Originally posted by Sparko
View Post
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.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
Evangelicals are paying high moral price for anti-abortion gains
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Bill the Cat View PostIt's all true. It's more of the liberal Christian mindset that has infested the church with their conflating social justice issues with moral issues.“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 Sparko View PostGenerally conservatives like Kavanaugh tend to read the constitution more literally as it is written. Liberal judges tend to interpret the constitution as a "living document" and read into it meanings that they have of what they claim the founding fathers would have wanted to say if they were alive today. They tend to read their own views into the constitution rather than just read what is there.
Pretty much the same difference between how conservative Christians interpret the bible more literally and liberals don't. Conservatives read that the bible says homosexual behavior is a sin, liberals say well they were talking about temple prostitutes and not about regular gay people, or something of that nature.“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 Psychic Missile View PostPlenty of earlier cases would be and have been ruled in the reverse in modern times, and it wouldn't/didn't take a new law or amendment. They were simply ruled incorrectly. The actual difficulty is getting saner minds in SCOTUS and having a relevant case get to them.
Heck. name 1.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostDetermining the intent of a law in this instance is to determine what the founding fathers intended. It cannot necessarily be ascertained from the literal words of the constitution directly, but must be inferred from surrounding facts and current circumstances. Otherwise one could well pervert the intentions of the founding fathers. .
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou are clueless aren't you Tassy? We have the founding fathers writings from the time, as well as the debates on each issue. And they were lawyers. They knew how to write what they mean in legal terms. They carefully crafted the wording of the constitution in order to avoid people trying to change the intent.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Sparko View Postname 3. And by reversed, remember that you are talking about reversing a previous reversal to make it back to the original.
Heck. name 1.
The ones that come to mind are Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, Pace v. Alabama and McLaughlin v. Florida, and Olmstead v. US and Katz v. US, but there are definitely others. There are also decisions like Dred Scott that, although corrected by legislation, are widely agreed to have been bad decisions and would have been reversed regardless by a modern SCOTUS.Last edited by Psychic Missile; 11-19-2018, 02:10 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostBut it's like "idiot-proofing" something. Nothing is really idiot-proof to the sufficiently determined idiot.Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
Than a fool in the eyes of God
From "Fools Gold" by Petra
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostThe ones that come to mind are Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education, Pace v. Alabama and McLaughlin v. Florida, and Olmstead v. US and Katz v. US, but there are definitely others. There are also decisions like Dred Scott that, although corrected by legislation, are widely agreed to have been bad decisions and would have been reversed regardless by a modern SCOTUS.
Try again.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThose are just overturning of an original decision. Which would be the equivalent of overturning Roe v Wade. Not reversals of reversals, which is what you suggested.
Try again.Last edited by Psychic Missile; 11-20-2018, 10:44 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostOne possible way they could overturn RvW is to decide that a fetus is a person. But they would need a case before them that needs their judicial ruling on that point of fact. And if they did rule that a fetus is a person, that is that. It can't just be decided next year that it is not. Right now that point is up in the air. RvW never says one way or another. After that it would be very difficult to reverse that decision. It would take congress making a law to change it, or a constitutional amendment.
"All this, together with our observation, supra, that throughout the major portion of the 19th century prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn."
Indeed, the argument that a fetus is a person under the Fourteenth Amendment has never been the primary critique of Roe v. Wade in the legal community--as far as I am aware no Supreme Court justice has ever endorsed this argument, even those who disagreed with the decision. Scalia, certainly no friend to Roe v. Wade, explicitly rejected it, stating "The States may, if they wish, permit abortion on demand, but the Constitution does not require them to do so." (emphasis original)
The primary legal critiques of Roe v. Wade (or at least its general holding) have nothing to do with the personhood of the fetus and much more to do with whether the right of an abortion can be plausibly inferred from the Due Process Clause. See, for example, the original critique of the decision, Rehnquist's dissent in Roe v. Wade itself.
However, all of this somewhat skews away from my original point, which was to snarkily point out that if (as the article claims) the problem is that the primacy of Roe v. Wade is what is causing evangelicals to vote Republican and ignore more pressing matters, allowing Roe v. Wade to be overruled would appear to correct that problem. That is not, to say, that there would be no incentive anymore, but that there would be less of one. I merely found it amusing that the article's arguments seem to lead so easily to such a conclusion despite it presumably being at odds with the author's intentions.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostOh, I misread your reply. I don't know if such a thing has ever happened. I don't really expect it to have happened either. Most of these original overruled cases are from the 20th century and the primary reason they were overruled was because the court became more liberal. In order for a third reversal to happen, I would expect that either the liberal policy that caused the reversal has become a conservative policy, which is not likely in our lifetimes, or the second decision was made by a conservative court, which would position future courts for reversal.
Because the likelihood of that every happening is VERY small. So small that it hasn't ever happened as far as I know. Could it? MAYBE. If they could prove that the initial overturning of the decision was flawed in some way or unconstitutional. But they research these decisions so well when they make them that the case of that happening is very very slim.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostYou misread my reply? That was what we have been discussing all along: Your claim that if they reverse RvW, the next court can just reverse that. I told you it doesn't work that way and you asked why not. I told you and then asked you to show me any cases where they actually reversed a reversal. You just posted cases where they overturned an initial decision. Not any where they overturned the overturning and went back to the initial decision.
Because the likelihood of that every happening is VERY small. So small that it hasn't ever happened as far as I know. Could it? MAYBE. If they could prove that the initial overturning of the decision was flawed in some way or unconstitutional. But they research these decisions so well when they make them that the case of that happening is very very slim.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Psychic Missile View PostI still haven't seen you point out anything that prevents a 2nd reversal that doesn't also apply to the first reversal. In my mind both scenarios are one in the same, the court overruling a previous decision, with how many decisions happened prior not relevant. There is no burden of proof the supreme court must meet to rule and the commonality of dissenting opinions shows not just that there is disagreement with the majority opinion's research, but that it's to be expected.
If you doubt it, why can't you find even one example of it happening?
Why don't political decisions like RvW continually flip flop then?
They don't just make decisions like you would deciding what take-out to order.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 03:46 PM
|
0 responses
5 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by KingsGambit
Today, 04:11 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, Today, 01:52 PM
|
1 response
9 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Today, 03:09 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, Today, 09:08 AM
|
6 responses
44 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by RumTumTugger
Today, 10:30 AM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:44 AM
|
0 responses
17 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 07:44 AM | ||
Started by seer, Today, 07:04 AM
|
29 responses
149 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by oxmixmudd
Today, 02:59 PM
|
Comment