Page 67 of 87 FirstFirst ... 1757656667686977 ... LastLast
Results 661 to 670 of 868

Thread: Why I Voted For Trump...

  1. #661
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,513
    Amen (Given)
    12280
    Amen (Received)
    26274
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    How about the 7 that came to that decision.
    How bout the 7 that came to the Plessy v Ferguson decision? Were they right?
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  2. #662
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,820
    Amen (Given)
    226
    Amen (Received)
    712
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    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 supposed "fundamental right to choose" was a part of it, but the trimester framework was the decree the Supreme Court gave as to how that manifested itself.

    The Casey decision, afaics, basically, simply moved the stage of fetal viability from 28 weeks to 24 weeks.
    Roe v. Wade decreed that abortion regulation was essentially prohibited in the first trimester, only permitted in the second trimester if it could be demonstrated it related to maternal health, and then allowed in the third trimester. Planned Parenthood v. Casey said that abortion can be regulated after viability as well as before viability if it does not pose an undue burden.

    EDIT: To clarify, as I'm not sure I phrased it well: The "cannot pose an undue burden" requirement applies only to regulation that applies before viability, not after.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    How bout the 7 that came to the Plessy v Ferguson decision? Were they right?
    ...good googly moogly, it was 7-1, wasn't it? While I don't think it being 8-1 rather than 7-1 changes any point I made, I nevertheless apologize for asserting in previous posts that it was 8-1 rather than 7-1. I forgot that Brewer didn't participate in the decision.
    Last edited by Terraceth; 10-19-2019 at 08:16 PM.

  3. #663
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,092
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    How bout the 7 that came to the Plessy v Ferguson decision? Were they right?
    You asked for 1 in the R v W decision, I gave you 7.

  4. #664
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,513
    Amen (Given)
    12280
    Amen (Received)
    26274
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    You asked for 1 in the R v W decision, I gave you 7.
    Come on, Jim - look at what I actually asked...

    Quote 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.

    The fact is that none of these 7 ever tried to defend their decision "on sound reasoning and actual legal principles".

    If I'm wrong, you need to show me where ANY of them actually defended the decision on anything other than their own personal biases.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  5. #665
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,092
    Amen (Given)
    1761
    Amen (Received)
    1504
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post
    Come on, Jim - look at what I actually asked...


    The fact is that none of these 7 ever tried to defend their decision "on sound reasoning and actual legal principles".

    If I'm wrong, you need to show me where ANY of them actually defended the decision on anything other than their own personal biases.
    You're calling their reasoning to be nothing other than personal biases because you don't agree with their reasoning. But, R v W, as well as the underlying reasoning in that decision, has been defended by many other Justices in other cases concerning abortion. The Planned Parenthood v Casey for instance.

  6. #666
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,513
    Amen (Given)
    12280
    Amen (Received)
    26274
    Quote Originally Posted by JimL View Post
    You're calling their reasoning to be nothing other than personal biases because you don't agree with their reasoning.
    Jim, find me a legal scholar who supports their decision "on legal grounds" or on "judicial process". Have you ever actually read the decision? Even THEY don't pretend it's on legal grounds or judicial principles.

    But, R v W, as well as the underlying reasoning in that decision, has been defended by many other Justices in other cases concerning abortion.
    Then why can't you produce a single legal scholar who says so?

    The Planned Parenthood v Casey for instance.
    No, Jim - that case didn't uphold the legal grounds of RvW itself, but was about "essential holding" of Roe, dealing with restrictions from the State of Pennsylvania regarding informed consent, spousal notice, parental consent, a "Medical Emergency" definition, and reporting requirements. And it was a very close 5-4 decision. This had to do with "stare decisis", or "respect of precedent", as they were not prepared to set aside a previous SCOTUS decision. It didn't actually deal with the judicial process or legal principles upon which RvW was decided.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  7. #667
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,553
    Amen (Given)
    2512
    Amen (Received)
    1829
    Quote Originally Posted by Cow Poke View Post


    No, Jim - that case didn't uphold the legal grounds of RvW itself, but was about "essential holding" of Roe, dealing with restrictions from the State of Pennsylvania regarding informed consent, spousal notice, parental consent, a "Medical Emergency" definition, and reporting requirements. And it was a very close 5-4 decision. This had to do with "stare decisis", or "respect of precedent", as they were not prepared to set aside a previous SCOTUS decision. It didn't actually deal with the judicial process or legal principles upon which RvW was decided.
    And Roe v Wade will continue to do with “stare decisis", or "respect of precedent". Chief Justice John Roberts has demonstrated the weight he gives to precedent, as evidenced by a concurring opinion in the 2010 Citizens United decision. In it, he wrote, “Fidelity to precedent—the policy of stare decisis—is vital to the proper exercise of the judicial function. For these reasons, we have long recognized that departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a “special justification.” “A high-profile, landmark case like Roe v. Wade is so etched in the public consciousness, however, that it would take a lot for the Court to decide to overturn it entirely rather than make incremental changes”.

    https://fortune.com/2019/05/20/can-r...be-overturned/
    “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.

  8. #668
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,993
    Amen (Given)
    3278
    Amen (Received)
    770
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    And Roe v Wade will continue to do with “stare decisis", or "respect of precedent". Chief Justice John Roberts has demonstrated the weight he gives to precedent, as evidenced by a concurring opinion in the 2010 Citizens United decision. In it, he wrote, “Fidelity to precedent—the policy of stare decisis—is vital to the proper exercise of the judicial function. For these reasons, we have long recognized that departures from precedent are inappropriate in the absence of a “special justification.” “A high-profile, landmark case like Roe v. Wade is so etched in the public consciousness, however, that it would take a lot for the Court to decide to overturn it entirely rather than make incremental changes”.

    https://fortune.com/2019/05/20/can-r...be-overturned/
    This stare decisis fetishism is the gigantic defect of "judicial conservatism."
    Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

    Beige Nationalist.

    "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

  9. #669
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,553
    Amen (Given)
    2512
    Amen (Received)
    1829
    Quote Originally Posted by NorrinRadd View Post
    This stare decisis fetishism is the gigantic defect of "judicial conservatism."
    Not "fetishism", stare decisis is common law doctrine whereby judges follow the precedent established when making a decision. It's how the law has long functioned.
    “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.

  10. #670
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,513
    Amen (Given)
    12280
    Amen (Received)
    26274
    Quote Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
    And Roe v Wade will continue to do with “stare decisis", or "respect of precedent"...
    Perhaps. That doesn't change the fact that it was a horrible legal decision.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •