Page 64 of 87 FirstFirst ... 1454626364656674 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 640 of 868

Thread: Why I Voted For Trump...

  1. #631
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,820
    Amen (Given)
    226
    Amen (Received)
    712
    Quote 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.

    Quote 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)

  2. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  3. #632
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,548
    Amen (Given)
    12287
    Amen (Received)
    26291
    Quote 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.

    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  4. #633
    tWebber NorrinRadd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Location
    Wayne Township, PA
    Faith
    Full Gospel Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,995
    Amen (Given)
    3301
    Amen (Received)
    770
    Quote 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."

  5. #634
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,562
    Amen (Given)
    2513
    Amen (Received)
    1831
    Quote 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.

  6. #635
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,548
    Amen (Given)
    12287
    Amen (Received)
    26291
    Quote 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.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  7. #636
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    1,820
    Amen (Given)
    226
    Amen (Received)
    712
    Quote 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.

  8. Amen Cow Poke amen'd this post.
  9. #637
    See, the Thing is... Cow Poke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    The Republic of Texas
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    56,548
    Amen (Given)
    12287
    Amen (Received)
    26291
    Quote 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.
    Every problem is the result of a previous solution.

  10. #638
    tWebber
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Faith
    Agnostic
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    14,104
    Amen (Given)
    1762
    Amen (Received)
    1505
    Quote 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.

  11. Amen Tassman amen'd this post.
  12. #639
    tWebber Tassman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Sydney/Phuket
    Faith
    Atheist
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    11,562
    Amen (Given)
    2513
    Amen (Received)
    1831
    Quote 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.

  13. #640
    Evolution is God's ID rogue06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Southeastern U.S. of A.
    Faith
    Christian
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    53,296
    Amen (Given)
    1131
    Amen (Received)
    19567
    Quote 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

  14. Amen NorrinRadd, lilpixieofterror amen'd this post.

Posting Permissions

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