Collins: Won’t Support SCOTUS Pick Hostile To Abortion Rights

[corbe]

Oh, look at the contributions of the so-called Ted Cruz supporters.

 

@corbe   

   Don't pigeon hole me @TomSea, I'm drunk and have a tendency to lash out at Trumpers in this condition, drawing Mods ire..

[Hoodat]

It does not. Your Supreme Court also stood up for slavery? So, we assume you see no wrong with that either.

Jazzhead might as well be writing amicus briefs for the defense in Brown v. Board of Education, arguing how the Constitution says that segregation is legal.

[Oceander]

The 'right to privacy' arises from some liberal unhappy with what the Constitution actually says and trying to invent some right that simply is not there.  Our Founding Fathers had the intelligence to realize that we all share this continent and that it would be virtually impossible to live a life totally free of the notice of anyone else, much less an Almighty all-knowing God.

But then of course our Constitution is not a limitation on private individuals.  It is a limitation on government.  Thus it does not derive rights of the people, but instead places limitations on government acting against those rights.


That's really beautiful and all, but it doesn't have a thing to do with the Fourth Amendment.

Ask the Supreme Court, because that’s the basis on which Fourth Amendment cases are generally decided.  And it’s the only basis on which a communication that passes through the control of an independent third party could be covered by the Fourth Amendment. 

Or has the Court also gone wildly off base with the Fourth Amendment as well?

[Hoodat]

Ask the Supreme Court, because that’s the basis on which Fourth Amendment cases are generally decided.

That's a mistake.  The Supreme Court should only decide Fourth Amendment cases based on what the Fourth Amendment says.

[TomSea]

   Don't pigeon hole me @TomSea, I'm drunk and have a tendency to lash out at Trumpers in this condition, drawing Mods ire..

There's hardly an issue President Cruz is more passionate about.... so, again, with some, it's not really about principle and echoing or agreeing with the same stances.

@corbe

[Silver Pines]

Oh, look at the contributions of the so-called Ted Cruz supporters.

 

@corbe

@TomSea

You're not helping.  Try to get a handle on your obsession long enough to post.

[Oceander]

That's a mistake.  The Supreme Court should only decide Fourth Amendment cases based on what the Fourth Amendment says.

So then, you would agree that phone calls are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, emails, at least while in transit or on a mail server, are also not protected from seizure.  Nor are cellphone signals. 

[Suppressed]

Missing words in Constitution: Abortion, conception, quickening, birth

…. in case a "textualist" were to search

and would not an "originalist" seek to learn the extant common and acceptable practices at the time the document was drawn?

The Constitution is a limit on the government. Nothing in the Constitution authorizes the government to limit a person's access to abortion.

And considering that abortion was accepted during Colonial times, this makes sense to Originalists.


We can argue how we think things should be, but the way it is, the Constitution has been deemed to protect the right.

Remember, the "tyrants" were in their positions in accordance with the procedures or our republuc enshrined in our Constitution. They legally provided an interpretation of our Constitution.  If we don't like it, we need to change the Constitution via the federal republican means in our Constitution.

[Hoodat]

So then, you would agree that phone calls are not protected by the Fourth Amendment. Similarly, emails, at least while in transit or on a mail server, are also not protected from seizure.  Nor are cellphone signals.

Help me out here, Oceander.  What part of this are you not getting?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

[Oceander]

Help me out here, Oceander.  What part of this are you not getting?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There isnt much help for you because you do not wish to discuss the issue. 

Where in the language does it contain the word “email”?

Otherwise, if I pass a document to a stranger and ask him to give it to my friend (and conspirator), the police have violated the Fourth Amendment if they seize the document from this stranger while he possesses it?

[Hoodat]

We can argue how we think things should be, but the way it is, the Constitution has been deemed to protect the right.

Please show me this part of the Constitution that is "deemed" to override Amendment X.

[Chosen Daughter]

It’s all fun and games until actual details are required.  What counts as the dividing line between perfidious murder and a good medical procedure?

I know what it isn't.  Oops, I made a mistake.  I had sex without protection and now I am pregnant. 

[Oceander]

I know what it isn't.  Oops, I made a mistake.  I had sex without protection and now I am pregnant. 

What is it about a doctor’s sayso that can magically convert a murder into a good thing?

