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

[DCPatriot]

70 this Oct. Sucks to get old, but I can still do a days work, until 11AM that is.

     Gotta get home before the sun gets high! 

[bigheadfred]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjzz9WK0YHcAhWHGDQIHRLpAjwQqUMIKjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fblogs%2Fpost-partisan%2Fwp%2F2018%2F07%2F02%2Fsusan-collinss-grand-delusion%2F&usg=AOvVaw0bXdrJCLEWlX_3P5Qpn0Fw

None of this passes the laugh test. “Respect precedent”? Last week five justices overturned four decades of precedent in labor law. Collins voted for three of them.

This may be posted as a separate thread.

[bigheadfred]

I admit it. I'll be 57 next month. I could only do 53 1/2 hours last week. In four days. (hangs head)

[Cyber Liberty]

I admit it. I'll be 57 next month. I could only do 53 1/2 hours last week. In four days. (hangs head)

You should, you whippersnapper!   

(You know me...I'd be thrilled for you if you could spend more time at the river with a graphite rod in your hand.)

[TomSea]

Okay, nice chitchat but it's not on topic of this very serious subject.

[bigheadfred]

You should, you whippersnapper!   

(You know me...I'd be thrilled for you if you could spend more time at the river with a graphite rod in your hand.)

After that no bonus Saturday BS I am cutting my hours back to 50-55. I went to the river on Saturday. Caught a 2 lb. Brown and some smaller ones. River is still too high, but low enough if I fell in and drowned there would be a fair chance they could do a recovery.

[bigheadfred]

Okay, nice chitchat but it's not on topic of this very serious subject.

Right. And it should be one reserved to each individual state.

FWIW, I consider the SCOTUS to be a Coven of black-robed witches.

[Hoodat]

That is just complete and utter nonsense.
You actually believe the Constitution of the United States cares more about a few unelected judges rendering opinions than anything else?
If you believe that, then that is the most chilling statement I have read on these threads in a long time.  Or, maybe just babbling by an uninformed individual.
I was taught in grade school that the Constitution was about governance of this country and framed the entire document in such a way that ensured that the people of this country through its elected representatives would be able to manage the affairs of this country.  Judges were never intended to be as important in that management as you pretend they are.

So the Supreme Court should have STFU about gun control and let the people and their elected leaders decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a collective right. 

Here is a textbook example of non-rational persuasion.  There is no connection between @IsailedawayfromFR 's statement and the statement attributed by @Oceander .
The one attributed by Oceander is in regard to a right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.  It is not comparable to a 'right' [sic] to abortion that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.  A substantial degree of dishonesty was required to make such a comparison.  Because there is nothing in any of Isailedaway's posts that even hints at such a position on any right so mentioned in the Constitution.

That is the only logical conclusion to draw from your statement.

Same degree to make this statement as well.

And the fact that you, like just about everyone else here, swooned and cried hosannas of joy over that case simply means that you are a grade A hypocrite,  no better than the liberals you excoriate when it comes to using the courts as just another means of oppression.

Oppression?  Seriously?  YOU are the one insisting that the courts ignore the Constitution in order to impose tyranny over the rest of us based on a precedent that you happen to like.  Oppression?  The position of most everyone here is that the power of the Court, and for that matter Congress and the Presidency as well, should be limited by the wording of the Constitution of the United States of America.  There is nothing at all oppressive in that.  Because the Constitution does not place limits on the citizenry.  It places limits on government.

[jpsb]

    Gotta get home before the sun gets high!

LOL, yeah here in SE Texas that is a definite yes. Particularly in June, July and August.

[bigheadfred]

So the Supreme Court should have STFU about gun control and let the people and their elected leaders decide whether the Second Amendment was an individual right or a collective right. 


Here is a textbook example of non-rational persuasion.  There is no connection between @IsailedawayfromFR 's statement and the statement attributed by @Oceander .
The one attributed by Oceander is in regard to a right specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights.  It is not comparable to a 'right' [sic] to abortion that is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution.  A substantial degree of dishonesty was required to make such a comparison.  Because there is nothing in any of Isailedaway's posts that even hints at such a position on any right so mentioned in the Constitution.


