
-
They said the same thing about Plessy.
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). Plessy is easily distinguished.
Roe isn’t going anywhere.
-
You and me both.
Though it will be refreshing to have her on the Court...if and when she's appointed doesn't guarantee we've got a majority to overturn Roe. Assuming Justice Thomas remains in good health it gives (probably) 4 solid votes to overturn. I wouldn't count Kavanaugh in that group because he's not Conservative. And Roberts is too squish these days to do the right thing either.
-
Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000). Plessy is easily distinguished.
Roe isn’t going anywhere.
Dickerson has zero to do with either Plessy or Roe. No one is trying to federally legislate their way around either decision.
-
Dickerson has zero to do with either Plessy or Roe. No one is trying to federally legislate their way around either decision.
Dickerson has everything to do with whether the Court would overrule Roe, even assuming arguendo that it wasn’t entirely constitutionally mandated. Dickerson establishes criteria the Court would apply in those circumstances. Plessy fails that test because it was unworkable in principle and had been undercut. Roe passes that test because it is neither unworkable nor has it been undercut.
Roe will not be overturned, no matter how badly you want it to be.
-
Dickerson has everything to do with whether the Court would overrule Roe, even assuming arguendo that it wasn’t entirely constitutionally mandated. Dickerson establishes criteria the Court would apply in those circumstances.
This doesn't even make sense. Dickerson has to do with Congress trying to circumvent Miranda through legislation. Period. Congress is not trying to circumvent Roe, nor did it try to circumvent Plessy.
Plessy fails that test because it was unworkable in principle and had been undercut. Roe passes that test because it is neither unworkable nor has it been undercut.
Plessy was workable for over half a century until it was overturned. Roe has been workable for 46 years. But workability has zero to do with Dickerson, or the Constitution for that matter. Both Plessy and Roe defied the Constitution. Both can be overturned by any court willing to adhere to the wording of the Constitution.
Roe will not be overturned, no matter how badly you want it to be.
That's what they said about Plessy.
-
Though it will be refreshing to have her on the Court...if and when she's appointed doesn't guarantee we've got a majority to overturn Roe. Assuming Justice Thomas remains in good health it gives (probably) 4 solid votes to overturn. I wouldn't count Kavanaugh in that group because he's not Conservative. And Roberts is too squish these days to do the right thing either.
I consider Roberts to be completely unreliable. For whatever reason he sold his soul over Obamacare. Rewriting a law in defiance of the Constitution to say what the progenitors repeatedly told the American People was emphatically NOT the case, and then proclaiming it to be "Constitutional". That sucker is compromised, and anything as dear to evil hearts as the fraud of Roe will summon up the threat of whatever dirt was used to push him over to the dark side last time.
-
"I know" Lori Klausutis will never comment on this story.
-
This doesn't even make sense. Dickerson has to do with Congress trying to circumvent Miranda through legislation. Period. Congress is not trying to circumvent Roe, nor did it try to circumvent Plessy.
Plessy was workable for over half a century until it was overturned. Roe has been workable for 46 years. But workability has zero to do with Dickerson, or the Constitution for that matter. Both Plessy and Roe defied the Constitution. Both can be overturned by any court willing to adhere to the wording of the Constitution.
That's what they said about Plessy.
You clearly do not understand Dickerson then. In Dickerson, the Court concluded that Congress could have overridden Miranda only if Miranda was not a constitutionally based decision. The Court then concluded that even if Miranda went beyond the requirements of the Fifth, it was still a constitutional decision and, therefore, that Congress could not override it legislatively.
The Court then considered whether to overturn Miranda given that it was not strictly based on the Constitution, and the Court decided that it would not overrule Miranda because it addressed a significant issue, it was workable, and the principles underpinning it had not been undone.
The same would apply to Roe if we assume - plain logic to the contrary - that Roe is not constitutional, and Roe would pass that test because it is workable, and it’s essential principle - individual freedom and liberty - has not been undercut.
