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
    "HONEST liberals" being those that agree with you, of course.
    Let's look again at the actual citations of some notable liberal legal experts...

    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."

    "The Supreme Court, 1972 Term—Foreword: Toward a Model of Roles in the Due Process of Life and Law," 87 Harvard Law Review 1, 7 (1973).

    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."

    North Carolina Law Review, 1985

    Edward Lazarus — Former clerk to Harry Blackmun.
    "As a matter of constitutional interpretation and judicial method, Roe borders on the indefensible. I say this as someone utterly committed to the right to choose, as someone who believes such a right has grounding elsewhere in the Constitution instead of where Roe placed it, and as someone who loved Roe's author like a grandfather."
    ….
    "What, exactly, is the problem with Roe? The problem, I believe, is that it has little connection to the Constitutional right it purportedly interpreted. A constitutional right to privacy broad enough to include abortion has no meaningful foundation in constitutional text, history, or precedent - at least, it does not if those sources are fairly described and reasonably faithfully followed."

    " The Lingering Problems with Roe v. Wade, and Why the Recent Senate Hearings on Michael McConnell's Nomination Only Underlined Them," FindLaw Legal Commentary, Oct. 3, 2002

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

    " Liberals, Don't Make Her an Icon" Washington Post July 10, 2003.

    William Saletan — Slate columnist who left the GOP 2004 because it was too pro-life.

    "Blackmun's [ Supreme Court] papers vindicate every indictment of Roe: invention, overreach, arbitrariness, textual indifference."

    " Unbecoming Justice Blackmun," Legal Affairs, May/June 2005.

    John Hart Ely — Yale Law School, Harvard Law School, Stanford Law School
    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).

    Benjamin Wittes — Washington Post
    Roe "is a lousy opinion that disenfranchised millions of conservatives on an issue about which they care deeply."

    " Letting Go of Roe," The Atlantic Monthly, Jan/Feb 2005.

    Richard Cohen — Washington Post

    "[T]he very basis of the Roe v. Wade decision — the one that grounds abortion rights in the Constitution — strikes many people now as faintly ridiculous. Whatever abortion may be, it cannot simply be a matter of privacy."
    ….
    "As a layman, it's hard for me to raise profound constitutional objections to the decision. But it is not hard to say it confounds our common-sense understanding of what privacy is.

    "If a Supreme Court ruling is going to affect so many people then it ought to rest on perfectly clear logic and up-to-date science. Roe , with its reliance on trimesters and viability, has a musty feel to it, and its argument about privacy raises more questions than it answers.
    ….
    Roe "is a Supreme Court decision whose reasoning has not held up. It seems more fiat than argument."
    ….
    "Still, a bad decision is a bad decision. If the best we can say for it is that the end justifies the means, then we have not only lost the argument — but a bit of our soul as well."

    " Support Choice, Not Roe" Washington Post, October 19, 2005.

    Alan Dershowitz — Harvard Law School
    Roe v. Wade and Bush v. Gore "represent opposite sides of the same currency of judicial activism in areas more appropriately left to the political processes…. Judges have no special competence, qualifications, or mandate to decide between equally compelling moral claims (as in the abortion controversy)…. [C]lear governing constitutional principles … are not present in either case."


    Now, rather than just spew forth ignorance and false accusations, how bout actually trying to defend the merits of RvW with something beyond "Well, gosh golly, it was 7-2!!!!!"

    I'll wait.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
      Let's look again at the actual citations of some:

      [snipped]

      Now, rather than just spew forth ignorance and false accusations, how bout actually trying to defend the merits of RvW with something beyond "Well, gosh golly, it was 7-2!!!!!"
      There is no disputing that SOME legal experts disagree with the Roe v Wade decision. Obviously. If there was total agreement on how abortion should be viewed through the lens of the Constitution there would have been no need to take it before the Supreme Court. You’ve provided seven (excluding Ginsburg who voted for it even though it didn’t go far enough) which is the same number of Justices, themselves “legal experts”, who voted it into law.

      As for the merits of R v W they can are well summed up by W. A. Criswell - the Southern Baptist Convention’s former president and pastor of First Baptist Church in Dallas, Texas. He was pleased at the ruling: “I have always felt that it was only after a child was born and had a life separate from its mother that it became an individual person,” he said, “and it has always, therefore, seemed to me that what is best for the mother and for the future should be allowed.”

      In short, the rights of the mother to choose.
      “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
        There is no disputing that SOME legal experts disagree with the Roe v Wade decision....
        Wow, that's quite an admission, Tass.

        Now, perhaps you can bring yourself to admit that these are actually LIBERAL experts who happen to be FOR abortion, but recognize the decision itself was CRAP.

        THEN you can continue your psychotic war on Southern Baptists.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          Wow, that's quite an admission, Tass.

          Now, perhaps you can bring yourself to admit that these are actually LIBERAL experts who happen to be FOR abortion, but recognize the decision itself was CRAP.

          THEN you can continue your psychotic war on Southern Baptists.
          And perhaps you could do the same in reverse. His point is that it's controversial, but a 7 to 2 ruling.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by JimL View Post
            And perhaps you could do the same in reverse. His point is that it's controversial, but a 7 to 2 ruling.
            Not understanding that second sentence. You realize that other really bad decisions by SCOTUS have been 8-1 or by total majority?
            The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
              Not understanding that second sentence. You realize that other really bad decisions by SCOTUS have been 8-1 or by total majority?
              Well, the thing is that there are controversial rulings in that not everyone agrees with either the reasoning or the decision. I'm sure that scholars can be found to support either side of the issue. That's what I meant by there were 7 who obviously agreed with it as opposed to 2 who dissented.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                Well, the thing is that there are controversial rulings in that not everyone agrees with either the reasoning or the decision. I'm sure that scholars can be found to support either side of the issue. That's what I meant by there were 7 who obviously agreed with it as opposed to 2 who dissented.
                But you could use that same reasoning where some decisions you would most certainly oppose (I would think) were, at the time, majority (or even unanimous) decisions.