Same degree to make this statement as well.


Oppression?  Seriously?  YOU are the one insisting that the courts ignore the Constitution in order to impose tyranny over the rest of us based on a precedent that you happen to like.  Oppression?  The position of most everyone here is that the power of the Court, and for that matter Congress and the Presidency as well, should be limited by the wording of the Constitution of the United States of America.  There is nothing at all oppressive in that.  Because the Constitution does not place limits on the citizenry.  It places limits on government.

Because the Constitution does not place limits on the citizenry.  It places limits on government.

 

[Hoodat]

Either you advocate judicial activism or you don't.    If you support judicial activism re the causes and rights you favor, and decry judicial activism re the causes and rights you don't, then you're a hypocrite. 

Yes, Roe was an example of judicial activism that extended rights where none had clearly existed before.

Then if you support Roe, you advocate judicial activism.  Glad to see you finally admit it.

BUT SO WAS HELLER.

How so?  Heller was based on Amendment II.  Nothing activist about that.  It is the same Amendment II that has been in existence for over 230 years.  Compare that to Roe which is based upon . . . uh . . . um . . . gee, what exactly is it based upon?

Now forget for a moment whether you agreed or disagreed with those cases when they were decided.   The reality is that millions now rely on the Heller decision which found an individual RKBA.  Millions now rely on Roe

Millions also relied upon Plessy.  And Dred Scott.  So by your asinine reasoning, those rulings should still be in effect today.

Roe which found a woman's individual right to decide for herself whether to bear a child.

Enough with the lies, Jazzhead.  You know damn well that is not true.  Roe is about whether a state has the right to regulate abortion before the baby is 24 weeks old.  It has nothing to do with a woman's right to get pregnant.

A conservative jurist respects precedent and allows BOTH those decisions to stand because so many rely on them.

Uh, no.  A Conservative jurists places self-imposed limits on his power by relying on the Constitution as the basis for his/her rulings instead of imposing his/her will on a nation.  A Conservative jurist puts his/her opinions aside on how they want a case to go, yielding instead to the contract that this nation adopted over two centuries ago.

An activist jurist doesn't give a damn,  and will upset the applecart no matter how many folks' established liberty is denied.

Not sure what apple carts have to do with this.  But the Roe court invented a temporary right out of thin air.  That fact is certain.  Their reason for doing so is irrelevant.

The jurist who overturns Roe or Heller is a "tyrant in black robes".   The jurist who respects precedent understands the proper role of the judiciary in our Republic.

I had no idea that the unanimous Brown v. Board of Education decision was handed down by nine tyrants.  But I'll put you down as one vote against the Constitution, one vote in favor of the precedent of Plessy v. Ferguson.

[Hoodat]

That's a rather crabbed view of "reliance".   It is not just women who are pregnant who "rely" on the liberty confirmed by Roe.

Liberty?  You call Roe 'liberty'?  Roe deprives the people the right to shape and mold their society.  Roe denies the right of the people to formulate their government in accordance with a set of moral standards upon which that society can thrive.  Roe imposes a death culture upon society where human life is devalued - a culture backed by the force of the federal government against each State.  Liberty?  I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Liberty includes the ability to order one's life knowing that the choices I make in the future, should I become pregnant,  are not circumscribed by the State.

To you, liberty is the right to kill one's child.

So too the individual RKBA found by Heller - that decision's confirmation of individual liberty is valuable not only to current gunowners who keep guns unrelated to any militia,  but to any American concerned that his right to individual self-defense be Constitutionally protected.

What part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do you not get?

[Hoodat]

There is no "right" in the Constitution to murder children.

While insisting that there is such a right in the Constitution, Jazzhead openly admits that the decision is based upon judicial activism?  Confused?

[Hoodat]

Both the Heller and Roe decisions were within the lawful authority of the Court.

Yet only the former was based on the Constitution.  The latter was pure fiat.

[DCPatriot]

We shouldn't be concerned about this abortion issue.