Plessy would fail. It was clear beyond any peradventure that separate was inherently not equal. The essence of Plessy was fully undercut, and Plessy did nothing more than enable exactly the sorts of inequality it was supposed to mitigate; it was therefore unworkable.
It’s a shame that you cannot come to grips with reality, but that is life. Plenty of other people, flat-earthers come to mind - can’t deal with reality either.
Roe is not going anywhere; it certainly isn’t going the way of Plessy.
-
You clearly do not understand Dickerson then. In Dickerson, the Court concluded that Congress could have overridden Miranda only if Miranda was not a constitutionally based decision. The Court then concluded that even if Miranda went beyond the requirements of the Fifth, it was still a constitutional decision and, therefore, that Congress could not override it legislatively.
Which again is not applicable here since there is no corresponding Congressional attempt to override Roe or Plessy.
The Court then considered whether to overturn Miranda given that it was not strictly based on the Constitution, and the Court decided that it would not overrule Miranda because it addressed a significant issue, it was workable, and the principles underpinning it had not been undone.
This same argument, albeit ludicrous, also applies to Plessy.
The same would apply to Roe if we assume - plain logic to the contrary - that Roe is not constitutional, and Roe would pass that test because it is workable . . .
As was Plessy.
. . . and it’s essential principle - individual freedom and liberty - has not been undercut.
Ah, but that's where it all falls apart. Roe explicitly denies the people of any State from formulating its own abortion laws, in direct violation of Amendment X.
Plessy would fail.
Plessy remained alive for over half a century. It took another Supreme Court ruling to overrule it. Without that ruling, segregation would remain the law of the land regardless of what the Constitution says. It is no different from Roe.
It was clear beyond any peradventure that separate was inherently not equal.
Not to seven Supreme Court Justices.
The essence of Plessy was fully undercut, and Plessy did nothing more than enable exactly the sorts of inequality it was supposed to mitigate; it was therefore unworkable.
Again, it 'worked' for over half a century.
It’s a shame that you cannot come to grips with reality, but that is life. Plenty of other people, flat-earthers come to mind - can’t deal with reality either.
See: Logical Fallacies - Poisoning the Well (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well)
Roe is not going anywhere; it certainly isn’t going the way of Plessy.
Repetition of a false claim will not make it true. The Supreme Court can overrule Roe at any time, just as it did with Plessy. And there is absolutely nothing that you have presented that proves otherwise.
-
I can't wait for judge Amy Barrett to join the court. Hopefully to replace Ruth once she retires.
Yet we got Brett Kavanaugh instead. Thanks, Christine...
-
Which again is not applicable here since there is no corresponding Congressional attempt to override Roe or Plessy.
This same argument, albeit ludicrous, also applies to Plessy.
As was Plessy.
Ah, but that's where it all falls apart. Roe explicitly denies the people of any State from formulating its own abortion laws, in direct violation of Amendment X.
Plessy remained alive for over half a century. It took another Supreme Court ruling to overrule it. Without that ruling, segregation would remain the law of the land regardless of what the Constitution says. It is no different from Roe.
Not to seven Supreme Court Justices.
Again, it 'worked' for over half a century.
See: Logical Fallacies - Poisoning the Well (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/140/Poisoning-the-Well)
Repetition of a false claim will not make it true. The Supreme Court can overrule Roe at any time, just as it did with Plessy. And there is absolutely nothing that you have presented that proves otherwise.
Roe is not going anywhere. You can spin as fine and dandy a tale as you like to salve your self-inflicted butt-hurt, but that doesn’t change facts.
Roe is here to stay.
Enjoy your fantasies and delusions.
-
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 amuses me to hear people talk about court created rights!
-
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.
Right to life should have more power than a right for convenience.
-
It amuses me to hear people talk about court created rights!
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. Do you support liberal efforts to overturn that court-created right?
Didn't think so. Rights for me but not for thee.
-
Right to life should have more power than a right for convenience.
