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

[Hoodat]

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

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

[Jazzhead]

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

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

[Cyber Liberty]

 

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

[Hoodat]

It cannot deny the abortion right

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

You keep pointing to the Tenth Amendment.

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

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

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

[Jazzhead]

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

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

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

[Hoodat]

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

Sic semper tyrannis.

[Hoodat]

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

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

Enough time to permit a woman to make her choice.

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

Enough time to protect the life of a viable fetus.

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

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

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

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

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

[thackney]

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

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

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

[TomSea]

Laws will not be set doing anything of the srot.

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

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

[Hoodat]

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

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

[Jazzhead]

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

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

[Cyber Liberty]

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

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

[Jazzhead]

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

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

[Jazzhead]

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

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

[Hoodat]

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

Europe?  lol

[Jazzhead]

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

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

[Cyber Liberty]

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

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

[truth_seeker]

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

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

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

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


It is very inconvenient to keep giving the care.




 

[Absalom]

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

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

[TomSea]

Countries like France, supposedly per abortion laws in France (or you can check any other country), has no abortions after 12 weeks, that's just double Alabama's law. One can read about their laws here:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_France

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

[Cyber Liberty]

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

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

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

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


It is very inconvenient to keep giving the care.

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

[GrouchoTex]

The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Very few Americans are aware that Blackmun fabricated the so-called “trimester framework” in an attempt to justify early abortion as less consequential than abortion later in pregnancy. Although today we speak of trimesters as if they’re settled medical facts, they were invented by Blackmun and not based on a medical understanding of pregnancy or fetal development.

Roe V Wade will be challenged again, at some point.

The following quotes are from people on the left:

Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.
“One of the most curious things about  Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
“ Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations
“What I think is that it just doesn’t have the stable status of  Brown or  Miranda because it’s been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think  Roe was way overreached."

The rest of Cass Sunstein's quote that the Left is relying on:
"I wouldn’t vote to overturn it myself, but that’s because I think it’s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled.”

I think it will be challenged

[Jazzhead]

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

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

[Jazzhead]

The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment,

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

[Cyber Liberty]

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

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

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

[txradioguy]

The ruling rested on incredibly shaky legal reasoning, as the seven justices in the majority manufactured a mysterious “right to privacy,” discovered in the due-process clause of the 14th Amendment, to establish a woman’s right to choose abortion. In addition, in the majority opinion, Justice Harry Blackmun found that “the word ‘person’, as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn,” plausibly the most flawed legal argument since the dehumanizing decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford.

Very few Americans are aware that Blackmun fabricated the so-called “trimester framework” in an attempt to justify early abortion as less consequential than abortion later in pregnancy. Although today we speak of trimesters as if they’re settled medical facts, they were invented by Blackmun and not based on a medical understanding of pregnancy or fetal development.

Roe V Wade will be challenged again, at some point.

The following quotes are from people on the left:

Laurence Tribe — Harvard Law School. Lawyer for Al Gore in 2000.
“One of the most curious things about  Roe is that, behind its own verbal smokescreen, the substantive judgment on which it rests is nowhere to be found.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg — Associate Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court
“ Roe, I believe, would have been more acceptable as a judicial decision if it had not gone beyond a ruling on the extreme statute before the court. … Heavy-handed judicial intervention was difficult to justify and appears to have provoked, not resolved, conflict.”

Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.
“As a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

Cass Sunstein — University of Chicago and a Democratic adviser on judicial nominations
“What I think is that it just doesn’t have the stable status of  Brown or  Miranda because it’s been under internal and external assault pretty much from the beginning…. As a constitutional matter, I think  Roe was way overreached."

The rest of Cass Sunstein's quote that the Left is relying on:
"I wouldn’t vote to overturn it myself, but that’s because I think it’s good to preserve precedent in general, and the country has sufficiently relied on it that it should not be overruled.”



s a matter of constitutional interpretation, even most liberal jurisprudes — if you administer truth serum — will tell you it is basically indefensible.”

@GrouchoTex

Ed Lazarus is credited with having been the one who wrote Roe for Justice Blackmun.

[Hoodat]

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

[txradioguy]

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

 


The ONLY time you have a problem with it is if it endangers one of your favorite Liberal causes.

[Cyber Liberty]

 

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

[txradioguy]

I have the right to privately enjoy using my Sporting Rifle.  Two can play this game.

Indeed you do. Can't wait to get mine so I can enjoy that same right.

[Hoodat]

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?

[txradioguy]

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.   

[GrouchoTex]

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]

@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.

[aligncare]

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.

[Smokin Joe]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[Hoodat]

But...we usually end up being Engineers instead because Mathematics is immutable.  Just the way we like it.

Math will never lie to you.

[Sanguine]

Math will never lie to you.

True. 

[GrouchoTex]

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.

[Jazzhead]

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.   

[Bill Cipher]

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. 

[Hoodat]

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.

[Hoodat]

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.

[Cyber Liberty]

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.

[GrouchoTex]

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.





 

[Bill Cipher]

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.

[Bill Cipher]

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.