                Tassman has been parroting "it's the law of the land" -- that would really hold some weight if it weren't MADE the "law of the land" on a totally made up basis.
                The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  But you could use that same reasoning where some decisions you would most certainly oppose (I would think) were, at the time, majority (or even unanimous) decisions.

                  Tassman has been parroting "it's the law of the land" -- that would really hold some weight if it weren't MADE the "law of the land" on a totally made up basis.
                  Again, the point is that what you and others are calling made up, is your and their interpretation, others obviously disagree that it is made up.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                    Wow, that's quite an admission, Tass.

                    Now, perhaps you can bring yourself to admit that these are actually LIBERAL experts who happen to be FOR abortion, but recognize the decision itself was CRAP.
                    The Roe v Wade decision, that unduly restrictive state regulation of abortion is unconstitutional, was controversial as I’ve repeatedly said. It was inevitable that some would disagree with the outcome ranging from those like Justice Bader Ginsburg who wanted NO restrictions on abortions (although she voted for R v W) to those who demanded banning ALL abortions. And, whilst there have been repeated challenges to this landmark decision since 1973, it is highly unlikely that it will be overturned given that a Supreme Court judgement on a constitutional issue is virtually final.
                    “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
                      There is no disputing that SOME legal experts disagree with the Roe v Wade decision. Obviously. If there was total agreement on how abortion should be viewed through the lens of the Constitution there would have been no need to take it before the Supreme Court. You’ve provided seven (excluding Ginsburg who voted for it even though it didn’t go far enough) which is the same number of Justices, themselves “legal experts”, who voted it into law.
                      A few issues here.
                      1) Except for perhaps John Paul Stevens, I do not think any justice who was appointed after the decision is in agreement with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood v. Casey kept the "right to an abortion" around but modified it considerably, throwing out the trimester framework that was practically the hallmark of Roe v. Wade. No justice since then has, as far as I know, ever suggested abandoning the rules in Casey in favor of returning to the original Roe v. Wade.

                      As for Ginsburg, I'm curious as to what your source on the claim that she felt Roe v. Wade didn't go far enough was. One of her criticisms of Roe v. Wade was that she thought it went too far too fast. To my knowledge, she has expressed no dissatisfaction with Casey's rules concerning the matter, which were a step back from the original Roe v. Wade.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                        A few issues here.
                        1) Except for perhaps John Paul Stevens, I do not think any justice who was appointed after the decision is in agreement with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood v. Casey kept the "right to an abortion" around but modified it considerably, throwing out the trimester framework that was practically the hallmark of Roe v. Wade. No justice since then has, as far as I know, ever suggested abandoning the rules in Casey in favor of returning to the original Roe v. Wade.
                        Of course, not and all modifications of R v W still reflect its basic intentions. “Repeated challenges since 1973 narrowed the scope of Roe v. Wade but did not overturn it.

                        https://www.britannica.com/event/Roe-v-Wade

                        As for Ginsburg, I'm curious as to what your source on the claim that she felt Roe v. Wade didn't go far enough was. One of her criticisms of Roe v. Wade was that she thought it went too far too fast. To my knowledge, she has expressed no dissatisfaction with Casey's rules concerning the matter, which were a step back from the original Roe v. Wade.
                        “It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

                        https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-...rg-roe-v-wade/
                        “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
                          “It is essential to woman’s equality with man that she be the decisionmaker, that her choice be controlling,” Ginsburg told Senators during her four days of questioning by the Senate Judiciary Committee. “If you impose restraints that impede her choice, you are disadvantaging her because of her sex.”

                          https://time.com/5354490/ruth-bader-...rg-roe-v-wade/
                          Except that's not supporting what you claimed, that she didn't think Roe v. Wade went far enough; you have to read assumptions into it to get to that. In fact, that article quotes her as saying she thought it went too far--granted, her judgment on that seems to be more one of prudence than anything else, but you're not supporting your claim that she thought Roe v. Wade didn't go far enough.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Terraceth View Post
                            A few issues here.
                            1) Except for perhaps John Paul Stevens, I do not think any justice who was appointed after the decision is in agreement with the majority opinion in Roe v. Wade. Planned Parenthood v. Casey kept the "right to an abortion" around but modified it considerably, throwing out the trimester framework that was practically the hallmark of Roe v. Wade. No justice since then has, as far as I know, ever suggested abandoning the rules in Casey in favor of returning to the original Roe v. Wade.

                            As for Ginsburg, I'm curious as to what your source on the claim that she felt Roe v. Wade didn't go far enough was. One of her criticisms of Roe v. Wade was that she thought it went too far too fast. To my knowledge, she has expressed no dissatisfaction with Casey's rules concerning the matter, which were a step back from the original Roe v. Wade.
                            I wouldn't say that the trimester framework was the hallmark of R v W., that a woman has the fundemental right to choose was. The Casey decision, afaics, basically, simply moved the stage of fetal viability from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JimL View Post
                              Again, the point is that what you and others are calling made up, is your and their interpretation, others obviously disagree that it is made up.
                              Please provide a single legal expert who defends Roe v Wade as based on sound reasoning and actual legal principles.
                              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                                Please provide a single legal expert who defends Roe v Wade as based on sound reasoning and actual legal principles.
                                How about the 7 that came to that decision.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                143 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                393 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                113 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                365 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X