A pre-viable fetus has, vis a vis its own mother, no right to life under the U.S. Constitution. And there is no political will to create such a right by means of a Constitutional amendment. Seems like you are counting on judicial activism to impose your view of morality.
-
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.
Wrong.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clearly written in the Constitution in plain language. The first half, being grammatically incorrect, was never valid.
In contrast, any perceived right to kill a child in the womb is in direct contradiction of the explicit Fifth Amendment right to not be denied life without due process.
-
A pre-viable fetus has, vis a vis its own mother, no right to life under the U.S. Constitution. And there is no political will to create such a right by means of a Constitutional amendment. Seems like you are counting on judicial activism to impose your view of morality.
Interesting it is a homicide to kill it outside of an abortion clinic in many states, if it has no right to life.
-
Wrong.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clearly written in the Constitution in plain language. The first half, being grammatically incorrect, was never valid.
In contrast, any perceived right to kill a child in the womb is in direct contradiction of the explicit Fifth Amendment right to not be denied life without due process.
“Never valid†- more liberal words were ne’er heard on this subject.
-
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. Do you support liberal efforts to overturn that court-created right?
Didn't think so. Rights for me but not for thee.
BUZZZZZZ Wrong again! On all counts!
-
@Jazzhead
A woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child by killing the baby is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
“Her right†is actually a misnomer. What’s central to the issue is her “responsibility†to abstain or use birth control when she is fertile, and to acknowledge the unique individual life inside her should those methods fail.
Abortion, at its core, is a human rights issue. Not the mother’s, but the baby’s God given human rights.
-
A pre-viable fetus has, vis a vis its own mother, no right to life under the U.S. Constitution. And there is no political will to create such a right by means of a Constitutional amendment. Seems like you are counting on judicial activism to impose your view of morality.
Looks like US law takes a similar stance but give an exception to abortion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841)
-
Wrong.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is clearly written in the Constitution in plain language. The first half, being grammatically incorrect, was never valid.
In contrast, any perceived right to kill a child in the womb is in direct contradiction of the explicit Fifth Amendment right to not be denied life without due process.
Believe what you want. You're wrong. The predicate clause of the 2A can't simply be read out of the right because you claim it was "never valid". The individual right was recognizedby a court decision - Scalia's majority opinion in Heller - just as the individual right to abortion was recognized by the Court. The two rights hang by the same thread. If you insist that the Court overturn the right you oppose, then know that liberals are working just as hard to overturn the right you support.
Hopefully the Court will stand firm and recognize each of these important rights, as well as the rights of the states to reasonably regulate their exercise.
-
Looks like US law takes a similar stance but give an exception to abortion.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841 (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1841)
Yup. A pre-viable fetus has no rights vis a vis its own mother. The law you cite is directed toward the acts of third parties. Which makes sense, since a woman has dominion over her own body. THAT is the important natural right that must be protected.
-
@Jazzhead
A woman's right to decide for herself whether to bear a child by killing the baby is a bit like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.
“Her right†is actually a misnomer. What’s central to the issue is her “responsibility†to abstain or use birth control when she is fertile, and to acknowledge the unique individual life inside her should those methods fail.
Abortion, at its core, is a human rights issue. Not the mother’s, but the baby’s God given human rights.
You are stating your moral view of the matter. I don't necessarily disagree with it. Where we disagree is the enlistment of the State to impose your morality on others. What I support - consistent with my conservative view of the role of the State - is the woman's fundamental LIBERTY.
The solution to the problem you cite is prevention, support and persuasion. Not coercion.
-
What I support - consistent with my conservative view of the role of the State - is the woman's fundamental LIBERTY.
Because that child is a human being with rights. He or she deserves to be protected just by virtue of being human. And that woman’s “Liberty†to kill her child is not a justified liberty at all. Rather, she now has the responsibility to protect her child’s life.
And your role of the state is the exact opposite of "Conservative". You're the only one here that believes that your view is the conservative one..
