Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why I Voted For Trump...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
    SCOTUS did NOT make a decision “based on opinion polls”, what a ludicrous suggestion.
    Actually, Blackmun--the person who wrote the opinion--did pay attention to the polls concerning abortion, given that he had a copy of a poll in his files. It is not clear to what extent the other justices paid attention to such polls, but we know at least one--and the one who wrote the opinion, at that--was indeed taking it into account.

    Nevertheless, its landmark legal ruling was widely supported at the time, even by your lot e.g. W. A. Criswell, the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas was very pleased at the ruling. No thought of ‘improper decisions’ back then.
    Roe v. Wade actually got a lot of heat from legal scholars at the time, John Hart Ely's "The Wages of Crying Wolf" probably being the most notable.

    Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
    *cough* Plessy vs Ferguson
    I still hold that Plessy v. Ferguson relied better on precedent and was better reasoned than Roe v. Wade. While disagreeing with Plessy, Jamal Greene noted in his article "The Anticanon" that "Plessy was consistent with Court precedent, with the most defensible original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, and with the text of the Equal Protection Clause." None of this can be stated in favor of Roe v. Wade.

    (by the way, "The Anticanon", available here, is a spectacular article that goes into detail concerning the background and reasoning of the most notorious Supreme Court decisions--specifically Scott, Plessy, Lochner, and Korematsu--along with thoughts as to why those decisions were the ones that got singled out as "the anticanon" rather than others. It's highly readable and is fascinating, and despite not agreeing with everything it has to say, I heartily recommend it to everyone)

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
      Roe v. Wade actually got a lot of heat from legal scholars at the time, John Hart Ely's "The Wages of Crying Wolf" probably being the most notable.


      Roe “is not constitutional law and gives almost no sense of an obligation to try to be.”
      ….

      “What is frightening about Roe is that this super-protected right is not inferable from the language of the Constitution, the framers’ thinking respecting the specific problem in issue, any general value derivable from the provisions they included, or the nation’s governmental structure. Nor is it explainable in terms of the unusual political impotence of the group judicially protected vis-à-vis the interest that legislatively prevailed over it.… At times the inferences the Court has drawn from the values the Constitution marks for special protection have been controversial, even shaky, but never before has its sense of an obligation to draw one been so obviously lacking.”

      The Wages of Crying Wolf: A Comment on Roe v. Wade,” 82 Yale Law Journal, 920, 935-937 (1973).
      John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School


      Again, the Honest pro-choicers admit Roe v. Wade was a horrible decision.

      "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

      Comment


      • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
        If we ignored the obvious moral implications, of abortion, the court should have kicked the issue to congress or the states.
        That's not a small point, and I don't understand why conservatives often go to the "leave it to the States" position. The only reason to want to stop abortion is the belief that it is the intentional killing of a defenseless innocent human being. Why would we allow some States to decide it is permissible to murder those humans most deserving of protection?
        Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

        Beige Nationalist.

        "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

        Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          This known as an opinion.
          Every viewpoint outside of the actual Supreme Court ruling on Roe v Wade will be an “opinion”.

          The mere fact that the issue had to be ruled upon by the SCOTUS in the first place means that there was a difference of opinion re the intention of the Constitution in this regard. And obviously those who disagreed with the outcome will consider the judgement flawed. But this doesn’t mean that the whole thing requires re-litigation. It’s not even as though the decision was close, it was after all a 7-2 decision.
          “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
            Every viewpoint outside of the actual Supreme Court ruling on Roe v Wade will be an “opinion”.
            The opinions I cited were by legal experts based on actual expertise in constitutional law. Your opinions are simply based on "I want SO BADLY for this to be true".

            The mere fact that the issue had to be ruled upon by the SCOTUS in the first place means that there was a difference of opinion re the intention of the Constitution in this regard. And obviously those who disagreed with the outcome will consider the judgement flawed. But this doesn’t mean that the whole thing requires re-litigation. It’s not even as though the decision was close, it was after all a 7-2 decision.
            No, Tassman, you're not smarter than the legal experts who show what a horrible decision Roe v Wade was on its merits.

            Here, I'll tell you what.... find three top notch legal experts who defend RvW as based on sound law and Constitutional reason.

            I'll wait.
            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
              Every viewpoint outside of the actual Supreme Court ruling on Roe v Wade will be an “opinion”.

              The mere fact that the issue had to be ruled upon by the SCOTUS in the first place means that there was a difference of opinion re the intention of the Constitution in this regard. And obviously those who disagreed with the outcome will consider the judgement flawed. But this doesn’t mean that the whole thing requires re-litigation. It’s not even as though the decision was close, it was after all a 7-2 decision.
              Plessy v. Ferguson, which declared "separate but equal" constitutional (and accused blacks of inventing the idea it was made to make them feel inferior), was an 8-1 decision.

              Buck v. Bell, which ruled that forced sterilization is a constitutional punishment, was an 8-1 decision.

              Pace v. Alabama, which declared that laws prohibiting miscenegation relationships were constitutional, was a unanimous decision.

              Can you stop acting as if a 7-2 decision somehow makes it sacrosanct? Heck, the last time the court explicitly revisited the question of overturning it, it was only a 5-4 decision that kept it around.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                Plessy v. Ferguson, which declared "separate but equal" constitutional (and accused blacks of inventing the idea it was made to make them feel inferior), was an 8-1 decision.

                Buck v. Bell, which ruled that forced sterilization is a constitutional punishment, was an 8-1 decision.