The litmus test...especially for a woman, is how they feel about the Second Amendment without restriction.

For I have no doubt that during Hillary Clinton's 1st term, the 2nd would be history.

[bigheadfred]

We shouldn't be concerned about this abortion issue.

The litmus test...especially for a woman, is how they feel about the Second Amendment without restriction.

For I have no doubt that during Hillary Clinton's 1st term, the 2nd would be history.

Think she would have lived long enough to see that goal made?

[Hoodat]

It is the woman's choice, and hers alone, to decide whether it is a life or a lump of tissue.  Period. Not yours. Not your religion's. Not the government's. 

Uh, no.  It is society's choice.  Just as it is society's choice to decide whether YOU are a life or a lump of tissue.  Fortunately for you, society has chosen that you are a life.  Yet society is now denied that right to choose for a new specially designated protected class.

THAT is the essence of denying societal liberty and self-determination.

[Hoodat]

Use your powers of persuasion then.  Because it is not up to you, me, your religion, my religion, the Government, or the Government's religion to decide.

Who should decide whether or not there should be a rule against murdering you?

[Hoodat]

We shouldn't be concerned about this abortion issue.

The devaluation of human live, and the societal (and sociopathic) costs associated with that should always be a concern.  Not to mention the tyranny behind it.

[TomSea]

We shouldn't be concerned about this abortion issue.

The litmus test...especially for a woman, is how they feel about the Second Amendment without restriction.

For I have no doubt that during Hillary Clinton's 1st term, the 2nd would be history.

This has been touched on before, heck, look at what Trump says, it's important to him, it's important to Pence, it's important enough to Paul, Cruz and Cotton, Governor Walker, Sarah Palin and so on and excuse me for omitting anyone, Rubio, even imho, Kasich has been a good governor for the pro-life cause.

I think, among other causes, society is in a down spiral because of the way life is treated as cheap, the disposable nature of life, abortion for the sake of convenience.

It's related to the whole sexual revolution movement. It needs to be reined in.

[bigheadfred]

Who should decide whether or not there should be a rule against murdering you?

I was having this debate in my head at work today. Do, or should, people who contribute nothing to the well-being of society, and are, in fact, merely parasitical, have the right to exist? Compared to a "fetus". PS: I really hate that word.

[Hoodat]

The fetus' legal rights are derivative of the mother's.   The mother's right and expectation are the same as her child's - with respect to a third party tortfeasor .

So basically, you are making it up as you go.  Except that there are laws in place against the mother killing herself.

But hey, at least you correctly recognized the woman carrying an unborn child as "mother".  I wonder what the father thinks about all of this?  Does he get any of those "equal protection" rights you are always clamoring about?  Or are some parents more equal than others?

[Hoodat]

The only way to argue the 'rightness' of abortion is to completely suspend reality.

There is no way to defend it with consistent rational thought because it's an emotional argument about imaginary "rights."

@musiclady

To me, this isn't even about abortion.  It is about the right of people of the State of Georgia to come together to formulate its own laws regarding the valuation of human life.  Because until that Constitutional right is returned to us, any discussion on the pros and cons of abortion is futile.

Listen to the argument of the pro-Roe crowd (all of them men).  They seem to have a vested interest in keeping abortion legal by any means necessary.  They utter statements like "abortion must remain legal" despite what the Constitution says.  The last thing they would ever want is for the people to have the power to establish laws contrary to their wishes.

[txradioguy]

So basically, you are making it up as you go.  Except that there are laws in place against the mother killing herself.

But hey, at least you correctly recognized the woman carrying an unborn child as "mother".  I wonder what the father thinks about all of this?  Does he get any of those "equal protection" rights you are always clamoring about?  Or are some parents more equal than others?

@Hoodat in his telling of things there is never a father...they are always delinquent...leaving the woman with one choice and one choice only.

And when pressed he says the father has no say in the matter because the woman carries the baby therefore the man has no rights.

[txradioguy]

So too the individual RKBA found by Heller

Someone was asleep during United States Constitution 101 in college.

RKBA was established in the 2nd Amendment not in Heller.