You're perfectly happy with the state mandating what people can and can't do if it supports one of your favorite Liberal pet causes.
The abortion issue is a perfect case in point of your hypocrisy. IF you truly were for the State having a minimal role in peoples lives, you'd be against the Federal Government imposing a trash ruling like Roe on every state whether they agree with it or not.
But instead you falsely claim to be Conservative...all the while quite happy to have the Federal government impose it's version of morality on everyone whether they want it imposed on them or not.
-
Roe is not going anywhere.
They said the same thing about Plessy.
You can spin as fine and dandy a tale as you like to salve your self-inflicted butt-hurt, but that doesn’t change facts.
Facts? Facts? The FACT here is that Plessy was overturned. So was Furman. Thus, Roe can be overturned, too. I understand that critical thinking is not your strong suit, but it is clear based on FACTS that Supreme Court decisions can indeed be overturned. So all it takes is for a majority of Supreme Court Justices to side with what the Constitution actually says instead of siding with what makes them feel good, just as they did with Brown. And every day that decision is delayed, we live under tyranny just as we lived under tyranny for half a century under Plessy.
One thing is clear, I choose to live on the foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America and place my trust in my fellow citizens in shaping our society as we see fit. And you choose to impose your will on everyone else outside the confines of that same Constitution. It really shouldn't matter to you what laws we the people of Georgia decide to implement. Yet for some reason it does. You simply can't help yourself from imposing your moral code (at the point of a gun) on people who live in different States than you.
Roe is here to stay.
They said the same thing about Plessy.
Enjoy your fantasies and delusions.
We'll see, big boy. We'll see. I have the Constitution of the United States of America on my side. What do you have?
-
They said the same thing about Plessy.
Facts? Facts? The FACT here is that Plessy was overturned. So was Furman. Thus, Roe can be overturned, too. I understand that critical thinking is not your strong suit, but it is clear based on FACTS that Supreme Court decisions can indeed be overturned. So all it takes is for a majority of Supreme Court Justices to side with what the Constitution actually says instead of siding with what makes them feel good, just as they did with Brown. And every day that decision is delayed, we live under tyranny just as we lived under tyranny for half a century under Plessy.
One thing is clear, I choose to live on the foundation of the Constitution of the United States of America and place my trust in my fellow citizens in shaping our society as we see fit. And you choose to impose your will on everyone else outside the confines of that same Constitution. It really shouldn't matter to you what laws we the people of Georgia decide to implement. Yet for some reason it does. You simply can't help yourself from imposing your moral code (at the point of a gun) on people who live in different States than you.
They said the same thing about Plessy.
We'll see, big boy. We'll see. I have the Constitution of the United States of America on my side. What do you have?
You have nothing more than your own delusions of grandeur.
Roe is not going anywhere, and Plessy is easily distinguished.
And Dickerson is strong authority for why that is so.
Maybe you should go back to law school?
-
You have nothing more than your own delusions of grandeur.
I have Amendment X. What do you have?
Roe is not going anywhere
See: Logical fallacies - Begging the question (https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/53/Begging-the-Question)
. . . and Plessy is easily distinguished.
If it is so easily distinguished, then why have you utterly failed at distinguishing it? (Hint: It requires the ability to think critically)
And Dickerson is strong authority for why that is so.
Horsesh!t. Dickerson is about Congress overruling the Supreme Court. There is no such Congressional action with either Roe or Plessy. But then you knew that already.
Maybe you should go back to law school?
Maybe you should go back to fifth grade. Because even a fifth grader can figure this one out.
Plessy v. Furgeson was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Furman v. Georgia was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Durham v. United States was overturned by the Supreme Court.
McConnell v. FEC was overturned by the Supreme Court (post Dickerson).
Aguilar v. Texas was overturned by the Supreme Court.
Olmstead v. United States was overturned by the Supreme Court.
And so on, and so on, and so on. Like I said, even a fifth grader can figure that out. But not you.