                Pace v. Alabama, which declared that laws prohibiting miscenegation relationships were constitutional, was a unanimous decision.

                Can you stop acting as if a 7-2 decision somehow makes it sacrosanct? Heck, the last time the court explicitly revisited the question of overturning it, it was only a 5-4 decision that kept it around.
                The other thing he does is express his notion that even those who agree that it was a horrible decision still agree with the outcome. He can't seem to allow himself to see that those are two different things.

                Laws often get overturned because they were fundamentally flawed, regardless of how much we wish the decision was a good one.
                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  The other thing he does is express his notion that even those who agree that it was a horrible decision still agree with the outcome. He can't seem to allow himself to see that those are two different things.

                  Laws often get overturned because they were fundamentally flawed, regardless of how much we wish the decision was a good one.
                  Just because some Constitutional scholars may disagree with the reasoning given for the Roe v Wade decision, doesn't make the reasoning wrong. There are obviously those scholars who agree with the reasoning, 7 of them in fact on that particular court at the time.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    The opinions I cited were by legal experts based on actual expertise in constitutional law.
                    The actual “expertise in constitutional law” that matters, is that vested in the Justices of the Supreme Court. And the Roe v. Wade ruling by this court affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right.

                    No, Tassman, you're not smarter than the legal experts who show what a horrible decision Roe v Wade was on its merits.
                    The fact that there were differences of opinion among legal experts is the reason it was referred for a ruling by the highest court in the first place. It is inevitable that those ruled against will consider the decision “horrible”.
                    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                      The other thing he does is express his notion that even those who agree that it was a horrible decision still agree with the outcome. He can't seem to allow himself to see that those are two different things.

                      Laws often get overturned because they were fundamentally flawed, regardless of how much we wish the decision was a good one.
                      Many on the left see any decision they disagree with, whether legislative or judicial, to be fought tooth and nail until they get a outcome they like and then that is therefore set in stone never to be challenged

                      I'm always still in trouble again

                      "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                      "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Many on the left see any decision they disagree with, whether legislative or judicial, to be fought tooth and nail until they get a outcome they like and then that is therefore set in stone never to be challenged
                        Project much?

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          The actual “expertise in constitutional law” that matters, is that vested in the Justices of the Supreme Court.
                          Last I checked, every single member of the Supreme Court is or has been a human, and subject to error.

                          And the Roe v. Wade ruling by this court affirmed that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right.
                          Here's what you seem incapable of understanding, Tass - they INVENTED that "right" - it is found nowhere in the US Constitution.

                          The fact that there were differences of opinion among legal experts is the reason it was referred for a ruling by the highest court in the first place. It is inevitable that those ruled against will consider the decision “horrible”.
                          There WERE (past tense) differences of opinion? No, Tassman -- there are many liberals today who, when they are being honest, STILL say that RvW was a horrible decision. All you're doing now is repeating the same old crap over and over, apparently thinking that makes it true.
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                            Many on the left see any decision they disagree with, whether legislative or judicial, to be fought tooth and nail until they get a outcome they like and then that is therefore set in stone never to be challenged
                            EGGzackly, which is why the emphasis is on HONEST liberals who look at it and see it as a horrible decision.
                            "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              Last I checked, every single member of the Supreme Court is or has been a human, and subject to error.
                              In this instance they are “humans” with expertise in constitutional law and they ruled 7 to 2 that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right.

                              Here's what you seem incapable of understanding, Tass - they INVENTED that "right" - it is found nowhere in the US Constitution.
                              This is a matter of legal opinion and it’s not an opinion with which the majority agrees. OTOH your "opinion" is less concerned with the Constitution per se than an attempt to implement your religious agenda.

                              There WERE (past tense) differences of opinion? No, Tassman -- there are many liberals today who, when they are being honest, STILL say that RvW was a horrible decision.
                              Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade, according to most legal analysts.

                              Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                              EGGzackly, which is why the emphasis is on HONEST liberals who look at it and see it as a horrible decision.
                              "HONEST liberals" being those that agree with you, of course.
                              Last edited by Tassman; 10-17-2019, 01:22 AM.
                              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                                In this instance they are “humans” with expertise in constitutional law and they ruled 7 to 2 that access to safe and legal abortion is a constitutional right.
                                "Humans" can be wrong in great numbers.

                                This is a matter of legal opinion and it’s not an opinion with which the majority agrees.
                                And, once again, the majority can be wrong. Even Supreme court justices, as has been demonstrated with numerous examples which you ignore.

                                OTOH your "opinion" is less concerned with the Constitution per se than an attempt to implement your religious agenda.
                                There you go again, losing an argument, so you resort to your incredible inability to read minds.

                                Nevertheless, the bottom line is that the Supreme Court is highly unlikely to overturn Roe v Wade, according to most legal analysts.
                                I never said otherwise, in spite of it being a HORRIBLE decision by legal standards, which any honest liberal would concede.

                                "HONEST liberals" being those that agree with you, of course.
                                Nope - liberals with whom I would probably disagree on 90% of what they believe, but they're HONEST enough to admit RvW was a horrible decision, as I have documented.
                                "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by whag, Yesterday, 04:54 PM
                                10 responses
                                55 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 10:00 AM
                                11 responses
                                59 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by seer, 01-25-2021, 09:49 AM
                                16 responses
                                104 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Stoic
                                by Stoic
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 01-25-2021, 08:47 AM
                                52 responses
                                424 views
                                2 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by Starlight, 01-25-2021, 01:07 AM
                                49 responses
                                369 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Starlight  
                                Working...
                                X