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

[Sanguine]

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

And, thankfully, Cruz showed Trump how to be pro-life.

[Hoodat]

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

Constitution

[Silver Pines]

And, thankfully, Cruz showed Trump how to be pro-life.

@Sanguine

So, actually, Cruz is responsible for Trump being the most pro-life president, then.  I never thought of it that way, but you're right!

[corbe]

    If Sen. Collins is correct (which is probable) Trump is about to 'deviate' from that list he promised Sen. Cruz he'd adhere to for ALL nominees to the SC in exchange for the Mythical, Magical Endorsement tour in 2016.

[Oceander]

Constitution

Dickerson says Miranda is in the Constitution.  Roe v. Wade said the right to privacy was in the Constituion and that will almost certainly be confirmed by the Court if someone is foolish enough to raise the issue. 

Therefore, it is in the Constitution. 

[Hoodat]

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.”

So we should keep segregation because it has already been decided.  Stare decisis outweighs the Constitution, right?

[Oceander]

So we should keep segregation because it has already been decided.  Stare decisis outweighs the Constitution, right?

Read Dickerson.  Stare decisis will justify not overruling a prior case unless there are special circumstances.  Keeping millions of people in quasi-bondage under segregation would certainly count as sufficient circumstances justifying the overruling of a precedent that permitted segregation.

No such special circumstances of the same order of magnitude arise here. 

[Sanguine]

@Sanguine

So, actually, Cruz is responsible for Trump being the most pro-life president, then.  I never thought of it that way, but you're right!

I didn't realize it either until Tom pointed it out to us. 

[Hoodat]

Dickerson says Miranda is in the Constitution.

Dickerson says no such thing.

Roe v. Wade said the right to privacy was in the Constituion

Plessy says 'separate but equal' is in the Constitution.

Therefore, it is in the Constitution.

So by that argument, segregation is also in the Constitution.  Good luck with that reasoning.  It didn't work out for the Klan, but you seem to be an optimist.

[Hoodat]

Read Dickerson.

Read the Constitution.  You seem to be doing everything but.

Stare decisis will justify not overruling a prior case unless there are special circumstances.

So Brown was incorrect?  Instead of reading the Constitution, the Court should have relied on stare decisis to justify upholding segregation?

Keeping millions of people in quasi-bondage under segregation would certainly count as sufficient circumstances justifying the overruling of a precedent that permitted segregation.

Killing millions of unborn babies would certainly count as sufficient circumstances justifying the overruling of a precedent that denied states the right to establish their own laws.

[Oceander]

Dickerson says no such thing.


Plessy says 'separate but equal' is in the Constitution.


So by that argument, segregation is also in the Constitution.  Good luck with that reasoning.  It didn't work out for the Klan, but you seem to be an optimist.

You clearly didn’t read Dickerson then. 

[Oceander]

Read the Constitution.  You seem to be doing everything but.


So Brown was incorrect?  Instead of reading the Constitution, the Court should have relied on stare decisis to justify upholding segregation?


Killing millions of unborn babies would certainly count as sufficient circumstances justifying the overruling of a precedent that denied states the right to establish their own laws.

<NOPE.  If you have to accuse another poster of lying, you need to examine your argument.>

[Bigun]

Constitution

@Hoodat

Some apparently cannot distinguish court opinions from fundamental law.

[Hoodat]

You clearly didn’t read Dickerson then.

Miranda is a constitutional decision of the court - not part of the Constitution.  The gist of Dickerson is that Congress cannot pass a law that overrules a constitutional decision made by the court.  Not that any of this has a damn thing to do with Roe.  Your desperation is showing.

[Hoodat]

Lying about the statistics doesn’t do much for your weak case.

Lying?  Moi?  Please do tell.  What falsehood did I utter?

As for weak cases, I still have yet to hear a Constitutional basis for Roe.

[Oceander]

@Hoodat

Some apparently cannot distinguish court opinions from fundamental law.

Some apparently can’t distinguish the weight to be given their opinions of what the Constitution means over what the duly constituted Court with that responsibility says it means. 

Let me give you a hint:  the Constitution doesn’t give a fig what your opinion is; it cares what the Supreme Court’s opinion is; that’s the purpose of the Court.

[Oceander]

Miranda is a constitutional decision of the court - not part of the Constitution.  The gist of Dickerson is that Congress cannot pass a law that overrules a constitutional decision made by the court.  Not that any of this has a damn thing to do with Roe.  Your desperation is showing.

Now, sport, what does it say about the weight to be given to precedent?  Even if the Court would not hold the same again.

Come on sport.  It ain’t that hard to read.

[Hoodat]

Let me give you a hint:  the Constitution doesn’t give a fig what your opinion is; it cares what the Supreme Court’s opinion is; that’s the purpose of the Court.

The Constitution doesn't care what the Supreme Court says either.  Just sayin'

[Bigun]

Some apparently can’t distinguish the weight to be given their opinions of what the Constitution means over what the duly constituted Court with that responsibility says it means. 

Let me give you a hint:  the Constitution doesn’t give a fig what your opinion is; it cares what the Supreme Court’s opinion is; that’s the purpose of the Court.

Show me in the Constitution where that power is granted to SCOTUS  or any other court for that matter.  I'll wait.

[Oceander]

Lying?  Moi?  Please do tell.  What falsehood did I utter?

As for weak cases, I still have yet to hear a Constitutional basis for Roe.

Millions of babies.  Hardly.  Significantly less than a million, and many unviable. 

[Frank Cannon]

@Sanguine

So, actually, Cruz is responsible for Trump being the most pro-life president, then.  I never thought of it that way, but you're right!

Another poster in full agreement with me........Trump is GOD!!!!

More people hopping on the Trump Train on a daily basis now.

[Hoodat]

Now, sport, what does it say about the weight to be given to precedent?

It says that said precedent could not be overturned by an act of Congress.

[Oceander]

Show me in the Constitution where that power is granted to SCOTUS  or any other court for that matter.  I'll wait.

Show me where in the Constitution your opinion is given an weight at all.  Heck, even your vote only counts if your state says it does. 

[Oceander]

It says that said precedent could not be overturned by an act of Congress.

No, sport.  Now you’re just dodging the inevitable.  What did it say about the Court overruling its own precedent.

[WingNot]

Millions of babies.  Hardly.  Significantly less than a million, and many unviable.

And the "number count" makes a difference?   You suck at abortion promotion.