-
Because that child is a human being with rights. He or she deserves to be protected just by virtue of being human.
Then pass a constitutional amendment. Until then, it's a fetus that, until viability, is part of the woman's body and within her sole dominion and control as a matter of law.
Liberty sometimes means the freedom to make choices that moral zealots like yourself oppose. If you were a conservative, you'd understand that, and turn to prevention, support and persuasion rather then enlist the State to deny my daughter's liberty.
-
Then pass a constitutional amendment.
There already is one.
Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
-
It amuses me to hear folks who usually decry "judicial activism" insist the Supreme Court deny the legal rights of 150 million American women.
Judicial activists are the ones who ignore the Constitution as they impose their will on the rest of us. You know the ones, they are the ones who say funny things like "abortion must remain legal" while at the same time completely fail at providing a legal basis for that claim.
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.
How was Plessy overturned? Berger?
-
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.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
-
“Never valid†- more liberal words were ne’er heard on this subject.
Basic coherence is a requirement of any law's enforceability. If the text makes no sense, how can it be taken seriously? The sentence fragment lacks a verb.
-
A pre-viable fetus has, vis a vis its own mother, no right to life under the U.S. Constitution.
Under the Constitution, the State of Georgia has the right to establish its own abortion laws.
Seems like you are counting on judicial activism to impose your view of morality.
This coming from the person who says "abortion must remain legal" and demands that morality be imposed on States other than the one where he resides. Contrast that with those on this side who make zero demands on what the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania does. Judicial activism? Imposing your morality on others? That is you all the way.
-
Then pass a constitutional amendment. Until then, it's a fetus that, until viability, is part of the woman's body and within her sole dominion and control as a matter of law.
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.
Would the same concept apply at the other end of life? No murder charge for those terminally if sufficiently near death? A topic for another thread...
-
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.
-
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?
-
:2popcorn:
(Cuz I can never get enough of circular reasoning and boring repetition of debunked talking points.)
-
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.
-
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.
-
:2popcorn:
(Cuz I can never get enough of circular reasoning and boring repetition of debunked talking points.)
Sic semper tyrannis.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Look it up. Check out abortion laws as they've developed in Europe.
Europe? lol
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
I think it will be challenged
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.â€
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.â€
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.â€
s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.â€
@GrouchoTex
Ed Lazarus is credited with having been the one who wrote Roe for Justice Blackmun.
-
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.
-
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.
-
What is so mysterious about the right of privacy? Don't you have a problem with the State invading your privacy?
*****rollingeyes*****
The ONLY time you have a problem with it is if it endangers one of your favorite Liberal causes.
-
*****rollingeyes*****
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. :MiniGun:
-
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.
(http://www.vegetable-gardening-online.com/images/compost-steaming-pile.jpg)
-
I have the right to privately enjoy using my Sporting Rifle. Two can play this game. :MiniGun:
Indeed you do. Can't wait to get mine so I can enjoy that same right.
-
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?
-
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. **nononono*
-
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
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
But...we usually end up being Engineers instead because Mathematics is immutable. Just the way we like it.
Math will never lie to you.
-
Math will never lie to you.
True.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Seems Roberts screws us over every time it counts. And toes the conservative line when it doesn't.
Hmmm......
-
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.
-
@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.
-
Dickerson v. U.S.
Unless I missed it, you posted that twice and explained it zero.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
:whistle:
-
:2popcorn:
(Cuz I can never get enough of circular reasoning and boring repetition of debunked talking points.)
What he said.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Attack the spelling. I surrender.
-
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.
-
Can someone recap this thread. Cliff note style. Asking for a friend who doesn't give a shit
-
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.
-
Can someone recap this thread. Cliff note style. Asking for a friend who doesn't give a shit
Good luck finding someone who GAS.... :Cricket:
(Like the cricket? I just added that.)
-
Good luck finding someone who GAS.... :Cricket:
(Like the cricket? I just added that.)
Well hell then. This thing should just die a natural death. Naturally? Right
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.