If abortion is murder, then it is murder regardless of whether some doctor says it’s medically necessary.

Your view, BTW, doesn’t respect the child as a child, but merely treats it as a punishment to be visited on a woman who has sex. 

[Hoodat]

There isnt much help for you because you do not wish to discuss the issue. 

The issue here is Amendment IV.  I just posted it for you.  Again.  I asked you a direct question regarding that amendment - a question which you failed to answer.  So tell me exactly how is it that I am the one not wishing to discuss an issue that I just asked about and one that you did not wish to answer?  Maybe logic isn't your strong suit.

Where in the language does it contain the word “email”?

It doesn't.  You won't find words like internet, stealing, murder, or gun either.  Nor does the status of the word "email" absolve the government of any restrictions placed upon it by Amendment IV.  And only a complete fool would keep bringing it up.

Otherwise, if I pass a document to a stranger and ask him to give it to my friend (and conspirator), the police have violated the Fourth Amendment if they seize the document from this stranger while he possesses it?

That would depend on whether their seizure was reasonable.  (See:  Amendment IV)

[Hoodat]

What part of the Constitution allows murder to be a crime?

[Suppressed]

Please show me this part of the Constitution that is "deemed" to override Amendment X.

Nothing is overriding Amendment X. In fact, that amendment is part of my point.  But you can't ignore IV and XIV.

[Hoodat]

Nothing is overriding Amendment X. In fact, that amendment is part of my point.  But you can't ignore IV and XIV.

Depriving a State of the right to decide its own laws regarding abortion, murder, etc. is a violation of Amendment X.

Just curious though.  What do Amendments IV and XIV have to do with depriving the state of Texas the right to formulate its own abortion laws?

[TomSea]

Justice Byron White, a JFK appointee to the SCOTUS by the way, penned the dissent to Roe V. Wade:
 

No Historical Support

With all due respect, I dissent. I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court’s judg-ment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new con-stitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with suffi-cient substance to override most existing state abortion stat-utes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible im-pacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw  judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

https://www.scribd.com/document/217330653/Dissent-White

So, even some justices didn't see these rights.

[Suppressed]

Depriving a State of the right to decide its own laws regarding abortion, murder, etc. is a violation of Amendment X.

So you'd be okay with a state passing laws outlawing gun ownership, private cellphone use, newspaper publication, etc.?  After all, "Amendment X!"

[Hoodat]

Justice Byron White, a JFK appointee to the SCOTUS by the way, penned the dissent to Roe V. Wade:
 
So, even some justices didn't see these rights.

And according to the majority opinion in Roe, it is only a temporary right.  Once a baby hits the 24th week, States magically gain the right to regulate abortion.  Go figure.

[Hoodat]

So you'd be okay with a state passing laws outlawing gun ownership

No.  It violates Amendment II.

private cellphone use

That is their right.  As a citizen of such a state, I would not be in favor of them doing so, but it is still within their right under the Constitution.

newspaper publication

Again, that is their right.  As a citizen of such a state, I would not be in favor of them doing so, but it is still within their right under the Constitution.  Furthermore, Congress holds the power to establish federal law guaranteeing that right, just as they do with abortion.  But in the absence of federal law, it is up to the States.  And while I may not agree with what a State chooses to do, I uphold their right to do it.

[Oceander]

And according to the majority opinion in Roe, it is only a temporary right.  Once a baby hits the 24th week, States magically gain the right to regulate abortion.  Go figure.

At the point of viability is when the State’s alleged interests only become weighty enough to outweigh the woman’s right to personal liberty.  No mystery or magic there, it’s a classic balancing test, anchored in practicalities. 

[Oceander]

Justice Byron White, a JFK appointee to the SCOTUS by the way, penned the dissent to Roe V. Wade:
 
So, even some justices didn't see these rights.

Dickerson v. United States: “Whether or not we agree with Miranda’s reasoning and its resulting rule, were we addressing the issue in the first instance, the principles of stare decisis weigh heavily against overruling it now.”

[Hoodat]

No mystery or magic there, it’s a classic balancing test, anchored in practicalities.

But not anchored in the Constitution of the United States of America.

[Oceander]

But not anchored in the Constitution of the United States of America.

Dickerson v. United States, 530 U.S. 428 (2000).